Can somebody’s history of drunk driving overcome their right to keep and bear arms? At least one state’s high court seems to think so.
The Supreme Court isn’t ready to address the issue of gun rights for non-violent felons—even after a lower court partially struck down the federal law banning them from owning guns.
When the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) issued a landmark decision recognizing a constitutional right to carry firearms and establishing a strict new test for gun-control laws, most gun-rights activists were ecstatic. Little did they know that lower courts would repeatedly invoke that opinion to thwart their efforts to deregulate silencers.
The tension in the legal standoff between gun-rights groups and Virginia officials over the state’s contested background check law has ramped up.
On the heels of an unbeaten post-Bruen streak that produced the end of blanket state-level bans on non-resident gun carry, gun-rights advocates have hit a new legal roadblock in their quest to expand the national portability of carry rights.
Minnesota may continue to refuse to recognize the validity of certain gun carry permits without violating the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court has ruled.
Colorado’s novel approach to regulating AR-15s and other semi-automatic firearms shed the “assault weapon” ban, raising questions about how many guns will be swept into its net as its effective date draws nearer. Now, the state has offered its first answer.
The Empire State may not presumptively ban licensed gun carriers from bringing their weapons onto all publicly accessible private property.
After weeks of waiting, the political fight over Virginia’s proposed “assault weapon” and magazine bans is now over. The legal battle to undo those bans is just beginning.
Virginians aren’t waiting to find out whether their governor will sign a ban on the sales of popular semi-automatic firearms and the ammunition magazines that come with them before flooding into their local gun stores.
Get the most important gun news
