Last updated November 29, 2022 .

The gun lobby won’t stop pushing its radical interpretation of the Second Amendment in the courts. But we have common sense and evidence on our side, and we’re not backing down.

Our litigation experts track gun safety cases moving through courts across the country to keep you up to date on the latest legal developments. Second Amendment Courtwatch is an in-depth resource on Second Amendment litigation, a fast-evolving area of constitutional law since the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in DC v. Heller in 2008.

Our regular updates highlight legal victories for the gun violence prevention movement and detail the gun lobby’s dangerous litigation in courts across the country. We break down the latest developments in key gun policy cases making their way through the courts, tracking the status and deadlines of major cases. Courtwatch is an invaluable tool for those interested in filing an amicus brief, getting involved in a gun safety case, or reporting on gun laws and the Second Amendment.

MEDIA REQUESTS

Our experts can speak to the full spectrum of gun violence prevention issues. Have a question? Email us at media@giffords.org.

Contact

Tracking the Latest Cases

NYSRPA v. Bruen: Conservative Supreme Court Majority Radically Expands Second Amendment

On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court issued its decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, the most important Second Amendment case the Court has decided in over a decade.  In a 6-3 ruling, the Court struck down New York’s century-old public carry licensing law and announced a radical new framework for evaluating Second Amendment challenges.  The Court held that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a loaded handgun in public for self-defense.  The Court concluded that New York’s public carry law, which required New York residents to demonstrate “proper cause” to obtain a concealed carry license, violated this newly declared Second Amendment right.

The Court announced a radical new test for courts to use when considering Second Amendment challenges to federal, state, and local gun laws.  Previously, courts had almost universally applied balancing tests to Second Amendment challenges, weighing the government’s public safety interests that support reasonable gun laws against an individual’s Second Amendment rights.  Writing for the six-justice conservative majority, Justice Thomas rejected these balancing tests and instead held that the government must demonstrate that a challenged law is consistent with “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

At the same time, the Court indicated that various gun laws would withstand scrutiny under this newly-announced test.  For example, the Court compared New York’s public carry law to other states that use objective standards for evaluating applicants for concealed carry permits and suggested that these other state laws likely do not violate the Second Amendment on their face.  In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Kavanaugh observed that the Second Amendment allows for a “variety” of gun regulations, including those protecting so-called “sensitive places.”

For more information on the decision in Bruen, read our press release condemning the decision, our joint press release with Brady, Everytown, and March For Our Lives, and commentary from our experts, including Senior Litigation Attorney Esther Sanchez-Gomez’s piece  for SCOTUSBlog’s Symposium on Bruen.  Additional coverage and commentary on Bruen is available in the Washington Post, New York Times, Slate, and The Atlantic.

The Aftermath of Bruen

Bruen marks a sea change in how courts evaluate Second Amendment challenges. Here are a few notable recent decisions that illustrate the impact of Bruen:

Hardaway v. Nigrelli: A federal judge struck down New York’s restriction on carrying firearms in houses of worship.  Although the court recognized that Bruen had approved of limits on carrying weapons in “sensitive places,” the court held that houses of worship did not qualify as “sensitive places” because there was not a sufficient historical record justifying the restriction.

United States v. Price: A federal judge held that the longstanding federal law barring individuals from possessing firearms with obliterated serial numbers violated the Second Amendment.  The court found there was no historical tradition prohibiting individuals from possessing firearms with obliterated serial numbers.  Although the court conceded that serial numbers barely existed at the time of the founding and did not arise until the mass production of firearms, the court still concluded that the federal government could not bar individuals from possessing firearms with obliterated serial numbers.

United States v. Bullock: A federal judge faced with a Second Amendment challenge to the federal ban on felons possessing firearms issued an order asking whether he should appoint a historian to assist in evaluating the law’s constitutionality.  The judge expressed frustration with the Bruen approach, explaining that lawyers and judges are not trained historians and that the historical readings often advanced by litigants are either incomplete or inaccurate. 

Our experts are continuing to track the fallout from Bruen and to provide updates on the latest developments.

SPOTLIGHT

GUNS & DEMOCRACY

The use of guns to intimidate and threaten voters, elected officials, and peaceful demonstrators poses a serious threat to our democracy. We’ve gathered resources on the deadly connection between guns and extremism, and how to stop it.

Read More

Licensing & Background Checks

Maryland Shall Issue v. Hogan 

Challenge to Maryland Handgun Qualification Law (license-to-possess). (D. Md. No. 16-cv-03311; 4th Cir. No. 21-2017, No. 21-2053;  4th Cir. No. 19-1469 (prior appeal))

• Case Status: Appeal pending before the Fourth Circuit after the District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed their challenge and upheld Maryland’s firearm licensing requirements.
• Upcoming Activity: Plaintiffs filed their opening brief on 8/3/22, Defendants filed their response on 10/17/22, and Plaintiffs’ reply is due by 11/16/22.
• Prior Proceedings: On 3/23/19, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ challenge on standing grounds.  On 8/3/20, the 4th Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that Atlantic Guns had independent standing to bring a Second Amendment claim and third-party standing to challenge the HQL requirement on behalf of potential customers.  On remand, on 8/12/21, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ challenge on the merits, applying intermediate scrutiny to conclude that Maryland’s firearm licensing requirements did not violate the Second Amendment.

People v. Brown 

Challenge to Illinois FOID firearm licensing law, brought by criminal defendant. (Ill. Supreme Court No. 127201; White Cty. Cir. Ct.)

• Case Status: On 6/16/22, the Supreme Court of Illinois vacated the trial court’s decision. The court held that the trial court failed to follow the Supreme Court’s earlier instructions and that the trial court should have simply entered an order dismissing the case on statutory grounds.  The Supreme Court instructed the trial court to enter such an order on statutory grounds and to consider no other motions, including challenges to the law’s constitutionality, from any party on remand. 
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: On 5/5/17, Defendant was charged with violating Illinois’ Firearm Owners Identification Card Act (FOID).  On 2/14/18, the trial court held that FOID law, as applied to Defendant, violated the Second Amendment and Illinois state constitution and that defendant’s actions fell outside intended scope of statute.  On 4/2/20, the Supreme Court of Illinois vacated the trial court’s decision, finding that the trial court had unnecessarily reached the constitutional issue. On remand, the trial court initially entered an order dismissing the charges on statutory grounds.  However, the trial court then reconsidered its decision in orders entered on 6/15/20 and 4/26/21, holding instead that the FOID law was unconstitutional as applied to Defendant.
• Before the Supreme Court of Illinois, several parties submitted amicus briefs, including the City of Chicago, Giffords Law Center, and Everytown.

Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Raoul 

NRA-backed challenge to Illinois FOID firearm licensing law. (Ill. state court—Sangamon Cnty. Cir. Ct. No. 2019 CH 000180)

• Case Status: On 11/17/20, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint. On 12/29/20, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. On 2/19/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On 4/7/21, Plaintiff filed a response in opposition to Defendant’s motion. On 4/23/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. On 5/5/21, Defendant filed a notice of hearing. On 5/19/21, Plaintiff filed a subpoena for deposition. On 6/22/21, the court granted the joint motion for entry of a stay and amended case management. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 6/23/22, Defendants filed a status report.
• Prior Proceedings: In May 2019, the state trial court denied Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction.  On 12/3/19, the Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the trial court’s denial of the motion for preliminary injunction. Guns Save Life, Inc. v. Raoul, 2019 IL App (4th) 190334, ¶ 66, 438 Ill. Dec. 500, 529, 146 N.E.3d 254, 283.

Basset v. Slatery

Challenge to Tennessee’s permitless carry law brought by individuals between the age of eighteen and twenty. (E.D. Tenn. No. 21-CV-00152)

• Case Status: Complaint filed on 4/22/21. On 8/16/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 9/13/21, Plaintiffs filed their response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. Defendants’ filed their response on 10/8/21. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 11/14/22, the parties submitted a joint motion to stay proceedings in order to facilitate a settlement and entry of final judgment on all claims.
• Prior Proceedings: None.

Gun Owners of America v. Philadelphia 

Challenge to Philadelphia law prohibiting the creation of 3D printed firearms and components without a federal license. (Federal Docket E.D. Pa. No. 21-cv-2630, State Court Docket No. 21122150, Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas)

• Case Status: On 1/3/22, state court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining the City of Philadelphia from enforcing its ban on ghost guns until the court makes a final determination on the merits.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: Case filed in state court on 5/11/21. Defendants removed the case to federal court on 6/10/21.  On 10/7/21, the federal district court granted Plaintiff’s motion to remand the case to state court.

PRO BONO

Our pro bono partners generously volunteer their time and legal expertise, helping us fight the gun lobby in court and defend lifesaving gun laws. Visit our pro bono partner page to find out more about how to get involved.

Learn More

Guns in Public

Young v. Hawaii

Challenge to Hawaii open carry law. (S. Ct. No. 20-1639; 9th Cir. No. 12-17808)

• Case Status: On 6/30/22 the Supreme Court summarily reversed and vacated the lower court’s decision in light of Bruen.  On 8/19/22, the Ninth Circuit vacated its prior decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.
• Upcoming Activity: On 9/20/22, the parties submitted a letter to the district court indicating that they had reached a settlement agreement.  On 9/21/22, the district court scheduled a status conference for 11/17/22.
• Prior Proceedings: Ninth Circuit Affirmed the district court’s dismissal of a challenge to Hawaii’s open carry licensing scheme on 3/24/21. Dissents by Judges O’Scannlain and R. Nelson. Mandate issued on 4/15/21. En banc oral argument was heard on 9/24/20 before Judges Thomas, O’Scannlain, McKeown, Wardlaw, W. Fletcher, Clifton, Bybee, Callahan, Ikuta, Friedland, and R. Nelson. Panel invalidated law; en banc court vacated panel decision.

Call, et al. v. Jones III, et al.

Second Amendment challenge to Maryland concealed carry permit law and “good and substantial reason” requirement. (4th Cir. No. 21-1334; D. Md. No. 20-cv-03304)

• Case Status: On 8/11/22, the Fourth Circuit vacated and remanded the case to the district court with the instruction to dismiss the case as moot in light of Bruen.  On 9/8/22, the district court dismissed the case as moot.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: Complaint filed 11/13/20. On 3/19/21, the district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ challenge and Plaintiffs appealed to the Fourth Circuit.  On 5/10/21, the Fourth Circuit ordered the case be held in abeyance pending Bruen.

Wade v. University of Michigan 

Second Amendment challenge to Univ. of Michigan campus gun ban. (Mich. S. Ct. No. 156150)

• Case Status:Docket available here. On 11/10/22, the Michigan Supreme Court vacated and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings in light of Bruen.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: The lower court and the Court of Appeals upheld the university rule against preemption, Second Amendment challenge. On 11/6/20, the Michigan Supreme Court granted review.

Flanagan v. Becerra and Nichols v. Newsom

Challenges to California open carry law. (Flanagan v. Becerra: 9th Cir. No. 18-55717. Nichols v. Newsom: 9th Cir. No. 14-55873.)

• Case Status: On 7/11/22, the Ninth Circuit ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing in light of Bruen. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/18/22, the Ninth Circuit issued an order indicating that the cases were being considered for oral argument starting in the February 2023 sitting.
• Prior Proceedings: District courts had dismissed both challenges below.

Livingston v. Logan

Challenge to Hawaii’s open/concealed carry permitting laws. (D. Haw. No. 19-cv-157)

• Case Status: On 9/27/22, Plaintiffs filed their first amended complaint.  On 11/1/22, Defendants moved to dismiss.
• Upcoming Activity: The district court scheduled a hearing for the motion to dismiss for 1/9/23.
• Prior Proceedings: Complaint filed on 3/29/19. On 4/11/19, Plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary injunction. On 6/10/19, the court granted the motion to stay the case in light of Young v. Hawaii.

Yukutake v. Connors

Second Amendment challenge to Hawaii registration and permitting laws. (9th Cir. 21-16756; D. Hawaii No. 19-cv-578)

• Case Status: On 8/18/22, the Ninth Circuit denied Defendant’s motion to remand and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing in light of Bruen.  On 2/22/22, Defendant filed its opening brief. On 4/25/22, Plaintiff filed a responsive brief.  On 5/17/22, Appellant filed its reply brief.
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/20/22, the court issued an order informing the parties that the case was being considered for oral argument in the February 2023 sitting.
• Prior Proceedings: On 8/16/21, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and denied Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment.  The court held that two provisions of Hawaii’s registration and permitting laws violated the Second Amendment: 1) Hawaii’s requirement that individuals purchase a handgun within 10 days of obtaining a permit to acquire and 2) Hawaii’s requirement that individuals physically bring their firearm to the police department for in-person inspection within 5 days of acquiring it.  On 9/23/21, the court entered an order granting in part and denying in part Defendant’s motion to stay the judgment pending appeal, staying its ruling as to the 10-day permit use period and refusing to stay its order on the in-person inspection requirement.  On 10/21/21, Defendant filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Worth, et al. v. Harrington, et al.

Facial and As-Applied Challenge to Minnesota’s Minimum Age and Public Carry Law. (D. Minn. No. 21-cv-01348)

• Case Status: On 8/4/22, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. On 8/4/22, Giffords submitted an amicus brief in support of the state, showing how neuroscience supports Minnesota’s minimum-age law.
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/5/22, the court held a hearing on the motions for summary judgment.  A decision on the motions is expected in the near future.
• Prior Proceedings: None.

LItigation

the courts

Explore our work defending lifesaving gun laws in the courts and fighting to debunk the gun lobby’s dangerous arguments about the Second Amendment.

Read More

Hardware

Ass’n of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol v. Grewal

Second Amendment and Takings Clause challenge to New Jersey LCM possession ban. (S Ct. No. 20-1507; 3d Cir. No. 19-3142)

• Case Status: On 8/25/22, a divided panel of the Third Circuit vacated and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of Bruen.  The dissenting judge argued that the court should have decided the case without further proceedings in the district court. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/28/22, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.  On 11/17/22, Defendants answered the amended complaint.  The court indicated it will hold a status conference in the near future.
• Prior Proceedings: The 3rd Cir. affirmed the District Court’s decision granting the State’s motion for summary judgment. On 6/30/22, the Supreme Court summarily vacated and remanded the case to the Third Circuit in light of Bruen.

Duncan v. Bonta

Second Amendment, Takings Clause challenge to California LCM ban. (No. 21-1194; 9th Cir. No. 19-55376; S.D. Cal. No. 17-01017)

• Case Status: On 9/23/22, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of Bruen.  On 9/26/22, the district court entered an order “spreading the mandate and continuing the preliminary injunction,” which enjoined enforcement of California’s LCM ban.
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/12/22, the State moved for reconsideration of the court’s preliminary injunction order.  On 11/7/22, the court scheduled a hearing on the reconsideration motion and a status conference for 12/12/22. 
• Prior Proceedings: A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision finding California’s LCM ban unconstitutional on 8/14/20. En banc, the Ninth Circuit reversed the panel’s decision and upheld CA’s LCM ban with separate concurrences filed by Judges Graber, Berzon, and Hurwitz. Separate dissents by Judges Bumatay and VanDyke. On 6/30/22, the Supreme Court summarily vacated and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit in light of Bruen.

Rupp v. Becerra

Second Amendment, other challenges to California assault weapon restrictions and registration. (9th Cir. No. 19-56004; C.D. Ca. 17-cv-746)

• Case Status: On 6/28/22, the Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of Bruen.
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/19/22, the court entered a scheduling order setting a pretrial conference date of 4/28/23.
• Prior Proceedings: District court granted State’s motion for summary judgment and upheld the assault weapon restrictions. 

Gun Owners of Amer. v. Garland

APA challenge to ATF rule banning bump stocks. (S. Ct. No. 21-1215;6th. Cir. No. 19-1298) 

• Case Status: On 10/3/22, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: The Sixth Circuit affirmed en banc, holding that relief to enjoin the Final Rule was not warranted. The en banc court applied Chevron deference to the ATF’s interpretation of § 5845(b) and recognized that “even without applying deference, the Final Rule provides the best interpretation of the § 5845(b).” Previously, a panel of the Sixth Circuit had reversed and remanded, holding that the ATF’s Final Rule was not the best interpretation of § 5845(b) and that Plaintiffs-Appellants were likely to prevail on the merits.

Modern Sportsman, et al. v. United States; McCutchen v. United States

Takings Clause challenge to ATF rule banning bump stocks, brought by former bump stock sellers and individual owners seeking compensation. (Modern Sportsman, et al. v. United States: Fed. Cir. No. 20-1107; McCutchen v. United States: Fed. Cir. No. 20-1188)

• Case Status:  On 11/14/22, the Supreme Court denied the petition for certiorari.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: Lower court granted defense motion to dismiss on 10/23/20.  On 10/1/21, the Federal Circuit issued opinions in both Modern Sportsman and McCutchen affirming dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Takings Clause challenge.  On 11/15/21, Appellants filed a petition for rehearing en banc. On 2/2/22, the petition for rehearing en banc was denied. Mandate issued on 2/9/22.

Miller v. Bonta

Second Amendment challenge to California’s assault weapons ban. (9th Cir. No. 21-55608, S.D. Cal. No. 19-cv-1537)

• Case Status: On 8/29/22, the district court held a hearing, dissolved the injunction, and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing in light of Bruen. 
• Upcoming Activity: The court has scheduled a hearing for 12/12/22.
• Prior Proceedings: The district court held in favor of Plaintiffs, finding California’s assault weapons ban unconstitutional. On 6/21/21, the Ninth Circuit stayed the district court’s order and judgment pending resolution of Rupp v. Bonta.  On 8/1/22, the Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s decision and remanded it for further proceedings in light of Bruen.

Renna v. Becerra 

Second Amendment challenge to 2020 amendments to California Unsafe Handgun Act. (S.D. Cal. No. 20-cv-02190)

• Case Status: On 10/31/22, plaintiffs filed their third amended complaint.  Defendants answered on 11/14/22. 
• Upcoming Activity: The court indicated it would schedule a status conference after defendants filed their answer to plaintiffs’ amended complaint.
• Prior Proceedings: Complaint filed 11/10/20. On 1/25/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 4/23/21, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss.

Rainier Arms, et al. v. ATF 

Second Amendment and Administrative Procedure Act challenges to ATF’s regulatory guidance for pistol braces. (N.D. Tex., No. 21-cv-00116)

• Case Status: Complaint filed on 1/15/21.  On 4/30/21, Defendants notified the court about the President’s order that the Department of Justice initiate rulemaking about pistol braces within 60 days on 4/7/21.  On 5/21/21, Defendants filed a consent motion to stay the case in order to “allow Defendants to undertake issuing the proposed rule.” On 5/24/21, the court granted the agreed motion to stay and vacated all pending deadlines. On 11/29/21, the case was administratively closed by the district court judge. On 12/27/21, the parties filed their joint status report. On 12/28/21, the court agreed with the parties that the case should remain stayed while Defendant responds to the comments from Defendant’s proposed rule on “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’”. The parties subsequently filed joint status reports on 3/28/22 and 6/27/22.
• Upcoming Activity: On 9/27/22, the court again agreed that the case should remain stayed and ordered the parties to file a joint status report on or before 12/28/22.
• Prior Proceedings: None.

AMICUS BRIEFS

Time and again, courts have ruled that the Second Amendment is fully compatible with a wide range of gun safety laws. Giffords Law Center and our partners frequently draft and submit amicus curiae—or “friend of the court”—briefs in cases challenging lifesaving gun laws.

Learn More

Gun Access

Jones v. Bonta

Challenge to CA minimum age law. (9th Cir. No. 20-56174; C.D. Cal. No. 19-CV-1226)

• Case Status: On 9/7/22, the Ninth Circuit vacated its prior decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of Bruen.
• Upcoming Activity: On 9/14/22, the district court ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing in light of Bruen.  On 10/21/22, Plaintiffs filed their supplemental briefing.  On 11/7/22, Defendants filed their supplemental briefing.
• Prior Proceedings: On 11/3/20, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. On 5/11/22, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction.  The court held that California’s ban on persons under 21 purchasing semiautomatic centerfire rifles violated Plaintiffs’ Second Amendment rights and that the district court erred when it failed to enjoin California’s enforcement of this law.  However, the court held that California’s requirement that persons under 21 obtain a hunting license before purchasing a long gun did not violate the Second Amendment and therefore affirmed that part of the district court’s decision.

Mitchell v. Atkins

Commerce clause challenge to WA law prohibiting sale of semiautomatic rifles to out-of-state residents, and Second Amendment challenge to minimum age provision. (9th Cir. No. 20-35827, W.D. Wash. No. 19-cv-05106)

• Case Status: The Ninth Circuit had held the case in abeyance pending Jones v. Bonta, but has now indicated it will hear the case. The case is fully briefed. Amicus briefs have been submitted by IL, CA, CT, DE, D.C., HI, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and VA, and Giffords Law Center and Brady, and Everytown. On 6/27/22, Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority in light of Bruen. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/20/22, the Ninth Circuit issued a scheduling order indicating that the case would be heard for oral argument in the February 2023 sitting.
• Prior Proceedings: The district court granted Defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice on 8/31/20.

Lara v. Evanchick

Challenge to Pennsylvania’s Uniform Firearms Act and PA’s minimum age requirement laws under the Second Amendment. (3d Cir. No. 21-1832; W.D. Pa. No. 20-CV-01582)

• Case Status: On 4/23/21, Appellant filed a notice of appeal to the Third Circuit. On 6/23/21, Appellants filed their brief with addendum and joint appendix. On 9/22/21, Appellee filed their merits brief. On 9/29/21, Everytown and CA, CT, DL, DC, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NY, NC, OR, RI, VT, VA, and WA filed amicus briefs in support of Appellee. On 10/1/21, Giffords Law Center and Ceasefire Pennsylvania Education Fund filed an amicus brief. On 10/13/21, Appellants filed their reply brief. On 11/2/21, Appellee filed a motion for leave to file a supplemental brief arguing recent developments have rendered the case moot.
• Upcoming Activity: On 7/5/22, the Third Circuit directed the parties to file letter briefs addressing the impact of Bruen by 7/25/22, with replies due on 8/8/22.  The parties have filed their supplemental briefing and are awaiting further order from the court.
• Prior Proceedings: On 4/16/21, the district court granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss and dismissed Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice.

Williams v. Garland

As-applied challenge to 922(g)(1) brought by a person convicted of a DUI misdemeanor and given the mandatory minimum sentence, house arrest for ninety days. (3d Cir. No. 19-02694; E.D. Pa. No. 17-cv-02641)

• Case Status: On 5/12/22, the Third Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Plaintiff’s challenge in an unpublished opinion, holding that prior Third Circuit precedent foreclosed Plaintiff’s challenge. On 7/18/22, Plaintiff filed a petition for rehearing or for rehearing en banc.  On 8/18/22, the Third Circuit vacated its prior decision and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of Bruen.
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/6/22, the district court held a status conference.  On 10/11/22, the court ordered that motions for summary judgment would be due on 12/6/22.
• Prior Proceedings: Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment was denied, and Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted on 4/1/19.

NRA v. Fla. AG 

Challenge to Florida minimum age law. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is fully briefed. (11th Cir. 21-12314;N.D. Fla. No. 18-cv-00137)

• Case Status: The 11th Circuit heard oral argument in the case on 3/24/22.  On 6/23/22, both sides filed supplemental authority letters in light of Bruen.
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/7/22, Plaintiffs moved to supplement the record and add a new individual plaintiff who was still under 21 in order to avoid the case becoming moot.  On 10/24/22, the court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to supplement.  The parties are awaiting a decision from the court on the merits.
• Prior Proceedings: On 6/24/21, the court granted Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the claims with prejudice. On 7/7/21, Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. On 8/17/21, Appellants filed their brief. On 10/19/21, Appellees filed their brief. On 10/25/21, Everytown and Giffords Law Center, Brady, Team ENOUGH, Orange Ribbons for Gun Safety, and MFOL Action Fund filed amicus briefs. On 11/8/21, Appellants filed their reply brief.

Reese v. DOJ 

Challenge to federal handgun minimum age law. (W.D. La. No. 20-cv-01438)

• Case Status: Complaint filed on 11/6/20. On 5/27/21, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and an alternative motion for summary judgment. On 6/4/21, Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief. On 6/17/21, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment, a memorandum in opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, and a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss. On 7/16/21, Defendants filed their reply to Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment. On 8/13/21, Plaintiffs filed a reply in response to summary judgment. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 7/5/22, Plaintiffs filed a notice of supplemental authority in light of Bruen and in support of their pending motion for summary judgment.
• Prior Proceedings: None.

Suarez, et al. v. Evanchick

Challenge to Pennsylvania and Federal Misdemeanor Firearm Prohibitions brought by Binderup, Suarez, and Miller. (M.D. Pa. No. 21-cv-00710)

• Case Status: CComplaint and motion for summary judgment filed on 4/16/21. On 4/22/21, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment as premature and without prejudice. On 6/17/21, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. On 1/26/22, the court denied Defendant’s motion to dismiss and entered an order permitting limited discovery and staying the case pending Bruen. On 6/24/22, the court lifted its stay in light of Bruen.
• Upcoming Activity: On 9/13/22, the parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment.  The motions are now both fully briefed and ready for resolution by the court.
• Prior Proceedings: None.

Meyer et al. v. Raoul et al.

Challenge to Illinois Minimum Age Law. (S.D. Ill. 21-cv-00518)

• Case Status: Complaint filed on 5/27/21. On 10/18/22, the court granted plaintiffs’ motion to amend the complaint.  Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on 10/18/22, which defendants answered on 10/31/22.
• Upcoming Activity: On 10/12/22, the court set a revised schedule: all discovery complete by 11/28/22, dispositive motions by 1/6/23, and trial set for 5/1/23.
• Prior Proceedings: None.

POST-HELLER LITIGATION

Our Post-Heller Litigation Summary rounds up all the most significant Second Amendment lawsuits and decisions since DC v. Heller.

Learn More

COVID-19 Lawsuits

Dark Storm Industries, et al. v. Hochul, et al. 

Challenge to Governor Cuomo’s Executive Order 202.6 ordering the closure of non-essential businesses, and the Order’s application to gun stores, which classifies as essential only firearm sales to law enforcement and military. (2d Cir., No. 20-2725; N.D.N.Y., No. 20-CV-360)

• Case Status: On 10/5/21, the Second Circuit dismissed the appeal as moot and remanded the case to the district court in order to vacate the judgment and dismiss the claims as moot.  The court concluded that the Governor’s rescission of prior COVID-19 emergency orders rendered all of Plaintiffs’ claims moot.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: On 7/8/20, the district court granted summary judgment for Defendants.

McDougall v. Ventura County; companion case Brandy, et al. v. Villanueva, et al. (En Banc)

Challenge to California, Ventura, and Los Angeles Counties’ COVID-related emergency orders, including Second Amendment and 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 challenges to gun store closures. (McDougall v. Ventura County: 9th Cir., No. 20-56220; C.D. Cal., No. 20-CV-2927. Brandy, et al. v. Villanueva, et al.: C.D. Cal., No. 20-CV-02874.) 

• Case Status: On 6/29/22, the en banc Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings in light of Bruen.  Previously, a panel of the Ninth Circuit had reversed the district court’s dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims, finding that the Ventura County COVID-19 regulation burdened the core of the Second Amendment, warranting strict scrutiny.
• Upcoming Activity: In McDougall,on 7/12/22, the district court held a status conference and instructed the parties to file supplemental briefing by 9/12/22.  The parties have filed supplemental briefing and are awaiting a decision. In Brandy, on 8/26/22, the court vacated its prior judgment and set a status conference for 1/6/23.
• Prior Proceedings: In McDougall, on 10/21/20, Defendants’ motion to dismiss was granted, and Plaintiffs’ first amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice. In Brandy, on 10/1/20, Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted and the Plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed with prejudice.

McCarthy, et al. v. Baker, et al. 

Challenge to Governor Baker’s Order No. 13, which orders the closure of all non-essential businesses, and does not provide an exception for firearms dealers. (D. Mass., No. 20-CV-10701)

• Case Status: On 5/7/20, the court granted a preliminary injunction of Governor Baker’s Order as applied to gun stores. On 6/8/20, the State filed a notice that the Governor rescinded Order No. 13 in light of “sustained trend of improvement in public health data.” On 9/23/20, Plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment. On 10/19/20, Defendants filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. Hearing on all pending motions occurred on 12/17/2020. On 3/31/22, the court dismissed the case as moot.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: None.

GET THE FACTS

Gun violence is a complex problem, and while there’s no one-size-fits-all solution, we must act. Our reports bring you the latest cutting-edge research and analysis about strategies to end our country’s gun violence crisis at every level.

Learn More

Commerce Clause

Mitchell v. Atkins 

Commerce clause challenge to WA law prohibiting sale of semiautomatic rifles to out-of-state residents, and Second Amendment challenge to minimum age provision. (9th Cir. No. 20-35827, W.D. Wash. No. 19-cv-05106)

• Case Status: On 6/23/21, the Ninth Circuit held the case in abeyance pending Jones v. Becerra. Case is fully briefed. Amicus briefs have been submitted by IL, CA, CT, DE, D.C., HI, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NM, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and VA, and Giffords Law Center and Brady, and Everytown. On 6/27/22, Plaintiffs filed a supplemental authority letter in light of Bruen.
• Upcoming Activity: On 11/17/22, the defendants filed an unopposed motion to vacate in part and remand the case for further proceedings in light of Bruen.
• Prior Proceedings: Granted defendants’ cross motion for summary judgment and dismissed the plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice on 8/31/20.

Rhode v. Bonta

Commerce clause and Second Amendment challenge to CA ammunition background checks law. (9th Cir. No. 20-55437; S.D. Cal. No. 18-cv-00802)

• Case Status: On 5/14/20, the Ninth Circuit granted the state’s emergency motion to stay the district court’s preliminary injunction pending appeal.  The case was brief, argued, and submitted to the panel.  On 3/19/21, the panel held the case in abeyance pending the Ninth Circuit’s en banc proceedings in Duncan v. Becerra. On 6/24/22, the court vacated the order holding the case in abeyance and ordered the parties to submit supplemental briefing in light of Bruen. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 11/17/22, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings in light of Bruen. 
• Prior Proceedings: On 4/23/20, the district court granted a preliminary injunction enjoining California’s ammunition background check.

SPOTLIGHT

GUN LAW SCORECARD

The data is clear: states with stronger gun laws have less gun violence. See how your state compares in our annual ranking.

Read More

Litigation against the Gun Industry

Soto v. Bushmaster Firearms Int’l, LLC 

Lawsuit against manufacturers of the assault rifle used at Sandy Hook. (Conn. Sup. Ct. UWY CV15-6050025)

• Case Status: On 2/15/22, a notice of settlement and request for suspension of scheduling deadlines was filed. On 5/16/22, a notice of withdrawal of the action was filed, and the case was voluntarily dismissed in light of the settlement.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: The Connecticut Supreme Court reinstated plaintiffs’ unfair trade practices (CUTPA) claim, interpreting federal law (PLCAA). The Supreme Court denied cert on 11/12/19.

City of Gary v. Smith & Wesson, et al. 

City lawsuit against manufacturers for crime externalities resulting from firearms manufacture and distribution. (Ind. Super. Ct. 45D01-1211-CT-000233)

• Case Status: Plaintiffs are currently proceeding in discovery in state trial court. On 9/9/21, the court granted the motion to compel the City of Gary Indiana to respond to the discovery requests. On 3/2/22, the court held a hearing on the motion to compel discovery. On 3/3/22, the court issued an order on the pending motion to quash and motion to compel and outlined the five narrowed areas of discovery scope. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 7/21/22, the court issued another scheduling order on the sequence of discovery and took the motions to compel under advisement.
• Prior Proceedings: On 5/23/19, an Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court order granting defendants’ motion to dismiss. Indiana Supreme Court denied review on 11/26/19.

Parsons, et al. v. Colt’s Manufacturing, et al. 

Wrongful death lawsuit brought by family of Las Vegas victim against manufacturers, alleging defective design foreseeably led to conversion of semiautomatic weapons. (D. Nev. 19-CV-1189; Nev. Dist. Ct. Clark Cnty. Case No. A-19-797891-C)

• Case Status: The case is now pending in Nevada state court.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: On 7/2/19, Plaintiffs filed their complaint in state court.  On 7/9/19, Defendants moved to remove the case to federal court.  On 3/23/20, the court denied Plaintiffs’ motion to remand.  On 4/10/20, the court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss, holding that Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claims are not barred by PLCAA. On 4/10/20, the court certified two questions to the Supreme Court of Nevada related to the scope of wrongful death claims under Nevada law.  On 4/22/20, the court stayed the case until the Supreme Court of Nevada responds to the certifying question. On 1/15/21, the court issued an order requesting the parties to submit new briefing as to why the case should not be remanded to state court.  The court indicated that it was inclined to reconsider its earlier ruling denying Plaintiffs’ motion to remand based on reconsideration of the “snap removal” rule.  On 12/13/21, the Supreme Court of Nevada answered the certified questions in part, holding that the allegation of illegality does not allow the parents’ wrongful death and negligence per se claims to proceed, despite the immunity that NRS 41.131(1) declares. NRS 41.131 provides the gun manufacturers and distributors immunity from the claims asserted against them under NV law. On 2/2/22, the court remanded the case to state court and directed that the federal case be closed.

Gustafson v. Springfield 

Reversed dismissal of plaintiffs’ claims and found the PLCAA unconstitutional. (Pa. Sup. Ct. 207 WDA 2019)

• Case Status: On 8/12/22, the en banc Superior Court issued an order reversing the trial court’s order of dismissal and allowing the case to move forward.  The court also issued a series of opinions, none gathering a majority vote, expressing varying reasons as to why PLCAA is unconstitutional.
• Upcoming Activity: The case returns to the trial court for further proceedings.
• Prior Proceedings: On 1/15/19, the Common Pleas Court of Westmoreland County, PA dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims as barred by PLCAA.  On 9/28/20, the Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed, holding that PLCAA was unconstitutional.  On 12/3/20, the court withdrew its prior opinion and agreed to rehear the case en banc.

Leyva v. Braziel 

Lawsuit brought by family members of two victims of the Odessa-Midland shooting against the individual who supplied the firearm illegally and against Anderson Manufacturing. (Texas State Court, Ector Cnty., 70th District Court, Dkt. No. A-20-08-0905-CV)

• Case Status: Docket available here. Complaint filed on 8/28/20, and Defendants have answered the complaint. On 11/16/20, Plaintiffs filed their second amended petition. On 2/22/21, the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. On 7/14/21, defendants moved for summary judgment. On 8/3/21, Defendant filed an opposed motion to stay discovery, which the court granted on 9/8/21. On 9/17/21, the judge issued an order for continuance. On 9/23/21, the court received notice of the United States’ acknowledgement of constitutional challenge and notice of potential participation. On 11/15/21, the United States filed a brief in support of the constitutionality of PLCAA. On 11/19/21, Plaintiffs and intervenor filed a response to Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Hearing held on 12/2/21 on the pending motion to dismiss.
• Upcoming Activity: None.
• Prior Proceedings: None.

Affirmative Challenges

State v. City of Weston 

Challenge to Florida’s preemption statute which limits local regulation in the field of firearms. (SC21-918; Fla. Dist. Ct. App. No. 1D19-2819

• Case Status:Docket available here. On 6/24/21, Petitioners filed their joint brief on jurisdiction. On 8/2/21, Respondents filed their brief on jurisdiction. On 9/23/21, Florida Association of Counties filed an amicus brief. On 10/1/21, Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief with Brady, Equality Florida Institute, and League of Women Voters of Florida. On 10/1/21, an extension of time was granted for Petitioner Nicole to file her merits brief; now due on 11/15/21. On 11/15/21, Plaintiffs filed their joint initial brief. On 11/22/21, motions for leave to file amici briefs have been filed. On 11/24/21, Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief with Brady, Equality Florida Institute, and League of Women Voters of Florida. On 2/14/22, Respondents’ merits brief was submitted. On 2/24/22, amicus briefs were filed by the NRA and Florida Carry, Inc in support of Respondents. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 6/9/22, the Florida Supreme Court held oral argument in the case.
• Prior Proceedings: Reversed, upholding Florida’s preemption statute, including civil penalties–invalidated by the trial court–for legislators who knowingly pass preempted laws. On 1/2/20, Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff. On 5/17/21, the court denied Appellee’s motion for certification of questions of great public importance. On 6/7/21, the mandate was issued. On 6/16/21, the court received notice of discretionary jurisdiction and review was sent to the Florida Supreme Court. On 9/28/21, the record was sent to the Supreme Court. Trial court invalidated Florida’s preemption statute.

City of St. Louis & St. Louis County v. Missouri, et al. 

Supremacy Clause challenge to Missouri’s nullification law. (SC 99290; Missouri Cir. Ct. 21AC-CC00237)

• Case Status: On 4/26/22, the en banc Supreme Court of Missouri reversed dismissal of the case, holding the City met its burden of showing it lacked an adequate remedy of law other than a declaratory judgment action.  The Supreme Court did not decide the merits of the case, instead remanding it for the trial court to consider the merits in the first instance. 
• Upcoming Activity: On 7/1/22, Plaintiffs sought leave to file a second amended petition.
• Prior Proceedings: Docket available here. Complaint filed on 6/21/21. On 8/27/21, Plaintiffs’ request for declaratory relief was denied. On 9/7/21, a notice of appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court was filed.

SPOTLIGHT

DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY

A joint effort by our country’s premier gun violence prevention organizations, the Firearms Accountability Counsel Taskforce works with the nation’s preeminent law firms to challenge the gun lobby in court and protect Americans’ most fundamental freedom—the right to live.

Learn More

RELATED

The Second Amendment

Time and again, courts across the nation have affirmed that gun safety laws are constitutional.

The Supreme Court

Our nation’s highest court has consistently recognized that the Second Amendment is compatible with strong firearm regulations.

Appellate Courts

The Supreme Court lets lower court victories stand—for now.