Tag: 2nd amendment

SCOTUS Will Consider the Constitutionality of the Federal Ban on Gun Possession by Illegal Drug Users

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider the constitutionality of the federal ban on gun possession by illegal drug users. The Trump administration is urging the justices to overturn a ruling in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit deemed prosecutions under that law inconsistent with the Second Amendment unless there is evidence that the defendant handled firearms while intoxicated. Contrary to what the 5th Circuit held, the government’s petition argues that categorically disarming drug users is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The case, United States v. Hemani, involves a Texas man who was charged with violating 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” to receive or possess a firearm. The defendant, Ali Hemani, was the subject of a terrorism investigation that included two searches of the Lewiston, Texas, home he shared with his parents. During the second search, in August 2022, FBI agents found a Glock 19 pistol that belonged to Hemani, along with less than a gram of cocaine and about two ounces of marijuana.

As Amel Ahmed explained in a Reason story about the case last year, the FBI was unable to substantiate its suspicion that Hemani, a native-born U.S. citizen whose parents are from Pakistan, was implicated in financial crimes involving Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The government’s petition nevertheless implies that Hemani is a dangerous character for reasons that extend beyond his recreational drug use. But that allegation is not relevant to the constitutional question raised by the Supreme Court case.

The law that Hemani was charged with violating applies to millions of Americans who pose no plausible threat to public safety, including cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. The 5th Circuit first questioned the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) prosecutions in 2023, when it overturned the conviction of Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr., who was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison after he was caught with two guns and the remains of a few joints during a routine traffic stop in Hancock County, Mississippi.

Keep reading

Bondi DOJ Backs Warrantless Invasion Of Gun Owners’ Homes

The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing an argument that threatens to hollow out the Fourth Amendment’s core protection: that Americans may be secure in their homes against warrantless searches.

The lawsuit is Case v. Montana. After a difficult breakup, William Trevor Case was at home alone when police arrived for a so-called “welfare check.” They spent nearly an hour outside his house. Officers walked around the property, shined flashlights through windows, and even discussed calling his relatives or reaching him directly. They never did. Instead, they retrieved rifles and a ballistic shield, broke down his door without a warrant, and shot him. 

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the police’s warrantless entry. Apparently, the government’s “reasonable suspicion” that Treavor Case might need “help” was sufficient to justify an armed warrantless intrusion into his home. That standard is alarmingly low. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and judicial approval before government agents may enter a home. It does not permit entry based on a hunch.

And it was not as if obtaining a warrant would have been difficult. A recent Harvard Law Review study found that 93 percent of warrants are approved on first submission, often in less than three minutes. With modern technology, police can draft and submit warrant requests directly from their phones. The officers in Montana had nearly an hour to seek judicial approval. They chose not to.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Caniglia v. Strom in 2021. In that case, officers entered a man’s home without a warrant after a domestic dispute, claiming they were acting as “community caretakers.” The Court unanimously rejected that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Fourth Amendment’s protections do not vanish just because police say they are trying to help. The Court allowed for true emergencies—cases of imminent harm or death—but drew a clear line against open-ended “caretaking” exceptions.

The facts in Montana look nothing like an emergency. Body camera transcripts reveal that officers themselves doubted that Case required immediate aid. One noted that “chances are pretty slim” he needed urgent medical attention. They discussed staging medical personnel outside but decided against it. After forty minutes of hesitation, they declared the situation an “emergency” and broke in anyway.

In any other context, an armed entry without a warrant would be understood as unlawful. The Constitution does not stop at the property line of a gun owner. If a homeowner responds defensively to armed intruders, the law recognizes the basic right of self-defense. What transforms that same scenario into a police action is supposed to be the warrant requirement. Strip that away, and the police have no more right to enter than anyone else.

Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice, however, has sided with Montana. 

Keep reading

NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’

The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.

AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.

Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”

The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”

He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

Keep reading

Winners Not Happy With Judgment in Lawsuit Against Under 21 Handgun Sales Ban

A U.S. District Court in Louisiana handed three Second Amendment advocacy groups and three individual plaintiffs what they said was an empty victory and a possibly unconstitutional order.

The plaintiffs intend to appeal the judgment.

Meanwhile, a constitutional lawyer and Second Amendment social media influencer said their concerns may be unfounded.

In November 2020, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, along with individuals Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, and Emily Naquin, sued the federal government over its prohibition on sales of handguns to those between 18 and 21.

In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana upheld the ban.

The plaintiffs appealed to a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled the ban unconstitutional and sent the case back to the district court for a final judgment.

On Oct. 7, District Court Judge Robert R. Summerhays issued a narrow judgment limiting relief to people who were members of the plaintiff organizations on Nov. 6, 2020, and are located in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the states in the Fifth Circuit.

The judge also ruled that the organizations create a list of those members within 21 days.

The plaintiffs said that affected members of the named organizations would have been in their early teens at the time of the filing. Leaders of the plaintiff groups said they would refuse to disclose membership information.

Keep reading

US Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Hawaii’s Gun Law

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Oct. 3 to take up a new Second Amendment case related to a Hawaii law that bars the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public, such as restaurants, malls, and many businesses.

The nine justices took up an appeal by three Hawaii residents who have concealed carry licenses, and a state-based gun rights advocacy group challenging Hawaii’s law while seeking to reverse a lower court’s determination that the state law complies with the Second Amendment.

Hawaii’s gun law bans firearms on private property unless the owner has specifically allowed them on the premises. It also blocks firearms in places such as beaches, parks, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol.

Hawaii’s measure was challenged by state residents Jason Wolford, Alison Wolford, and Atom Kasprzycki—who own firearms and have concealed carry licenses—along with the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, a gun rights organization. The defendant is listed as Hawaii Attorney General Anne E. Lopez.

In a petition to the high court submitted earlier this year, the plaintiffs ask whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the state law, “erred in holding … that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public.”

A judge blocked the Hawaii law after it was challenged in court by the gun rights group and the three Maui residents. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, largely reversed that decision and allowed Hawaii to enforce the law.

Keep reading

Federal Court Rules Bans on Carrying Firearms in Post Offices Are Unconstitutional, Democrats Hardest Hit

In a win for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners across America, a federal court has ruled that bans on carrying firearms in U.S. Post Offices are unconstitutional.

And, yes, as I wrote in the headline, “Democrats hardest hit,” given that the gun-grabbing Democrat Party never saw a firearm it didn’t want to control, restrict, or outright ban.

As reported by RedState’s sister site, “Bearing Arms,” on Wednesday, Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor handed down an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC was joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in challenging the federal law.

The ruling also applies to carrying firearms on property surrounding post offices.

Here’s more, via Bearing Arms:

O’Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” There’s nothing in the order limiting it to Texas and applies to all members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The complaint was originally filed in June 2024 and the named defendant was then-Attorney General Garland. “So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a ‘sensitive place,’ it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue,’” the complaint said.

This order in Texas comes at the heels of the Department of Justice dropping a bid for an appeal in a criminal matter involving carriage on U.S. Postal Service property. U.S. v. Ayala in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involved defendant Ayala’s possession of a firearm on postal grounds. District Court Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that: “The United States fails to meet its burden of pointing to a historical tradition of firearms regulation justifying Ayala’s indictment under § 930(a).”

Judge O’Connor struck down both the federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 930(a)) and USPS regulation (39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l)) that prohibited firearm possession and carry at ordinary post offices — not those situated on military bases or within multi-use federal complexes.

Such rulings, whether favorable to Second Amendment rights or against, highlight the decades-old debate between the left, which absurdly blames “gun violence” — as if firearms themselves committed crimes — and the right, which correctly asserts that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Keep reading

DOJ Sues LA County Sheriff Over Alleged Second Amendment Violations in Gun Permitting

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for allegedly denying residents’ Second Amendment rights through an inordinately long concealed weapons permit application process.

The lawsuit, filed by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, comes on the heels of a DOJ investigation and a partially successful lawsuit filed by the California Rifle and Pistol Association.

In the lawsuit filed Tuesday, the DOJ accuses Sheriff Robert Luna of overseeing a system designed to deny citizens’ Second Amendment rights.

“Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two—a mere 0.05 percent approval rate that cannot be explained by legitimate disqualifying factors alone,” the lawsuit states.

“This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.”

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said in a statement announcing the lawsuit that it “seeks to stop Los Angeles County’s egregious pattern and practice of delaying law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to bear arms.”

Keep reading

Stephen Colbert Pushes More Control on ‘Long Guns’ After Man Attacked Dallas ICE with 8mm Bolt Action

On Wednesday night, Stephen Colbert pushed for more gun control on “long guns” after a sniper used a WWII-era bolt action rifle to attack a Dallas ICE facility.

Colbert was interviewing Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) when he made the comments.

Media Research Center captured the moment the interview began,  with Colbert saying:

Before we get into anything else, right off the top, I just want to point out and let everybody know that you have been a tireless advocate for gun control for years now. And as you know, and I think most of the people out here know, today there was another tragic shooting, this time at an ICE facility down in Dallas. We don’t know a lot about it so far. What goes through your mind when you hear about another shooting like this?

Murphy responded by saying, in part, “It just sickens me that we have a president who instead of trying to stand up and say wherever the violence comes from, it’s unacceptable, is politicizing this moment. It’s about the victims and it’s about a mourning of a loss of a potential moment to bring this country together.”

Keep reading

Feds Move To Dismiss Marijuana And Gun Rights Case In Anticipation Of Landmark Ruling From Supreme Court

The Trump administration is asking a federal court to dismiss one of multiple pending cases concerning marijuana and gun rights, in large part because it expects the U.S. Supreme Court to make a precedent-setting ruling on the issue.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma on Tuesday, attorneys for the Justice Department urged a judge to dismiss a case “without prejudice” that involves a man charged in 2022 after police discovered cannabis and a handgun in his vehicle during a traffic stop.

Attorneys for the man, Jared Michael Harrison, also want the court to dismiss the case—but they take issue with DOJ’s specific request, as dismissing the case without prejudice would mean he could be prosecuted again. And they criticized the government’s arguments in support of its motion, noting that the department relied heavily on the length of the court battle that’s lasted three years. The lawyers also challenged the idea that outstanding Supreme Court cases that similarly deal with cannabis and federal firearms laws justify dismissal without prejudice.

But according to the federal government, the request would be “in the interest of justice,” while recognizing that the constitutionality of the statute in question–18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—”remains open both in this case and in the country as a whole. ”

“There are currently seven petitions for certiorari pending before the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) under the Second Amendment, six of which involve as-applied challenges, and are a mix of petitions filed by the United States and criminal defendants,” DOJ said, adding that they expect there’s a “reasonable likelihood that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari” in at least one of the pending cases.

“Continuing to pursue this case at this time would needlessly waste judicial and prosecutorial resources,” the government’s filing said.

Keep reading

The Moral Problem With Most Gun Free Zones

Let’s start with a thought experiment. Suppose I push you into deep water as part of a swimming lesson. Because you do not know how to swim, you start desperately trying to keep yourself afloat, but to no avail. Now suppose further that I do nothing to rescue you, and as a result, you drown. My actions in this scenario are tantamount to murder. I intentionally placed you in a situation of great vulnerability and then refused to provide for you. Your rights were egregiously violated by my refusal to do anything.

The moral principle behind this thought experiment is the following: if I knowingly cause you to exist in a state of great need or vulnerability, then I am responsible for providing for you. If I do not, then I am negligent. If my negligence leads to your death, then I am guilty of murder.

This principle is enshrined in the legal system as part of the state-created danger doctrine. If the government does something that puts someone into a position of danger, it bears a special responsibility to provide for that individual’s safety. If it fails to do this, then it may be held liable for any harms that result.

What’s This Got to Do with Gun-Free Zones?

This principle has direct relevance for so-called “gun-free zones.” These are locations in which the government has declared, using the threat of punishment to force compliance, that carrying firearms is prohibited. In coercively requiring us to disarm, the government intentionally handicaps our ability to effectively and reasonably protect ourselves.

Keep reading