Second Amendment cases moving through the courts today will establish the parameters of the right to keep and bear arms for future generations. The Second Amendment Law Center is now at the front lines of those historic battles in states across the country. Below is a list of the lawsuits in which the 2ALC legal team has filed amicus briefs on behalf of various strategic partners who support 2ALC’s mission.
Case Name: Eva Marie Gardner v. Maryland
Case Number: 25-5961
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 12/11/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of Petitioners. Petitioner Eva Marie Gardner challenges her prosecution under Maryland law for carrying a loaded handgun without a Maryland permit after an incident in Montgomery County, Maryland, where she drew her firearm in self-defense following an alleged assault. At the time, Gardner possessed a valid Virginia concealed carry permit, but Maryland refuses to recognize carry permits issued by other states. She was arrested, charged, and ultimately convicted under Maryland’s unlicensed carry prohibition. Gardner’s appeals through the Maryland courts were unsuccessful. She has now filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court raising constitutional claims under the Second Amendment, arguing that Maryland’s refusal to recognize her out-of-state permit and its prohibition on carrying a handgun as an interstate traveler violate the Constitution, including the Second Amendment as interpreted in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and potentially aspects of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. The Supreme Court has distributed the petition for conference and invited a response from Maryland, and the case has attracted amicus support from gun-rights groups urging review to address nationwide permit reciprocity and carry rights across state lines.
Case Name: Schoenthal v. Raoul
Case Number: 25-541
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 12/4/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of Petitioners. Schoenthal asks the Supreme Court to review the Seventh Circuit’s decision upholding Illinois’s ban on carrying firearms on public transportation—a ruling that relies on modern policy concerns and thin historical analogues rather than text, history, and tradition. The Second Amendment Law Center’s brief explains that the Seventh Circuit’s decision is part of a broader trend in which lower courts have improperly expanded the “sensitive places” exception to prohibit public carry in nearly every ordinary setting, effectively reducing the right to bear arms to sparsely populated areas. Joined by the Second Amendment Defense & Education Coalition, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, Guns Save Life, and California Rifle & Pistol Association, 2ALC urges the Supreme Court to grant certiorari and reaffirm that “sensitive places” is a narrow exception—not an all-purpose justification for sweeping carry restrictions. If cert is granted, this case will have significant implications for 2ALC-supported challenges across the country involving overbroad sensitive-place designations.
Case Name: Wolford v. Lopez
Case Number: 24-1046
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 11/24/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of Petitioners. In Wolford, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision upholding Hawaii’s restriction on carrying firearms on private property open to the public (colloquially known as the Vampire Rule). Petitioners argue that Hawaii’s regime is incompatible with Supreme Court Second Amendment jurisprudence because it effectively nullifies the right to bear arms in vast swaths of public space without any grounding in this Nation’s historical tradition. The Second Amendment Law Center’s brief explains that the Ninth Circuit (like other lower courts) improperly relied on modern policy arguments and “expert” opinions rather than the textual and historical analysis that Heller and Bruen require. Along with the California Rifle & Pistol Association and historian Clayton Cramer, 2ALC urges the Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit decision and clarify when, if ever, it is appropriate to engage in a “battle of the experts” in Second Amendment litigation. This case is likely to have a significant impact on other 2ALC-supported cases, including May v. Bonta, which also involves a version of the Vampire Rule challenged in Wolford.
Document Description: Brief of Amici Curiae Clayton Cramer, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and Second Amendment Law Center In Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants
Case Name: VT. Fed. of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. Et Al.,
Case Number: 24-2026-cv
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Date Filed: 11/13/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. This case asks the Second Circuit to overturn the district court’s decision upholding Vermont’s firearm-purchase waiting period. Plaintiffs argue that the delay violates the Second Amendment because acquiring firearms is conduct protected by the plain text of the right to keep and bear arms, and no historical tradition supports mandatory waiting periods. The Second Amendment Law Center’s brief urges the Court to reverse, explaining that the district court improperly created a two-step “plain text” threshold inquiry, relied on irrelevant historical analogues, and ignored extensive historical evidence showing that firearms were commonly acquired immediately in both the Founding era and the 19th century. Amici contend that waiting-period laws are a modern invention with no historical pedigree, and that Bruen and Rahimi require the invalidation of such regulations. Because waiting periods burden the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right, the outcome of this case may have significant implications for similar laws in other jurisdictions.
Case Name: National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont
Case Number: 25-421
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 11/6/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of Petitioners. National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont asks the Supreme Court to review the Second Circuit’s decision upholding Connecticut’s bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The petitioners argue that these prohibitions violate the Second Amendment rights recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen. The amici—Second Amendment Law Center, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center, and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus—urge the Court to grant review to resolve deepening circuit splits and reaffirm that arms “in common use” for lawful purposes are constitutionally protected. If cert is granted, the outcome of this case will likely have nationwide implications for bans on so-called “assault weapons” and restrictions on magazine capacity.
Document Description: Brief of Amici Curiae Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and Second Amendment Law Center and in Support of Petitioners
Case Name: United States v. Harris
Case Number: 25-372
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 10/29/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of Petitioner. Harris v. United States asks the Supreme Court to review the Third Circuit’s decision upholding the federal ban on firearm possession by individuals who use marijuana, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). The petitioner argues that the law violates the Second Amendment as applied to otherwise law-abiding adults who occasionally and lawfully use cannabis under state law. The amici—Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Operation Blazing Sword–Pink Pistols, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center—urge the Court to grant review to resolve the circuit split over the constitutionality of § 922(g)(3) and reaffirm that historical tradition supports only temporary restrictions on carrying firearms while actively intoxicated, not blanket bans on possession by sober users of legal substances like marijuana.
Case Name: Knife Rights v. Bondi
Case Number: 24-10754
Court: Fifth Circuit Court of Appeal
Date Filed: 10/1/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. Knife Rights and associated plaintiffs challenged the Federal Switchblade Act’s prohibitions on interstate commerce and possession of “switchblade” knives under the Second Amendment, asserting that automatic knives qualify as “arms” protected by Bruen. They claimed standing by showing actual and threatened injury from enforcement of Sections 1242 and 1243. The district court dismissed or rejected portions of their claim, and on appeal the Fifth Circuit is now tasked with determining whether plaintiffs have standing and whether the statutory ban is unconstitutional under Bruen’s two-step framework.
Document Description: Brief of Amici Curiae Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants
Case Name: Knife Rights v. Bonta
Case Number: 24-5536
Court: Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal
Date Filed: 9/26/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of Plaintiffs-Appellants. The Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta is a federal case challenging California’s longstanding ban on switchblade (automatic) knives with blades two inches or longer. Knife Rights argues that the prohibition violates the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, which requires courts to assess whether a weapon is covered by the amendment’s text and whether restrictions are consistent with historical tradition. The district court upheld the ban, reasoning that switchblades are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment unless they are commonly used for self-defense, but Knife Rights contends this added an improper requirement. The case is now on appeal before the Ninth Circuit, with broad implications for how courts define “arms” beyond firearms.
Document Description: Brief of Amici Curiae Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants
Case Name: Duncan v. Bonta
Case Number: 25-198
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 9/12/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of Petitioners. Duncan v. Bonta is a case now seeking review by the United States Supreme Court. It challenges California’s ban on firearm magazines that hold more than ten rounds. The plaintiffs argue that the ban violates the Second Amendment and also raises takings concerns under the Constitution. The Ninth Circuit previously upheld the law, ruling that such magazines are not protected “arms” under the Second Amendment or, alternatively, that the restriction is consistent with historical traditions of regulating especially dangerous weapons. The Supreme Court is now being asked to decide whether the ban is constitutional, with the outcome likely to have nationwide implications for magazine-capacity laws.
Document Description: Brief of Amici Curiae Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc. in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants
Case Name: Rush v. United States
Case Number: 24-1259
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 8/28/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of granting certiorari of the Seventh Circuit decision upholding restrictions on short-barreled rifles under Miller, holding that because such guns have no documented militia use/are not useful in militia service, they can be banned. The brief explains that SBRs are indisputably “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment, and so any restrictions on them must comport with history and tradition. Because the 7COA failed to correctly answer this fundamental question, its Bruen analysis was doomed from the start, and the decision cannot stand. Further, the restriction at issue in Robinson, i.e., an onerous special tax on certain rifles based on their barrel length, has no distinctly similar historical laws to point to, and it too must fall.
The brief also points out that gun rights litigants stand little chance in circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, that are overtly hostile to the Second Amendment rights of Americans. And it argues that SCOTUS should step in to correct course with these errant circuits. In this case, SCOUTS should grant cert to at least confirm that when a firearm ban is at issue, the historical analysis must proceed because all firearms are at least “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment.
Document Description: Brief of Amici Curiae Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, and Second Amendment Law Center in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants
Case Name: Yukutake v. Lopez
Case Number: 21-16756
Court: United U.S. Court of Appeals
Date Filed: 8/25/2025
Description: Argues that the Ninth Circuit’s routine grant of en banc rehearing whenever Second Amendment advocates successfully challenge gun laws seriously undermines public confidence in the court system. Further argues that, regardless of the fact that en banc rehearing should not have been granted in the first place, the court should nonetheless take this opportunity to jettison its incorrect interest-balancing standard announced in B&L Productions, Inc. v. Newsom, which improperly revives a test rejected by the Supreme Court in Bruen. And finally, it argues that Hawaii’s laws clearly implicate the plain text of the Second Amendment and have not basis in historical tradition.
Document Description: Amicus Brief of Second Amendment Foundation, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., in Support of Petitioners
Case Name: Robinson, Jr. v. United States
Case Number: 25-5150
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 8/12/2025
Description: Amicus brief filed in support of granting certiorari of the Eleventh Circuit decision upholding restrictions on short-barreled rifles under Miller, holding that because such guns have no documented militia use/are not useful in militia service, they can be banned. Brief explains that SBRs are indisputably “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment, and so any restrictions on them must comport with history and tradition. Because 11COA failed to engage in a historical analysis at all, the decision cannot stand. Further, the restriction at issue in Robinson, i.e., an onerous special tax on certain rifles based on their barrel length, has no distinctly similar historical laws to point to, and it too must fall.
What’s more, even if Miller remains the relevant standard today, SBRs are demonstrably in regular use today in military roles. Indeed, they are the standard-issue rifle of our military, with standard M4 Rifles having barrels that are 14.5 inches long. Thus, to the extent Miller is still relevant at all, it supports Robinson’s arguments, and not the other way around.
The brief also points out that gun rights litigants stand little chance in circuits, including the Ninth Circuit, that are overtly hostile to the Second Amendment rights of Americans. And it argues that SCOTUS should step in to correct course with these errant circuits. In this case, SCOUTS should grant cert to at least confirm that when a firearm ban is at issue, the historical analysis must proceed because all firearms are at least “arms” under the plain text of the Second Amendment.
Document Description: Amicus Breif of Second Amendment Foundation, Second Amendment Law Center, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus in Support of Petitioner
Case Name: Wolford v. Lopez
Case Number: 24-1046
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 5/2/2025
Description: This is an amicus brief in support of a cert petition by challengers to Hawaii’s expansive “sensitive places” laws. The brief explains why the property default “vampire rule” is unconstitutional, and also discusses other errors the Ninth Circuit made that merit review.
Case Name: United States of America v. Tamori Morgan
Case Number: 24-3141
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Date Filed: 3/21/2025
Description: Criminal defendant charged with possession of a machine gun. Prevailed in the district court below because the government failed to make its historical case. Our brief argues that machine guns are at least "arms" and so a ban on them requires a historical analysis under Bruen. Because the government barely presented any history, the district court ruling should be affirmed.
Case Name: Antonyuk v. James
Case Number: 24-795
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Filed: 2/21/2025
Description: This is an amicus brief in support of a cert petition by challengers to New York’s expansive “sensitive places” laws. The brief recounts the “massive resistance” that has arisen in a handful of ant-ingun states since Bruen, comparing New York’s law to similar efforts in other states, including California. The brief also uses one of the designated “sensitive places,” places that serve alcohol, as a case study to show how the Second Circuit botched the Bruen analysis in at least four different ways. Finally, it argues that the Second Circuit’s reasoning is flawed because it ignores the reality that everyone who carries in modern-day New York is extensively vetted before getting a permit.
Case Name: United States of America v. Gabriel Cowan Metcalf
Case Number: 24-4818
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Filed: 12/6/2024
Case Name: Garry Matthews v. City of Los Angeles
Case Number: 23-3874
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Filed: 10/16/2024
Document Description: Brief of Amici Curiae California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, and Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus in Support of Appellant and Reversal
Description: This case concerns three Plaintiffs who are suing Los Angeles over what they allege are unconstitutional arrests for carrying a firearm without a permit, as the arrests happened before Bruen when the City was not issuing permits to regular citizens. As one of the Plaintiffs is a nonresident from Tennessee, our brief focused on the lack of any historical tradition to support requiring nonresidents to get a CCW permit from California before carrying in the state.
Case Name: David Snope v. Anthony Brown, Attorney General of Maryland
Case Number: 24-203
Court: United States Supreme Court
Date Filed: 9/23/2024
Description: Challenge to Maryland “Assault Weapon” Ban. Our amicus brief argued in support of Petitioners and for reversal of the Fourth Circuit’s En Banc ruling upholding Maryland’s ban on common rifles, pointing out that the Second Amendment has traditionally protected bearable arms commonly used by the military as well, so long as they are not only used by the military.
Case Name: United States of America v. Ayala
Case Number: 24-10462
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Date Filed: 9/23/2024
Description: Criminal defendant, a postal worker, charged with illegally carrying a firearm in a post office. Our amicus brief argued that there is no historical tradition supporting banning firearm carry in post offices, and the district court ruling in Ayala’s favor should be affirmed.
Case Name: Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Dean F. Donnell, Jr.
Case Number: SJC-13561
Court: Commonwealth of Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
Date Filed: 7/30/2024
Description: Donnell, a New Hampshire resident, was charged with carrying in Massachusetts without a permit issued by that state. Our amicus brief argued that there is no historical tradition of forcing visitors from other states to seek permission before exercising their right to carry.
Case Name: United States of America v. Allam
Case Number: 24-40065
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Date Filed: 7/19/2024
Document Description: Brief of Amici Curiae Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., California Rifle & Pistol Association, and Second Amendment Foundation in Support of Appellant and Reversal
Description: Allam was arrested while living out of his van while possessing a firearm, because he was parked near a school. Our amicus brief argued that the Gun Free School Zones Act is facially unconstitutional due to the lack of historical tradition of barring carry in large zones around a place, even if that place is deemed sensitive.
Case Name: Nguyen v. Bonta
Case Number: 24-2036
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Filed: 6/4/2024
Document Description: Amicus Brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, and Operation Blazing Sword-Pink Pistols in Support of Appellees and Affirmance
Description: Challenge to California’s limit of purchasing one firearm every 30 days. Our amicus brief argued that the State should be held to the “distinctly similar” standard, and that there is no history to support limiting firearm purchases in this way.
Case Name: United States v. Kittson
Case Number: 23-4132
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Filed: 5/17/2024
Document Description: Amicus Brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., and The Second Amendment Foundation in Support of Neither Party and Reversal or Remand
Description: Criminal case concerning machine gun possession. Our amicus brief argued in favor of neither party, instead focusing on the fact that the district court improperly skipped the Bruen analysis altogether. Whatever the history, machine guns are at least “arms” under the Second Amendment, so a full historical analysis is required.
Case Name: Antonyuk v. James
Case Number: 23-910
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Filed: 3/25/2024
Description: This was an amicus brief in support of a cert petition by challengers to New York’s expansive “sensitive places” laws. The Supreme Court ultimately remanded the case following its decision in Rahimi.
Case Name: Garland v. Cargill
Case Number: 23-976
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Filed: 1/26/2024
Description: This case concerned the bump stock ban. While it was not a Second Amendment challenge and instead concerned the Administrative Procedures Act and the scope of the ATF’s authority, our amicus brief reminded the Court of the implications for the Second Amendment if the ATF is allowed to so easily redefine what constitutes an illegal “machine gun”.
Case Name: Wolford v. Lopez
Case Number: 23-16164
Court: U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Filed: 11/9/2023
Description: This is a civil case challenging Hawaii’s expansive new “sensitive places” law that bans carry everywhere save for streets and sidewalks, as well as the few businesses willing to affirmatively allow carry. We explained how that law is unconstitutional and out of step with Bruen.
Case Name: Maryland Shall Issue, Inc. v. Montgomery County, Maryland
Case Number: 23-1719
Court: U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Date Filed: 8/23/2023
Description: This is a civil case challenging Montgomery County’s expansive new “sensitive places” law that bans carry in most public places. We explained how that law is unconstitutional and out of step with Bruen.
Case Name: Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, Inc. v. Delaware Department of Homeland Security
Case Number: 23-1641
Court: U. S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
Date Filed: 7/10/2023
Document Description: Amicus Brief of Gun Owners of America, Inc., Second Amendment Law Center, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc., Gun Owners of California, Second Amendment Defense & Education Coalition, Guns Save Life, Federal Firearms Licensees of Illinois, & Gun Owners Foundation
Description: Challenge to Delaware “Assault Weapon” Ban. Our amicus brief argued that the district court wrongly held that the relevant historical tradition does not justify the State’s ban on common firearms and magazines.
Case Name: Barnett v. Raoul
Case Number: 23-209
Court: U. S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Date Filed: 4/5/2023
Document Description: Amicus Brief of Second Amendment Law Center
Description: Challenge to Illinois “Assault Weapon” Ban. Our amicus brief argued that the appropriate time period to determine original public understanding of the Second Amendment is 1791, when the bill of rights was adopted.
Case Name: Junior Sports Magazines, Inc. v. Rob Bonta
Case Number: 22-56090
Court: U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Date Filed: 12/27/2022
Document Description: Amicus Brief of the Second Amendment Law Center, Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership, and Citizens' Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants
Description: Challenge to expansive California law banning advertising of firearms to minors, which had the effect of ending youth sports shooting programs (because they are possible through gun industry sponsorships). Our amicus brief explained how these restrictions violate the First Amendment.
Case Name: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen
Case Number: 20-843
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Filed: 7/20/2021
Document Description: Amicus Brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated and Second Amendment Law Center, Inc. in Support of Petitioners
Description: This was the first major Second Amendment case in the Supreme Court since McDonald. Our amicus brief discussed the plight of the Second Amendment under the interest balancing test lower courts had been applying, particularly in the Ninth Circuit, where every gun law was upheld.
Case Name: Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Grewal
Case Number: 20-1507
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Filed: 5/08/2021
Document Description: Amicus Brief of California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated, Gun Owners of California, and Second Amendment Law Center in Support of Petitioners
Description: Challenge to New Jersey ban on magazines over ten rounds, with challengers seeking Supreme Court review. Our amicus brief urged the Court to grant that review because the erosion of the Second Amendment in hostile Circuit Courts had gone on long enough. We invoked our own challenge to California’s similar law, Duncan v. Bonta.
Case Name: Caniglia v. Strom
Case Number: 20-157
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Date Filed: 1/14/2021
Document Description: Amicus Brief of Second Amendment Law Center, Inc., California Rifle & Pistol Association, and Gun Owners of California in Support of Petitioner
Description: This First Circuit case asked whether the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement extends to the home. Our amicus brief warned that applying the caretaking function to the home will be used as a pretext to conduct warrantless searches for firearms.
You can view additional Amicus Brief filings here.