Recent federal court decisions have significantly impacted the interpretation and application of the Second Amendment, leading to a complex legal environment. These rulings address various aspects of firearm ownership and regulation, reflecting the evolving judicial approach to gun rights.
In May 2025, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a federal law prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. The case involved Steven Duarte, a California resident convicted of nonviolent offenses, who challenged the law under the Second Amendment. The court determined that the ban aligns with historical firearm regulations and public safety considerations, reversing a previous decision that had invalidated Duarte’s conviction. This ruling contributes to the ongoing judicial efforts to interpret Supreme Court decisions on gun rights, particularly the 2022 Bruen decision and the 2024 Rahimi decision. Notably, while five federal appeals courts have upheld the felon firearm ban, two have considered it potentially unconstitutional for certain offenders. (reuters.com)
In March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a regulation addressing untraceable “ghost guns” in a 7-2 decision. The rule mandates serial numbers, licenses, and background checks for gun kits and parts, aligning them with the 1968 Gun Control Act. Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized the regulation’s consistency with the law and the necessity to adapt to modern firearm manufacturing trends. This decision overturned a lower court ruling that the ATF overstepped its authority. Law enforcement and gun safety groups praised the ruling, highlighting its importance for public safety. (reuters.com)
In June 2024, the Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bars individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders from possessing firearms. The 8-1 decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that had struck down the law as a violation of the Second Amendment. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated that the tradition of firearm regulation allows the government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others. This ruling clarifies the application of the Second Amendment in cases involving individuals deemed dangerous. (cnn.com)
In August 2024, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Texas woman, Paola Connelly, could not be prosecuted for owning firearms under a federal ban on illegal drug users possessing guns. The court deemed the prosecution’s actions unconstitutional, drawing on the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms and referencing the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The decision articulated that Connelly, as a sober citizen, should not be disarmed based on past drug use. While the ruling upheld the dismissal of gun possession charges against her, it revived a charge that she transferred firearms to someone using illegal drugs. (reuters.com)
In November 2024, a federal judge overturned Illinois’ ban on semiautomatic weapons, citing recent Supreme Court decisions that interpret the Second Amendment strictly. The judge issued a permanent injunction but delayed its implementation by 30 days. The Illinois law, enacted in January 2023, prohibited rifles like the AR-15 and high-capacity magazines in response to a mass shooting. State officials expressed their intention to appeal the decision. (apnews.com)
In March 2025, an Oregon Court of Appeals judge upheld Measure 114, a controversial gun law that includes stricter firearms regulations such as permit-to-purchase requirements, mandatory background checks, and bans on high-capacity magazines. The measure, approved narrowly by voters in 2022, has faced numerous legal challenges, delaying its enforcement. Opponents have 35 days to appeal this latest decision to the Oregon Supreme Court. (axios.com)
These decisions illustrate the dynamic and often contradictory nature of Second Amendment jurisprudence. Courts have upheld certain firearm restrictions while striking down others, leading to a patchwork of regulations that vary by jurisdiction. This evolving legal landscape reflects the ongoing debate over the balance between individual gun rights and public safety concerns.
As these rulings continue to shape firearm legislation, the legal community and policymakers must navigate the complexities introduced by differing interpretations of the Second Amendment. The interplay between federal and state laws, as well as the varying judicial philosophies, contributes to an environment where legal precedents are continually reassessed and redefined.
In summary, recent federal court decisions have both expanded and restricted gun rights, reflecting the nuanced and evolving nature of Second Amendment jurisprudence. The implications of these rulings will continue to unfold as courts, lawmakers, and citizens grapple with the balance between constitutional rights and public safety.
That’s just where we are now.
—
Mark Davis writes on constitutional rights, firearms legislation, and state-level legal trends. A graduate of Liberty University with a background in legal research, he has reported on gun rights cases from state courts to the Supreme Court. Before journalism, he worked with a constitutional law nonprofit focused on Second Amendment litigation.