Supreme Court Clarifies When Individuals Can Be Disarmed Under the Second Amendment

The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rahimi continues to play an important role in defining the constitutional limits of firearm restrictions. In an 8–1 ruling, the Court upheld a federal law temporarily prohibiting firearm possession by individuals subject to certain domestic violence restraining orders, while emphasizing the importance of judicial findings and historical precedent.

The Supreme Court recently released audio of Chief Justice John Roberts announcing the decision from the bench, providing additional attention to the Court's reasoning and its implications for Second Amendment rights.

The case centered on 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), which restricts firearm possession by individuals subject to qualifying domestic violence restraining orders. Zackey Rahimi had been placed under a restraining order after a Texas court determined that he posed a credible threat to the physical safety of another person. Following a subsequent investigation in which firearms were discovered, Rahimi was charged with violating the federal prohibition.

The Fifth Circuit initially ruled that the restriction violated the Second Amendment. However, the Supreme Court reversed that decision, holding that an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat of physical violence may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Constitution.

The Supreme Court relied on two historical legal traditions to support its decision.

The first involved surety laws, which allowed courts to require individuals who threatened others to post a financial bond guaranteeing peaceful behavior. These laws were intended to prevent violence before it occurred.

The second involved historical going-armed laws, which punished individuals who carried dangerous weapons in a manner that threatened or terrorized others. Violations could result in imprisonment or forfeiture of weapons.

Together, these historical examples provided the foundation for the Court's conclusion that temporary firearm restrictions can be constitutional when a court has determined that an individual presents a credible threat to another person's physical safety.

One of the most significant aspects of Rahimi is the Court's emphasis on the circumstances justifying disarmament. Rather than establishing a broad rule allowing firearm restrictions based solely on government concerns about public safety, the decision focused on individuals who had been judicially determined to pose a credible threat of physical violence.

The ruling also reinforced the historical analysis established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Under that framework, modern firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation, although historical laws do not need to be identical to modern restrictions. The Court's reasoning could influence future challenges involving prohibited persons, firearm possession restrictions and the circumstances under which individuals may lose their ability to legally possess firearms.

Although Rahimi upheld a federal firearm restriction, the decision also established important limits on the reasoning used to justify that restriction. The Court concluded that a judicial finding of a credible threat of physical violence provides historical grounds for temporary disarmament. It did not resolve every question concerning firearm prohibitions or establish that all restrictions on particular categories of individuals are constitutional.

As additional Second Amendment cases move through the federal courts, United States v. Rahimi will remain an important precedent in determining how courts balance the constitutional right to keep and bear arms with laws intended to prevent violent conduct.

Supreme Court Denies Dozens of Second Amendment Cases Following Long Conference

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a large group of Second Amendment cases considered during its end-of-summer “long conference,” closing the door on several firearm-related challenges that had been awaiting action from the Court.

Approximately 57 Second Amendment-related petitions were reportedly considered during the September 28 conference. The cases covered a wide range of issues, including prohibited-person laws, sensitive-place restrictions, concealed carry reciprocity and whether certain regulated firearms receive Second Amendment protection.

Among the notable cases was Johnson v. Jacobson, which involved interstate concealed carry reciprocity. The petition presented an opportunity to address whether a state can deny non-residents the ability to carry based on its recognition—or lack of recognition—of permits issued by other states.

Another case highlighted was Shephard v. United States, which raised the question of whether short-barreled shotguns qualify as “arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

Following the conference, however, the Supreme Court denied the Second Amendment petitions discussed in the report rather than granting review, sending them back to a lower court through a GVR order, or rescheduling them for another conference. For cases that reached the Supreme Court following a final judgment, including Johnson v. Jacobson, the denial effectively brings that particular case to an end.

A denial of certiorari does not establish Supreme Court precedent or mean that the justices agree with the lower court's decision. It simply means the Court has declined to review that particular case. As a result, existing lower-court decisions remain in place, including disagreements between federal circuits where applicable.

Despite the large number of denials, several significant Second Amendment cases remain before the Supreme Court or are expected to receive further consideration. The report points to pending firearm-related petitions as well as Viramontes and Grant, two cases already accepted by the Court and scheduled for argument on December 2.

Those cases could provide the Court with another opportunity to clarify how its decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and subsequent Second Amendment cases should be applied by lower courts.

The latest orders therefore represent a setback for several individual Second Amendment challenges, but they do not mark the end of firearm litigation at the Supreme Court. With additional petitions still pending and major cases already scheduled for argument, the Court's 2026 term could still produce significant developments in Second Amendment law.

New Lawsuit Challenges Colorado Carry Restrictions for Non-Residents

A new federal lawsuit is challenging Colorado’s firearm carry laws on behalf of non-residents who may be left without any legal way to carry a firearm for self-defense while visiting Denver.

The case, Hoffman v. City of Denver, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado by Gene Hoffman and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC). The lawsuit argues that preventing otherwise qualified non-residents from carrying firearms in public violates the Second Amendment.

The challenge focuses on the interaction between Colorado’s concealed carry system and Denver’s prohibition on open carry. Colorado generally allows open carry, but Denver prohibits it. At the same time, Colorado's recognition of concealed carry permits from other states depends on reciprocity. Residents of states without reciprocity—including California—can therefore face significant restrictions when attempting to legally carry in Colorado.

Hoffman is a California resident who travels to Denver. According to the lawsuit, he cannot openly carry because Denver prohibits open carry, while his California residency prevents him from obtaining the Colorado concealed carry authorization necessary under the circumstances described in the complaint. The result, plaintiffs argue, is effectively a complete prohibition on his ability to carry a firearm in public for self-defense while in Denver.

The lawsuit relies heavily on the Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which recognized an individual's Second and Fourteenth Amendment right to carry a handgun publicly for self-defense. The complaint argues that Bruen did not limit that constitutional protection to a person's state of residence.

The plaintiffs also point to historical firearm laws involving travelers. According to the complaint, several colonies required travelers to carry arms for protection, while later laws in states including Tennessee, Arkansas and Alabama contained traveler exceptions to restrictions that otherwise prohibited concealed carry. The lawsuit presents that history as evidence against a historical tradition of completely denying non-residents the ability to carry firearms.

The case could have implications beyond Colorado. A successful challenge could contribute to a developing body of Second Amendment precedent addressing whether states can condition a visitor's ability to carry a firearm on residency or reciprocity agreements with that person's home state.

For now, Hoffman v. City of Denver is at the beginning of the federal court process. But the central question is significant: Can a state and local government combine their laws in a way that leaves an otherwise qualified visitor with no legal method of carrying a firearm in public for self-defense?

Glock 43XCA Added to California Handgun Roster

A new Glock 43XCA has been added to California’s handgun roster, marking a significant development for California gun owners and raising questions about how Glock modified the popular 43X to comply with the state’s increasingly complex handgun requirements.

Unlike the Gen 3 Glock models that remained on the roster under older requirements, the newly listed handgun is specifically identified as the 43XCA, indicating a California-specific variant. Because it is a new roster submission, the pistol had to satisfy current requirements rather than relying on the grandfathered status that allowed earlier Glock models to remain available.

Based on California’s current roster requirements, the 43XCA will include both a magazine disconnect mechanism and a loaded chamber indicator. The loaded chamber indicator must meet specific visibility requirements established by the state, meaning the California model will differ mechanically and potentially visually from a standard Glock 43X. Exactly how Glock incorporated these features remains unknown because detailed specifications, photographs and an owner's manual had not yet been released at the time of the report.

Another major question involves AB 1127, legislation aimed at certain semiautomatic pistols that can be readily converted into machine guns using conversion devices. Although frequently characterized as a “Glock ban,” the law does not prohibit Glock by name. Instead, it establishes criteria involving specific design characteristics and whether a pistol can be readily converted.

The 43XCA's addition to the roster therefore raises questions about whether Glock made additional internal or external changes to the pistol to address those requirements. At this point, however, any explanation of exactly what Glock changed remains speculative. The transcript notes that more information will be needed from Glock, an owner's manual or hands-on examination of the production pistol before those differences can be confirmed.

What is confirmed is that California will receive a 43X variant specifically designed for the state market. The development is particularly notable because Glock had not traditionally produced California-specific models to meet the modern roster requirements, instead relying on its grandfathered Gen 3 lineup.

The remaining question is availability. Although the Glock 43XCA is now listed on California’s roster, no confirmed release date or retail availability was provided in the source. Until Glock releases additional specifications, California buyers will have to wait to see exactly how the 43XCA differs from the standard model—and whether additional California-specific Glock models could follow.

Federal Judge Questions New York Sensitive Place Gun Laws While Bound by Second Circuit Precedent

A federal judge has issued a significant new ruling in Antonyuk v. James, the ongoing challenge to New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) and its restrictions on carrying firearms in locations designated as “sensitive places.”

U.S. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby of the Northern District of New York largely remained bound by existing Second Circuit precedent, which has upheld restrictions on concealed carry in locations including public parks, establishments serving alcohol, theaters and zoos. As a district court judge, Suddaby explained that he must follow controlling Second Circuit precedent even where he questions its continued viability. The Second Circuit’s earlier decision did, in fact, leave several of these restrictions in place.

However, the decision did provide a victory for the plaintiffs regarding airports. The court ruled in favor of the Second Amendment challenge to New York’s restriction as applied to airports, outside secured areas such as TSA-controlled zones.

The most notable portion of the ruling may be Judge Suddaby’s discussion of the future of the Second Circuit’s sensitive-place precedent. He wrote that it is “conceivable or even likely” that certain Second Circuit rulings could eventually be overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in light of subsequent Second Amendment decisions.

Suddaby also questioned whether New York’s extensive collection of sensitive-place restrictions can be reconciled with the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. He noted that when numerous individual restrictions are considered together, they can create a system in which concealed carry is prohibited across large portions of the state, potentially undermining the general right to carry firearms publicly for self-defense recognized in Bruen.

The court additionally raised concerns about the historical evidence used to support modern sensitive-place restrictions, including reliance on territorial laws and regulations from periods far removed from the adoption of the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Nevertheless, Suddaby concluded that existing Second Circuit precedent remains binding unless it is overturned or sufficiently undermined by subsequent Supreme Court decisions.

For now, many of New York’s sensitive-place restrictions remain in effect. But the ruling highlights an increasingly important question in Second Amendment litigation: how broadly can states designate locations as gun-free “sensitive places” without effectively eliminating the right to carry a firearm during ordinary public life?

Second Amendment Foundation Challenges ATF Involvement in Forced Reset Trigger Patent Case

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is questioning the ATF’s involvement in private patent litigation involving Rare Breed Triggers and competing forced reset trigger (FRT) products. SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut sent a letter to U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche asking the Justice Department to explain the legal and factual basis for the agency’s position.

The controversy stems from a DOJ statement of interest filed on behalf of the ATF in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. The underlying lawsuit involves allegations that competing products infringe patents held by Rare Breed Triggers and related intellectual property owners.

SAF says it is not taking a position on the patent dispute itself. Instead, its concern centers on the federal government’s justification for becoming involved. According to the letter, the ATF stated that it has an “interest in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs” while arguing that the public-interest factor in the patent case weighs heavily in Rare Breed’s favor.

That statement prompted SAF to ask why the ATF wants to limit FRT distribution, why the agency appears to be supporting one marketplace competitor over others, how Rare Breed’s products differ mechanically from competing triggers and what authority supports the government’s position.

The issue is particularly significant because the federal government previously settled major litigation involving forced reset triggers in May 2025. SAF argues that the government’s current position appears inconsistent with a settlement allowing Rare Breed products to be sold while simultaneously claiming a public-policy interest in limiting competing products with allegedly similar functionality.

SAF also points to the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, where the Court held that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns under the existing federal definition. SAF argues that the statutory definition focuses on whether a firearm fires more than one shot automatically through a single function of the trigger—not whether a device produces what the ATF describes as a “near automatic rate.”

The dispute could ultimately have implications beyond forced reset triggers. SAF warns that federal agencies intervening in private intellectual property disputes to advance separate regulatory objectives could influence competition, product availability and consumer choice without going through traditional rulemaking or enforcement processes.

SAF is now asking Attorney General Blanche to review the ATF’s involvement and clarify the authority behind its position. The central question remains: If forced reset triggers are lawful under the federal statutory definition, what authority gives the ATF an interest in limiting their sale and distribution?

California Governor Signs 10 New Gun Laws, Including Major Changes to Firearm Safety Certificate Requirements

California has enacted 10 new firearm-related bills covering everything from firearm-owner data and prohibited persons to storage programs, protective orders, emerging technology and firearm training requirements. The new laws will take effect in stages, with provisions beginning in 2027 and additional requirements continuing through 2029.

The bills signed include AB 1743, AB 1753, AB 1943, AB 1974, AB 2047, AB 2339, AB 2378, AB 2636, SB 948 and SB 1220. Collectively, they address firearm-owner information, ammunition relinquishment under certain protective orders, voluntary firearm storage, 3D-printing technology, prohibited persons, violence-prevention programs and firearm acquisition requirements.

Among the most significant changes for California firearm owners is SB 948, which expands the requirements associated with obtaining a Firearm Safety Certificate (FSC).

Beginning January 1, 2029, applicants will generally be required to complete a new training course within the previous year before obtaining an FSC. The course must be at least four hours long, include live-fire training and cover topics established by the California Department of Justice. Training must also be conducted by a DOJ-certified instructor, and applicants will be required to demonstrate safe firearm handling and basic proficiency at a shooting range.

There are exceptions for individuals who already possess a valid California CCW permit or who completed qualifying initial or renewal CCW training within the previous three years.

New California residents will also face additional requirements. SB 948 changes the deadline for reporting firearms brought into the state from 60 days to 180 days. Beginning January 1, 2028, new residents will also be required to certify to the California DOJ that they possess a valid FSC or qualify for an exemption. Those subject to the reporting requirement generally must obtain the required FSC within the 180-day period.

The package represents another substantial expansion of California's firearm regulations. Because the provisions are being phased in over several years, firearm owners, dealers and new residents will need to pay close attention to the different effective dates as the requirements begin taking effect between 2027 and 2029.

New Supreme Court Brief Challenges Key Arguments Behind Assault Weapon and Magazine Bans

A new amicus brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court is challenging some of the central arguments used to defend so-called assault weapon and magazine bans. Filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation and criminologist Professor Gary Kleck, the brief supports the challengers in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Rovella.

One of the brief’s primary arguments is that courts and lawmakers frequently blur the distinction between semi-automatic rifles and the magazines used in them. An AR-15, for example, can accept magazines of different capacities without changing the underlying firearm. The brief argues that magazine capacity is therefore a characteristic of the detachable magazine—not the rifle itself—and that governments should not rely on concerns about magazine capacity to justify bans on commonly owned rifles.

The filing also challenges the public-safety arguments surrounding magazine restrictions. According to research cited in the brief, studies have not established a clear connection between larger-capacity magazines and increased lethality in criminal shootings. The brief also cites research finding that criminal shootings typically involve only a small number of rounds, raising questions about whether limiting magazines to 10 rounds would materially affect most firearm-related crimes.

Another major argument concerns the frequently cited “pause to reload.” Supporters of magazine restrictions argue that forcing an attacker to reload more frequently can provide victims or law enforcement an opportunity to intervene. The brief disputes how often that occurs in practice, citing research in which only one incident potentially involved an intervention during a reload and noting that attackers in many incidents possessed multiple firearms or magazines.

The brief also argues that magazine restrictions affect lawful self-defense. Research cited in the filing found that nearly 29% of defensive gun users surveyed faced multiple attackers, and the brief points to documented incidents in which defenders fired more than 10 rounds. Its argument is that predetermined magazine limits cannot account for the circumstances an individual may encounter during an actual defensive situation.

Ultimately, FPC Action Foundation and Professor Kleck are asking the Supreme Court to treat challenges to rifle bans and magazine restrictions as related but legally distinct constitutional questions. They argue that governments defending bans on AR-15-style rifles should have to justify restrictions on the firearms themselves rather than relying primarily on arguments concerning detachable magazine capacity.

The brief asks the Supreme Court to reverse the lower court decision, with the outcome of these cases potentially carrying significant implications for assault weapon and magazine restrictions across the country.

Ninth Circuit Upholds Hawaii Firearm Permit-to-Purchase Law

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld Hawaii’s firearm permit-to-purchase system in a closely divided 6–5 en banc decision in Yukutake v. Lopez, potentially strengthening the legal position of similar firearm licensing requirements throughout the Ninth Circuit.

The lawsuit challenged Hawaii’s “shall issue” licensing system for acquiring firearms, including requirements surrounding the state’s permit process and the limited period in which an approved handgun permit can be used. The court concluded that permit-to-purchase requirements can be constitutional under the Second Amendment, relying in part on language from the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.

At the center of the decision is Footnote 9 of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that footnote, the Supreme Court explained that objective “shall issue” licensing systems are not necessarily unconstitutional when they use requirements such as background checks or firearm safety courses to determine whether applicants are law-abiding citizens. However, the Court also left open challenges when licensing systems involve excessive fees, lengthy delays or other requirements that effectively prevent citizens from exercising their rights.

The Ninth Circuit applied that reasoning to Hawaii’s acquisition licensing system, concluding that the challenged requirements had not been shown to create a meaningful constraint on the right to keep and bear arms. The decision therefore leaves Hawaii’s permit-to-purchase framework largely intact.

The ruling could have broader implications for California and Washington, where lawmakers have pursued their own permit-to-purchase requirements. California’s SB 948, for example, would expand the state’s firearm safety certificate requirements to include classroom instruction, live-fire training, proficiency testing and additional requirements before purchasing a firearm.

Although California and Washington’s laws differ from Hawaii’s system and could face separate constitutional challenges, Yukutake v. Lopez establishes significant Ninth Circuit precedent supporting objective firearm acquisition licensing requirements. Future challenges will likely focus on whether particular requirements cross the line from permissible licensing conditions into a meaningful burden on the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Former Santa Clara County Undersheriff Pleads Guilty in CCW Bribery Scandal

Former Santa Clara County Undersheriff Rick Sung has pleaded guilty to two felony bribery solicitation charges stemming from the county's long-running concealed carry permit scandal. Under the plea agreement, Sung will surrender his California peace officer certification, complete 400 hours of community service and serve two years of probation.

The case centered on how concealed carry permits were handled under Santa Clara County's former discretionary licensing system. According to a California appellate court opinion, the Sheriff's Office rarely issued CCW licenses during the period in question, and applications often were not processed unless someone with authority specifically directed them to move forward. Sung had the authority to advance applications or place them on hold.

One of the bribery counts involved members of Apple's executive protection team, who were seeking CCW permits. Court records described discussions involving political support for then-Sheriff Laurie Smith and a proposed donation of 200 iPads valued between approximately $50,000 and $80,000. Apple's security personnel were later told they could pick up their permits, while the proposed donation was stopped after the criminal investigation became public. Apple security chief Thomas Moyer was subsequently acquitted, while Sung's guilty plea includes a count connected to the iPad matter.

The second count involved a businessman whose signed CCW renewal had been placed on hold. According to the appellate record, he later provided access to a luxury suite at the SAP Center for an event involving Sheriff Smith and received his CCW permit the same day.

The scandal occurred under California's former "may issue" concealed carry system, which gave local officials significant discretion over whether applicants demonstrated sufficient "good cause" to receive a permit. The Supreme Court's 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen subsequently rejected a comparable discretionary requirement in New York and affirmed the right of ordinary citizens to carry handguns publicly for self-defense.

The Santa Clara County case provides a significant example of the problems that can arise when government officials have broad discretion over access to concealed carry permits. It also underscores the importance of objective standards, transparency and equal treatment when states administer licensing systems involving constitutional rights.