Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion Latest Topics

Novotny v Moore - MD "sensitive" places

Sat, 16 May 2026 01:12:32 +0000

Novotny et al. challenged MD's bans on legal carry of firearms in government buildings, public transportation, school grounds, within 1000 feet of a public demonstration, state parks, museums, healthcare facilities, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, casinos, locations that sell alcohol, and private property held open to the public.

The district court upheld all bans, except for within 1000 feet of a public demonstration, locations that sell alcohol, and private property held open to the public, citing the upheld places are sensitive. The appellate court overturned and reinstated the ban within 1000 feet of a public demonstration and in locations that sell alcohol.

Plaintiffs wish to petition the US Supreme Court regarding all but the injunction against the ban on private property held open to the public. (MD is separately petitioning to overturn the successful injunction in Moore v Kipke.)

In other words, each side is petitioning to reverse the part it lost.

On April 10, Novotny asked the Court to extend the deadline to file a petition. (shadow docket)

On April 16, the Court granted an extension to May 20.

US v Hembree - Nonviolent felon prohibition

Mon, 27 Apr 2026 23:28:33 +0000

Charles Hembree has a 2018 felony conviction for possession of methamphetamine.

In 2022, he was found to be in possession of a 22LR pistol and 87 rounds of ammunition. A federal grand jury in the Southern District of Mississippi indicted him under the Gun Control Act of 1968 as a felon in possession of a firearm. He moved to dismiss the indictment.

On December 1, 2023, the district court denied the motion to dismiss and convicted him. He appealed.

On January 27, 2026, a 5th Circuit panel ruled his conviction unconstitutional as applied to him.

On April 24, the US petitioned the US Supreme Court to reverse the circuit court and to reinstate the conviction. (docket)

NSSF v James - Product liability

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 07:21:01 +0000

Plaintiffs also include Beretta, Texas Gun Works, Davidson's, GLOCK, Hornady, Lipsey's, Osage County Guns, RSR Group, Shedhorn Sports, SIG Sauer, Smith & Wesson, Sports South, Sprague's Sports, and Ruger.

On February 20, NSSF filed a petition for certiorari with the US Supreme Court. (docket)

Petition for certiorari said:
...
The question presented is:

Whether the PLCAA's predicate exception allows parties to bring the same common-law-style suits against firearms industry members that Congress enacted the PLCAA to prohibit, so long as states codify those general common-law principles in a statute that applies to commerce in arms.
...
... Nonetheless, in 2021, New York enacted a law to -- in the Governor's own words -- "reinstate the public nuisance liability for gun manufacturers" that Congress prohibited in the PLCAA, in an avowed effort to "right the wrong" that New York believes Congress committed when it enacted that federal law. ...
...

Viramontes v. Cook County - SAF challenges Cook Co. Weapon ban

Sat, 28 Aug 2021 11:02:17 +0000

I did not see this listed, so for discussion;

Blair Holt AWB

The Second Amendment Foundation today filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois challenging a prohibition in Cook County against the possession, acquisition, gifting, transfer or carrying of so-called “assault weapons.”

https://www.saf.org/saf-challenges-assault-weapon-ban-in-cook-county-illinois/

https://www.saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/08/Complaint.pdf

Bevis v Naperville - AWB

Sat, 26 Nov 2022 08:34:54 +0000

The case was filed in the Federal District Court of Northern Illinois on September 7. (Docket)

Robert Bevis owns Law Weapons & Supply.

On November 18, plaintiffs filed motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction.

On November 21, the court held a hearing on the motions. It expects to issue a ruling on them on November 28.

Texas v ATF - Private sales

Thu, 02 May 2024 01:41:52 +0000

The case was filed in the Federal District of Northern Texas on May 1. (docket)

Other plaintiffs at this time are Gun Owners Foundation, GOA, LA, MS, UT, Tennessee Firearms Association, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and an individual plaintiff.

At issue is the ATF "final rule" which requires private individuals to possess a Federal Firearm License if they sell firearms which are not part of a personal collection. Firearms owned for self-defense are prohibited from being classified as being part of a personal collection. (i.e., Selling firearms owned for self-defense thus requires a license.)

Complaint said:
...

While purporting to amend federal regulations to comport with recently amended federal firearms statutes, the Final Rule goes far beyond the subtle change Congress made to the law, subjecting hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners to presumptions of criminal guilt for all manner of activities relating to the innocuous, statutorily authorized, and constitutionally protected private sale of firearms.
This Court's action is necessary on an urgent basis because, contrary to past practice, Defendants have accelerated the effective date of their latest edict to a mere 30 days from publication in the Federal Register, in an attempt to circumvent timely judicial review. ... (90 days for bump stock rule ... 120 days for "frame or receiver" rule ... 120 days for pistol stabilizing brace rule). And so that (once again) hundreds of thousands of Americans are not turned into felons overnight, this Court should administratively stay, temporarily restrain, or preliminarily enjoin the Final Rule pending full review on the merits.
...

Atkinson v Blanche (Bondi/Garland/Rosen) - Lifetime 2A prohibition

Thu, 04 Aug 2022 01:13:42 +0000

I don't expect this to go anywhere, but it exists.

Docket for Northern District of Illinois
Docket for Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

District Opinion said:
Federal law precludes Patrick Atkinson, a convicted felon, from possessing a firearm.
...
On October 16, 1998, Atkinson pled guilty to one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341, a Class C felony.
...
Since completing his sentence, Atkinson has not been convicted of any additional crimes and has no history of violence.
...
In his complaint, Atkinson acknowledges that his felony conviction prohibits him from possessing a firearm under both federal and Illinois law. He alleges, however, that his "unique personal circumstances" make the application of this law to him unconstitutional.
...
Based upon binding precedent, Atkinson’s claim lacks merit. As a result, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss and dismisses this case with prejudice.

CourtListener is a bit deficient in the circuit docket department, so here's an extract from PACER.

General Docket
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals

Court of Appeals Docket #: 22-1557	Docketed: 04/05/2022
Nature of Suit: 2440 Other Civil Rights	Docketed: 04/05/2022
Patrick Atkinson v. Merrick Garland, et al
Appeal From: Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
Fee Status: Paid

Case Type Information:

1) civil

2) us

3) -

Originating Court Information:
District: 0752-1 : 1:21-cv-00291
Court Reporter: Laura LaCien, Court Reporter
Trial Judge: John Robert Blakey, District Court Judge
Date Filed: 01/18/2021
Date Order/Judgment:	Date NOA Filed:
03/15/2022	04/05/2022

05/23/2022	14	Amicus brief filed by Amici Curiae FPC Action Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition by consent. Paper copies due on 05/31/2022. Electronically Transmitted. [14] [7237858] [22-1557] (GW) [Entered: 05/23/2022 11:57 AM]
05/26/2022	15	Paper copies of appellant brief filed by Appellant Patrick Atkinson. [15] [7238793] [22-1557] (LCP) [Entered: 05/26/2022 02:04 PM]
05/27/2022	16	Paper copies of amicus brief filed by Amici Curiae FPC Action Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition. [16] [7238956] [22-1557] (SK) [Entered: 05/27/2022 09:41 AM]
06/23/2022	17	Motion filed by Appellees Merrick B. Garland and Marvin G. Richardson to extend time to file appellee brief. [17] [7244222] [22-1557] (Hazel, Steven) [Entered: 06/23/2022 03:22 PM]
06/24/2022	18	Amended motion filed by Appellees Merrick B. Garland and Marvin G. Richardson to extend time to file appellee brief. [18] [7244386] [22-1557] (Hazel, Steven) [Entered: 06/24/2022 11:25 AM]
06/24/2022	19	ORDER re: 1. Motion for Extension of Time to File the Government's Brief. [18] 2. Amended Motion for Extension of Time to File the Government's Brief. [17] The motion is GRANTED and briefing will proceed as follows: Appellees' brief due on or before 07/25/2022 for Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States and Marvin G. Richardson. Appellant's reply brief, if any, is due on or before 08/15/2022 for Appellant Patrick Atkinson. CMD [19] [7244409] [22-1557] (MM) [Entered: 06/24/2022 12:03 PM]
07/25/2022	20	Submitted appellee brief by Steven H. Hazel for Appellees Marvin G. Richardson and Merrick B. Garland. [20] NOTE: Access to this entry is limited to counsel of record. Once the document is approved by the court, it will be filed onto the court's docket as a separate entry which will be open to the public. [7250389] [22-1557] (Hazel, Steven) [Entered: 07/25/2022 03:47 PM]
07/25/2022	21	Appellee's brief filed by Appellees Merrick B. Garland and Marvin G. Richardson. Paper copies due on 08/01/2022. Electronically Transmitted. REMINDER: Hearing notices are mailed shortly before the date of oral argument. Please note that counsel's unavailability for oral argument must be submitted by letter, filed electronically with the Clerk's Office, no later than the filing of the appellant's brief in a criminal case and the filing of an appellee's brief in a civil case. See Cir. R. 34(b)(3). The court's calendar is located at http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/cal/argcalendar.pdf. Once scheduled, oral argument is rescheduled only in extraordinary circumstances. See Cir. R. 34(b)(4), (e). [21] [7250409] [22-1557] (KRA) [Entered: 07/25/2022 04:14 PM]
07/26/2022	22	NOTICE: Attorney Mr. Steven H. Hazel for Appellees Merrick B. Garland and Marvin G. Richardson will not be available for oral argument September 28, 2022. [22] [7250450] [22-1557] (Hazel, Steven) [Entered: 07/26/2022 06:47 AM]
07/28/2022	23	Paper copies of appellee brief filed by Appellees Merrick B. Garland and Marvin G. Richardson. [23] [7251092] [22-1557] (KRA) [Entered: 07/28/2022 10:29 AM]

Cases relevant to Illinois

Fri, 13 Sep 2024 07:04:14 +0000

I'm providing here a list that I have put together for another organization.

US Supreme Court

DC v Heller (2008)

Filed: US District Court for DC, 2003

Sponsor: independent funding organized by the Cato Institute

Synopsis: The District of Columbia prohibited possession of handguns in the home by the general public and required those individuals that did possess firearms to keep them in an unusable state.

Opinion: The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding or that are not useful in warfare, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Requiring all firearms, including rifles and shotguns, to be kept unloaded and disassembled or otherwise unavailable for immediate use violates that right.

McDonald v Chicago (2010)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2008

Sponsor: Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: Chicago required handguns to be registered, but refused to register handguns, effectively banning possession of handguns.

Opinion: The Second Amendment right recognized in Heller is equally applicable to the states as the federal government through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Caetano v MA (2016)

Filed: Framingham District Court, 2011

Sponsor: Massachusetts Committee For Public Counsel Services (Public Defender Division, Boston)

Synopsis: Massachusetts convicted Jaime Caetano for possession of a stun gun, which state law banned, when she successfully used it to defend herself from an abusive ex-boyfriend.

Opinion: Reiterating Heller and McDonald, Second Amendment protection extends to weapons that did not exist when the Second Amendment was enacted and that are not in military use. In this case, that protection includes stun guns.

Voisine v US (2016)

Filed: US District Court for Maine, 2011

Sponsor: Federal Defender Program (Bangor)

Synopsis: Maine convicted Stephen Voisine of misdemeanor domestic violence under a state statute which includes reckless offensive contact. He was subsequently convicted for possessing a firearm in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Voisine challenged the constitutionality of the GCA as applied to him, because he contended that his domestic violence was reckless rather than violent. The Supreme Court granted certiorari on only the applicability of the GCA, not its constitutionality.

Opinion: The federal ban on firearms possession applies to any person with a prior misdemeanor conviction for the use of physical force against a domestic relation. That language, naturally read, encompasses acts of force undertaken recklessly -- i.e., with conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm. State misdemeanor assault statutes cover reckless conduct in a significant majority of jurisdictions. Possession of a gun following a conviction under state law for abusing a domestic partner recklessly therefore violates the GCA.

NYSRPA v Bruen (2022)

Filed: US District Court for Northern New York, 2018

Sponsor: New York State Rifle and Pistol Association

Synopsis: New York required applicants for a concealed carry permit to show a good cause why NY should issue them a permit.

Opinion: To determine whether a firearm regulation is consistent with the Second Amendment, courts should not conduct means-end scrutiny, but assess whether modern and historical regulations impose a comparable burden on the right of armed self-defense and whether that regulatory burden is comparably justified. A requirement to demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community violates the Fourteenth Amendment in that it prevents law-abiding individuals with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to carry arms in public.

Garland v Cargill (2024)

Filed: US District Court for Western Texas, 2019

Sponsor: New Civil Liberties Alliance

Synopsis: Michael Cargill challenged the constitutionality of an ATF rule which classified bump stocks as machine guns, which are banned if they have been manufactured after 1986.

Opinion: A semiautomatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a "machinegun" because it cannot fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger" and because, even if it could, it would not do so "automatically." ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.

US v Rahimi (2024)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Texas, 2021

Sponsor: Federal Defender Program (Amarillo)

Synopsis: Zackey Rahimi was subject to a domestic violence restraining order against which he had an opportunity to defend himself. He was subsequently convicted for possessing a firearm in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Rahimi challenged the constitutionality of the GCA provision which prohibits firearm possession by subjects of DVROs.

Opinion: An individual found by a court through procedural due process, similar to a criminal conviction or an adjudication of mental illness, to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

Bondi v VanDerStok (2025)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Texas, 2022 (as VanDerStok v Garland)

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Mountain States Legal Foundation

Synopsis: VanDerStok challenged the applicability of an ATF rule which expands the definition of "firearm" to include weapon parts kits without a frame or receiver and items that, with additional manufacturing, could become frames and receivers.

Opinion: While some products may be beyond the reach of the rule, some are not. Therefore neither the provisions of ATF's rule addressing weapon parts kits nor its treatment of partially complete frames and receivers is facially inconsistent with the Gun Control Act.

Wolford v Lopez (active)

Filed: US District Court for Hawaii, 2023

Sponsor: Hawaii Firearms Coalition

Synopsis: Hawaii state law prohibits firearms everywhere by default.

Status: The district court granted an injunction, which the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated. The US Supreme Court heard arguments in January 2026 for an interlocutory certiorari.

US v Hemani (active)

Filed: US District Court for Eastern Texas, 2023

Sponsor: CLEAR Project (CUNY School of Law)

Synopsis: Hemani is a pro-Iranian drug dealer who uses marijuana. The Gun Control Act of 1968 pohibits firearm possession by users of illegal substances. Hemani has not been charged with dealing drugs or conducting pro-Iranian actions.

Status: The district court dismissed the charges as unconstitutional, which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. The Court heard arguments in March 2026.

Federal Appellate Court, 7th Circuit

Ezell v Chicago (2011) - Ezell I

Ezell v Chicago (2017) - Ezell II

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2010

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: Chicago's municipal code prohibited public firing ranges within the city. After Ezell I, the city replaced its range ban with a complicated set of zoning ordinances which amounted to nearly the same thing.

Opinion: The range ban and the set of zoning ordinances which amount to the same thing violate not only the right to train at a range, but also the core Second Amendment right to possess firearms for self-defense.

Moore v Madigan (2012)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2011

Sponsor: IllinoisCarry, Second Amendment Foundation

Consolidated with Shepard v Madigan

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2011

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: Illinois statutes generally prohibited private individuals from carrying loaded and immediately accessible handguns in public.

Opinion: The US Supreme Court has decided that the Second Amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside. The theoretical and empirical evidence is consistent with concluding that a right to carry firearms in public may promote self-defense.

Friedman v Highland Park (2015)

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, removed to US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2013

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: Highland Park prohibits the manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons," parts from which such weapons could be assembled, and "large capacity" magazines.

Opinion: At least some categorical limits on the kinds of weapons that can be possessed are proper, and they need not mirror restrictions that were on the books in 1791. Governments should be allowed to decide when civilians can possess military‐grade firearms. A ban on assault weapons and large‐capacity magazines might not prevent shootings in Highland Park, but it may reduce the carnage if a mass shooting occurs. If a ban on semi‐automatic guns and large‐capacity magazines reduces the perceived risk from a mass shooting, and makes the public feel safer as a result, that's a substantial benefit. The best way to evaluate the relation among assault weapons, crime, and self‐defense is through the political process and scholarly debate, not by parsing ambiguous passages in the Supreme Court's opinions. The court affirms the judgment for Highland Park.

Culp v Raoul (2019)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2014 (as Culp v Madigan)

Sponsor: IllinoisCarry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits residents of most other states from obtaining an Illinois concealed carry license.

Opinion: Undisputed empirical evidence shows that Illinois is without a reliable means of monitoring or otherwise learning of intervening, material adverse developments with the criminal history and mental health of nonresidents. The Second Amendment allows Illinois to account for this limitation in determining the terms on which to award concealed carry licenses to out-of-state residents. The court affirms the judgment for the state.

Mathews v Illinois (active)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2018 (as Powell v Illinois)

Sponsor: Brady United Against Gun Violence

Synopsis: Plaintiffs seek to compel Illinois State Police to adopt gun trafficking regulations on its own authority. Initially the justification was to eliminate violence subjecting black children to stress. As amended, the justification is to eliminate the diversion of legal firearms into illegal markets.

Status: Plaintiffs have tried and failed several times to have the case certified as a class action. The district court dismissed the case without prejudice on June 13, 2025. Mathews appealed. The state cross-appealed to get prejudice attached to the dismissal. The cases have been consolidated. A briefing schedule has been set.

White v ISP (2021)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2019

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act allows the state to deny an application for a concealed carry license based on the objections of law enforcement agencies.

Opinion: The text of the Concealed Carry Act does not create a permanent ban based on law enforcement objections and CCL Board review; and White has not explained why he thinks he can never obtain a concealed carry license. This case provides no occasion for the court to address whether or under what circumstances law enforcement objections and CCL Board review in the Concealed Carry Act are unconstitutional. The court affirms the dismissal of the complaint.

US v Carbajal-Flores (2025)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2020

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: Heriberto Carbajal-Flores is an undocumented immigrant who was arrested and indicted for possessing a firearm in violation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. He is challenging the constitutionality of the GCA provision which prohibits firearm possession by undocumented immigrants.

Opinion: Our nation's regulatory tradition supports disarming aliens who have not sworn an oath of allegiance. The challenged statute extends no further than disarming people "illegally or unlawfully in the United States." 18 USC 922(g)(5)(A) is facially constitutional. District courts need not conduct individualized (as-applied) assessments of illegal aliens.

Viramontes v Cook County (2025)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2021

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: Cook County prohibits the manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines.

Opinion: We addressed a similar challenge to the ordinance on appeal from the denial of a preliminary injunction in Bevis v. City of Naperville. Viramontes has failed to develop a record sufficient to justify a different result. We therefore affirm the dismissal.

Schoenthal v Raoul (2025)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2022

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits otherwise legal concealed carry on public transportation and in public transportation facilities.

Opinion: We are asked whether the state may temporarily disarm its citizens as they travel in crowded and confined metal tubes unlike anything the Founders envisioned. We draw from the lessons of our nation's historical regulatory traditions and find no Second Amendment violation in such a regulation.

Anderson v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: American Suppressor Association

Consolidated with Morse v Raoul

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2022

Sponsor: pro bono (district), IllinoisCarry (appellate)

Synopsis: Illinois statutes prohibit private individuals from purchasing, possessing, or otherwise using silencers/suppressors. The cases were consolidated under Morse in district court.

Status: The district court ruled that silencers are not arms under the Second Amendment, because they have no founding-era analog. The case is being briefed.

Barnett v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: National Sports Shooting Foundation

Consolidated with Harrel v Raoul

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Consolidated with Langley v Kelly

Filed: Crawford County Circuit Court, removed to US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: (unknown)

Consolidated with FFL-IL v Pritzker

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: Gun Owners of America, Guns Save Life

Status: The district court enjoined the law. The state appealed. The appellate court vacated the injunction. The court heard oral arguments September 22, 2025.

Federal District Court

Solomon v Madigan (2021)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2017

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits otherwise legal concealed carry in certain specific places. The Cook County Forest Preserve was one of them.

Opinion: The court finds that the prohibition against concealed carry in Cook County Forest Preserve to be unconstitutionally overbroad, and its enforcement is enjoined.

Miller v Smith (active)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2018

Sponsor: IllinoisCarry, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Department of Children and Family Services prohibits residents who are or wish to be day care home licensees from possessing firearms in the home.

Status: The district court initially dismissed the case. The appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded it back to district court for further proceedings.

Meyer v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2021

Sponsor: Firearms Policy Coalition, Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits anyone between 18 and 20 years of age from obtaining a concealed carry license.

Status: As the case endures, plaintiffs periodically file motions to add a plaintiff who is between 18 and 20 years of age.

Bevis v Naperville (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2022

Sponsor: National Association for Gun Rights

Synopsis: Naperville bans sale of "assault rifles." Additionally, the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) bans manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons," parts from which such weapons could be assembled, and "large capacity" magazines.

Status: The case is stayed pending a decision in Barnett v Raoul.

Herrera v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: America First Legal Foundation

Synopsis: The Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) bans manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons," parts from which such weapons could be assembled, and "large capacity" magazines. Separately, Cook County prohibits the manufacture, transfer, and possession of "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines.

Status: Expert depositions are scheduled to be complete by July 2026.

NSSF v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: National Shooting Sports Foundation

Synopsis: The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act makes firearm manufacturers civilly liable for anything otherwise legal that they might do outside Illinois if an Illinois judge or jury deems it to have affected public health or safety in Illinois.

Status: Parties have rejected mediation. The court has stayed the case pending a scheduling order.

Zahareas v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2023

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: When Steven Zahareas allegedly defended himself from a road rager, Schaumburg police filed a Clear and Present Danger report on him, revoking his FOID. Zahareas is seeking damages and to have the C&PD law declared unconstitutional.

Status: The judge dismissed the case against Officer Centeno. The state has filed simultaneous motions to moot the case on the basis of HB850, signed into law as PA 104-0005, and for a judgment on the pleadings.

Kuhlman v Hines (active)

Filed: US District Court for Central Illinois, 2024

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: When Robert Kuhlman responded to his mother's call for help with a prowler at her house, Normal police filed a Clear and Present Danger report on him, revoking his FOID and CCL. Kuhlman is seeking damages.

Status: A motion for judgment on the pleadings is pending.

Ruiz v Raoul (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2025

Sponsor: (pro se)

Synopsis: Ramon Ruiz is a Florida resident who previously lived in Illinois and has an Illinois firearm prohibition due to a previous felony conviction, which has since been expunged. Illinois statutes prohibit 2A rights restoration by non-residents. Ruiz seeks to have the residency requirement declared unconstitutional.

Status: Plaintiff has filed his complaint.

Henrichs v Kelly (active)

Filed: US District Court for Southern Illinois, 2026

Sponsor: Gun Owners of America

Synopsis: The Illinois Concealed Carry Act prohibits residents of most other states from obtaining an Illinois concealed carry license or otherwise carrying in Illinois.

Status: Plaintiffs have filed their complaint. Defendants have filed their response.

Laurent v Kelly (active)

Filed: US District Court for Northern Illinois, 2026

Sponsor: New Civil Liberties Alliance

Synopsis: Illinois residents are prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition unless they also possess a FOID, thus depriving anyone who has not applied for a FOID and anyone whose FOID has expired of the right to keep and bear arms without due process of law.

Status: Plaintiffs have filed their complaint.

State Court

Johnson v ISP (2020)

Filed: Wabash County Circuit Court, 2013

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: In 2001, Shawna Johnson pled guilty to misdemeanor battery for striking her then-husband and was sentenced to two days in jail (her pretrial detention). In 2010, unaware that her 2001 conviction qualified as domestic battery, she obtained a FOID and attempted to purchase a firearm, which was denied because of her 2001 conviction. The Illinois State Police revoked her FOID. She petitioned the circuit court for relief. Eventually the circuit court ruled that various provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968, the FOID Card Act, and the Illinois Administrative Code violated her Second Amendment rights and ordered the ISP to reinstate her FOID. The ISP petitioned the Illinois Supreme Court, which unanimously ordered ISP to reinstate Johnson's FOID.

Opinion: We affirm the judgment of the circuit court directing the issuance of a FOID card to Johnson. There is no need to address the constitutional basis for the trial court's ruling. Accordingly, we vacate the circuit court's holding that relevant provisions of the federal Gun Control Act, the FOID Card Act, and the Illinois Administrative Code are unconstitutional as applied to Johnson.

People v Chairez (2018)

Filed: Kane County Circuit Court, 2015

Sponsor: Kane County Public Defender's Office

Synopsis: In 2013, Julio Chairez pled guilty in Kane County Circuit Court to possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a park, a Class 3 felony. In 2015, Chairez petitioned the circuit court to vacate his conviction on the grounds that the statute was unconstitutional. The circuit court found the entire 1000-foot restriction zone unconstitutional, including around locations other than parks. The supreme court unanimously affirmed the circuit court decision with regard to the provision around parks, but reversed the circuit court with regard to the statute's other locations.

Opinion: The State provides no evidentiary support for its claims that prohibiting firearms within 1000 feet of a public park would reduce the risks it identifies. The State concedes that the 1000-foot firearm restriction zone around a public park would effectively prohibit the possession of a firearm for self-defense within a vast majority of the acreage in the city of Chicago. The most troubling aspect is the lack of any notification where the 1000-foot restriction zone would start and where it would end. Accordingly, we hold that the prohibition against possessing a firearm within 1000 feet of a public park in 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4) and 5/24-1(c)(1.5) is facially unconstitutional.

People v Webb (2019)

Filed: DuPage County Circuit Court, 2016

Sponsor: (unknown)

Consolidated with People v Greco

Filed: DuPage County Circuit Court, 2016

Sponsor: (unknown)

Synopsis: In 2016, Isiah Webb and Ronald Greco were separately found to be carrying stun guns by Westmont police and DuPage Forest Preserve District police, respectively. They were charged with misdemeanor Unlawful Use of a Weapon (UUW). Both filed motions to have their charges dismissed on the grounds that the UUW statute was an unconstitutional ban on stun guns and tasers. The circuit court and a unanimous supreme court agreed.

Opinion: The prohibitions set forth in the UUW statute do not apply to weapons "carried or possessed in accordance with the Firearm Concealed Carry Act." The Firearm Concealed Carry Act provides, in part, that a license to carry a "concealed firearm ... does not include a stun gun or taser." The UUW statute therefore categorically prohibits carriage and possession of stun guns and tasers in public. Stun guns and tasers are bearable arms under the purview of the Second Amendment. Accordingly, we hold that the portion of 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(4) that prohibits the carriage or possession of stun guns and tasers is facially unconstitutional.

Easterday v Deerfield (2020)

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, 2018

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation

Consolidated with Guns Save Life v Deerfield

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, 2018

Sponsor: Guns Save Life

Synopsis: The Village of Deerfield amended its firearm ordinances in 2018 to ban "assault weapons" and "large capacity" magazines, after the state had preempted the passage of such local ordinances. The circuit court enjoined the 2018 ordinances. The appellate court let stand the injunction in part and vacated it in part. The supreme court tied (3-3 with one recusal), by default affirming the appellate opinion.

Opinion: Deerfield's 2013 ordinance, which pre-dated state preemption, regulated the possession and ownership of assault weapons, thus preserving its power to regulate assault weapons. Deerfield's 2018 ordinances were amendments to the 2013 ordinance. To the extent that Deerfield's ban of large capacity magazines applies to handguns, Deerfield is prohibited from enforcing that ordinance against individuals who hold valid FOID cards or concealed carry licenses. In all other respects, the permanent injunction issued by the trial court is vacated.

Evans v Cook County State's Attorney (2021)

Filed: Cook County Circuit Court, 2018

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: In 1994, Alfred Evans Jr. was convicted of several felony drug charges. Evans petitioned Cook County Circuit Court to have his firearm rights restored under 430 ILCS 65/10(c). The circuit court denied the petition. The appellate court affirmed the denial. The supreme court affirmed the denial (4-3).

Opinion: State and federal statutes do not create a loop that prevents felons from ever obtaining a firearm. However, petitioner failed to meet his burden to show that granting him relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The denial of the petition is affirmed.

BFF Firearms v Raoul (active)

Filed: Sangamon County Circuit Court, 2019

Sponsor: Illinois State Rifle Association

Synopsis: Plaintiffs seek to enjoin several provisions of the Firearm Dealer License Certification Act because they are vague and burdensome, especially to smaller retailers.

Status: The filing of an amended complaint has been pending since 2020.

Roberts v Smith & Wesson (active)

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, 2022

Sponsor: Everytown for Gun Safety

Consolidated with 11 other cases (Bennett, Sundheim, Straus, Rebollar Sedano, Rodriguez, Tenorio, Vergara, Toledo, Zeifert, Turnipseed, Chupack)

Filed: Lake County Circuit Court, 2022

Sponsor: Everytown for Gun Safety

Synopsis: Twelve families of victims of the shooting in Highland Park on July 4, 2022, seek to hold Smith & Wesson liable for the manufacture and deceptive marketing of the weapon which the shooter used.

Status: S&W had the case removed to federal court. The plaintiffs had it remanded back to state court.

Chicago v Glock (active)

Filed: Cook County Circuit Court, 2024

Sponsor: Everytown for Gun Safety

Synopsis: Chicago seeks to enjoin the sale of Glock handguns to non-law-enforcement consumers through retailers that serve the Chicago area, to order Glock to alter the design of its handguns so that they may not be readily converted from semi-automatic to automatic with the addition of an aftermarket switch, and to hold Glock responsible for any crime in which a perpetrator used a converted Glock handgun.

Status: Chicago filed a nearly identical case in Cook County earlier, but Glock had that case removed to federal court. Chicago voluntarily stipulated the earlier case's dismissal and filed this case again in Cook County. Glock's motions to dismiss this case have been denied. Discovery is proceeding.

Ruiz v Raoul - Non-resident 2A rights restoration

Mon, 18 Aug 2025 19:41:17 +0000

Prompted by Illinois Right to Keep and Carry > How can I restore my Illinois gun rights if I live in a different state?

On August 15, Ruiz filed his complaint in the Federal District Court of Northern Illinois. (docket)

With a little formatting change ...

Complaint said:
...
Illinois law provides a procedure for restoration of firearm rights through petition to circuit court pursuant to 430 ILCS 65/10.

However, Illinois law creates an absolute statutory impossibility for non-residents to access firearm rights restoration through the following scheme:

Step 1: Illinois law requires that an individual must first apply for a Firearm Owner's Identification (FOID) card and be denied before being eligible to petition for restoration of rights under 430 ILCS 65/10.

Step 2: Illinois FOID card applications are restricted exclusively to Illinois residents pursuant to 430 ILCS 65/4, which states that FOID cards shall only be issued to residents of Illinois.

Step 3: Because non-residents are categorically prohibited from applying for FOID cards, they cannot be denied FOID cards.

Step 4: Without a FOID card denial, Illinois law provides no mechanism for non-residents to petition for restoration of firearm rights.
...

Washington v Chicago - AUUW subsequent to CCL renewal

Fri, 31 Oct 2025 02:33:43 +0000

Although this case isn't a 2A case (4A and 14A), it's certainly got a 2A basis.

On December 16, 2023, officers ran Lucy Washington's plates and saw that she had an expired CCL. They stopped her on the basis of that expiration, expecting to find a firearm in the car. Upon stopping her, she notified them of the presence of a firearm. Although she tried to explain that she had submitted her renewal (and thus was still licensed to carry), they arrested her for an Aggravated Unlawful Use of a Weapon (AUUW). They also searched her car and seized the weapon (and her car).

On December 13, 2024, she sued the City of Chicago and Officers Carvantez and Klepacki under section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871 and IL state law. (docket)

Count I: False arrest (1983)
Count II: Illegal search and seizure (1983)
Count III: Failure to intervene (1983)
Count IV: Unlawful pretrial detention (1983)
Count V: Conspiracy to deprive constitutional rights (1983)
Count VI: Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IL)
Count VII: Malicious prosecution (IL)
Count VIII: False arrest (IL)
Count IX: Indemnification (IL)
Count X: Monell liability

Counts I-V are against the officers. Counts VI-VIII are against the officers and Chicago. Counts IX and X are against Chicago. Monell liability refers to a pattern or practice of a tortious activity, in this case unjustified traffic stops of black drivers. Monell is a US Supreme Court case from 1978 that found New York City liable for forcing female city employees to take unpaid maternity leave.

She's asking for compensatory and punitive damages, attorney's fees, and "any other relief."

On May 1, 2025, the court dismissed plaintiff's Monell claim without prejudice, noting that she might be able to substantiate the claim with further discovery.

On September 23, plaintiff asked to extend discovery.

On September 25, the court extended the schedule for discovery.

On October 1, in a status hearing the court extended fact discovery again to November 28.

On October 29, in a status hearing, the court scheduled the next status hearing for December 16.

A person who is eligible to renew an expired CCL, but has not, is probably only guilty of a misdemeanor if found to be carrying a firearm [430 ILCS 66/70(e)], not a felony. The complaint also makes a big deal that the arresting officers did not note the exculpatory information (i.e., the expired CCL) in their reports. Cops don't have an obligation to provide exculpatory information, although prosecutors might, so I don't think there's much mileage to be gotten there.

The circumstances of this case are one set of those reported in Illinois Right to Keep and Carry > Black gun owners in Chicago charged with felonies despite valid FOIDs, CCLs.

US v Ayala - Firearms in post offices

Mon, 15 Jan 2024 08:54:08 +0000

Emmanuel Ayala is/was a postal employee who took a firearm to work. He was charged with possession of the firearm in a prohibited space and resisting arrest.

On January 12, the judge dismissed the possession charge. The charge of resisting arrest is still live. (docket)

Order said:
The United States indicted Emmanuel Ayala, a postal worker, for possessing a firearm in a Federal facility in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a). Ayala argues that statute is unconstitutional as applied to him because the historical record does not support a law banning firearms in post offices. ... Relying on dicta from earlier cases, the United States responds that the Second Amendment allows it to punish the bearing of arms inside any government building. But the Supreme Court has been clear: the government must point to historical principles that would permit it to prohibit firearms possession in post offices. ... The United States fails to meet that burden. Thus, I dismiss the § 930(a) charge because it violates Ayala's Second Amendment right to bear arms.
...

Dunn v Glass - Florida waiting period law

Sun, 07 Jun 2026 05:53:52 +0000

NRA scores huge Second Amendment victory after state AG agrees to settle

The gun rights organization Firearms Policy Coalition posted a message on X early Friday morning, which read, "We’re hearing that the Florida AG is going to enter into an agreement that says the state’s 3-day waiting period is unconstitutional."

Uthmeier quoted the post and wrote a reply: "Every government office, including mine, exists to protect your God-given rights as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. That’s why we’re settling a landmark federal case that declares Florida’s 3-day firearm purchase waiting period unconstitutional under the Second Amendment."

The three-day waiting period for handguns sold via retail was passed back in 1998 as a constitutional amendment during the midterm elections, with exceptions for concealed weapons permit holders and trade-ins of other handguns.

It was later expanded and applied to all firearms, however, during the aftermath of the Parkland high school shooting back in 2018, according to a 2025 article from the NRA-ILA.

The article argued that the waiting period requirements "are completely unrelated to the time it takes to complete a background check -- even if the background check instantly comes back clean, the purchaser still must wait three days before taking possession of his or her firearm."

How long for a fix here?

US v Cockerham - Felony prohibition

Wed, 04 Mar 2026 07:47:23 +0000

On February 27, the US filed a petition for certiorari. (docket)

Petition for certiorari said:
...
1. Respondent has a previous felony conviction under Mississippi law for failure to pay child support. ...

A search of respondent's car uncovered a loaded handgun under the driver's seat and another loaded handgun in the glove compartment.

2. A federal grand jury in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi indicted respondent for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) .... ... Respondent filed two motions to dismiss the indictment, first arguing that Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment on its face and then that it violates the Second Amendment as applied to him. ... The court denied both motions. ...

Respondent then pleaded guilty pursuant to a plea agreement that preserved his right to appeal. ...

3. A divided panel of the Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. ...

The court of appeals held that Section 922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent. ... The court explained that, under its precedent, Section 922(g)(1)'s constitutionality as applied to a given predicate crime depends on how conduct analogous to the predicate crime was punished at the founding. ... The court concluded that the failure to pay child support is analogous to failure to pay a debt. ... Because founding-era debtors "were released from prison once their debts were paid," and because respondent "was no longer delinquent and had fully paid the child support debt" by the time he was found in possession of a firearm, the court determined that Section 922(g)(1)'s "lifetime ban on possession of a firearm" could not constitutionally be applied to him. ...
...

Cockerham also had lots of drugs when apprehended, but he only contested the firearm charge (and subsequent conviction). The US seeks to reinstate the firearm conviction.

Kansas v US Attorney General - Private sales

Fri, 03 May 2024 02:28:19 +0000

The case was filed in the Federal District of Eastern Arkansas on May 1. (docket) It's kind of a twin of Texas v ATF.

Other plaintiffs at this time are AL, AK, AR, GA, ID, IN, IA, KY, MO, MN, NE, NH, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, VA, WV, WY, Chisholm Trail Antique Gun Association, and three individual plaintiffs.

At issue is the ATF "final rule" which requires private individuals to possess a Federal Firearm License if they sell firearms which are not part of a personal collection. Firearms owned for self-defense are prohibited from being classified as being part of a personal collection. (i.e., Selling firearms owned for self-defense thus requires a license.)

Complaint said:
...
... This would put innocent firearms sales between law-abiding friends and family members within the reach of federal regulation. Such innocent sales between friends and family would constitute a felony if the seller did not in fact obtain a federal firearms license and perform a background check.

Defendants' claim of authority to implement this scheme dramatically upends both our constitutional traditions and the federal firearms licensing regime Congress designed. Not only does the Final Rule go beyond the Defendants' statutory authority, but it also contradicts the applicable statutory language. The Final Rule is therefore unlawful and this Court should set it aside.
...

Daniel Defense v Lowy - Product liability

Sat, 16 May 2026 01:58:04 +0000

In April 2022, Raymond Spencer fired in the direction of a Washington, DC, private school (grades 6-12) from the 5th floor of a nearby apartment building, then self-terminated. No one else died, but four people (3 adults and 1 child) were injured. Lowy at al. sued more than a dozen firearm and accessory manufacturers for civil liability, alleging that they marketed their products "deceptively and unfairly."

The district court dismissed the case. Plaintiffs appealed. A 4th Circuit panel reversed the dismissal, saying that the perpetrator's actions were traceably influenced by the manufacturers.

On May 1, Daniel Defense asked the US Supreme Court to extend the deadline to file a petition for certiorari. (shadow docket)

On May 11, Chief Justice Roberts extended the deadline to June 11.

Gardner v Maryland - National CCW Reciprocity

Thu, 11 Dec 2025 23:40:55 +0000

I couldn't find a thread for this here. If one already exists, please delete.

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/12/11/north-carolina-womans-lawsuit-gives-scotus-a-chance-to-establish-national-reciprocity-n1230888

https://www.nraila.org/articles/20251211/nra-files-amicus-brief-urging-scotus-to-hear-case-of-virginia-ccw-holder-arrested-while-traveling-through-maryland

Duncan v Bonta (Becerra) - CA mag ban (continued)

Wed, 01 Dec 2021 23:49:43 +0000

Decision

The original topic is locked.

The 9th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has overturned the previous ruling of its 3-judge panel that declared California's ban on magazines over 10 rounds unconstitutional. In other words, California's ban still stands.

Morse v Raoul (IL Suppressor Ban)

Sat, 26 Nov 2022 03:47:24 +0000

Morse V Raoul, filed today, challenging suppressor ban in IL

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.93705/gov.uscourts.ilsd.93705.1.0.pdf

Docket

Mathews v IL - Racial impact of gun violence

Tue, 19 Apr 2022 03:34:09 +0000

There have been previous threads on this case.

Three Children and their guardians v Illinois - ADA complaint
Federal judge declines IL request to dismiss lawsuit to force more gun restrictions
Those topics are now locked, but the case is still ongoing. The case was filed in the Northern Illinois Federal District Court in October 2018.

Docket

Complaint said:
DEMETRIA POWELL, as guardian ad litem and on behalf of her son D.P.; TANYA REESE, as guardian ad litem and on behalf of her son M.R.; and TYWANNA PATRICK, as guardian ad litem and on behalf of her granddaughter J.C., as well as on behalf of a class of similarly situated children,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE STATE OF ILLINOIS; THE ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF STATE POLICE; BRUCE RAUNER, Governor of the State of Illinois; and LEO P. SCHMITZ, Director of the Illinois Department of State Police,
Defendants.
...
Chicago Is Awash In Gun Violence
...
A Substantial Number of the "Crime Guns" Used in Chicago Come from Chicago Area Gun Dealers
...
The State of Illinois Has Failed To Implement Meaningful Regulation of Gun Trafficking in Illinois, Despite Ample Authority to Do So
...
The Pervasive Gun Violence in Chicago's African-American Neighborhoods Has Caused Thousands of African-American Children to Become Disabled Under the ADA
...
The Plaintiffs' Exposure to Gun Violence Has Left Them Disabled Under the ADA
...
The State of Illinois Is Responsible for Providing Plaintiffs With a High Quality Education
...
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court:

A. Declare that the defendants have violated the rights of the plaintiffs under 740 ILCS 23/5(a)(2), by failing to take reasonable steps to control the gun trafficking that is having an adverse impact on African-American children.

B. Enter an injunction requiring that the defendant Illinois Department of State Police exercise its authority, under applicable law, to adopt reasonable gun trafficking regulations in order to reduce the level of gun violence, including rules and regulations such as those contained in paragraph 28 above, in order to eliminate the adverse racial impact of gun violence on African-American children.

C. Grant plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and such other relief as may be appropriate.

USA v Cherry, felon in possession of a firearm

Sat, 03 Feb 2024 03:09:56 +0000

Just saw this out of Southern Illinois federal Court.

Henrichs/GOA v Kelly & Raoul

Fri, 13 Mar 2026 19:43:51 +0000

As stated, Reid & Rachel Henrichs (Valor Ridge owners/ instructors) filed in the Southern District of Illinois with GOA. It challenges the exclusion of the majority of non Illinoisans from accessing a CCL in Hellannoy.

FPC v Blanche (Bondi/Garland) - Firearms in post offices

Wed, 19 Jun 2024 07:11:46 +0000

Apparently not content with US v Ayala, on June 18, FPC filed this case in the Federal District Court of Northern Texas. (docket)

The main difference is that Ayala is about post offices. This case covers possession in all federal facilities, which is not limited to post offices, but it seeks an injunction on enforcement only in post offices.

Complaint said:
...
Plaintiffs sue to challenge the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), which bars knowingly possessing a firearm in federal facilities, including United States Post Offices. Plaintiffs also sue to challenge the constitutionality of 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), which bars firearm carry and storage on property under the control of the Postal Service.
...
18 U.S.C. § 930(a) bars the knowing possession of firearms in federal facilities. "Federal facility" is a building owned or leased by the Federal government, where Federal employees are regularly present to perform their official duties. ... The definition of federal facility therefore includes United States Post Offices. A violation of this subsection is punishable by a fine, a term of imprisonment less than a year, or both. ...

39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) similarly bars carrying and storing firearms on "postal property," except for official purposes. A violation of this subsection is punishable by a fine, a term of imprisonment less than 30 days, or both. ...
...
So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a "sensitive place," it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a "well-established and representative historical analogue[.]" ... The Court has identified only three such locations: founding-era "legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses." ... The unifying principle allowing arms to be restricted in these locations at the Founding was comprehensive government-provided security. ... The federal government does not comprehensively secure post offices, so it cannot ban carry there.
...
Ayala held that § 930(a)'s application to post offices lacks any historical support. ... The court undertook a thorough analysis of various analogues, with a focus on the Founding era. The Ayala court specifically rejected the government's contention that all government buildings are sensitive places. ...
...
Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court:

1. Issue a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment to the extent they bar the possession and carrying of firearms on United States Post Office property;
2. Issue a permanent injunction enjoining enforcement of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) to the extent they bar the possession and carrying of firearms on United States Post Office property;
...

FWIW, I have observed absolutely no security, government-provided or otherwise, at any polling place where I have ever voted.

Herrera v. Raoul (1:23-cv-00532)

Sat, 28 Jan 2023 13:51:18 +0000

Another lawsuit filed

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66766836/herrera-v-raoul-in-his-official-capacity-as-attorney-general-for-the/

Herrera v Raoul Complaint.pdf

Laurent v Kelly- IL FOID lawsuit

Tue, 19 May 2026 21:07:16 +0000

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/civil-liberty-advocates-sue-blue-state-over-show-your-papers-gun-law/ar-AA23yNtd

“The New Civil Liberties Alliance (NCLA) filed a lawsuit against Illinois officials Tuesday over the state's Firearm Owners Identification Act, also known as the FOID Card Act, a state law that requires Illinois residents to apply for and carry an identification card at all times in order to possess any firearm or ammunition. “

https://nclalegal.org/case/christopher-laurent-kim-dalton-and-justin-tucker-v-brendan-f-kelly-in-his-official-capacity-as-director-of-the-illinois-state-police-et-al/

Barnett v. Raoul (3:23-cv-00209) (S.D. Ill. 2023) - NSSF Gun/Mag Ban

Tue, 24 Jan 2023 22:18:01 +0000

NSSF has filed a lawsuit in Federal court, in the Southern District of Illinois with named plaintffs:

CALEB BARNETT, BRIAN NORMAN,
HOOD’S GUNS & MORE, PRO GUN
AND INDOOR RANGE, and NATIONAL
SPORTS SHOOTING FOUNDATION,
INC.

docket

complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464/gov.uscourts.ilsd.94464.1.0.pdf