The Supreme Court docket for case 26-374 shows an amicus brief filing on October 19, 2026 in a firearms-related cert petition. The docket is direct court-source material indicating outside groups are weighing in as the justices consider whether to take up the case. For readers tracking Second Amendment litigation, the filing signals continued movement in a developing Supreme Court matter.
This Duke Center for Firearms Law roundup highlights newly filed Supreme Court Second Amendment petitions as of October 19, 2026. It points to emerging cases involving felon-in-possession laws, firearm licensing, and restrictions tied to indictment status, offering a snapshot of issues that could shape the Court’s next gun-rights docket. The post is a useful overview of where firearms litigation is heading at the cert-petition stage.
Alaska’s acting attorney general urged state lawmakers on October 15 to respond to a recent firearms court decision and related ATF guidance that the state says affect Alaskans’ gun rights. The release frames the issue as a Second Amendment matter and calls for legislative action at the state level. As an official state statement, it is useful for tracking how state officials are reacting to firearms rulings and federal guidance.
In an October 14, 2026 opinion, the Ninth Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction and blocked California from enforcing part of the No Vigilantes Act against federal officers. The decision is principally a constitutional federalism ruling about state limits on federal operations, though it sits within a broader policy environment that includes firearms enforcement. As a court opinion, it is most relevant for readers following how constitutional structure disputes intersect with public-safety regulation.
This Federal Register notice concerns applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). It presents the administration’s handling of a process for people seeking restoration of federal firearms rights and frames the action as part of a broader review of claimed Second Amendment infringements. The notice is distinct from the previously published FAQ item because it is the underlying October 7, 2026 Federal Register publication itself rather than a general explainer.
A Firearms Policy Coalition release published October 1, 2026 says the organization filed an amicus brief in Johnson v. United States urging the Supreme Court to reject the federal lifetime firearms ban for nonviolent felons. The statement argues the prohibition lacks historical support under the Second Amendment when applied to peaceable Americans. That issue is materially different from the already published posts listed for this topic.
A September 29, 2026 Firearms Policy Coalition announcement says the group filed a new federal lawsuit challenging Colorado and Denver residency-based carry restrictions. According to the statement, the suit argues those rules violate the right to bear arms across state lines by limiting non-residents’ ability to lawfully carry. The claim is distinct from the site’s earlier coverage of handgun purchase age restrictions and other firearms-related legal developments.
A September 22, 2026 Firearms Policy Coalition statement says the group filed a reply brief seeking a preliminary injunction against Maryland’s ban on Glock and Glock-style handguns. The filing frames the law as a Second Amendment challenge to a state ban on commonly owned arms, arguing the restriction targets protected firearms in common use. This appears materially different from the previously published items, which focused on age-based handgun sales rules, firearms restoration, and other separate dockets and regulations.
This GIFFORDS analysis page, updated September 21, 2026, catalogs recent federal firearms-policy changes under the Trump administration, including rollbacks and enforcement shifts with Second Amendment implications. Within the current window, it provides an advocacy summary of how gun-policy groups are situating the administration’s latest actions inside a broader pattern rather than treating them as isolated moves. It is most useful as a roundup of policy direction and opposition arguments, not as a primary legal ruling.
In this September 18, 2026 press release, the Justice Department says it will not criminally enforce the federal ban on licensed handgun sales to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20. The department frames the decision as compelled by the Second Amendment and tied to its constitutional analysis of the statute. The announcement signals an immediate federal enforcement change with implications for dealers, young adult purchasers, and ongoing firearms-rights litigation.
This September 18, 2026 GIFFORDS statement sharply criticizes the Justice Department’s position on handgun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds, arguing the administration is disregarding federal law and weakening public-safety protections. The statement offers a competing constitutional and policy framing to the department’s Second Amendment analysis. It helps illustrate how the same federal move is being contested both as a rights question and as a firearms-safety issue.
This September 17, 2026 Office of Legal Counsel opinion concludes that the federal ban on licensed handgun sales to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20 is unconstitutional as applied under the Second Amendment. The opinion analyzes text, history, and modern Supreme Court doctrine, and says the government cannot justify the restriction under the historical-tradition approach associated with Bruen. It is a notable executive-branch constitutional interpretation because it directly addresses whether licensed dealers may be barred from selling handguns to this age group.
The Supreme Court docket for Johnson v. Jacobson shows a September 15, 2026 amicus filing pressing a Second Amendment challenge to Minnesota’s refusal to recognize certain out-of-state carry permits. The docket entry points to an active dispute over how far constitutional protections for bearing arms may constrain state permitting and reciprocity rules. As a court-record source, it is useful mainly for tracking the case’s procedural posture and the presence of amici raising the constitutional issue.
In a September 9 motion filed in the Supreme Court, the United States asked for divided argument time in the assault-weapons-ban case and argued that the challenged bans are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The filing is notable because it sets out the federal government's merits position while also seeking a role at oral argument. It adds a significant new development to the Court's handling of the pending constitutional challenge.
The Justice Department updated its FAQ on September 9 to explain the new federal firearm-rights restoration process under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). The page outlines eligibility, presumptive disqualifiers, application procedures, and rollout timing for people seeking restoration of federal firearms rights. It is a practical implementation update with direct implications for how the restored process will operate.
A September 9 Supreme Court filing shows the United States serving its motion for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae in the assault-weapons-ban cases. The filing is procedural, but it confirms the federal government's request to take argument time in a major Second Amendment dispute now on the Court's merits docket. That marks a concrete post-September 6 development in the cases' briefing and argument posture.
The Supreme Court docket for case 25-238 shows a major Second Amendment dispute involving Connecticut officials moving through the Court’s merits stage in 2026, with briefing and amicus activity on the docket. That makes it a notable indicator of an active constitutional challenge that could shape the Court’s next substantive guidance on gun rights. At this stage, the docket documents filings and scheduling rather than a final merits decision.
A new Congressional Research Service writeup on the National Firearms Act has been published on GovInfo, providing a government research overview of the federal statute that regulates items such as machine guns, short-barreled firearms, and silencers. As a CRS product, it is a useful source for statutory background and constitutional context rather than a policy change or court ruling itself. The publication offers an up-to-date reference point for understanding how one of the central federal gun laws fits into current Second Amendment debates.
ATF has listed a proposed rule to revise the definitions of “Adjudicated as a Mental Defective” and “Committed to a Mental Institution” in its upcoming regulation changes. Because those terms help determine who is federally prohibited from possessing firearms, the proposal is directly relevant to how federal law limits Second Amendment rights based on mental-health-related findings. The listing signals a potentially important administrative change, though the page is an upcoming-regulations notice rather than a final rule text.
The Supreme Court docket for George Peterson v. United States shows that the Court denied certiorari on April 20, 2026 in a suppressor-related Second Amendment case. That leaves the lower-court result in place without a merits ruling from the Supreme Court, making the docket useful mainly for tracking the Court’s decision not to take up the constitutional question. The entry is a procedural update rather than a substantive opinion.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) released a comprehensive report in 2025 detailing gun violence statistics, showing a 15% increase in firearm-related deaths compared to the previous year. The report emphasizes the need for effective gun control measures and highlights the impact of gun violence on public health.
A report by the World Health Organization in 2026 compares gun control amendments in the U.S. with those in other countries. The report highlights that countries with stricter gun laws, such as Australia and the UK, have significantly lower rates of gun violence. The findings have prompted discussions in the U.S. about the effectiveness of current gun control measures and potential amendments.
In 2026, several lawmakers have proposed amendments to the Second Amendment aimed at addressing gun violence. These proposals include measures for universal background checks, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, and age limits for firearm purchases. Advocates argue that these changes are necessary to enhance public safety, while opponents claim they infringe on constitutional rights.
In early 2025, several gun control measures were introduced in Congress, including universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons. These proposals have sparked significant debate among lawmakers, with proponents arguing for increased public safety and opponents citing Second Amendment rights. The legislation aims to address rising gun violence rates in the U.S.
A 2025 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center found that 60% of Americans support stricter gun laws, marking a significant increase in public demand for gun control measures. The survey also revealed a growing divide in opinions based on political affiliation, with Democrats overwhelmingly supporting stricter laws compared to Republicans.
A 2026 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center revealed that a majority of Americans support amending gun laws to include stricter background checks and restrictions on certain types of firearms. The survey indicates a growing consensus on the need for reform, particularly in the wake of recent mass shootings.
Several states have introduced constitutional amendments to strengthen gun rights or impose stricter regulations. For example, Texas voters approved an amendment that protects the right to carry firearms without a permit, while California passed an amendment aimed at enhancing gun control measures, including mandatory waiting periods.
Several states, including California and New York, have enacted new gun control laws in 2025, focusing on measures such as mandatory training for gun owners and restrictions on high-capacity magazines. These initiatives reflect a growing trend among states to take proactive steps in response to gun violence.
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court ruled in 2025 that states have the authority to impose stricter gun control measures than federal law. This ruling has significant implications for state-level legislation, allowing states to implement laws such as red flag laws and mandatory waiting periods without federal interference.
The Supreme Court has issued rulings in 2026 that further clarify the scope of the Second Amendment. One significant case involved the legality of state-level assault weapon bans, with the Court upholding certain restrictions while emphasizing the right to bear arms. This ruling has sparked debates about the balance between individual rights and public safety.
A report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in 2025 highlighted a concerning increase in gun-related deaths, particularly among young adults. The report calls for enhanced research into gun violence and the effectiveness of various gun control measures, emphasizing the need for data-driven policies to combat this public health crisis. Source: [broken link removed]
A report from the RAND Corporation analyzes the relationship between gun control laws and crime rates, concluding that states with stricter gun laws tend to have lower rates of gun-related homicides. The report emphasizes the importance of evidence-based policy-making in the ongoing gun control debate.
In early 2025, several gun control measures were introduced in Congress, including universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons. These proposals have garnered mixed reactions, with proponents arguing they are necessary for public safety, while opponents cite Second Amendment rights. The legislation aims to address the rising gun violence rates across the United States.
In early 2025, several gun control measures were introduced in Congress, including universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons. These proposals aim to address rising gun violence and mass shootings. Advocates argue that comprehensive background checks could prevent firearms from falling into the hands of individuals with a history of violence or mental health issues. Source: [broken link removed]
In early 2025, several gun control measures were introduced in Congress, including universal background checks and a ban on assault weapons. These proposals have garnered mixed reactions, with proponents arguing they are necessary for public safety, while opponents cite Second Amendment rights. The legislation aims to address the rising gun violence rates across the United States. – Source: [Congress.gov]( https://www.congress.gov/ ) )
A 2025 Gallup poll revealed that a majority of Americans support stricter gun laws, with 60% favoring measures such as universal background checks and limits on high-capacity magazines. The poll indicates a growing concern over gun violence and reflects shifting attitudes towards gun control in the wake of recent mass shootings. Source: [broken link removed] Source: [broken link removed]
A 2025 Gallup poll indicates that public support for stricter gun laws has increased, with 60% of Americans favoring more regulations. The poll highlights a significant shift in attitudes, particularly among younger voters, who are increasingly advocating for comprehensive gun control measures in light of recent mass shootings.
A 2025 Gallup poll indicates that public support for stricter gun laws has increased, with 60% of Americans favoring more regulations. The poll highlights a significant shift in attitudes, particularly among younger voters, who are increasingly advocating for comprehensive gun control measures in light of recent mass shootings.
Various states have enacted stricter gun control laws in response to local gun violence incidents. For example, California and New York have implemented measures such as mandatory waiting periods and restrictions on high-capacity magazines. These state-level initiatives reflect a growing trend towards more stringent gun regulations at the local level.
Several states have enacted stricter gun control laws in 2025, including California and New York, which have implemented measures such as mandatory waiting periods and red flag laws. These laws aim to reduce gun violence by allowing law enforcement to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed a threat to themselves or others. Source: [broken link removed]
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a landmark ruling in 2025 affirming the right to carry firearms in public spaces, which has significant implications for state-level gun control laws. The decision emphasized the Second Amendment’s protection of individual gun ownership while leaving room for states to impose certain regulations. This ruling has sparked debates on the balance between public safety and individual rights. Source: [broken link removed]
The Supreme Court has been reviewing cases related to gun rights and the Second Amendment, with significant rulings expected in 2025. These cases could redefine the scope of gun ownership rights and the extent to which states can regulate firearms. Legal experts suggest that the outcomes may influence future gun control legislation.
A key proposed legislation introduced in 2025 is the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.” This bill, if passed, would mandate that all states recognize concealed carry permits issued by any other state, effectively creating a national standard for concealed carry.
An executive order was signed on February 7, 2025, directing the Attorney General to review all federal actions from January 2021 to January 2025 that may have “impinged” on Second Amendment rights. The goal is to identify and potentially undo policies deemed infringing, including rules from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and positions taken in litigation affecting gun rights.
A federal judge on Wednesday blocked a California law that would have banned carrying firearms in most public places, ruling that it violates the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and deprives people of their ability to defend themselves and their loved ones. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/federal-judge-blocks-california-law-that-would-have-banned-carrying-firearms-in-most-public-places
Introduced in the House on April 17, 2025, H.Res.339 expresses support for the Second Amendment and commends the Trump administration’s efforts to protect Second Amendment freedoms by reviewing and eliminating policies from the previous administration.
As of June 2025, there are no new federal constitutional category Amendments concerning gun control that have been ratified or are actively moving through the proposal process. The national conversation around firearms continues to be centered on the interpretation of the Second Amendment, with significant developments occurring through executive orders and proposed legislation rather than attempts to amend the Constitution itself. Amendments/proposed-category Amendments-2025
In June 2023, Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to enshrine common-sense gun safety measures. While not a 2025 proposal, it’s a significant ongoing effort that aims to permanently establish principles such as raising the federal minimum age to purchase a firearm to 21, mandating universal background checks, instituting a waiting period for gun purchases, and barring civilian purchase of assault weapons.
While no federal constitutional category Amendments are on the horizon, some states are considering changes to their own laws and constitutions regarding firearms. In Maine, there is a potential ballot initiative for 2025 concerning “Extreme Risk Protection Orders.” Looking ahead to 2026, Arkansas will have a “Right to Keep and Bear Arms Amendment” on the ballot, and Massachusetts will vote on a “Firearm Regulations Referendum.”
Governor Newsom Proposes Historic 28th Amendment SACRAMENTO – Today Governor Gavin Newsom proposed a 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to enshrine fundamental, broadly supported gun safety measures into law. While leaving the 2nd Amendment unchanged and respecting America’s gun-owning tradition, the Governor’s proposal guarantees common sense constitutional protections and gun safety measures that Democrats, Republicans, independent voters, and gun owners overwhelmingly support – including universal background checks, raising the firearm purchase age to 21, instituting a firearm purchase waiting period, and barring the civilian purchase of assault weapons. “Our ability to make a more perfect union is literally written into the Constitution,” said Governor Gavin Newsom. “So today, I’m proposing the 28th Amendment to the United States Constitution to do just that. The 28th…
Book: Repeal the Second Amendment A radical case for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment as the only way to control gun violence in America There’s an average of one mass shooting per day in the United States. Given the ineffectiveness of the gun control lobby, it’s time for a strategy with spine. In Repeal the Second Amendment, Allan J. Lichtman has written the first book that uses history, legal theory and up-to-the-minute data to make a compelling case for the amendment’s repeal in order to create a clear road to sensible gun control in the US. Repeal the Second Amendment explores both the true history and current interpretation of the Second Amendment to expose the NRA’s blatant historical manipulations and irresponsible fake news releases. Lichtman looks at the history of firearms and gun regulations from colonial times to the present to explain how a historically forgotten sentence in…
Video: Kristi Noem Tells NRA Right To Own Guns Is ‘God-Given’ In remarks to the NRA-ILA Leadership Forum earlier this month, Gov. Kristi Noem (R-SD) defended the rights of citizens to own guns.
Page 1 (see PDF for full document) EO_2023-04.pdf
Supreme Court: NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION,INC., ET AL. v. BRUEN TLDR; In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., et al. v. Bruen, the plaintiffs challenged New York State’s concealed carry permit law, which required applicants to show "proper cause" for carrying a concealed firearm in public. The plaintiffs argued that this law violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The case went before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. The Court held that the "proper cause" requirement was unconstitutional because it effectively barred most law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. The Court noted that the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms for the purpose of self-defense, and that this right extends beyond the home. The Court also emphasized that the government can…
An Ethical Analysis of the Second Amendment.pdf
NRA-ILA article: What Is The Second Amendment And How Is It Defined
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution reads as follows: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Historically, the Second Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1791 as part of the Bill of Rights. At the time, the American colonies had recently won their independence from Great Britain and had formed a new government based on the principles of individual liberty and limited government. The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to protect the right of the people to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well-regulated militia. This was seen as necessary for the security of a free state, as the Founding Fathers believed that a citizen militia would be necessary to defend against foreign invaders or domestic tyranny. The right to bear arms was…