Pennsylvania invokes tradition of banning discharge in urban areas to support young adult carry ban
HARRISBURG, Pa. — Pennsylvania has been shifting blue on gun control measures for the better part of a decade and the most recent position by the state in a lawsuit against its ban on carry for young adults is a bold misinterpretation of the Constitution and recent Supreme Court precedent.
The defendants in Brown v. Paris, the State Police Commissioner, filed an August 14 brief in which it put forth three remarkable and unbelievable arguments:
- Because the state historically banned gunfire within city limits, it can also ban young adults from carrying in the same place, because “firearms are carried so they may be discharged, if necessary.”
- The ban on concealed carry is presumably constitutional because “the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania generally permits open carry of firearms without a license.”
- The ban on carrying firearms in a vehicle by young adults is constitutional because “carrying a firearm in a vehicle is a form of concealed carry.”
As of yet, the Supreme Court has shown no appetite to address cases challenging Second Amendment infringements for young adults aged 18 to 21. This case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania before Judge Julia K. Munley.
Maryland argues principally for a complete firearms ban in latest filing
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — For decades, gun rights activists have been warning that the logical end of the pro-gun control agenda is a complete firearms ban, and the State of Maryland’s latest briefing essentially proves that to be true.
The state’s 48-page motion, filed on August 14, in Bathras v. Moore (formerly NRA v. Moore, and updated when a new plaintiff joined the case) argues against the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction to stay Maryland’s recently enacted pistol ban.
The state’s law (SB 334) manufactures out of thin air a new class of firearms it calls “machinegun convertible pistols” (essentially any legal pistol that is illegally modified), and employing this hyperbolic term, the brief asserts, “Despite almost a century of strict regulation, machineguns again litter the streets of America.”
The state argues that “pistols that are easily convertible to machineguns are excessively dangerous weapons not covered by the Second Amendment.”
The vast majority of modern pistols employ a design the state is trying to ban, acting as a de facto ban and leading to the conclusion that progressives do indeed want to ban all firearms. Maryland already bans most semi-automatic, AR-15-style rifles, with exceptions for law enforcement, of course.
Challenge against New York City’s stun gun ban distributed for Supreme Court conference
NEW YORK — On August 18, a major case challenging New York City’s ban on stun guns was distributed for conference before the Supreme Court on September 28. “Distributed for conference” means the Supreme Court clerks have officially put the case on the justices’ agenda for review, but is not a guarantee the case will be heard.
The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition-backed suit dates to 2021. The appeal to the Supreme Court comes after an April 2026 decision in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that upheld a district court’s decision in favor of New York City’s ban.
Strangely, the Second Circuit opinion stated:
Specifically, the court concluded that Plaintiffs “failed to provide any evidence that stun guns and tasers are in common use” and therefore, on the summary judgment record before it, “no reasonable jury could return a verdict that stun guns and tasers are presumptively protected by the Second Amendment.” We agree.
In the 2016 Caetano v. Massachusetts case, the Supreme Court issued a short, unanimous per curiam opinion vacating a Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision that had upheld a total ban on stun guns.
In a concurring opinion, Justice Alito (joined by Justice Thomas), pointed to evidence that hundreds of thousands of stun guns had been sold to private citizens and “are widely owned and accepted as a legitimate means of self-defense across the country.”
Department of Interior opens up land for fishing and hunting in “largest expansion” in its history
WASHINGTON — “Hunting is a healthy, traditional recreational use of renewable natural resources deeply rooted in America’s heritage, and it can be an important wildlife management tool,” states the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services website, a division that falls under the Department of the Interior (DOI).
In that spirit, on August 13, the DOI announced the “largest expansion of hunting and sport fishing opportunities in the history of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,” with a final rule that delivers 1,488 new hunting and sport fishing opportunities across 32 states, including 111 refuges.
The announcement states that with the implementation of the final rule, “more than 92 million acres, or over 95% of National Wildlife Refuge System lands, are available for hunting.”
Similarly, in April of this year, 25 House Republicans wrote a joint letter to Secretary of the Army Daniel P. Driscoll, to request that the U.S. Army end its gun ban on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers-managed land. The secretary never publicly responded to the inquiry, and so far the gun-ban policy has not changed.
Virgin Islands lawyers goof up again in case challenging permitting delays
CHARLOTTE AMALIE, U.S. Virgin Islands — On August 18, United States District Judge Evan Rikhye wrote a very disciplined and polite order essentially educating Virgin Islands lawyers in certain matters of legal proceedings.
Judge Rikhye denied a motion to strike by the VI because “motions to strike are not properly directed at documents that are not “pleadings” as defined by Rule 7(a).”
Or, in layman’s terms, the VI government asked the court to strike, or throw out, recent DOJ court filings and the judge said, that’s not permissible in this context.
The VI government previously missed filing deadlines, ignored briefing schedules, and generally disrespected the court’s proper procedures.
The December 2025 affirmative lawsuit filed by the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division challenges the VI’s unconstitutional permitting scheme.
California 3D printer ban on a ventilator
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — In February of this year, California tried to ban 3D printers on the basis of technology that didn’t yet exist, and now that law may be the cause of its own demise.
AB-2047 was an attempt to ban 3D printers capable of printing firearms, and required “firearm blocking technology,” a fanciful requirement that existed only on paper (much like the favored gun control theory of micro-stamping).
As such, the bill required quarterly checks by the state Department of Justice, starting in July 2027, on whether the technology existed or was feasible, and if none existed by July 1, 2029, the core requirements of the ban become effectively unenforceable.
This week, a district court ruling found that the ATF’s “frame and receiver” rule, which kept Americans from making or servicing their own firearms at home, was unconstitutional. All legal roads seem to lead to the conclusion that states and the federal government cannot ban Americans from making their own firearms, regardless of the technology at play.
