The most important recent Second Amendment court cases are New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), United States v. Rahimi (2024), and Bondi v. Vanderstok (2025), with Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani set for Supreme Court decisions in the current term. Together these rulings scrapped the balancing test courts had used for a decade, replaced it with a history-based framework, and are now being used to challenge dozens of federal and state gun laws, with some already struck down and others headed for review.
Bruen and the New Test for Every Gun Law
The 2022 decision in Bruen did two things. It struck down New York’s requirement that concealed carry applicants show “proper cause” for a permit, and it threw out the two-step framework lower courts had been using to evaluate Second Amendment challenges. In its place, the Court installed what it called a “text, history, and tradition” test: if the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct, the government must prove that its regulation fits within the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.1Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn Inc v Bruen A law’s effectiveness at reducing crime no longer matters to the analysis.
The Court added that a modern law does not need a “historical twin” from the founding era. The government can point to a well-established tradition of analogous regulation. Figuring out what counts as a sufficient analogy is where most current litigation lives.
The immediate practical effect was the end of “may-issue” concealed carry. At the time of the ruling, 43 states already operated “shall-issue” systems where authorities must grant a permit to anyone who meets objective criteria.1Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn Inc v Bruen The remaining states had to overhaul their permitting regimes. States can still require permits, mandate training, and impose objective disqualifiers like felony convictions or mental health adjudications. What they can no longer do is give a licensing official the power to decide that your reason for wanting to carry is not good enough.
Rahimi: Domestic Violence Restraining Orders Survive
The first major test of the new framework came in June 2024. Federal law under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) makes it a crime for someone subject to a qualifying domestic violence restraining order to possess a firearm.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 922 – Unlawful Acts Zackey Rahimi argued the law was unconstitutional because no precise historical analogue existed for disarming people accused of domestic violence in the founding era.
The Supreme Court upheld the law 8-1. While the specific concept of a domestic violence restraining order is modern, founding-era governments had a well-established practice of disarming individuals considered dangerous to others, and that tradition provided a sufficient historical analogue.3Supreme Court of the United States. United States v Rahimi Rahimi also clarified the Bruen test itself: the government needs to show its law fits a principle with historical roots, not that someone in 1791 passed the same statute.
Not every protective order triggers the federal ban. The statute requires that the order was issued after a hearing where the person received actual notice and a chance to participate, that it restrain the person from threatening or harassing an intimate partner or their child, and that it either include a finding of credible threat to physical safety or explicitly prohibit the use of force.3Supreme Court of the United States. United States v Rahimi Emergency or ex parte orders issued without notice do not qualify under the federal statute. State laws may be broader.
Vanderstok: Ghost Guns Fall Under Federal Regulation
In March 2025, the Supreme Court decided Bondi v. Vanderstok, which addressed whether the ATF could regulate weapon parts kits and partially completed firearm frames and receivers. These products, often sold as “ghost guns,” let buyers assemble functional firearms at home without serial numbers or background checks.
The Court held that the ATF’s 2022 regulation was not facially inconsistent with the Gun Control Act. At least some weapon parts kits qualify as a “weapon” because they can be readily converted into a functioning firearm. The Court pointed to kits like Polymer80’s “Buy Build Shoot” package, which contains every component needed and can be assembled in roughly 20 minutes with common tools.4Supreme Court of the United States. Bondi v Vanderstok
The Court reached the same conclusion for partially complete frames and receivers. Terms like “frame” and “receiver” can describe objects that are not quite finished, especially when completing them takes only minutes and basic tools. The ATF had interpreted the statute to reach some unfinished frames and receivers for decades, and the challengers themselves did not object to that longstanding practice.4Supreme Court of the United States. Bondi v Vanderstok
Manufacturers and sellers of these kits must now comply with the same federal requirements as traditional firearm manufacturers: serialization, background checks, and recordkeeping.
Cases Pending Before the Supreme Court
Wolford v. Lopez: Carrying on Private Property
Bruen acknowledged that historical tradition supports banning guns in certain “sensitive places,” specifically referencing schools, government buildings, legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses.1Supreme Court of the United States. New York State Rifle and Pistol Assn Inc v Bruen Several states have gone further. Hawaii’s Act 52, passed in 2023, treats all private property open to the public as a gun-free zone by default, making concealed carry in stores, restaurants, and parking lots a misdemeanor unless the owner has posted signs or otherwise given explicit permission.
The Supreme Court agreed in October 2025 to hear Wolford v. Lopez. The core question is whether a state can flip the presumption so that carrying is prohibited on private property unless the owner opts in. Challengers argue this effectively strips concealed carry permits of practical value. Hawaii argues property owners have always had the right to exclude firearms, and the statute simply codifies that authority. The ruling will define how far states can push the “sensitive places” concept.
United States v. Hemani: Marijuana Users and Gun Possession
Federal law prohibits firearm possession by any “unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance,” which includes marijuana regardless of state legalization.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 922 – Unlawful Acts The Supreme Court has agreed to hear United States v. Hemani, which asks whether the ban is constitutional as applied to a regular marijuana user who is not impaired at the time of possession. The Fifth Circuit found no historical basis for disarming a sober person who happens to use a controlled substance. The outcome could affect millions of gun owners in states where marijuana is legal.
Felon-in-Possession Challenges
Federal law permanently bars anyone convicted of a felony from possessing firearms under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), regardless of whether the crime involved violence.2Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 18 US Code 922 – Unlawful Acts As of early 2026, the Supreme Court has received multiple petitions challenging this ban as applied to people with non-violent convictions, including drug offenses and property crimes, with several scheduled for conference discussion in March 2026. Rahimi emphasized that the historical tradition supported disarming people found to be dangerous, which opens the question of whether someone convicted of tax fraud or marijuana possession qualifies. Lower courts have split, and the Supreme Court has so far denied certiorari in felon-in-possession challenges from the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits.
Active Challenges in the Lower Courts
Assault Weapon and Magazine Bans
Roughly 15 states and the District of Columbia currently prohibit magazines holding more than a set number of rounds, with most using 10 rounds as the threshold. These laws, plus broader bans on specific firearm models or features, are under challenge in nearly every jurisdiction that has them.
Challengers rely on Heller‘s “common use” test, arguing that AR-15-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines numbering in the tens of millions are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” and therefore protected.5Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center. District of Columbia v Heller, 554 US 570 (2008) States defending these bans argue the firearms qualify as “dangerous and unusual” weapons, a category Heller acknowledged could be regulated. Circuit courts have reached conflicting conclusions, which is the kind of split that typically prompts Supreme Court review.
Age Restrictions on 18-to-20-Year-Olds
Federal law has prohibited licensed dealers from selling handguns to anyone under 21 since the Gun Control Act of 1968. Results so far have been mixed. The Fifth Circuit struck down the federal ban on dealer sales of handguns to 18-to-20-year-olds. The Third Circuit invalidated a Pennsylvania restriction on 18-to-20-year-olds carrying during a state of emergency, and an Eighth Circuit panel struck down a similar Minnesota ban. The Eleventh Circuit, going the other way, upheld a Florida ban on gun sales to those under 21. The circuit split makes this a strong candidate for Supreme Court review.
Why These Laws Still Apply While Cases Are Pending
A gun law can remain enforceable even after a court has declared it unconstitutional. When a lower court strikes down a law, the government can ask a higher court to pause that ruling through an appellate stay. If granted, the law stays on the books, and violating it still carries criminal penalties. The Supreme Court used this mechanism in the ghost gun litigation, staying a district court’s order that had vacated the ATF’s serialization rule nationwide and keeping the rule in force throughout the appeals process.
For gun owners, the practical point is simple. Until a case reaches final resolution and any stays are lifted, the challenged law still applies to you. A favorable district court ruling in another circuit does not give you a defense if your state’s law has not been specifically enjoined. Track the litigation to see where the law is headed, but follow the law as it currently stands in your jurisdiction.