Recent Second Amendment Victories

Recent Second Amendment Victories

by | May 2, 2025

A New Era for Gun Rights

A spate of recent Second Amendment victories, over the past few weeks have brought a surge of exciting developments for Second Amendment advocates. This movement signals a bold shift in how our constitutional right to keep and bear arms is being protected. From federal court decisions to administrative actions under the Trump administration, the landscape for gun rights is evolving rapidly. Here’s a rundown of the most significant updates and what they mean for law-abiding gun owners like you.

Trump Administration’s Pro-2A Push

The Trump administration has wasted no time reinforcing its commitment to the Second Amendment. On March 20, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published an interim final rule that revives a federal provision allowing individuals prohibited from owning firearms—such as those with certain past convictions—to petition for the restoration of their Second Amendment rights. This provision, dormant since 1992, could be a game-changer for those unfairly stripped of their constitutional protections due to minor or outdated offenses. The NRA has praised this move. The DOJ is accepting public comments on the rule until June 18. This is a chance for our voices to be heard—consider submitting a comment at Regulations.gov to support this historic step.

Additionally, as described in last week’s blog, the Trump DOJ has made strategic moves in the courts. In a significant development, the administration allowed a midnight deadline to pass for seeking Supreme Court review in Bryan Range v. Attorney General, a case involving a non-violent felon’s right to bear arms. By not appealing, the DOJ let stand a Third Circuit ruling that permanent disarmament of non-violent felons may violate the Second Amendment. This precedent could open doors for future challenges to overly broad federal restrictions.

The DOJ’s Second Amendment Task Force, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has also taken a stand by withdrawing from an anti-gun case, New York v. Arm or Ally. This case involved a Biden-era attempt to retroactively penalize gun manufacturers using the Vanderstok ruling, which upheld regulations on “ghost guns.” The withdrawal signals a clear pivot away from weaponizing federal authority against the firearms industry—a victory for manufacturers and law-abiding gun owners alike.

Federal Courts: Upholding the Bruen Standard

Federal courts continue to apply the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision, which requires gun regulations to align with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. In recent weeks, the Trump DOJ, under Solicitor General John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, has urged the Supreme Court to take up more Second Amendment cases to clarify and expand these protections. This proactive stance marks a “sea change” in federal policy, as noted by legal commentator Mark W. Smith, who highlighted Dhillon’s leadership in prioritizing gun rights within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. Watch Smith’s analysis HERE.

In another win, a federal district court in northern Illinois ruled in September that the state’s ban on carrying concealed firearms on public transit violates the Second Amendment. This decision reinforces the principle that the right to self-defense doesn’t end when you board a bus or train. Similarly, the Eighth Circuit upheld a ruling that Minnesota’s age restriction on public handgun carry is unconstitutional, ensuring young adults (18–20) can exercise their rights. These rulings show that Bruen’s history-and-tradition test is dismantling restrictive state laws nationwide.

Iowa’s Legislative Momentum

Closer to home, the Iowa legislature passed HF924 and Governor Reynolds has signed it into law. As a result, beginning on July 1, the minimum age for acquiring and carrying a handgun and for obtaining a permit to carry weapons will be lowered from 21 to 18. This aligns with recent federal court rulings affirming that young adults, aged 18 to 20 may not, as a class, be denied full access to their Second Amendment rights. By proactively addressing this issue, Iowa lawmakers have helped ensure our state remains a leader in protecting these fundamental rights.

Why This Matters to You

These developments aren’t just legal jargon—they’re about preserving your freedom. The Trump administration’s actions signal a federal government finally standing up for law-abiding gun owners, while court rulings are dismantling outdated restrictions. In Iowa, HF924 will empower younger adults to protect themselves, reinforcing our state’s commitment to the Second Amendment, as cemented by the 2022 Freedom Amendment to our Constitution.

Get Involved

Your voice matters. Watch for an upcoming Action Alert to join us in thanking legislators for advancing HF924. You will be notified when this Action Alert is available and can send a message then, by visiting our IFC Action Center.

Consider joining IFC, becoming an active IFC volunteer or donating to IFC-PAC, to keep the momentum going. Together, we can ensure Iowa remains a beacon of liberty.

Thank you for standing with us in the fight for our God-given rights!

Sincerely,
The Iowa Firearms Coalition Team

Are Knives “Arms”?

Are Knives “Arms”?

by | Aug 28, 2024

Are Knives “Arms”?

Are knives “Arms” under the Second Amendment? The Massachusetts Supreme Court just ruled that they are which is no surprise since the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Heller (2008) that the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms. In the case of Commonwealth v. David E. Canjura the court held that the state’s law prohibiting carrying of “switchblade” knives is an unconstitutional violation of the right to keep and bear arms, which is protected by the Second Amendment.

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts had argued that “knives categorically are not protected by the Second Amendment because the definition of arms is limited to firearms.” The court refuted that nonsense, stating that “… the Second Amendment extends to all bearable arms and is not limited to firearms”, referring back to Heller.

Interestingly, the Massachusetts Court pointed out that the law (and similar laws elsewhere) was passed in response to “sensationalized portrayals (in plays, films, etc.) of switchblades as weapons solely intended for criminality.” The court noted that the government did not provide evidence that “switchblades are…more likely to be used for criminal purposes”. But even had it done so, the Bruen decision (2022) by SCOTUS “expressly” prohibits weighing the right to keep and bear arms against any perceived public benefit of a law infringing upon that right. This is an exactly correct application of the Heller/Bruen methodology for deciding Second Amendment cases. I believe the outcome of this case strongly foreshadows forthcoming rulings on similar bans or restrictions on so-called “assault weapons”.

On The Other Hand…California

In contrast to the Massachusetts decision, a federal district court judge ruled last week that California’s ban on possession of switchblade knives is constitutional. In that case, the judge declared that those knives are not protected under the Second Amendment as they are “dangerous and unusual”. The ruling is quite obviously flawed in several respects. An article in the San Diego Tribune, makes clear that the fight is not over:

Doug Ritter, the CEO and founder of Knife Rights, an Arizona-based organization that’s the lead plaintiff in the case, called Simmons’ ruling “ludicrous and irrational” and promised to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

RKBA is a natural and fundamental right that is protected from government infringement by the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Sixteen years after the full-throated recognition of those facts by the Supreme Court in Heller, the state of American jurisprudence is finally coming around to acceptance of that reality.

#2A4IA