The fight to reclaim our Second Amendment rights, in the states that have enacted laws infringing them, is playing out through a series of skirmishes and battles in our state and federal courts.
Currently, there are major cases pending in the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeals at the federal level and there are now five key cases before the Supreme Court, requesting grants of writs of certiorari. As of this writing, this is where things stand:
Second Circuit Court of Appeals - Consolidated Illinois AWB/Mag Ban Cases
This is a major set of cases covering the banning of so-called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines (i.e., those that can hold more than the government-sanctioned, arbitrary limit), which were consolidated for trial in the District Court for Southern Illinois. After a four-day bench trial, Judge Stephen McGlynn found them to be unconstitutional. An appeal of that decision was subsequently heard before a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago, back on September 17, 2025. No decision has been published as of yet. The U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief in support of upholding the lower court's ruling in this case and was granted permission to argue that position during the appellate hearing.
Third Circuit Court of Appeals - New Jersey AWB/Mag Ban Case
In Cheeseman v. Platkin, a case challenging New Jersey’s version of an “assault weapons” ban, Judge Peter Sheridan made his biases clear early on, when he stated, “It is hard to accept the Supreme Court's pronouncements that certain firearms policy choices are "off the table" when frequently, radical individuals possess and use these same firearms for evil purposes.” He went on to state, however, that he was bound by stare decisis, i.e., the legal doctrine of following the precedent of established Supreme Court decisions. The judge then proceeded to go through a series of leaps and twists of logic to reach a final decision on July 30, 2024—a decision that managed to leave both sides very unhappy.
Specifically, Judge Sheridan narrowed the scope of his decision on “assault weapons” to just the AR-15, stating that the plaintiffs and the defendants had focused on that platform and not really addressed others covered by the New Jersey law. He referred to the portion of the law referencing the AR-15 as the “AR-15 Provision.”
In the stated decision, “The question before the Court therefore concerns N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:39-l(w)(l)'s inclusion of the Colt AR-15 in its enumerated list of "assault firearms" (hereinafter, the "AR-15 Provision"). More precisely, the question is whether the possession of the AR-15 for use within the home for self-defense is unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.” He then went on to find “For the reasons enumerated below, the AR-15 Provision is unconstitutional. Accordingly, the breadth of this decision is limited by the fact that the remainder of the Assault Firearms Law stands since it has not been challenged.”
WOW! He basically said the ban on AR-15s is unconstitutional. However, the rest of his decision went on to recognize that AR-15-style rifles are made by a number of other companies not listed in the lawsuit, and thus implied his decision was limited to Colt AR-15 rifles, since he had not been provided with enough information about other firearms, like the CAR-15 series. So, is your AR-15 only legal if it is specifically branded as a Colt AR-15? No one can really tell.
Bottom line, the judge declared the ban on Colt AR-15s to be unconstitutional, upheld the ban on everything else covered by the New Jersey law and seemingly left other types of AR-15 platforms somewhere in legal Never Never Land.
He then went on to uphold the New Jersey ban on magazines, which can hold more than 10 rounds, citing binding precedent from previous decisions within the Third Circuit.
Both sides went on to appeal this decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was held before a three-judge panel in July 2025, but before a decision was published, the Third Circuit decided, sua sponte, to take the case en banc and re-hear it before the entire bench of the Third Circuit. That en banc hearing was held on October 15, 2025, and we are still waiting on that decision. This pending decision, at least near term, is the most important one to watch, particularly for those of us who live within the jurisdiction of the Third Circuit, which includes New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania, as it will become precedent for those states.
Supreme Court – Mag Ban and Assault Weapons Cases
The cases below are under active petitions for certiorari to the United States Supreme Court, meaning the court has been formally asked to review them. They have been conferenced on multiple occasions thus far during the current term, but no decisions on granting or denial of cert have been made as of yet.
Mag Ban Cases
Duncan v. Bonta – California
This case is an appeal of the decision by an en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, upholding the California law. This case is one of the ones which was before the Supreme Court previously. Following the Bruen decision, the Court granted cert, vacated the previous decision by the Ninth Circuit and remanded the case back down for further consideration. So, it has been through the Ninth Circuit twice now. Both times, a District Court found the law to be unconstitutional, followed by en banc reversal by the Ninth Circuit. Accordingly, this case is on final judgment and is, therefore, ripe for Supreme Court review.
Gators Custom Guns v. Washington State
This case is an appeal of a Washington State Supreme Court ruling, upholding the Washington State law. Of special interest in these two cases is a very recent decision coming out of the D.C. Court of Appeals, which is analogous to a State Supreme Court and not to be confused with the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The case in question is Benson v. United States, which challenged the 10-round limitation imposed on magazines under a law in Washington, D.C. On March 5, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Court of Appeals held, in a 2-1 decision, that the District’s ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds facially violates the Second Amendment. While this decision will undoubtedly be appealed with a request for an en banc rehearing, it has the potential to affect the decision regarding the two cases currently before SCOTUS. Specifically, plaintiffs’ attorneys in both cases have already filed supplemental briefs to make the Court aware of this outcome and that it has created a split of authorities on the magazine capacity issue. That is to say, there is now a “disagreement” between courts at the same level regarding the constitutionality of laws limiting magazine capacity. Will this be enough to get SCOTUS to grant certiorari in one or both of these cases? Time will tell.
Assault Weapon Ban (AWB) Cases
Viramontes v. Cook County
This is a case out of the Seventh Circuit, challenging a county-level AWB in Illinois.
NAGR v. Lamont
This case is a challenge to the Connecticut AWB and magazine ban laws. This is an appeal of a denial of a preliminary injunction by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, similar to what we experienced in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals with DSSA v. Jennings. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “even if the arms at issue are in common use for lawful purposes, it does not mean that they cannot be banned,” in clear violation of established Supreme Court precedent. The circuit court used an interesting balancing test, based on the arms being “unusually dangerous” as opposed to the conjunctive test of “dangerous and unusual.” The case is in an interlocutory posture, as opposed to being on final judgement, which has historically not favored SCOTUS granting cert.
Grant v. Higgins
This is another challenge to the Connecticut AWB.
Unfortunately, none of these cases are as ripe for Supreme Court review as was the AWB case out of Maryland and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, to which SCOTUS denied cert last term. In that denial, however, Justice Kavanagh did indicate that the Court would likely take a case of this type during the “next term or two.” The Court is currently in the “next term” and granting cert to one or more of these cases would put the hearing into the following term, which is essentially the time window mentioned by Justice Kavanagh. A decision in one or the other of the previously discussed cases in the Second and Third Circuit Courts of Appeals before SCOTUS decides could help sway the issue.
