By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—SCOTUS: Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, relisting for March 21; Antoyuk v. James, listed for March 28 conference; 18-to-20-year-olds and the right to own firearms, challenges toa 51-year-old law; Court of Appeals: National Rifle Association v. Bondi: Case # 21-12314: New Florida Attorney General makes a statement;
SCOTUS
Relisted for the March 21, 2025 conference:
Snope v. Brown: Docket 24-303: The case was distributed for the Supreme Court’s Jan. 10, conference and relisted multiple times.
Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island: Docket 24-131: The plaintiffs sought U.S. Supreme Court review (Docket 24-131), arguing the ban infringes on their rights to bear arms in common use.
Listed for the March 28 conference:
Antoyuk v. James: Second Appeal to SCOTUS: Case No. 24-795: This case was docketed on Jan. 27, and on March 12, it was listed for the conference of March 28. The following amicus curiae have been filed: Peace Officers Research Association of California, Foundation for Moral Law, Second Amendment Law Center, Project 21, National Rifle Association of America, New York State Senator Rober G. Orti (Senate Minority Leader). Background: Antonyuk v. James challenges New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA), enacted after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. That monumental SCOTUS decision struck New York’s pre-2022 concealed carry law for being too restrictive. The new carry law, CCIA, imposed new requirements, such as proving “good moral character” and disclosing social media, to obtain a concealed carry permit, alongside restrictions on carrying in sensitive locations. The new definition of sensitive places turned almost all of New York City and large swaths of the state into sensitive places.
District Court: Itwas filed on Sept. 20, and Judge Glenn T. Suddaby, on Nov. 6, issued a restraining order against significant parts of the CCIA and denied the state’s request for a stay. The state of NY then appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, requesting a stay, and the stay was granted on Dec. 7. On Jan. 9, the plaintiffs filed their response to the Stay issued in Dec. In mid-January 2023, 16 Democrat Attorney Generals led by the Hawaii Attorney General filed an amicus curia for the State of NY. The case was argued before a three-judge panel that, according to Attorney Mark W. Smith (@4BoxesDiner on youtube.com), was an “absolutely terrible panel” regarding gun rights.
Appeal to Second Circuit: Case No. 22-2908: On Dec. 8, 2023, a three-judge panel ruled in favor of Second Amendment rights on several issues: 1.) it struck down the requirement that applicants for a concealed carry permit disclose their social media accounts; 2.) it invalidated the provision requiring private properties to post notices if they allowed firearms; and 3.) it upheld the right to possess guns in places of worship for the plaintiffs. In a follow-up video, Attorney Smith criticizes the three-judge panel for relying on a law that never existed. The judges spend several pages discussing a 1792 North Carolina law as a reference for New York’s sensitive places ban. However, in 2021, in a paper titled Faux Histories of the Right to Bear Arms, regarding Young v. Hawaii, Stephen P. Holbrook, a noted Second Amendment attorney, points out on page 22 that this is based on a false history deemed “utterly unworthy.” However, it reversed much of the District Court’s preliminary injunction.
Appeal to SCOTUS: Case No. 23-910—February 2024: On July 2, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated the Second Circuit’s judgment, and remanded the case for further consideration in light of United States v. Rahimi, which upheld a federal law prohibiting individuals under domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms and emphasized historical analysis for Second Amendment cases.
Second Circuit Post-Remand: After reconsideration, the Second Circuit, on Oct. 24, 2024, upheld the district court’s preliminary injunction against the CCIA’s social media disclosure requirement, concluding it likely violates the First Amendment. It also affirmed the injunction against sensitive location restrictions, such as private property open to the public, which are deemed likely unconstitutional. However, it vacated the district court’s injunctions concerning other aspects, including the character and cohabitants requirements, determining these likely constitutional. Some sensitive location restrictions, like those in treatment centers, were considered likely constitutional, while restrictions on places of worship were rendered moot due to legislative amendments.
18-to-20-year-olds and the right to own firearms
The federal law denying 18-to-20-year-olds the right to purchase and own handguns
18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1), restricting FFLs from selling handguns to 18-20-year-olds, was initially added to the federal code by the 1968 Gun Control Act, passed in the wake of four assassinations during the 1960s. In 1963, President John F. Kennedy was shot by an assassin, Harvey Oswald, with an Italian rifle purchased through the mail. On Feb. 21, 1965, Malcolm X was preparing to address the Organization of Afro-American Unity when someone in the audience yelled, “N—–! Get your hand outta my “Pocket!” Malcolm X and his bodyguards attempted to calm the situation; a man charged forward and shot him once in the chest with a sawed-off shotgun, and two other men charging the stage, while firing semi-automatic handguns. The autopsy identified 21 gunshot wounds to the chest, left shoulder, arms, and legs, including ten buckshot wounds from the initial shotgun blast. On April 4, 1968, Martin Luther King, Jr., a prominent leader of the civil rights movement and a Nobel Peace Prize laureate known for his use of nonviolence and civil disobedience, was hit in the face at 6:01 p.m. by a single .30-06 bullet, fired from a Remington Model 760 rifle by James Earl Ray, an escaped prisoner who had purchased the gun using an alias. The final assassination of the decade was Robert F. Kennedy, the former Attorney General, Democrat Presidential candidate, and brother of the late President Kennedy. He was fatally wounded by multiple shots fired at point-blank range from an eight-shot .22 Long Rifle Iver Johnson Cadet 55-A revolver by Sirhan Sirhan. As of March 18, 2025, the provisions remain in effect, with no amendments changing the age limits since 1968.
The Bruen Analysis applied to challenge the federal law regarding
18-to-20-year-olds and the right to own firearms
Several notable lawsuits have emerged, with district and circuit courts weighing in on the constitutionality of these restrictions:
- In VanDerStok v. Garland (2023, Eastern District of Virginia), Judge Robert Payne ruled the ban unconstitutional, citing a lack of historical precedent.
- In Brown v. ATF (2023, Northern District of Texas), Judge Thomas S. Kleeh also found the laws unconstitutional, issuing a nationwide injunction.
- Most recently, in Reese v. ATF (2025, Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals), the court struck down the laws, reinforcing the trend of invalidating age-based restrictions.
These rulings suggest a shift in legal interpretation. Future appeals to higher courts, including the Supreme Court, could alter the current legal landscape. The case listed below could also help shift the dialogue.
Court of Appeals
National Rifle Association v. Bondi: Case # 21-12314:
Background: The case represents a significant legal challenge to Florida’s firearm regulations, specifically the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, enacted in the wake of the tragic 2018 Parkland school shooting. Following the Feb. 14, 2018, shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, where a 19-year-old perpetrator killed 17 individuals, the Florida Legislature passed the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act (2018 Fla. Laws 10, 18–19).. This legislation aimed to mitigate gun violence, particularly on school campuses, by raising the minimum age for purchasing firearms from 18 to 21.
The National Rifle Association (NRA), alongside individual plaintiff Radford Fant, challenged this provision, arguing it infringed on constitutional rights. The case was initially filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida under case number 4:18-cv-00137. Pam Bondi, then-Attorney General of Florida, was named in her official capacity.
District Court ruling: case number 4:18-cv-00137: On June 24, 2021, the district court, presided over by Judge Mark E. Walker, granted Florida’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 107) and denied the plaintiffs’ motion (ECF No. 109), dismissing the claims with prejudice. The court found no constitutional violation, setting the stage for appeal.
Appeal to Eleventh Circuit: case number 21-12314: The court assumed, without deciding, that the Second Amendment’s plain text covers 18-to-20-year-olds buying firearms, acknowledging their status as part of “the people” protected by the Amendment, in the Court’s examination of whether the Florida law was consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court identified historical analogs from the Reconstruction Era, noting statutes in states like Alabama, Tennessee, and Kentucky that prohibited firearm sales to minors under 21. These precedents, detailed in an appendix to the decision, supported the constitutionality of the Act.
The NRA asked the entire Eleventh Circuit to hear the case for an en banc review. Since the Eleventh Circuit agreed to review it on March 9, 2023, no decision has been made public. However, on March 15, the new Florida Attorney General made the following statement regarding this case.
Florida AG James Uthmeier posted on March 15, 2025
“Upon assuming office, I tasked my staff with reviewing Florida’s underlying law and whether it was consistent with the Second Amendment. Notwithstanding CA11’s opinion today, I believe restricting the right of law-abiding adults to purchase firearms is unconstitutional. The Fifth Circuit quite recently reached the same conclusion.
“If the NRA decides to seek further review at SCOTUS, I am directing my office not to defend this law.
“Men and women old enough to fight and die for our country should be able to purchase firearms to protect themselves and their families.”
State Courts
Massachusetts: Supreme Judicial Court
Commonwealth v. Donnell: (Docket Number SJC-13561)
Commonwealth v. Donnell is a significant criminal case decided by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) on March 11, addressing gun possession laws and Second Amendment rights after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. A New Hampshire resident, Sean Donnell, was in a vehicle collision in Massachusetts on Nov. 8, 2021. During the search of his vehicle, police discovered a loaded handgun and ammunition. He was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm under Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 269, § 10(a)) despite possessing a valid New Hampshire concealed carry license because Massachusetts did not recognize out-of-state permits and its licensing regime was discretionary (“may-issue”) at the time. He made a motion to dismiss the firearm charge, arguing that Massachusetts’ licensing scheme violated his Second Amendment rights under Bruen.
The SJC agreed, ruling in Donnell’s favor. The court found that the Commonwealth failed to demonstrate that its discretionary licensing system, as it existed pre-Bruen, aligned with historical traditions of firearm regulation. The decision emphasized that Bruen invalidated “may-issue” regimes lacking objective criteria, and Massachusetts’ law at the time allowed arbitrary denials of licenses to otherwise qualified individuals. The SJC dismissed the firearm possession charge against Donnell, marking a victory for gun rights advocates, including the Second Amendment Foundation, which supported the case through amici briefing.
Commonwealth v. Marquis: (Docket Number SJC-13562)
This case is similar to Commonwealth v. Marquis, except the incident happened after the Massachusetts legislature had amended its laws to pass the Bruen “shall-issue” format. Since Marquis’s arrest occurred post-Bruen, but before the legislative fix was fully implemented, the court found the law’s enforcement against him valid under the updated framework.
New Mexico: Supreme Court of New Mexico
Amdor v. Grisham: (Docket Number S-1-SC-39981)
The lawsuit challenged New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham’s Sept. 8, 2023, public health emergency order, which temporarily banned firearms in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and Bernalillo County. Plaintiffs, including Gareth Amdor and various gun rights advocates, argued that the order violated their Second Amendment rights under the U.S. Constitution and their rights under Article II, Section 6 of the New Mexico Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms.
The plaintiffs filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking an injunction against the order. On Oct. 3, 2023, U.S. District Judge Kea W. Riggs granted a temporary restraining order, finding the ban likely unconstitutional under the U.S. Supreme Court’s New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022) standard, which requires gun laws to be consistent with historical traditions of firearm regulation. The state appealed, and the Tenth Circuit certified a question to the New Mexico Supreme Court: whether the governor’s order exceeded her authority under state law, specifically the Public Health Emergency Response Act (PHERA).
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that Governor Grisham’s order was within her executive authority under PHERA, which allows broad measures to protect public health during emergencies. However, the court declined to fully resolve the constitutional questions, leaving that to the federal courts. In the meantime, the Tenth Circuit has not yet issued a final ruling on the appeal as of March 17, 2025, leaving the federal case ongoing.
Oregon: Oregon Court of Appeals (Case No. A183242)
Arnold v. Kotek is a lawsuit challenging Oregon’s Ballot Measure 114 (BM 114), a gun control initiative approved by voters in November 2022. The plaintiffs filed the case against Oregon Governor Tina Kotek, arguing that BM 114 violates Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution, which guarantees the right to bear arms. They also requested preliminary injunctive relief, which the trial court granted in two orders on Dec. 8 and 13, 2022, temporarily blocking BM 114’s enforcement.
The state sought a writ of mandamus from the Oregon Supreme Court to vacate the trial court’s orders. Still, on Feb. 8, 2023, the Supreme Court declined to intervene, leaving the appeal process intact.
On Wednesday, March 12, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the lower court decision. The three-judge panel unanimously held that the provisions of BM 114 do not violate the Oregon state constitution.
