Keeping up with lawmakers can be quite a challenge, but courts? They’re a whole different animal. Even if you’re a lawyer, knowing which court ruled what and when about your gun rights can make you dizzy.

Whether you’re a concealed carry practitioner, gun collector, competitive shooter, or all-American gun enthusiast, you have a right to know what’s new, so we did the work for you.

Here’s what you need to know about the latest federal court rulings as they apply to guns.

Disclaimer: While the information provided here is legal in nature, it is not to be construed as legal advice and is for educational and entertainment purposes only.

Major Takeaways & Trends

Both the Fifth and Eighth Circuits issued rulings indicating that marijuana users who are sober and do not have marijuana in their possession upon their arrest cannot be convicted of possessing a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prevents all drug users from possessing firearms. These cases are:

• U.S. v. Daniels (Fifth Circuit);
• U.S. v. Cooper (Eighth Circuit); and
• U.S. v. Baxter (Eighth Circuit).

You can find more details about these cases in the New Rulings section.

Other Noteworthy Trends

Following the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in U.S. v. Rahimi, many new cases have come forward on the issue of whether or not felons have the right to own a gun.

According to the Rahimi decision, felons who clearly pose a violent threat to others can be temporarily disarmed. The Court said that this does not violate the Second Amendment even after its landmark Bruen decision in 2022, which requires all gun laws to have a direct legal parallel or relevant parallel from the founding era to be considered constitutional.

This quarter, multiple circuits have issued rulings regarding a felon’s right to own a firearm. While these cases do impact gun rights on some level, most of them apply to specific cases and individuals and have a limited impact on gun rights at large. These cases include:

• Pitsilides v. U.S. (Third Circuit)
• U.S. v. Redfoot (Tenth Circuit)
• U.S. v. Thompson (Tenth Circuit)

Understanding the U.S. Court System: A Quick Guide

Need a short civics review to fully understand court rulings and how they affect you? We got you!

The federal court system doesn’t look anything like state legislatures. States have one legislature with two bodies (unless you’re Nebraska), and that’s it. The federal court system isn’t so simple. Federal courts fall into one of three categories:

• U.S. District Courts (94 courts)
• U.S. Appeals Court (one court but 13 districts)
• U.S. Supreme Court

District Courts

District courts are trial courts, each covering a specific state or region, and they don’t dive into constitutional issues. District courts fall under the jurisdiction of one of the 13 Appeals Court circuits. If you don’t like the outcome of a District Court ruling, you must ask the Appeals Court to review your case.

Appeals Court and Supreme Court

The U.S. Appeals Court and the U.S. Supreme Court only take appeals cases. The Appeals Court has 12 regional circuits that oversee federal appeals and constitutional disputes from their assigned region. Constitutional disputes can be challenges to state laws that don’t jive with the U.S. Constitution, or they can challenge federal law. While circuit judges try (and usually succeed) in interpreting the Constitution the same way, there are occasional disagreements on what exactly the law says or means.

When two (or more) circuits come to different conclusions about the law, the separate rulings only apply within each circuit’s region. This means you can have one interpretation of the law impacting the Ninth Circuit and a different one affecting Fifth Circuit states. The only way to fix this is when the Supreme Court accepts the right case.

The Appeals Court accepts all kinds of cases, so it can take a little while to get any kind of ruling. Wait times can range anywhere from a month to over a year. If, after all that time, you don’t like the Appeals Court’s ruling, you can then appeal to the Supreme Court, but get ready to wait longer. The chance of the Supreme Court accepting your case is less than 1.5%, with wait times sometimes stretching beyond a decade.

Standards for Constructive Possession Convictions

• Case: U.S. v. Ashe
• Court: Third Circuit
• Date: February 27, 2025
• Impact: This ruling makes it tougher to convict someone for constructive possession.

Summary: Rodney Ashe of New Jersey was convicted of felony possession of a firearm following a traffic stop in 2022. His car was impounded, and he went to trial. Over six months later, while Ashe was in prison, an AK pistol and ammunition were found in the trunk of his car by the towing company. The District Court then convicted him of constructive possession (i.e., the intent to build something illegal with components in your possession), significantly increasing the severity of his sentencing. The Third Circuit overturned his conviction for constructive possession (but not felony possession) and vacated his sentence. The court said that mere ownership or control of a vehicle combined with the time-lapse and lack of direct evidence linking the gun to Ashe did not establish possession of the items inside.

Handgun Ban for 18 to 20-year-olds

• Case: Reese v. ATF
• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Date: January 30, 2025
• Impact: This ruling allows individuals between the ages of 18 and 21 to purchase firearms.

Summary: The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) challenged the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1). This law makes it illegal for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) to sell handguns to 18, 19, and 20-year-olds. Keeping in line with the Bruen decision, the Fifth Circuit ruled the law unconstitutional and remanded the case back to the district court to make corrections in accordance with its ruling.

Gun Possession for Marijuana Users

• Case: U.S. v. Daniels
• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Date: January 6, 2025
• Impact: This ruling prevents drug users from being convicted for firearm possession while sober.

Summary: Patrick Daniels of Mississippi was arrested during a traffic stop for possession of two loaded firearms when officers discovered marijuana cigarette butts in his car. He admitted to being a regular marijuana user, but officers did not conduct a drug test during the stop. Daniels was convicted of possession of a firearm by a federally prohibited person and sentenced to prison. He appealed his conviction. The Fifth Circuit overturned his conviction because there was no evidence that Daniels was actively using or had recently been using marijuana at the time of his arrest. Following the Supreme Court’s Rahimi decision, the case was sent back to the Fifth Circuit, which upheld its original decision. (This case is similar to U.S. v. Cooper but is more clearly defined.)

Gun Purchases for Individuals Under a Felony Indictment

• Case: U.S. v. Quiroz
• Court: Fifth Circuit
• Date: January 13, 2025
• Impact: This ruling upholds the federal ban on individuals under felony indictment purchasing a gun.

Summary: Jose Gomez Quiroz of Texas was convicted of lying on an ATF Form 4473 during a gun purchase, saying he was not under indictment for a felony, and for receiving a firearm while under indictment. The same day as his conviction, the Supreme Court issued the Bruen decision, and Quiroz appealed his conviction. The district court first rejected his appeal but later accepted it and overturned his conviction based on the Bruen decision. The Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and reversed the district court’s decision, reinstating Quiroz’s conviction.

SBR and NFA Constitutionality Upheld

• Case: U.S. v. Rush
• Court: Seventh Circuit
• Date: March 10, 2025
• Impact: This ruling upholds the NFA’s requirement to register SBRs.

Summary: Jamond Rush of Illinois was arrested for possessing a 7.5-inch AR-15, a short-barreled rifle (SBR), and convicted of possession of an unregistered firearm according to the National Firearms Act (NFA). Rush requested that his case be dismissed because the federal requirement to register an SBR is unconstitutional. The district court rejected his request, and he appealed his conviction. The Seventh Circuit also rejected his argument and held that the federal government’s requirement to register SBRs is constitutional, since SBRs are not in common use for lawful purposes, like self-defense.

Gun Possession for Marijuana Users

• Case: U.S. v. Cooper
• Court: Eighth Circuit
• Date: February 5, 2025
• Impact: This ruling raises the bar for convicting marijuana users of possession of a firearm by a federally prohibited person.

Summary: LaVance LeMarr Cooper of Iowa was arrested during a traffic stop for possession of a Glock 20 after admitting to smoking marijuana cigarettes multiple times a week. He also admitted to smoking marijuana two days prior to his arrest. Cooper was convicted of possession of a firearm by a federally prohibited person and sentenced to prison, despite arguments that this federal law violated the Second Amendment. He appealed his conviction. The Eighth Circuit vacated the lower court’s decision and remanded the case back to the district court for reexamination, stating that disarming drug users in certain circumstances does violate the Second Amendment, such as when a drug user clearly is not a threat to others. (This case is similar to U.S. v. Daniels but is less clearly defined.)

---

• Case: U.S. v. Baxter
• Court: Eighth Circuit
• Date: February 5, 2025
• Impact: This ruling confirms that active possession of both a gun and marijuana qualifies an individual for conviction of possession of a firearm by a federally prohibited person.

Summary: Keshon Baxter of Iowa was convicted of possession of a firearm by a federally prohibited person and being arrested while in possession of both a loaded handgun and a bag of marijuana. He appealed his conviction by the district court, stating that the phrase “unlawful user” in the federal statute was too vague. The Eighth Circuit upheld his conviction.

California: Large-Capacity Magazine Ban

• Case: Duncan v. Bonta
• Court: Ninth Circuit
• Date: March 20, 2025
• Impact: This ruling upholds California’s large-capacity magazine ban.

Summary: The California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) challenged the constitutionality of California’s 2016 ban on magazines with a capacity higher than 10 rounds. The district court agreed with the CRPA, but the Ninth Circuit overturned the district court’s decision and upheld California’s magazine ban, arguing that: 1) magazines are “neither ‘arms’ nor protected accessories,” and 2) even if they were, the state’s ban “falls within the Nation’s tradition of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons” and certain firearms components.

Gun Possession for Nonviolent Felons

• Case: Vincent v. Bondi, originally Vincent v. Garland
• Court: Tenth Circuit
• Date: February 11, 2025
• Impact: This ruling upholds federal law banning all felons, including nonviolent felons, from possessing a firearm.

Summary: Melynda Vincent of Utah was convicted of bank fraud and, under federal law, was banned from possessing a firearm. Based on the Bruen decision, Vincent challenged the law, saying it deprived her, a nonviolent felon, of her Second Amendment rights. The district court dismissed her case, and she appealed the dismissal. The Tenth Circuit held that the federal law was indeed constitutional and that Vincent was still ineligible to own a gun. Following the Rahimi decision, the Supreme Court required the Tenth Circuit to review Vincent’s case. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit upheld its original ruling.

Gun Purchase Ban for 18 to 20-year-olds

• Case: NRA v. Bondi, also known as NRA v. Commissioner, Florida Department of Law Enforcement
• Court: Eleventh Circuit
• Date: March 14, 2025
• Impact: This ruling upholds Florida’s ban on gun purchases by 18 to 20-year-olds.

Summary: The National Rifle Association (NRA), later joined by two other individuals, challenged the constitutionality of Florida’s 2018 ban on gun purchases by 18 to 20-year-olds. The district court ruled in favor of Florida’s law, and the NRA appealed the decision. The Eleventh Circuit heard the appeal but did not issue a decision until after the Rahimi decision. Upon final review, the Eleventh Circuit upheld the district court’s original decision.

Cases to Watch

Federal: Unlawful Alien Gun Possession Right (U.S. v. Vizcaíno-Peguero)

In 2023, Moreno Vizcaíno-Peguero, a citizen of the Dominican Republic and unlawful alien living in Puerto Rico, was convicted of being a noncitizen in possession of a firearm and ammunition. He has appealed to the First Circuit, arguing that, according to the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, the Second Amendment applies to him.

You can find the district court’s original ruling here.

Virginia: Fairfax County’s Ban on Guns in Public Parks (LaFave v. Fairfax County)

In September 2020, Fairfax County, Virginia, passed a new ordinance that banned “the possession, carrying, or transportation of firearms, components, and ammunition in county buildings, parks, recreation and community centers, and at or adjacent to permitted events.” The ordinance does allow for a few narrow exceptions.

Stephen Halbrook, a gun rights advocate and attorney, challenged the county’s ordinance, saying that it is too broad. The district court for eastern Virginia ruled against Halbrook, citing the Bruen decision and saying that there are plenty of examples of founding-era laws prohibiting guns in public parks. The county’s lawyer, Janet Carter of Everytown Law, agreed with the court’s ruling, saying that village greens in the founding era were not public parks. Halbrook appealed to the Fourth Circuit, which docketed the case in September 2024.

You can find the district court’s original ruling here.

Maryland: Ban on Concealed Carry in Government Buildings and Other Sensitive Spaces (Kipke v. Moore)

Following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in 2022, Maryland passed the Gun Safety Act of 2023, which banned the right to carry a firearm in or around a long list of “sensitive places.” The Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association (MSRPA) sued the state and asked the federal district court in Maryland to issue an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect.

The district court issued a partial injunction in September 2023, allowing the state to enforce most of the law. The MSRPA waited another year to receive the court’s ruling, which kept most of the law in place, banning carry in state parks, mass transit facilities, schools and school grounds, museums, stadiums, healthcare facilities, government buildings, amusement parks, racetracks, and casinos. The MSRPA appealed the decision to the Fourth Circuit, which docketed the case in August 2024.

You can read the court’s partial injunction and its original ruling. Judge George L. Russell III combined this case with a similar lawsuit, Novotny v. Moore. This case is very similar to the Ninth Circuit case Carralero v. Bonta.

Maryland: Handgun Qualification License (Maryland Shall Issue v. Moore)

Twelve years ago, Maryland passed the Firearm Safety Act of 2013, which created a permitting system that required Maryland residents to obtain a Handgun Qualification License (HQL) before purchasing a handgun. To qualify for an HQL, applicants must complete a mandatory training course. Maryland Shall Issue challenged the law in federal district court, lost, and appealed the decision. The Fourth Circuit also ruled in favor of keeping the training and permitting system, issuing its decision in August 2024. Maryland Shall Issue then appealed to the Supreme Court, but the Court declined to hear the case in January 2025. Maryland Shall Issue will likely request a hearing again later this year.

You can find the Fourth Circuit’s decision here.

Illinois: Assault Weapons and Magazine Ban (Barnett v. Raoul)

In January 2023, Governor J.B. Pritzker signed the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) into law, creating an “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazine ban. A coalition of Illinois residents, gun store owners, and the National Rifle Association (NRA) sued in federal district court and received an injunction, putting PICA on hold. Following an appeal from the State of Illinois, the Seventh Circuit ended that injunction, removing all relief for Illinois gun owners until the issue has been resolved in court. Barnett and company have appealed to the Seventh Circuit, asking it to strike down PICA.

You can find the Seventh Circuit’s ruling for an injunction here.

California & Hawai’i: Sensitive Places Law (Carralero v. Bonta)

Following the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision in 2022, California passed Senate Bill 2 (2023), which banned the right to carry a firearm in or around a long list of “sensitive places.” A coalition of California gun owners joined with the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) to sue the state and ask a federal district court to issue an injunction to prevent the law from going into effect. The district court issued a temporary injunction, providing relief for Californians while the lawsuit was waiting to be heard by the Ninth Circuit. The state of California appealed this injunction, and the Ninth Circuit struck down part of the district court’s injunction, banning carry in bars and restaurants serving alcohol, playgrounds, youth centers, parks, casinos, stadiums and arenas, libraries, zoos, amusement parks, museums, and associated parking lots. The appeal is currently going through the hearing process with the Ninth Circuit.

You can find the Ninth Circuit’s decision here. The Ninth Circuit combined this case with a very similar lawsuit against Hawai’i, Wolford v. Lopez. This case is very similar to the Fourth Circuit case Kipke v. Moore.

Final Thoughts

We’ll update this regularly so you know what to expect — keep checking back!

What court cases are you dreading? Let us know in the comments below. For more news on what’s going on in the industry, check out our News section.