Coalition of gun rights groups files for summary judgment in NFA challenge
Roberts v. ATF (filed on February 26) is one of three main lawsuits challenging the National Firearms Act of 1934, and on April 24, the coalition of gun rights groups involved filed a motion to ask the court to issue a declaratory judgment that the NFA is unconstitutional.
…without a tax as a foundation, the NFA’s registration provisions as applied to non-taxed NFA firearms are neither a tax themselves nor necessary and proper to levying a tax and are, therefore, unjustifiable as an exercise of Congress’s taxing power.
Because the tax can be reinstated via legislation in the next administration (and anti-gun legislators have vowed to do so at an inflation-adjusted price of about $4,000), it’s critical to strike down the act itself, which still maintains a registry.
Michigan legislators attack federally licensed firearms stores
Michigan Democrats are launching a backdoor attack on gun ownership aimed at kneecapping FFLs. On March 18, 2026, Senator Stephanie Chang introduced Senate Bill 853 and companion Senate Bill 854.
The measure would require retail firearm dealers to obtain a separate state license for each business location at a cost of a $250 initial fee with a $200 annual renewal. It also imposes onerous and costly operational, security, and compliance requirements along with mandatory annual training and testing. One example: keeping all security footage for six years.
As of this writing, it has been referred to the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety.
President Trump survives another assassination attempt at White House Correspondents’ Dinner
On April 25, 31-year-old California resident Cole Tomas Allen burst through security at the White House Correspondents’ Association Dinner in Washington, D.C., and engaged in gunfire with law enforcement/Secret Service in an attempt to assassinate President Trump, who was unharmed.
Cole was apprehended by law enforcement after firing and hitting one law enforcement officer in his ballistic vest with a shotgun. The officer returned fire, although Cole was not hit by a single one of the multiple rounds fired at him. Cole was arraigned by the Department of Justice on April 27, 2026, and charged with three federal felonies. Cole likely also violated other laws that include:
- D.C.’s bans on unregistered firearms
- open/concealed carry without a permit
- violation of federal laws on interstate transport
- and assault on a federal law enforcement officer
New York argues that modern body armor is ‘dangerous and unusual’ in case challenging the state’s ban
In a recent cross-motion to a 2024 lawsuit challenging New York State’s ban on body armor, the state made some wild arguments, including the assertion that modern ballistic body armor is not an “arm” protected by the Second Amendment.
The 40-page reply brief argues that, “at most, body armor is better understood as a tactical accessory to firearms,” but then goes on to characterize it as, “a ‘dangerous and unusual’ tactical asset: in the hands of civilians…” connecting it to the “racist mass shooting at the Tops Supermarket.”
As the piece de resistance, the state claims body armor is scary: “Just as wearing armor frightened citizens under ancient common law, modern ballistic vests continue to signal potential mass violence, triggering panic and lockdowns.”
Maryland Supreme Court returns decision addressing firearms preemption laws in Montgomery County
In 2021-2022, Montgomery County, Maryland, expanded its laws limiting the carry of firearms (even by permit-holders) in or within 100 yards of a “place of public assembly” and added regulations on “ghost guns.”
Gun-rights groups sued the county. The case worked its way from the circuit court to the appellate court and then to the Maryland Supreme Court, which issued a mixed decision on April 28, 2026.
The Supreme Court affirmed and reversed in part. It held that state preemption policies do not prevent charter counties like Montgomery from regulating firearms with respect to minors, law enforcement officials, and within 100 yards of or in certain public places (parks, places of worship, schools, libraries, courthouses, legislative assemblies, recreational facilities, multipurpose exhibition facilities, and polling places).
However, it ruled that at least part of the county’s expanded ordinance limiting carry was invalid, writing that “possession of firearms within 100 yards of or in a place of public assembly is not a local law to the extent it now encompasses carry on public highways by individuals with state-issued handgun wear-and-carry permits.”
The court also held that the county exceeded its authority when it included hospitals, community health centers, long-term facilities, childcare facilities, government buildings (as defined), and gatherings of individuals.
Finally, the court stated that certain firearms regulations (including those applying to ghost guns) did not qualify as an illegal “taking” because unenforceable laws cannot constitute a permanent taking.
It further held that the county’s regulation of ghost guns was preempted by state law “to the extent it includes firearms that have been serialized in compliance with federal and state law.” The court vacated the appellate court’s opinion and remanded with specific instructions to create new, tailored declaratory and injunctive relief consistent with the opinion.
Second Circuit hears oral arguments in case challenging Vermont’s 72-hour waiting period
On April 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments in Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs v. Birmingham, which challenges Vermont’s law requiring a 72-hour waiting period to take possession of a firearm after a completed background check, also known as a “cooling off” period.
SAF posted its analysis of the oral arguments in a thread.
The case is on appeal from the district court, which denied a preliminary injunction in July 2024. The original complaint was filed in December of 2023.
Numerous gun rights groups joined the amicus filings, including Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and the National Rifle Association.
Supreme Court continues re-listing 2A cases
The Supreme Court has one of the largest batches of Second Amendment-related cases in front of it since Bruen was decided in 2022. It continues to relist these cases for future conferences, and frankly, nobody has any true insight into its methodology. All we know for certain is that the court likes to see “ripe” cases that are not in an interlocutory posture, and looks for splits among the circuit courts on issues that need a higher resolution. Justice Kavanaugh stated in 2025, “…this court should and presumably will address the AR-15 issue soon, in the next term or two.”
The top five 2A cases we are watching are:
- Relisted 13 times – Duncan v. Bonta (No. 25-198): Challenges California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds under the Second Amendment (plus a Takings Clause claim).
- Relisted 14 times – Gator’s Custom Guns Inc. v. Washington (No. 25-153): Challenges Washington’s ban on manufacturing/selling magazines over 10 rounds as protected “arms” under the Second Amendment.
- Relisted 13 times – Viramontes v. Cook County (No. 25-238): Challenges Illinois/Cook County’s ban on AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles under the Second Amendment.
- Relisted eight times – National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont (No. 25-421): Challenges Connecticut’s ban on AR-15-style rifles and magazines over 10 rounds under the Second Amendment
- Relisted eight times – Grant v. Higgins (No. 25-566): Challenges Connecticut’s “assault weapons” ban (companion to Lamont).
