Supreme Court denies cert in a case addressing felony firearms possession
WASHINGTON — On June 29, the Supreme Court denied a motion requesting that it hear a case about a convicted drug dealer having possession of a firearm in his home.
We covered the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Mitchell, which the Supreme Court is letting stand, a narrow ruling that is as-applied to the defendant in this case.
However, the Supreme Court’s denial is not necessarily negative given its recent landmark decision in United States v. Hemani, affirming limits on the drug-user ban, which we covered in detail.
ATF rule no longer requires notice for traveling with certain NFA items
WASHINGTON — The ATF is continuing to revise, post for comment, and implement the package of rules announced during its April 29 press conference to modernize and reform gun-related administrative issues.
In its latest notice of proposed rulemaking announced on X on June 29, the ATF would roll back the requirement to give notice when transporting registered NFA firearms across state lines (Form 5320.20 requirements), creating a “short-term” window of 365 days or less in which no communication is needed, as well as a longer-term window for extended travel or relocation.
The rule is available for comment in the Federal Register until August 6, 2026.
Briefings continue in Roberts v. ATF, a challenge to the taxing provision of the National Firearms Act
The National Firearms Act of 1934 hangs like a millstone around the neck of gun owners. But it’s not all bad news. Interestingly, as ATF v. Roberts (of three or four major cases to challenge the act) works its way through the system, it’s worth noting that it is a legal challenge primarily aimed at Congress’s power to lay and collect taxes, the very premise upon which the gun control measure was passed.
The recent June 24 brief in this case from gun rights groups lays out that very fact:
…a primary sponsor of the bill expressly disclaimed that the NFA provisions challenged here were premised on any power but the taxing power, explaining that the Act ‘follows the theory of taxation all the way through.’
We remain optimistic for the gun owner community, in that with the $200 tax stamp repealed, the act has little tie to its original purpose. As a reminder, the case was brought in February of 2026, and plaintiffs filed for summary judgment in April of 2026. This is also a case in which the DOJ is aggressively defending gun control, as we covered.
“The National Firearms Act is a relic of a darker era and an authoritarian scheme without a constitutional foundation. The federal government cannot use a dead tax scheme as an excuse to maintain a registry and regulatory regime for constitutionally protected arms, period. Our Constitution does not allow the government to put fundamental rights behind a paywall designed to make the instruments of liberty expensive and less accessible to the very people who have a right to them,” said FPC President Brandon Combs, in an email statement.
Florida appeals court strikes down age-based carry restrictions for young adults under 21
In a June 17 decision, a Florida appeals court asked and succinctly answered an important constitutional question:
Can law-abiding adults, aged 18 to 20, be prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights to self-defense available to other law-abiding adults? The plain text of the Constitution and our country’s history and traditions say no.
A three-judge panel in Eubanks v. State of Florida, decided unanimously in an 18-page opinion that Florida Statute Section 790.06(2)(b), which requires applicants to be 21 years of age or older to obtain a concealed weapons or firearms license, is facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment as applied to law-abiding adults aged 18 to 20.
Given Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier’s strong pro-2A positions, including in other recent 2A-related cases, it seems unlikely that the state will appeal.
ATF’s new rule; same as the old rule?
WASHINGTON — If you are a regular reader of News2A you will have heard of the Biden-era “Engaged in the business” rule which attempted to redefine what a firearms “dealer” is. On June 15, a district court vacated that rule, meaning it was ruled unconstitutional and enforceable. However, a new ATF rule proposed to replace it keeps many of the same problematic elements, according to Gun Owners of America.
“The agency continues to push the idea that intent alone can be enough evidence to prosecute law-abiding gun owners as illegal firearms traffickers, despite the court’s ruling and the clear limits Congress placed in law.”
This rule deserves comment from the public, and you can do so by visiting the Federal Register and leaving one of your own. The deadline is August 4. If you want assistance with creating a comment, GOA has created a template comment for you which you can access here.
California extends firearms carry license by one year in new measure
SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Even as it welcomes a lawsuit from the Department of Justice over its Glock firearm ban, the state of California curiously threw residents the smallest of bones, by signing a measure that extends the life of a concealed or open carry permit from two years to three years.
On June 30, Governor Gavin Newsom signed Assembly Bill 1948 into law. As usual, the measure provides additional liberties for some law enforcement officers who may enjoy a permit duration of four years.
Wolford decision impacting challenges against the NFA
The fallout from the Supreme Court’s June decision in Wolford continues to have an impact on other cases around the country, including one of the main challenges to the National Firearms Act, Brown v. ATF.
On July 1, the district court hearing this case (which was filed on August 1, 2025) issued an order rescheduling oral arguments to August 10, with directions to provide briefings that address the Wolford decision, which has “potential implications for this case,” according to the court order.
Specifically, the court asked parties to address whether the Eighth Circuit’s view of Bruen’s first step (plain text of the Second Amendment) aligns with Wolford’s emphasis on the literal language regarding “keep[ing]” (possession) and “bear[ing]” (carrying) arms.
Plaintiffs’ brief is due July 13, while defendants’ is due July 27.
Defendants in Virgin Islands case slow-walking their responses – irate judge demands answers
In December of 2025, the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department sued the Virgin Islands over its unconstitutional firearms permitting delays.
On June 30, the court overseeing this case expressed its dissatisfaction with the Virgin Islands, the defendants in this case, and their responsiveness, issuing an order to show cause for those delays:
Defendants shall show cause in writing no later than Monday, July 6, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. as to why counsel should not be sanctioned for failure to timely file a response to the United States Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The Virgin Islands is part of the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and an outcome here could impact the Third Circuit’s decisions in cases addressing elements of New Jersey’s permitting schemes as well.
SCOTUS’s decision to hear AR-15 case puts other cases on hold
This week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the first ever “assault weapons” ban case addressing AR-15 style rifles some time in the next term which begins in October and goes into next year.
As a result, other inferior courts that are sitting on cases addressing similar subjects have decided to wait and see the outcome before giving their rulings, an expected, but frustrating development for gun owners, who have already seen cases dragged out for years.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order staying (or pausing) one of those cases this week, on July 1. Miller v. Bonta is a federal lawsuit filed in 2019 challenging California’s “assault weapons” ban. It was brought by Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, San Diego County Gun Owners, California Gun Rights Foundation, and individual gun owners.
Gun rights groups bring lawsuit against Denver over “assault weapons” ban
DENVER — Following on the heels of the Justice Department’s lawsuit against the city of Denver in May over its “assault weapons” ban, gun rights groups have teamed up with individual plaintiffs with a suit of their own.
The coalition filed Elliot v. City and County of Denver on June 20, addressing the city’s “prohibition on carrying, storing, keeping, manufacturing, selling, or otherwise possessing many common firearms – tendentiously labeled ‘[a]ssault weapon[s].'”
The lawsuit was brought by three individuals along with Firearms Policy Coalition and the Colorado State Shooting Association. We expect to see more lawsuits filed addressing “assault weapons” bans given the Supreme Court’s recent decision to hear a case on the matter in the coming term.
ATF proposed rule would ease restrictions on “non-over-the-counter” transactions
WASHINGTON — In a July 2 notification on X, the ATF announced a proposed rule that would make firearms transactions easier and less burdensome for same-state residents conducting “non-over-the-counter” transactions.
“Non-over-the-counter” (NOTC) simply means the buyer doesn’t come to the store in person, a process that has been allowed for a long time in limited situations, but with strict rules. The new proposed rule, open for comment until August 6, would expand this ability even for normal sales by using remote ID verification, allowing FFLs to ship a firearm directly to someone’s home.
DOJ’s Civil Rights Division moving quickly in lawsuit against California’s Glock ban
Ms. Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division just filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (TRO) in its June lawsuit challenging California’s Glock pistol ban.
The July 1 motion explains why a TRO is needed:
This brief indeed will be brief because this is an exceedingly simple case. Handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society” for self-defense. Therefore, a “prohibition of their use is invalid.” Id. at 629. Glock handguns are the most popular handguns in America. Penal Code Section 27595(a) (the “Glock Ban”) bans California citizens from acquiring those handguns, and all similar cruciform-trigger-bar handguns, from licensed dealers. The Glock Ban is a flagrant violation of the Second Amendment and merits immediate enjoinder.
