High Impact Status

Opinion filed Oct. 21, 2026 (Elrod, C.J., joined by Willett and Wilson, JJ.), 5th Cir. No. 25-10754. Appeal from the Northern District of Texas, No. 4:24-CV-926. The panel reverses the district court's grant of the government's motion to dismiss the 15 U.S.C. § 1242 claim, affirms dismissal of the facial challenge to 15 U.S.C. § 1243, and remands for further proceedings. The opinion does not enter an injunction. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1242 and 1243 remain on the books. Official slip: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-10754-CV0.pdf

Cite Knife Rights, Inc. v. Blanche, No. 25-10754 (5th Cir. Oct. 21, 2026) (Elrod, C.J.), in the plain-text section of a switchblade or arms-definition brief, for the holding that a switchblade is an Arm in common use and that 15 U.S.C. § 1242 violates the Second Amendment. The opinion reverses dismissal of the § 1242 claim and remands, affirms dismissal of the facial challenge to § 1243, and does not enter an injunction. Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta, 165 F.4th 1330 (9th Cir. 2026), remains binding in California, and 15 U.S.C. §§ 1242 and 1243 remain on the books until the district court enters relief.

Cert granted June 30, 2026 — consolidated merits (Nos. 25-238 VIDED 25-566). Official SCOTUS docket 25-238 (checked Oct. 22, 2026): last proceeding is Oct. 21, 2026. Petitioners' merits brief and joint appendix SUBMITTED Aug. 28, 2026. Counsel of record David H. Thompson, Cooper & Kirk. Respondents' merits briefs SUBMITTED Oct. 21, 2026. SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 2, 2026. VIDED. 1 hour. October Term 2026. Not a decision. United States amicus in support of petitioners remains on the docket (Sept. 4). Official docket Sept. 9, 2026: Motion of United States of America for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument SUBMITTED. Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/423604/20260909144515105_25-238%20Viramontes%20Divided%20Argument%20Motion.pdf. Not granted. Not a holding. Cite the docket and the official PDF. Oct. 21, 2026: Brief for the Cook County Respondents submitted (Eileen O’Neill Burke, Cook County State’s Attorney, counsel of record). Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/430314/20261021172119817_25-238%20-%2025-566%20-%20Brief.pdf. Oct. 21, 2026: Brief for the Connecticut Respondents (Ronnell Higgins, Commissioner of the Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection, et al.) submitted (Elizabeth B. Prelogar, Cooley LLP, counsel of record, with Connecticut Attorney General William Tong). Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/430313/20261021172016170_Grant%20v.%20Higgins%20-%20Connecticut%20Response%20Brief.pdf. The United States amicus is the Sept. 4 filing. Rule 37.3 amici supporting respondents due Oct. 28, 2026. Petitioners' reply TBD.

Defenders handling assault-weapon, feature-ban, or AR-15 cases should cite the dual cert grants (Nos. 25-238 & 25-566, June 30, 2026) when seeking stays, continuances, or extensions — the law is unsettled nationwide. Petitioners' opening merits brief and joint appendix are on the official docket (submitted Aug. 28, 2026). Quote the filed brief, not X threads. SAF public PDF: https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/08/Viramontes-opening-brief-8.28.26.pdf. Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-238.html. Respondents' briefs due Oct. 21, 2026 remains a longer continuance/stay hook. A stay or continuance paper keyed to the June 30, 2026 grants pairs with McDonald v. Katz. New (docket Sept. 4, 2026) — argument is set. Cite official language: SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, December 2, 2026. VIDED. Stay, continuance, and extension papers can now point to a firm argument date, not only the June 30 grants. Respondents still due Oct. 21, 2026. New (docket Sept. 4, 2026) — THE United States amicus. Cover: BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS. Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/423192/20260904171730387_25-238GovtAmicusBr.pdf. Counsel of record D. John Sauer, SG. Docket clerk line is only 'Amicus brief of United States of America submitted' — cover controls the support direction. Amicus of the Executive, not a holding of the Court. Stay papers may note the United States has now told the Court that categorical AR-15 bans violate the Second Amendment; quote the filed brief, not X. Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and Gun Owners of America are both named Sept. 4 amici. Cite the filed briefs. GOA coalition official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/423106/20260904132250217_Viramontes%20Amicus%20final.pdf. USCCB and Amar are neither-party (cover). Cite those briefs as neither-party amici. Cite each listed brief as an amicus. No merits opinion is on docket 25-238. New (docket Sept. 4, 2026) — CRPA / Duncan / Rupp coalition amicus. Cover: IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS. Counsel of record C.D. Michel, Michel & Associates. Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/423130/20260904140014849_2026-09-04%20Viramontes_Grant%20Amicus%20Brief%20re%20CRPA.pdf. Named amici include Virginia Duncan and Steven Rupp (California LCM / AWB plaintiffs). The brief asks the Court to say its reasoning will govern Duncan, and to grant and summarily reverse Duncan or give guidance that requires reversal. Cite the CRPA / Duncan / Rupp coalition brief as an amicus. Duncan is not granted on this docket, and Duncan is not reversed. Quote the filed brief, not X. California AWB/LCM stay and continuance papers may note that the Duncan and Rupp plaintiffs have told this Court the AWB merits vehicle should control those cases. Cite the filed brief. Duncan and Miller are not reversed on this docket. New (docket Sept. 4, 2026) — Tennessee, Kansas, and 25 other States amicus. Cover: IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS. Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/423107/20260904132345610_25-238%2025-566%20Amici%20Brief.pdf. Cite the Tennessee, Kansas, and 25-state brief as an amicus. Stay papers may note 27 States have told the Court that AR-15-platform rifles are in common use for lawful purposes; quote the filed brief. Official docket rechecked 2026-09-08 — no post-Sept. 4 proceeding. Continuance/stay papers may now cite the remaining briefing window through respondents' Oct. 21, 2026 merits briefs and Rule 37.3 respondent-side amici due Oct. 28, 2026, with argument still set Dec. 2, 2026. The United States already filed as amicus IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS (Sept. 4). Oct. 21 is respondents Cook County et al. FPC X 2097003171650445328 is secondary. CGRF/Danielle Jaymes/Use of Force Experts amicus (official PDF locked) is not a holding and is not a Glock-ban ruling; quote the filed brief if used at all. New (official docket Sept. 9, 2026) — United States motion for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument SUBMITTED. Clerk line: 'Motion of United States of America for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted.' Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/423604/20260909144515105_25-238%20Viramontes%20Divided%20Argument%20Motion.pdf. Not granted. Stay and continuance papers may note that the United States has now asked to argue the AWB merits vehicle. Cite the docket line and the official PDF. Argument time is not awarded on that line. Quote the docket line, not X. New sister-court illustration, not a new Viramontes docket event. Lane v. Cacace, S.D.N.Y. 7:22-cv-10989 (Karas, J.), Doc. 116, filed Sept. 24, 2026, administratively stays a New York assault-weapon challenge pending this case and Grant, No. 25-566. The order says plaintiffs did not formally move for the stay, and that the Supreme Court decision is likely to directly impact that action. Quote Doc. 116, not X. Still not a decision in Viramontes. Cook County and Connecticut bans remain in force. Cite the operative directive, Grant No. 25-566. The order contains a one-time "Grant No. 24-566" slip. That slip is not the directive.

Final judgment entered Aug. 18, 2026 (ECF 331; opinion ECF 330 dated Aug. 17, 2026) (N.D. Tex., O’Connor, C.J.). On appeal to the Fifth Circuit. Oct. 9, 2026: the government filed a notice of appeal from the judgment and opinion (ECF 332). Oct. 16, 2026: Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation filed their own notice of appeal from the judgment (ECF 333). CourtListener/RECAP checked Oct. 20, 2026: no docket entry after ECF 333 and no motion to stay the judgment. Declaratory relief and permanent injunction remain in effect as written. Fifth Circuit No. 26-10244 is Defense Distributed’s March 18, 2026 appeal of an earlier order (district ECF 302), with Defense Distributed as appellant; it is separate from the new appeals of ECF 330/331. Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/64886994/vanderstok-v-garland/

Cite the declaration for a verified current or future SAF member charged under the 2022 Frame & Receiver Rule — that shield is not product-limited. The permanent injunction is the second, narrower shield and only matches the four named DD kits. Cite the independent 2A and vagueness reasoning as N.D. Tex. persuasive authority even outside the covered set. For a California PMF / PC 29180 client, the CFR text remains on the books as to everyone else. Bondi stands: SCOTUS upheld the rule on APA/statutory grounds, and this judgment is the constitutional remand. Rigby v. Jennings is the Delaware unserialized/self-manufacture bans case, and FPC v. Blanche is the post-office carry case, same AG name, different docket. The government appealed the judgment to the Fifth Circuit on Oct. 9, 2026 (ECF 332), and Defense Distributed and SAF filed their own notice of appeal on Oct. 16, 2026 (ECF 333). No stay is on the docket, so the declaration and injunction remain in effect while the appeal is pending. Verify SAF membership before asserting coverage.

District final judgment on remand, fee motion pending — D.N.M. 1:24-cv-00471-JB-SCY (Browning, J.). Docs 126–127, filed Aug. 27, 2026: plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment granted, defendants' motion denied, and N.M. Stat. § 30-7-7.3 enjoined as to plaintiffs Ortega and Scott only. Document 129, filed Sept. 28, 2026, is plaintiffs' § 1988 motion for $1,165,257.82 in fees, costs, and expenses (1,538.95 hours). The court has yet to rule on it. FPC reports the state appealed again to the Tenth Circuit (https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/2104935304238887008). Binding circuit law: Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134 (10th Cir. Aug. 19, 2025); en banc denied, 162 F.4th 1056 (10th Cir. 2025). Follow-on complaint filed — D.N.M. 1:26-cv-03514, Document 1, filed October 19, 2026 (caption number 26-CV-3514). Plaintiffs: National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc., National Rifle Association of America, Second Amendment Foundation, New Mexico Firearms Industry Association, New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, Calibers Shooting Sports Center, Omni Tactical USA, Right to Bear Arms, and Peter Hackett. Defendant: Raúl Torrez, in his official capacity as Attorney General of New Mexico. Complaint PDF: https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/New-Mexico-complaint-10.19.26.pdf. The complaint asks for a declaration that HB 129, N.M. Stat. § 30-7-7.3, violates the Second Amendment as applied to law-abiding citizens who pass a background check in less than 72 hours, and for a preliminary and permanent injunction against enforcement as to the plaintiffs, their customers, and their members. Counsel on the complaint: Carter B. Harrison IV; Michael D. McCoy; Erin E. Murphy, Matthew D. Rowen, and Kevin Wynosky, with pro hac vice applications noted as forthcoming. No answer, motion, or ruling appears on the complaint. N.M. Stat. § 30-7-7.3 remains in force as to persons outside the Ortega and Scott injunction. That injunction remains limited to those two plaintiffs.

Cite Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134 (10th Cir. 2025), in a waiting-period or acquisition-delay brief, including a challenge to California's 10-day wait under Penal Code §§ 26815 and 27540. The opinion holds that a cooling-off period after a passed background check infringes the right to acquire arms and does not fit a historical exception. Pair it with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and Alicia Garcia v. Jared S. Polis, and answer Beckwith v. Frey, which stands in the First Circuit after the Supreme Court denied certiorari on October 19, 2026, No. 26-258. Docs 126–127 enjoin N.M. Stat. § 30-7-7.3 only as to Samuel Ortega and Rebecca Scott. Use those documents for the mandate point as well: Judge Browning granted the plaintiffs' motion because an inferior court has no power to deviate from the mandate, and he said he still believed the Waiting Period Act is constitutional. The October 19, 2026 complaint in NSSF v. Torrez, D.N.M. 1:26-cv-03514, asks the court to extend relief to the plaintiffs, their customers, and their members. That complaint is not a judgment. Cite 148 F.4th 1134 for the holding, and cite Docs 126–127 for who the injunction covers. Doc. 129 asks for $1,165,257.82 under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. The court has yet to rule on it. It is a civil fee motion. PDF: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nmd.501908/gov.uscourts.nmd.501908.129.0.pdf.

Permanent injunction in effect. Silencer Shop Found. v. ATF, No. 6:25-cv-00056-H (consolidated with Jensen, No. 6:26-cv-00227), 2026 WL 2255460 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026). Effective August 12, 2026. The judgment runs to the plaintiffs and to the other persons specified in the order, and only to NFA firearms for which the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the making and transfer taxes. Machineguns, destructive devices, and the special occupational tax are outside the injunction. ECF 145 and ECF 145-1 (filed Oct. 1, 2026) are the extension motion and the September 24, 2026 Sauer 28 U.S.C. § 530D letter stating the Department has determined not to file an appeal. ECF 144, the state plaintiffs' motion to clarify, was pending on the papers already described. E.D. Mo. Brown v. ATF, No. 4:25-cv-01162-SRC, Document 111 (Oct. 6, 2026), recites that the October 5, 2026 appeal date passed without an appeal and sets a public Zoom status conference for October 22, 2026, at 10 a.m. CDT. That order is a sister-court recital. It is not a Fifth Circuit mandate. No notice of appeal is on the lead docket, N.D. Tex. No. 6:25-cv-00056, after the August 5, 2026 final judgment, ECF 137. Cite that docket for whether a notice of appeal was filed. October 9, 2026: ATF Open Letter, digitally signed by Director Robert Cekada at 11:11:21 -04:00. https://www.atf.gov/media/30961/download. Press release: https://www.atf.gov/news/press-releases/atf-issues-guidance-national-firearms-act-transfers-short-barreled-rifles-short-barreled-shotguns-suppressors-and-certain-other-firearms. Effective that date, ATF will not require prior NFA approval, and will not require National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record registration, before making or transferring a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, silencer, or any other weapon as defined in 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e). The letter states those policies apply to anyone otherwise subject to the requirements. The same letter states the injunction itself still applies only to the plaintiffs and certain other specified persons, and that the policy is consistent with the Attorney General's statement of that day. The accompanying FAQ, last updated October 9, 2026, is https://www.atf.gov/firearms/update-to-nfa-transfer-guidance. The FAQ lists nonenforcement of the prior-approval, registration, unregistered-possession, § 5861(j), and NFA-marking provisions for those $0-tax items, and it keeps 26 U.S.C. § 5861(h) and (k) enforceable. The FAQ states that a later tax, a dissolved or overturned injunction, or a rescinded policy can resume enforcement, and that federal law does not automatically grandfather an unregistered item. Same day: FPC sent demand letters to the attorneys general of Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin, asking those offices to stop enforcing state laws that condition legality on NFA registration. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-moves-to-end-state-nfa-laws-after-injunction-atf-guidance-end-federal-registration-requirements-for-untaxed-firearms. No attorney-general response is on this record. California is not among the fifteen. Roberts v. ATF is a separate docket. Oral argument there is already set for October 20, 2026.

Cite the October 9, 2026 ATF Open Letter, digitally signed by Director Robert Cekada, in a federal charging memo or a suppression paper on an unregistered short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, silencer, or 26 U.S.C. § 5845(e) any-other-weapon. Effective that date, the letter states ATF will not require prior NFA approval or National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record registration before making or transferring those items, and that the policy applies to anyone otherwise subject to the requirements. https://www.atf.gov/media/30961/download. Press release: https://www.atf.gov/news/press-releases/atf-issues-guidance-national-firearms-act-transfers-short-barreled-rifles-short-barreled-shotguns-suppressors-and-certain-other-firearms. Cite the same-day FAQ for the provision list, including nonenforcement of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(j) and of the NFA marking requirement. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/update-to-nfa-transfer-guidance. The judgment is Silencer Shop Found. v. ATF, No. 6:25-cv-00056-H, 2026 WL 2255460 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026). The Open Letter states that injunction applies only to the plaintiffs and certain other specified persons. The nationwide piece is enforcement discretion. The FAQ states that a new tax, a dissolved or overturned injunction, or a rescinded policy can resume enforcement, and that an unregistered item is not automatically grandfathered. Machineguns, destructive devices, the special occupational tax, 26 U.S.C. § 5861(h) and (k), and the Gun Control Act remain in force, including a Form 20 under 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(4) for interstate transport of a short-barreled rifle or shotgun. The letter states interim nonenforcement of § 922(b)(4). A manufacturer's Gun Control Act serialization duty remains. California Penal Code §§ 33410 and 33215 are independent possession bans. For a state count that uses federal registration as an element, cite the Open Letter as the federal process ATF says it will not require, and cite the state statute that is still charged. The August 27, 2026 Montana Knudsen letter and the September 24, 2026 Sauer § 530D letter on ECF 145-1 remain on the papers. October 19, 2026: the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Department of Justice v. McNutt, No. 26-204, on whether 26 U.S.C. § 5178(a)(1)(B), the ban on distilling in a dwelling house, is necessary and proper to the taxing power. Fifth Circuit slip: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10760-CV0.pdf. Order list: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101926zor_q8l1.pdf. McNutt is a distilled-spirits case. Cite it as the pending Supreme Court case on the taxing-power premise, and keep citing the October 9, 2026 ATF Open Letter and this judgment for the current charging posture.

Cert granted — SCOTUS No. 26-204. The Oct. 19, 2026 order list grants the petition with no noted limitation and no noted dissent: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101926zor_q8l1.pdf. Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-204.html. Title: Department of Justice, et al. v. Scott McNutt, et al. Petitioners are the Department of Justice and the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau. Lower court: Fifth Circuit No. 24-10760, opinion filed April 10, 2026 (Jones, J.), rehearing denied June 9, 2026. District court: N.D. Tex. No. 4:23-CV-1221. Petition filed Aug. 14, 2026; docketed Aug. 18, 2026. Brief in opposition filed Sept. 17, 2026. Reply filed Sept. 23, 2026. Distributed for the conference of Oct. 16, 2026. Petition GRANTED Oct. 19, 2026. Counsel of record: D. John Sauer for petitioners; Andrew M. Grossman for respondents. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5178(a)(1)(B) and 5601(a)(6) remain on the books. The Fifth Circuit injunction runs to the plaintiffs in that case.

In an NFA registration case that rests on the enumerated-powers holding after Congress zeroed the making and transfer taxes, cite McNutt v. United States Department of Justice, No. 24-10760 (5th Cir. Apr. 10, 2026), for the taxing-power limit, and put the Oct. 19, 2026 cert grant on the page. Slip: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-10760-CV0.pdf. The court held that the home-distilling location ban "is not a proper means of exercising the tax power" because it "takes away Plaintiffs' choice to pay the tax," and that "the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior" as the Commerce Clause. Sections 5178(a)(1)(B) and 5601(a)(6) "are neither 'plainly adapted' to Congress's taxing power nor 'consist[ent] with the letter and spirit' of the Constitution." McNutt decides a still-location ban under the excise tax on distilled spirits. The Supreme Court granted review on Oct. 19, 2026, No. 26-204, and has not decided the case. The question in the petition is whether § 5178(a)(1)(B) is necessary and proper to the power to lay and collect taxes. Petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-204/419168/20260814181724147_McNutt_cert_petition.pdf. For the current NFA charging posture, cite the October 9, 2026 ATF Open Letter and the Silencer Shop judgment. Those authorities are unchanged by this grant.

Decided Oct. 13, 2026, en banc, 8-6 on the judgment. Summary judgment for Williams affirmed. Opinion of the court by Judge Matey. Chief Judge Chagares concurred in the judgment but dissented from Part III.B.3 (§ 925(c)), so that part was joined by seven of the fourteen judges. Judges Freeman and Shwartz, each for three judges, dissented from the judgment. Appeal from the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Use Williams with Bost whenever the predicate has no violent or threatening elements. Pull the statute and the Shepard documents and show that the elements require neither threats nor violence; such a predicate was "likely never disarmable" (Maj. Op. at 14). Then hold the government to its burden to produce a historical analogue that fits both why and how the old law burdened the right. The court will not send the case back for factfinding until the government meets that burden (n.22). If the government relies on habitual-drunkard or similar status laws, cite the court's rejection of that analogy (at 15-19). Build a record of present peaceableness anyway; the court relied on it (at 19-20). Williams was a civil suit. In a criminal case, pair it with Bost for the motion-to-dismiss framework and the rule that defendants need not seek § 925(c) relief. Caution: if your client is still serving a sentence, including parole or probation, Judge Freeman's separate opinion reads circuit precedent (Moore; Quailes) to allow disarmament during the sentence, and the majority did not address that point. Binding in the Third Circuit. Persuasive authority in other circuits and in state courts. Outside the Third Circuit, expect resistance: the Ninth Circuit en banc in Duarte, and the Second, Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, have rejected as-applied challenges by nonviolent felons, while the Sixth Circuit allows an individualized showing.

Decided Oct. 13, 2026, en banc. Conviction affirmed. Opinion of the court by Judge Bibas. Section II.B, on the history of categorical bans, was joined by only seven of the fourteen judges. Judge Shwartz, for three judges, concurred in the judgment; Judge Phipps, for two, dissented. Appeal from the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Use Bost to frame a motion to dismiss a § 922(g)(1) count. Start with the predicate's elements and the Shepard documents. At this stage the court looks only at the predicate, and the government carries the burden (slip op. at 12). If the elements involve no violence or threats, argue the conviction does not show a risk of physical violence, so the government must come forward with a different historical analogue (at 16). For offenses that may fuel violence without involving it, the court flagged a possible middle category that turns on its own historical analogies (at 13); make the government supply that analogy. If the government says your client should have applied for § 925(c) relief, cite the holding that a criminal defendant need not (at 3-4). Expect the government to cite Bost when the predicate has threatening or violent elements. Binding in the Third Circuit. Persuasive authority in other circuits and in state courts. Outside the Third Circuit, expect resistance: the Ninth Circuit en banc in Duarte, and the Second, Fourth, Eighth, and Tenth Circuits, have rejected as-applied challenges by nonviolent felons, while the Sixth Circuit allows an individualized showing.

Pending before the en banc Third Circuit. On Sept. 10, 2025, a divided panel (Krause and Chung, JJ.; Porter, J., concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part) reversed most of the district court's preliminary injunction against New Jersey's Chapter 131 sensitive-places provisions. It affirmed as to the private-property default, the liability insurance mandate, private vehicles, playgrounds, youth sports events, and the four-reputable-persons requirement. The opinion was amended Sept. 17, 2025. On Dec. 11, 2025, the court granted rehearing en banc and vacated the panel opinion and judgment. En banc argument was held Feb. 11, 2026. Supplemental briefs on Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani were filed July 8, 2026. No en banc opinion had issued as of Oct. 15, 2026. Siegel v. Platkin is consolidated in this row.

Nothing in this case binds any court now, because the panel opinion was vacated when rehearing en banc was granted. Judge Porter's partial dissent remains useful persuasive reasoning against sensitive-place lists that reach most ordinary public life. He wrote that the majority's principles let New Jersey bar carry "nearly everywhere that ordinary human action occurs." Separately, the en banc court in Williams v. Attorney General, No. 24-1091 (3d Cir. Oct. 13, 2026) (en banc), slip op. 4-5, said that laws extensively regulating "the places where possession is permitted can 'eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense'" and that "things and places cannot be casually conscribed." That language is dicta from a § 922(g)(1) case.

Appeal pending in the Seventh Circuit. Nos. 25-2642 and 25-2663 are consolidated. Carlin Anderson and Dave Clark, and Larry Morse and Theodore Ray Buck, Jr., appeal the judgment for Kwame Raoul and the other state defendants. Anderson's district case is S.D. Ill. No. 3:23-cv-00728-DWD, consolidated with Morse v. Raoul, S.D. Ill. No. 3:22-cv-02740-DWD. Document 109, filed September 5, 2025, in S.D. Ill. No. 3:22-cv-02740-DWD, is the order granting judgment on the pleadings for the defendants. Document 110, filed September 8, 2025, is the judgment. Appellants' brief filed November 3, 2025. State appellees' brief filed May 4, 2026. Reply filed June 10, 2026. Argument is set for October 28, 2026, at 9:30 a.m., at the Northern Illinois University College of Law in DeKalb. Each side has 15 minutes. The CourtListener docket's last known filing is August 4, 2026.

In a suppressor case, cite Anderson v. Raoul, Seventh Circuit Nos. 25-2642 and 25-2663, argument October 28, 2026, for continuance or stay language while that appeal is pending. Cite the appellants' brief, Document 18, for the text-step and common-use argument. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ca7.54824/gov.uscourts.ca7.54824.18.0.pdf. Cite United States v. Comeaux, No. 24-30307 (5th Cir. June 18, 2026), for silencers as Arms. The Arms line is the cite, and the conviction under 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) was affirmed. Cite the Department of Justice amended complaint in United States v. District of Columbia, No. 1:25-cv-04458-APM, Document 28, filed May 14, 2026, signed by Harmeet K. Dhillon and Barry K. Arrington, for the complaint's statement that "suppressors are also in common use by law-abiding Americans and categorically banning them violates the Second Amendment." The complaint cites D.C. Code § 22-4514(a) as that ban. https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.287930/gov.uscourts.dcd.287930.28.0.pdf. California Penal Code § 33410, 720 ILCS 5/24-1(a)(6), and D.C. Code § 22-4514(a) are the statutes still charged. The district court ruled for Illinois, and the Seventh Circuit has not ruled.

Open

Statewide (beyond Cook County) AWB + LCM vehicle. Provides additional framing on feature bans and magazines that travels to CA defenses.

Open (9th Cir en banc ordered after panel win on urban open-carry ban; panel opinion vacated)

Open-carry and licensing scheme. En banc posture makes it high-signal for any open-carry, urban-ban, or shall-issue vs may-issue argument in CA.

Open

Primary CA AWB challenge. Holdings on common-use and historical tradition for feature bans are portable across CA AWB prosecutions and related civil challenges.

Open — W.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-01718-LJV. Complaint filed Aug. 13, 2026 (Doc. 1) by The Firing Pin, LLC, Lucas Nelson, Daniel J. Geary, NRA, FPC, and SAF against NY AG Letitia James, NYSP Superintendent Steven G. James, and DAs Callanan (Wayne), Green (Monroe), and Finnell (Genesee). Doc. 26, filed Sept. 11, 2026: Answer by defendant Brian P. Green, Monroe County District Attorney (official capacity; Monroe County Attorney). New York's Glock / Glock-style sales ban remains in force. United States v. California is the California Glock-platform and AB 1127 case, and Bathras v. Moore is the Maryland Glock case.

Near-perfect parallel to CA roster + AB 1127 issues. Common-use language on cruciform-trigger handguns awaits a ruling before it is authority in a California acquisition defense. Near-perfect parallel to CA roster + AB 1127 / Glock-platform issues. Fresh common-use language on cruciform-trigger handguns will be useful for CA acquisition defenses IF and when the court rules. Cite Doc. 26 as the county district attorney's answer. NY ban remains in force.

Open

Confiscatory LCM language highly portable to CA PC 32310 possession/transfer arguments and any standard-capacity magazine case.

Open / related to Duncan posture

LCM possession and acquisition. Complements Duncan; useful for any client charged under PC 32310 or facing magazine restrictions.

Open — Sacramento Superior Court; FPC-backed; Amended Complaint filed; MSJ noticed for hearing ~August 25, 2026; Answer filed August 20, 2026

Pure California case. Directly attacks an acquisition-cost barrier. Strong language available on special taxation of constitutional rights. Immediate practical relevance for any CA client or dealer facing the tax or arguing downstream effects on the right to acquire.

Open — 5th Cir. No. 26-10302 (from N.D. Tex. 4:24-cv-01049). District court (N.D. Tex.) upheld Tex. Penal Code § 46.03(a)(4) racetracks, (a)(7) 51%-alcohol businesses, and (a)(8) sporting/interscholastic events March 24, 2026. Appellee brief + court-appointed amici (Eric Ruben / Gregg Costa) filed Aug. 14, 2026; policy amici (Everytown, Texas Restaurant Association, Houston Astros et al., Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo, Harris County) filed Aug. 21, 2026. Plaintiffs-Appellants’ Reply Brief filed Sept. 11, 2026 (FPC tracker Doc. 094). FPC characterizes Director Freeman Martin as agreeing the challenged bans are unconstitutional while seeking jurisdictional dismissal so DPS can keep enforcing them. That is a party-position claim in a brief. § 46.03(a)(4), (7), and (8) remain in force. Novotny v. Moore and May/Carralero are different cases.

Direct authority for Texas public defenders handling UCW or place-restricted carry charges under § 46.03(a)(4), (7), or (8). Provides ready Bruen framing and Fifth Circuit development on alcohol-premises, stadium, and event bans. Portable to other jurisdictions’ similar location restrictions. Texas § 46.03(a)(4)/(7)/(8) charges remain live. Cite the pending 5th Cir. appeal, reply on file, for continuance and stay language in Texas location-ban prosecutions, and as portable Bruen framing for California SB 2 alcohol-serving, amusement, and sports-venue counts. Quote the filed brief.

Open

Clean under-21 carry vehicle. Holdings on age-based restrictions and 'the people' travel directly to CA under-21 acquisition and carry arguments.

Open

Classic acquisition-delay vehicle. Directly useful for any CA client facing waiting-period criminal exposure or for motions attacking temporal barriers to the right to acquire arms.

Open — district stay LIFTED July 15, 2026. C.D. Cal. In Re Senate Bill 2 Litigation, 8:23-cv-01696-MRA-ADS (Ramírez Almadani, J.) (May lead; Carralero 8:23-cv-01798 consolidated then terminated into that docket July 16, 2025). Official ECF 85 (in chambers): stay lifted, case REOPENED (JS-5); parties to file a Proposed Schedule of Pretrial Dates Worksheet. ECF 87 (July 24) extended that worksheet to Aug. 21, 2026. ECF 89 (Aug. 21) joint status report — May plaintiffs and Bonta propose reopening expert discovery (Bonta supplemental reports by Oct. 16, 2026; plaintiff rebuttals Nov. 16; expert cutoff Dec. 16) in light of Wolford and Hemani. No new trial date is set. Prior stay was ECF 79 (Oct. 14, 2025) pending Wolford. Ninth Circuit Nos. 23-4354 (Carralero) and 23-4356 (May) remain on the 2024 PI appeal track; 9th Cir. panel opinion Sept. 6, 2024 (partial location-ban relief). SB 2 location bans and licensing expansions remain in force except to the extent of any unstayed injunction. Wolford v. Lopez (SCOTUS June 2026) is not a ruling in this case. Distinct from Novotny and LASD settlements. Cite ECF 85 for the stay lift. The CRPA member email recaps that order.

Use for any CA client charged in a gun-free zone, an SB 2 location, or a CCW-condition case. Cite the live Ninth Circuit posture and Wolford's daily-life carry holding. That is the frame CRPA is using. Wolford has not invalidated SB 2. The Sept. 1, 2026 DOJ bulletin (2026-DLE-14, CRPA characterization) is immediate counseling material for CCW-renewal delays, new fingerprinting, DOJ-clearance lag, and lapse-risk; it is implementation, not a merits win. Cite Novotny for the post-Wolford location-ban theory and the LASD delay settlements for processing. Cite May for May, Novotny for Novotny, and the LASD settlements for the LASD delay cases. Use for any CA client charged in a gun-free zone, an SB 2 location, or a CCW-condition case. Cite ECF 85 (stay lifted, case reopened) and Wolford's daily-life carry holding. That is the frame CRPA is using. Wolford has not invalidated SB 2. Cite ECF 85 for the order. The member email is not the order. The Sept. 1, 2026 DOJ bulletin (2026-DLE-14, CRPA characterization) is immediate counseling material for CCW-renewal delays, new fingerprinting, DOJ-clearance lag, and lapse-risk; it is implementation, not a merits win. Cite Novotny and the LASD delay settlements.

Decided — 9th Cir. No. 21-16756, published en banc opinion filed Sept. 22, 2026 (Owens, J.). REVERSED AND REMANDED. Official slip (SoT): https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/09/22/21-16756.pdf. The en banc court reversed the D. Haw. injunction that had blocked two features of Hawaii's shall-issue handgun-acquisition regime. Current § 134-2(e): a permit to acquire a pistol or revolver is void unless used within thirty days (amended up from the old ten-day window; a void permit means the applicant restarts). Current § 134-3: inspection is no longer universal; fn. 1 limits it to private-party transfers, certain self-manufactured or 3D-printed firearms, and firearms brought into Hawaii. Holding: under Bruen footnote 9, objective non-abusive shall-issue regimes are presumptively constitutional, and plaintiffs failed to show these two provisions have been put toward abusive ends. Quote: they "impose only modest, procedural burdens, and do not materially impede Plaintiffs from acquiring firearms." The same opinion says lengthy wait times, exorbitant fees, and other shall-issue components can still trigger the right. Cite the en banc holding on Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 134-2(e) and 134-3. Cite the en banc holding on the acquisition permit window and the inspection rule. Cite the published en banc opinion filed Sept. 22, 2026, in 9th Cir. No. 21-16756. Cite the en banc opinion, not the vacated 2025 panel. Panel opinion Yukutake v. Lopez, 130 F.4th 1077 (9th Cir. 2025), is vacated, 144 F.4th 1119 (9th Cir. 2025). District: D. Haw. 1:19-cv-00578-JMS-RT (Seabright, J.); Yukutake v. Conners, 554 F. Supp. 3d 1074 (D. Haw. 2021). Argued and submitted March 24, 2026, Pasadena. Lineup is 11 judges. Nelson, J., dissents, joined by Bress and VanDyke and, except Part I-C, by Bade and Forrest (Forrest would affirm on the merits and narrow relief under Trump v. CASA). Separate VanDyke dissent. That is the reported 6-5. X is secondary. Keep separate from Elite Precision Customs v. ATF.

This is binding Ninth Circuit law as of Sept. 22, 2026, and it is a loss. Cite the en banc opinion, not the vacated 2025 panel. California will quote "do not materially impede" and the footnote 9 line that a shall-issue rule is presumptively lawful unless the challenger proves abusive ends. That quote will be aimed at ten-day waits, DROS, private-party paperwork, and inspection or registration conditions. Use the majority's own limit: the opinion says lengthy wait times, exorbitant fees, and other shall-issue components can still trigger the Second Amendment. Hawaii's thirty-day use-it window and narrowed inspection were held modest. A scheme that actually delays, prices, or denies people is the "abusive ends" opening. This holding is Hawaii's thirty-day use-it window and narrowed inspection, which were held modest. Cite the majority's limit: lengthy wait times, exorbitant fees, and other shall-issue components can still trigger the Second Amendment. Keep the abusive-ends burden on the two Hawaii provisions the opinion decided. Nelson is the brief: plain text covers acquisition, footnote 9 is about public-carry licensing rather than a safe harbor for purchase rules, and the government still owes a historical analogue. Cite this en banc opinion. The majority cites Wolford's skepticism of Hawaii and still upholds these two rules. Cite the en banc opinion for Haw. Rev. Stat. §§ 134-2(e) and 134-3. The judgment reversed the D. Haw. injunction. A California client cites the opinion as Ninth Circuit reasoning. Cert has not been filed.

Pending — N.D. Cal. 5:25-cv-08027-EJD (Davila, J.). Document 59, filed Sept. 30, 2026: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.456690/gov.uscourts.cand.456690.59.0.pdf. The order recites that the Court has granted Attorney General Rob Bonta's motion to intervene, grants leave to file the Second Amended Complaint attached to the stipulation, and finds defendants' amended motion to dismiss (ECF No. 27) moot. Plaintiffs were to file that SAC within 7 days. The separate intervention order is unread. Document 59 leaves the scope to the separate order. On the papers read, the scope remains the fee and psychological-exam limitation. Document 62, filed Oct. 6, 2026, is the Second Amended Complaint (CM/ECF header: Case 5:25-cv-08027-EJD, Document 62, 148 pages). https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.456690/gov.uscourts.cand.456690.62.0.pdf. Page 20 pleads that a Public Records Act response disclosed that Santa Clara County "uses an outside contractor to conduct standardless social media searches of CCW applicants and to evaluate the applicants' public statements." Paragraph 10 pleads that Penal Code § 26202(b)(3) "authorizes the standardless review of CCW applicants' public statements based on their content and viewpoint." Those are allegations. The PRA response itself is unread. Later pages of the same PDF are a redline against the first amended complaint. CourtListener shows ECF 61 (Oct. 6) was filed under the wrong event, and the clerk told counsel to re-file. ECF 65 (Oct. 7, non-motion response) is not on RECAP and is unread. Whether that filing-error remark was cured is open. Fee and psychological-exam claims remain in the case. Distinct from United States v. City of San Jose.

Directly addresses the two most common practical barriers California public defenders encounter when clients seek lawful carry: extreme permitting costs and mandatory psychological screening. Provides ready framing for fee challenges and psych-exam challenges that can be adapted to other counties. The limited nature of Bonta’s intervention supplies useful language distinguishing state statutory authorization from local policy choices. Cite Document 59 (Sept. 30, 2026) for the intervention ruling; ECF shows no Sept. 17 order. Keep separate from United States v. City of San Jose. Document 62 is a pleading. Document 62, p.20: a Public Records Act response, the complaint says, disclosed that Santa Clara County "uses an outside contractor to conduct standardless social media searches of CCW applicants and to evaluate the applicants' public statements, which also violates the First Amendment." Paragraph 10: Penal Code § 26202(b)(3) "authorizes the standardless review of CCW applicants' public statements based on their content and viewpoint in violation of the First Amendment," and the County Defendants "conduct such investigations." Use that only in a Santa Clara CCW-denial or good-moral-character paper, with the posture that it is a pleaded allegation awaiting any ruling. Describe the County's social-media searches as the complaint's allegation. The fee and psychological-exam framing in the first paragraph still stands. Document 59 recites that intervention was granted and that the amended motion to dismiss is moot.

Open

Direct CA 9th Cir. challenge to under-21 acquisition/possession restrictions; strong Bruen framing usable in any CA under-21 or age-based denial motion.

Open

Strong portable framing for under-21 acquisition challenges; useful for CA defenders arguing age-based restrictions lack historical analogue, and for C&R collector issues in federal cases.

Open (en banc)

High utility for as-applied challenges to 922(g); potential Commerce Clause arguments in federal felon-in-possession cases. Portable to CA and other circuits for dangerousness and historical tradition arguments under Rahimi/Bruen.

Open — Cross-SJ oral argument held Aug 24, 2026 before Judge Kane (D. Colo.); taken under advisement; written decision pending. PI previously denied; law remains in effect. Primary 10th Cir. authority: Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134 (10th Cir. 2025).

Strong portable value for acquisition-delay / waiting-period challenges. Directly engages 10th Circuit Ortega precedent striking NM 7-day wait; judge’s unusually detailed agenda signals potential resistance to that precedent and creates clean issues for appeal. Useful parallel language for CA 10-day (Richards) and similar temporal barriers.

Cert pending — SCOTUS No. 26-452. Awaiting the Court's action. Official docket as of Oct. 9, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-452.html. Docketed October 5, 2026. Oct. 1, 2026 line: Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due November 4, 2026). Title: Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al. v. Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc., et al. Counsel of record: Sundeep Subramanian Iyer. Lower court: Third Circuit Nos. 24-2415, 24-2450, and 24-2506. Decision date July 17, 2026. The en banc opinion struck New Jersey's assault-weapons ban and large-capacity magazine ban. The petition's opinions-below line reports that opinion at 183 F.4th 211 and the district opinion at 742 F. Supp. 3d 421. District: D.N.J. 1:22-cv-04360. The caption remains Cheeseman v. Davenport (formerly Platkin). Mandate stayed August 4, 2026. Questions presented: (I) whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit restrictions on semi-automatic assault rifles; (II) whether they prohibit restrictions on large-capacity magazines. The petition asks the Court to hold it pending Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, and then to grant, vacate, and remand if appropriate. New Jersey's assault-weapon and large-capacity magazine bans remain in force under the mandate stay. Distinct from Viramontes/Grant, which is already granted. Petition PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-452/428165/20261001113457240_26-__PetitionForWritOfCertiorari.pdf.

Highest portable circuit-level AWB and LCM merits language currently available for California Penal Code sections 30600 and 32310 practice. Cite the en banc opinion, reported at 183 F.4th 211 per the petition's opinions-below line, for the holding, and cite the petition for what it asks. The petition is No. 26-452. Docketed October 5, 2026. Filed October 1, 2026. Response due November 4, 2026. Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-452.html. Counsel of record Sundeep Subramanian Iyer. Caption: Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey, et al. v. Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, Inc., et al. Cite the en banc opinion with the petition's posture. New Jersey asks the Court to hold the petition pending Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, and then to grant, vacate, and remand if appropriate. That request awaits the Court's action. The mandate stay of August 4, 2026 remains. New Jersey's assault-weapon and large-capacity magazine bans remain in force under that stay. California Penal Code sections 30600 and 32310 remain in force; cite the en banc opinion for its reasoning. For a California continuance, Viramontes is the granted vehicle.

Decided — 5th Cir. No. 25-11206, published opinion filed Sept. 18, 2026 (Smith, J.; Haynes, J., dissenting). Panel REVERSED N.D. Tex. 4:25-CV-44 (Pittman, J.) dismissal and RENDERED judgment for plaintiffs. Holding: 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), and 922(b)(3) — the Nonresident Handgun Purchase Ban — violate the Second Amendment under Bruen. Official slip: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/25/25-11206-CV0.pdf (Doc. 83-1). GOA-hosted PDF is a copy. Mandate, stay of mandate, and ATF implementing guidance not observed as of this update. United States is a party (ordinary FRAP 40 rehearing window 45 days unless shortened). En banc and cert remain possible; 2d Cir. went the other way in Vereen. Statutes remain on the books. Cite the published Fifth Circuit opinion in No. 25-11206. No ATF order repealing interstate handgun FFL sales accompanied the opinion. The OLC advice on 922(b)(1)/(c)(1) 18–20 dealer sales, Reese (18–20 dealer-sale holding; cited here only for purchase-as-keep), Howeth, and Silencer Shop are different authorities.

Cite Elite Precision Customs L.L.C. v. ATF, No. 25-11206 (5th Cir. Sept. 18, 2026), in a Fifth Circuit prosecution under 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3) or 922(a)(5); a California transfer still runs through the California roster, the 10-day wait, DROS, and Penal Code § 27545. This is a published Fifth Circuit holding, not Ninth Circuit law. Mandate, stay of mandate, and ATF guidance were not observed as of this update. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), (a)(5), and (b)(3) remain on the books. California roster, 10-day wait, DROS, and PC 27545 FFL-only transfer rules are untouched. Immediate uses: (1) In the Fifth Circuit (TX/LA/MS), newly decided published authority that the Ban is unconstitutional — use for dismissal or continuance in pending § 922(a)(3)/(a)(5) prosecutions, with an explicit caveat that mandate has not been observed and rehearing/en banc/cert are live. (2) Portable acquisition-right language: Reese's 'right to keep and bear arms surely implies the right to purchase them,' plus the panel's holding that an FFL-to-FFL fee-and-delay workaround does not take a purchase ban outside Bruen Step 1. That travels to CA waiting-period, FFL-only, and roster arguments — the government must justify a purchase-channel restriction with a historical analogue, not modern convenience. (3) Step 2: colonial export / Indian-trade / wartime / proofing laws are the wrong why/how for peacetime civilian interstate sales (Hemani lower generality; Nguyen v. Bonta cited on a lost Dutch-era analogue). The circuit split with Vereen (2d Cir.) is the certiorari posture of this Fifth Circuit holding. The OLC advice on age and §§ 922(b)(1) and 922(c)(1), Reese's 18–20 dealer-sale invalidation, Howeth (Denver carry), and Silencer Shop (NFA) are different authorities. Cite the official slip. Portable fee line (Fifth Circuit published; not Ninth Circuit law): Smith, J., slip 8–9 — prior-circuit hints of an “acceptable cost” on the basic exercise of Second Amendment rights are “abrogated by Bruen and its progeny” (fn. 5, Bezet’s $200 transfer tax under means-end scrutiny). Use as persuasive authority that a fee-and-delay FFL workaround, or a modest tax on acquisition, is not self-justifying. Cite Smith, J., slip 8–9, as Fifth Circuit persuasive authority on a fee. California’s 10-day wait, DROS fee, and roster remain state law. The SAF/NRA amicus in Beckwith v. Frey (SCOTUS No. 26-258, submitted Sept. 22, 2026) quotes this slip at 6–7. Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-258/425185/20260922140518490_2026-09-22%20Brief%20of%20SAF%20and%20NRA.pdf. The brief uses two lines a defender can pair with a waiting-period or permit-to-purchase plain-text fight, as Fifth Circuit persuasive authority only: (1) conduct either implicates the plain text, and is presumed protected, or it does not; (2) "[t]here is no middle ground" and "[t]he degree to which a regulation encroaches upon Second Amendment rights is generally immaterial at Bruen Step 1." The two quoted lines are this Fifth Circuit slip, quoted in the Beckwith amicus.

Open — N.D. Cal. 5:26-cv-10508-PCP. First Amended Complaint filed Sept. 29, 2026 (Doc. 14, 15 pages) by the United States against the City of San Jose only (SJPD dropped as a named defendant; the FAC still treats SJPD as the City's law-enforcement arm). Official FAC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.479057/gov.uscourts.cand.479057.14.0.pdf. Caption on Doc. 14 is 5:2026-cv-10508-PCP (no longer SVK). Counsel: Harmeet K. Dhillon (AAG, Civil Rights), R. Jonas Geissler (DAAG), Barry K. Arrington (Chief, Second Amendment Section; signer), Patrick Todd and Tristan Silva II (trial), Todd Blanche (Attorney General), Craig H. Missakian (U.S. Attorney). Claims remain 34 U.S.C. § 12601(a) pattern-or-practice. FAC keeps the $1,591 CCW application fee (Res. No. 2026-183; 20%/$318 up front, $1,273 at issuance) and SJPD-policy psychological testing (cost on the applicant; not required by Cal. Penal Code § 26190(e); not in the municipal code). The First Amended Complaint challenges S.J. Mun. Code § 10.32.210 (liability insurance covering accidental firearm use) and § 10.32.215 (Annual Gun Harm Reduction Fee to a designated nonprofit). FAC ¶27 says NAGR v. City of San Jose, 2023 WL 4552284 (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2023), aff'd in part, vacated in part sub nom. Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Ass'n v. City of San Jose, 2024 WL 4249728 (9th Cir. Sept. 20, 2024) (nonprecedential), which held the insurance mandate does not implicate the Second Amendment's plain text, 'since has been abrogated by Wolford.' The First Amended Complaint also cites Koons v. Att'y Gen., 156 F.4th 210, 245 (3d Cir.), as amended (Sept. 17, 2025), reh'g en banc granted, opinion vacated, 162 F.4th 100 (3d Cir. 2025). The fee, testing, insurance, and harm-reduction fee remain in force. Distinct from Blank v. Santa Clara and United States v. LASD.

Cite the First Amended Complaint in a San Jose CCW fee, psychological-exam, insurance, or harm-reduction-fee paper, and in any paper that has to explain why a San Jose client could not complete a shall-issue application or keep a firearm without city-mandated insurance. Quote Bruen 597 U.S. at 38 n.9 ('exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry') and FAC ¶26–27 (insurance + designated-nonprofit fee; claimed Wolford abrogation of NAGR v. San Jose). Cite the First Amended Complaint as a complaint. The fee, testing, insurance, and harm-reduction fee remain in force. The fee, testing, and insurance remain in force. Cite Koons, 156 F.4th 210, as a vacated opinion. En banc was granted and that opinion was vacated, 162 F.4th 100. Cite Blank v. Santa Clara for the private-plaintiff / PC 26190 challenge and United States v. LASD for the § 12601 pattern. Official FAC: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cand.479057/gov.uscourts.cand.479057.14.0.pdf. Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74798613/united-states-v-san-jose/.

Preliminary injunction granted statewide on June 25-26, 2026 by Judge John Martin. Injunction runs until December 31, 2026 or final order. State planning appeal. Judge ruled individual plaintiff John Crump has standing; GOA and VCDL lacked standing in this ruling.

Excellent source of statutory interpretation arguments (vague/feature-based definitions, charging defects) that pair well with models like Massachusetts Lacus. Provides detailed briefing on state constitutional history and Bruen-aligned analysis. Use that briefing on a Virginia charging defect, a sale or transfer ban, and a public-carry restriction.

Motion filed August 13, 2026 by C.J. Grisham. Client charged with Unlawful Carry of a Weapon for open carrying a handgun in a vehicle without a holster.

Clean state-constitutional attack on a common technical restriction. Immediate utility for Texas defenders handling UCW / vehicle-carry cases. Portable framing for any jurisdiction that imposes holster, “secure,” or similar conditions on open or vehicle carry.

Preliminary injunction denied June 18, 2026 (Judge William E. Glover). Case ongoing. Ban allowed to take effect in jurisdiction initially.

Strong state constitutional challenge using the Militia Clause theory - a creative and potentially portable approach for states with similar militia-tethered right-to-arms language. High strategic value for Research Engine (historical/militia analysis, state constitutional interpretation post-Bruen) and future motion drafting (PI standards, standing via militia membership, facial vs. as-applied challenges to feature-based bans).

Open — 5th Cir. No. 24-50564. Official published order Sept. 14, 2026: majority of active judges voted for rehearing en banc with oral argument to be set; Clerk to set supplemental-brief schedule; panel opinion dated May 20, 2026 VACATED (5th Cir. R. 41.3). Official PDF https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-50564-CR1.pdf. No dissent on the grant order. Panel (Haynes, Ho, Oldham) had AFFIRMED W.D. Tex. 7:24-CR-31-1. Predicates: Texas drug possession in a drug-free zone and evading arrest/detention with a motor vehicle (state-jail felony, Tex. Pen. Code § 38.04(b)(1)(B)). Defendant was not sentenced to prison on the predicates; probation had ended ~seven years before the § 922(g)(1) possession. Statute remains in force. Squire is the same circuit's Commerce Clause and Scarborough en banc. Hembree is the simple-drug-possession case on the Supreme Court docket, No. 25-1219. Oct. 21, 2026: Firearms Policy Coalition filed an amicus brief in support of the defendant-appellant and vacatur, Document 133 (David H. Thompson, Cooper & Kirk, counsel of record). The brief asks the en banc court to reject United States v. Diaz, 116 F.4th 458 (5th Cir. 2024), and to ask whether the predicate shows dangerousness. It is an amicus. It is not a holding. PDF: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/191/attachments/original/1792601245/2026.10.21_133_FPC_Amicus.pdf?1792601245

Federal and Fifth Circuit 922(g) calendars: live en banc vehicle on the no-prison-time / stale-predicate / Diaz-critique line. Use for continuances and as-applied briefing while the case is pending; § 922(g)(1) remains in force. Ninth Circuit still treats 922(g)(1) as facially valid. California state felon-in-possession analogues remain in force. Portable pieces: (1) punishable-by-more-than-a-year is not the same as served-time; (2) Ho/Oldham language on lifetime bans after completed probation; Squire is the Commerce Clause en banc; Cordova is the as-applied Second Amendment en banc.

Decided Oct. 21, 2026 (Sinatra, J.), W.D.N.Y. No. 1:24-cv-00623-JLS-HKS, Decision and Order, Dkt. 95, filed Oct. 21, 2026. Plaintiffs' summary-judgment motion is granted as to the sale-and-purchase restriction. Defendants' cross-motions are denied on that issue. The order permanently enjoins the defendants, including the Attorney General and the State Police Superintendent, from enforcing N.Y. Penal Law §§ 270.21 and 270.22 and Gen. Bus. Law § 396-eee as to the sale and purchase of body armor. The court granted the State's request for a fourteen-day stay pending appeal. During the stay the injunction is not in effect. Footnote 12 states that nothing in the order affects N.Y. Penal Law § 270.20(1), the unlawful wearing of body armor while committing a violent felony with a firearm. Official PDF: https://defensebrief.org/docs/cases/Heeter_v_James_WDNY_2026-10-21_Decision_Order_Dkt95.pdf

Cite Heeter v. James, No. 1:24-cv-00623-JLS-HKS, Dkt. 95 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 21, 2026) (Sinatra, J.), for the holding that body armor is an Arm under the Second Amendment's plain text and that New York's ban on sale and purchase by people outside an eligible profession, N.Y. Penal Law §§ 270.21 and 270.22 and Gen. Bus. Law § 396-eee, fails for lack of a historical analogue. The order permanently enjoins the defendants from enforcing those three provisions as to the sale and purchase of body armor, and it grants a fourteen-day stay pending appeal. During the stay the injunction is not in effect. Footnote 12 leaves N.Y. Penal Law § 270.20(1) in place. As a single district court's ruling, it binds the parties but is persuasive authority in every other court, including within the Western District of New York.

Open — N.D. Cal. No. 4:26-cv-05996-JST (Jon S. Tigar, J.). Complaint filed June 17, 2026 (Document 1, 24 pages) by Andrew Moore, James Treuel, and Second Amendment Foundation, Inc., against Contra Costa County, Sheriff David Livingston, and the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office. Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Counsel of record on the docket: John W. Dillon, Dillon Law Group, and Konstadinos T. Moros. Reassigned July 6, 2026 from Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore to Judge Tigar. CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/73499012/moore-v-contra-costa-county/. RECAP entries read on the October 9 pass run through July 7, 2026. The July 7, 2026 clerk's notice sets a videoconference case-management conference for October 27, 2026, at 2:00 p.m., with the joint case-management statement due October 20, 2026. Those entries do not include a stipulation, a settlement, or a dismissal. SAF's October 8, 2026 post states that a settlement agreement was reached with the Sheriff's Office. https://x.com/2AFDN/status/2108325936320164244. A settlement agreement, a stipulation, a minute order, a judgment, and an injunction are not in the papers read. The case is not closed on the papers read. This pass did not re-read the docket. October 21, 2026: counsel posted screenshots of the Sheriff's CCW page, https://www.cocosheriff.org/how-do-i/apply-for-a-ccw-permit, and said the county updated the site to reflect the settlement. https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/2112754936023048640. A direct fetch of that URL returned HTTP 403 on this pass. The posted screenshots state that single-action pistols similar to 1911/2011-type pistols with a cocked hammer and a manual safety are an approved parameter, that attached flashlights and red-dot optics are acceptable, and that firearms with attached laser sights are not acceptable. The posted text states that an existing permit holder who wants to attach a flashlight or a red-dot optic must apply for a modification permit and complete a requalification before carrying that configuration, that the process may be completed at the next renewal, and that a flashlight requires a low-light/night qualification while a red-dot optic alone does not.

For a Contra Costa client told that a red-dot optic, an attached flashlight, or a single-action 1911 or 2011 cannot go on a county CCW, cite the Sheriff's published weapons parameters as counsel posted them on October 21, 2026. The posted page lists single-action 1911/2011-type pistols with a cocked hammer and a manual safety as approved, and it states that attached flashlights and red-dot optics are acceptable. Lasers remain not acceptable. An existing holder who wants to add a flashlight or a red-dot optic must apply for a modification permit and requalify before carrying that configuration. A flashlight also requires a low-light/night qualification, and a red-dot optic alone does not. The posted page says that process may be completed at the next renewal. The settlement stipulation is not in the court papers read. The July 7, 2026 notice still set an October 27, 2026 case-management conference. The page is Contra Costa County only. Cite https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/2112754936023048640 for the screenshots and https://www.cocosheriff.org/how-do-i/apply-for-a-ccw-permit for the page counsel linked.

Decided, motion to alter pending — D. Del. 1:21-cv-01523-MN (Noreika, J.). Memorandum, order, and judgment September 10, 2026 (ECF 81–83). The State's brief cites that opinion as Rigby v. Jennings, 2026 WL 2664371 (D. Del. Sept. 10, 2026). Permanent injunction on the Possession Ban (11 Del. C. §§ 1459A(b), 1463(a)) and the Manufacturing/Assembly Ban (§ 1463(b)–(c)). The Instructions Ban (§ 1463(c)(2)) survives. The distribution ban survives Bruen step one as a commercial-sales regulation. Document 87, filed October 8, 2026, is Defendant's Opening Brief in Support of Defendant's Motion to Alter or Amend the Judgment (28 pages). PDF: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/14498/attachments/original/1791554951/2026.10.08_087_D%27s_Memo_ISO_Motion_to_Alter_Judgment.pdf?1791554951. CM/ECF header: Case 1:21-cv-01523-MN, Document 87, Filed 10/08/26, PageID #: 1195. Counsel: Ian R. Liston and Jennifer Kate Aaronson, Delaware Department of Justice. The motion is pending. The brief asks the court to deny Plaintiffs' summary-judgment motion, grant the remainder of Defendant's motion, and dissolve the preliminary and permanent injunctions against 11 Del. C. §§ 1459A(b), 1463(a), 1463(c)(1), and the portion of § 1463(b) that prohibits manufacturing, assembling, or causing the manufacture or assembly of an untraceable firearm. The brief's grounds are the State's arguments: it treats United States v. Berger, 2026 WL 2577367 (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2026), as controlling precedent decided nine days before the judgment; it states the Governor signed H.B. 418 on September 3, 2026; and it says the opinion finds a right to manufacture firearms in the plain text where none exists. Document 87 is the only motion paper read; a notice of appeal is unconfirmed. The September 10 injunction remains in effect. California PMF and serialization statutes (Penal Code § 29180 et seq. and the AB 1621 overlay) remain in force. Distinct from Defense Distributed / SAF v. Blanche and from Viramontes/Grant.

Persuasive authority from a Third Circuit district court. Use the opinion's language that serialization does not define an Arm, that self-manufacture is a means of acquisition, and that operability includes disassembly, cleaning, repair, and reassembly. Cite in CA PMF / unfinished-frame / 'ghost gun' calendars (PC 29180 et seq.) as framing; California's possession and making bans remain in force. The instructions-ban ruling went against the plaintiffs on that theory, so cite it as a limit on CAD or file-distribution arguments. Pair with the federal frame-and-receiver rule rather than duplicating that card. Document 87, filed October 8, 2026, asks the court to dissolve the injunction. The motion is pending. The September 10 opinion still holds that serialization does not define an Arm and that self-manufacture is a means of acquisition. Present the dissolution request, the Berger point, and the H.B. 418 point as the State's arguments; the September 10 injunction stands. California Penal Code section 29180 and the AB 1621 overlay remain in force.

Cert-stage, petition not yet filed — 9th Cir. No. 24-5536. Panel opinion filed Jan. 30, 2026, published as Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta, 165 F.4th 1330 (9th Cir. 2026) (Wardlaw, J., joined by Gould and Koh): AFFIRMED S.D. Cal. summary judgment for the State on different grounds. Official panel PDF: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/30/24-5536.pdf. En banc denied July 16, 2026 (Wardlaw/Gould/Koh concurrence; VanDyke dissent; Tung dissent joined by Callahan, R. Nelson, Collins, Lee, Bress, Bumatay, and VanDyke). Official en banc-denial PDF: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/07/16/24-5536.pdf. District: S.D. Cal. 3:23-cv-00474-JES-DDL (Simmons, J.). Official SCOTUS docket 26A352, docketed Sept. 15, 2026: Application submitted Sept. 11, 2026 to Justice Kagan to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from October 14, 2026 to December 13, 2026. Sept. 15, 2026: Justice Kagan granted the application, extending the time to file until December 13, 2026. Counsel of record David H. Thompson, Cooper & Kirk. Official application PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26A352/423955/20260911150626395_knife%20rights%20-%20extension%20petition%20vpf1.pdf. Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26A352.html. Docket 26A352 records the application and the grant; no petition is on file as of Oct. 20, 2026. Cal. Penal Code §§ 21510, 17235, 21590, 18000, and 18005 remain in force. PWGG v. Bonta is a different docket: same retailer plaintiff, under-21 acquisition.

Direct California utility tomorrow morning on Penal Code § 21510 (and related §§ 17235 / 21590 / 18000 / 18005) switchblade files. Cite Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bonta, 165 F.4th 1330 (9th Cir. 2026): the Ninth Circuit is adverse on the facial challenge, en banc was denied, no petition is on file, and Justice Kagan granted the application on Sept. 15, 2026, moving the cert deadline from Oct. 14 to Dec. 13, 2026. Immediate uses: (1) continuance/stay hook in § 21510 prosecutions while the petition, due Dec. 13, 2026, is filed and decided; (2) the panel's own fence — it decided only the concealed-carry application and left open whether other applications (open carry, mere possession, sale) are constitutional, which is the as-applied opening the Tung dissent flags; (3) On a total carry ban, quote the filed panel opinion and the Tung dissent on the Rahimi and Salerno question whether one valid application ends the facial challenge. PWGG, LP is a named plaintiff here; PWGG v. Bonta is the under-21 acquisition case on a different docket. Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26A352.html. Panel: https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2026/01/30/24-5536.pdf.

Cert pending — SCOTUS No. 26-374, docketed Sept. 18, 2026. Official docket checked Oct. 20, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-374.html. Petition filed Sept. 16, 2026. Sept. 25, 2026: the motion to extend the time to file a response was granted; the response is due Dec. 3, 2026 (originally Oct. 19, 2026). Oct. 19, 2026: amicus brief of Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Tennessee Firearms Association, Tennessee Firearms Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation, Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Connecticut Citizens Defense League, and Heller Foundation submitted: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-374/429983/20261019154940641_Christian%20v.%20James%20amicus%20brief.pdf. Linked with 26A142, the application to extend the time to file, which Justice Sotomayor granted to Sept. 16, 2026. Counsel of record David H. Thompson, Cooper & Kirk; Nicolas J. Rotsko, Fluet. Petitioners: Brett Christian, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation. Respondents: Steven G. James (NYSP Superintendent) and Michael J. Keane (Erie County DA). Lower: 2d Cir. Nos. 24-2847 & 25-384, Christian v. James, 176 F.4th 189 (May 18, 2026) — affirmed the private-property-open-to-the-public win and UPHELD New York's undifferentiated public-parks ban. District: W.D.N.Y. 22-CV-695 (JLS), 2025 WL 50413 (Jan. 8, 2025). Statute at issue: N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(d) (public parks; privately held land inside a park/forest preserve excluded). The Supreme Court has issued no merits decision on this petition. § 265.01-e remains in force. Novotny v. Moore is the Maryland location-ban petition (No. 25-1324), pending and awaiting a new conference date after the Oct. 13, 2026 reschedule, and May v. Bonta / Carralero is the California SB 2 case, on different dockets.

For a New York prosecution under Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(d), or a California park or SB 2 location charge, cite Christian v. James, 176 F.4th 189 (2d Cir. May 18, 2026), and the certiorari petition filed September 16, 2026. Directly useful for New York public defenders handling § 265.01-e(2)(d) park and forest preserve cases. For California: pair with May v. Bonta / Carralero (SB 2 location bans, stay lifted) and Novotny v. Moore (Maryland location-ban certiorari petition, No. 25-1324, pending and awaiting a new conference date after the Oct. 13, 2026 reschedule). The petition's three questions and the Second Circuit's use of urban-park history to uphold a statewide parks ban are the government's likely Bruen step-two and facial line in a California park or SB 2 paper. Cite the petition as a filed request for review; Christian, 176 F.4th 189, upheld New York's undifferentiated public-parks ban, and § 265.01-e remains in force. Continuance or stay language in a park-location prosecution can note that a certiorari petition on this question is on file (SAF/Cooper & Kirk PDF dated Sept. 16, 2026) and awaits a decision. Official petition: https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/Christian-cert-petition_9.16.26.pdf. Official docket, No. 26-374: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-374.html.

On appeal — D.C. Cir. No. 25-7159. District: D.D.C. 1:24-cv-03504-RC (Contreras, J.). Complaint filed Dec. 17, 2024 by William D. Wehr-Darroca, Gary Stemple, and FPC against the District of Columbia, MPD Chief Pamela A. Smith, and AG Brian L. Schwalb. Doc. 16 memorandum opinion, Sept. 22, 2025, GRANTED defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Official opinion: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/8903/attachments/original/1758638970/2025.09.22_016_OPINION.pdf?1758638970. Notice of appeal Oct. 17, 2025. Appeal held Nov. 24, 2025. FPC reported Sept. 29, 2026 that the D.C. Circuit un-stayed the appeal and set a briefing schedule, opening brief due Oct. 15, 2026. https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/2104995902398349760. Oct. 15, 2026: FPC reported that it filed the opening brief and a petition for initial hearing en banc. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-to-dc-circuit-gun-owners-shouldnt-have-to-risk-prison-to-challenge-gun-bans. The D.C. Circuit has not granted initial hearing en banc. Not a merits holding on D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b). The district dismissed on standing. D.C. Circuit magazine-ban PI law remains Hanson v. District of Columbia, 120 F.4th 223 (D.C. Cir. 2024). The Ban remains in force.

Cite Doc. 16, the Sept. 22, 2025 standing dismissal. Wehr-Darroca is not a magazine-ban merits decision. D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) has not been enjoined. The district dismissed for lack of standing. Cite Doc. 16 for the standing holding: the D.C. Circuit still requires a 'genuine and imminent' threat of prosecution and, in Parker, that the plaintiff has been 'singled out or uniquely targeted' — a 'but for the ban I would possess' allegation is not enough. That is D.C. Circuit law, not Ninth Circuit law. For a California LCM client, cite Duncan v. Bonta and Penal Code § 32310. In a California pre-enforcement or as-applied magazine paper, cite Ninth Circuit law. Navegar, Seegars, and Parker are D.C. Circuit standing cases. In a D.C. or D.C. Circuit case, quote Contreras's standing holding and Hanson II. FPC reported on Oct. 15, 2026 that it filed the opening brief and a petition for initial hearing en banc in No. 25-7159. https://www.firearmspolicy.org/fpc-to-dc-circuit-gun-owners-shouldnt-have-to-risk-prison-to-challenge-gun-bans. The D.C. Circuit has not granted initial hearing en banc, and it has not reached the Ban on the merits. Cite Doc. 16 until a published opinion does. A continuance paper can note that the opening brief and the en banc petition are on file. Cite the FPC report for the filing date.

Cert denied — SCOTUS No. 26-258. Official docket checked Oct. 19, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-258.html. Oct. 19, 2026: Petition DENIED. The Oct. 19, 2026 order list lists 26-258 among the denials, with no noted dissent or statement: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/101926zor_q8l1.pdf. Title: Andrea Beckwith, et al., Petitioners v. Aaron M. Frey, Individually and as Attorney General of Maine. Lower court: First Circuit No. 25-1160, decision date April 3, 2026 (upheld Maine's 72-hour waiting period), reported in the SAF/NRA brief as Beckwith v. Frey, 171 F.4th 560 (1st Cir. 2026); D. Me. 1:24-cv-384. Linked application 25A1424: Justice Jackson extended the time to file until Aug. 31, 2026. Petition filed Aug. 25, 2026; docketed Aug. 27, 2026. Sept. 22, 2026: amicus brief of the Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association of America filed (Konstadinos T. Moros, counsel of record). Sept. 24, 2026: Maine waived its right to respond. Sept. 28, 2026: amicus briefs of The Buckeye Institute and of Montana and 24 other states filed. Distributed Sept. 30, 2026 for the Conference of Oct. 16, 2026. Petitioners' counsel of record: Erin E. Murphy, Clement & Murphy. Maine's 72-hour law remains in force. The April 3, 2026 First Circuit decision stands.

Beckwith v. Frey is the First Circuit decision upholding a 72-hour waiting period after a passed background check, and it stands after the Supreme Court denied certiorari on Oct. 19, 2026. It binds in the First Circuit and is persuasive authority elsewhere. Expect a prosecutor to cite it against a waiting-period or acquisition-delay challenge, including one aimed at California's 10-day wait (Penal Code §§ 26815, 27540). The denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits. Answer Beckwith with the Tenth Circuit's contrary holding: "Until the 1990s, no waiting period law required a prospective buyer to wait longer than was necessary to conduct a background check," Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134, 1150 (10th Cir. 2025). Pair Ortega with Rocky Mountain Gun Owners and Alicia Garcia v. Jared S. Polis. The SAF/NRA amicus brief filed Sept. 22, 2026 remains a citable critique of the First Circuit's standard. Quote-ready from the brief: the First Circuit held there is no explicit right to acquire a firearm and that a claim is not viable "unless plaintiffs demonstrate that the Act is abusive toward Second Amendment rights," and called the 72-hour law "a burden on, but not an infringement." Amicus cite: Beckwith v. Frey, 171 F.4th 560, 570 (1st Cir. 2026). That reporter pin is from the brief's table of authorities, not re-pulled from a reporter. Amici argue that this standard puts interest-balancing back in at step one, that plain text is not meant to be a difficult hurdle, and that a delay implicates the right. They cite Elite Precision Customs, slip op. at 6: conduct either implicates the plain text and gets a presumption, or it does not. They asked the Court to apply Bruen whenever a law "burdens those wishing to exercise" the right (Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032, 2047 (2026)). Founding-era retail advertisements in the brief rebut a "guns were not readily available, so use the nuanced approach" expert story. Cite the brief for them. California overlay inside the brief: Nguyen v. Bonta, 140 F.4th 1237, 1245 (9th Cir. 2025) (mass availability is not new); and a Sacramento superior-court minute order in Poway Weapons & Gear v. CDTFA treating an 11% gun-and-ammunition tax as outside the plain text, which the amicus offers as an example of a plain-text dodge. The brief cites the Yukutake panel, 130 F.4th 1077, which the en banc court vacated; cite Yukutake v. Lopez (9th Cir. en banc). Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-258/425185/20260922140518490_2026-09-22%20Brief%20of%20SAF%20and%20NRA.pdf.

Cert pending — SCOTUS No. 25-1324. Official docket checked Oct. 16, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1324.html. Oct. 13, 2026: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/16/2026, then Rescheduled the same day. No new conference date is on the docket. The petition remains pending. Prior lines remain: Oct. 6, 2026 Rescheduled; Oct. 5, 2026 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/9/2026; Sept. 24, 2026 Rescheduled; Sept. 2, 2026 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2026; petitioners' reply SUBMITTED Sept. 2, 2026 (David H. Thompson, Cooper & Kirk); Maryland brief in opposition Aug. 17, 2026. Maryland Gun Safety Act of 2023 location bans remain in force. Reply still asks for certiorari or, in the alternative, a GVR in light of Wolford v. Lopez. State's vampire-rule cross-petition dismissed Aug. 13, 2026 (Rule 46). Fourth Circuit (Jan. 20, 2026) upheld most location bans while striking the private-property default. Cite the official docket. FPC tracker matches the Oct. 6 reschedule: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/novotny.

In a California sensitive-places or gun-free-zone paper, cite the petitioners' filed reply brief (Sept. 2, 2026), which is the quote source for these arguments: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-1324/422804/20260902141528155_25-1324%20Reply%20Brief.pdf. The reply argues that Wolford's holding that the Second Amendment protects carry "as they go about their daily lives" (146 S. Ct. at 2041) is incompatible with a "tight web of laws that severely restricts the carrying of firearms for self-defense," and that there is nothing "exceptional" about visiting a park or riding public transit. Cite the reply for the historical principle that location bans are traditional only where the government actually secures the place against armed attack (courthouses, legislatures, polling places). Unsecured parks, transit, restaurants, and forests fall outside that tradition. Present the reply as the petitioners' argument and request for review. Maryland's location bans remain in force while the petition is pending, and California location bans remain governed by current Ninth Circuit and California law. Cite the Ninth Circuit's Aug. 10, 2026 Wolford remand memo, 2026 WL 2291925, which says analysis of Hawaii's other location restrictions is "unaffected." The reply uses that tension as its argument for a GVR (grant, vacate, and remand). The memo addresses Hawaii's restrictions only. Pair the reply with Carralero v. Bonta and Koons v. Platkin. Current status (official docket, checked Oct. 16, 2026): the petition is pending. It was distributed Oct. 13, 2026 for the Oct. 16 conference and rescheduled the same day, and it is awaiting a new conference date. Check the docket and the Court's order lists for the next conference date before filing.

Cert denied — SCOTUS No. 26-270. Official docket checked Oct. 15, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-270.html. Title: Joseph Frederick Johnson, Petitioner v. United States. Lower court: Tenth Circuit No. 25-5159, decision date April 29, 2026. Docketed Sept. 1, 2026. Linked application 26A100: Justice Gorsuch extended the time to file until Aug. 27, 2026. Petition filed Aug. 27, 2026. United States waived the right to respond on Sept. 18, 2026. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of Oct. 9, 2026 (entered Sept. 23, 2026). Oct. 1, 2026: amicus brief of the National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation filed (Joseph G.S. Greenlee, counsel of record); amicus brief of the Cato Institute filed (Matthew P. Cavedon, counsel of record). Oct. 13, 2026: Petition DENIED. Petitioner's counsel of record: E. Joshua Rosenkranz, Orrick. Respondent: Solicitor General D. John Sauer. 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) remains in force. The April 29, 2026 Tenth Circuit decision stands. Cite the docket and the filed amicus briefs. Keep separate from Johnson v. Jacobson (SCOTUS 26-255).

Cite the Supreme Court's Oct. 13, 2026 denial of certiorari in Johnson v. United States, No. 26-270, and the NRA/FPC/SAF amicus brief filed Oct. 1, 2026, in a federal § 922(g)(1) as-applied motion, or as persuasive support in a California Penal Code § 29800 / felon-with-a-firearm as-applied paper, for a client whose predicates are nonviolent. Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-270.html. NRA/FPC/SAF brief (37 pages), cover IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER, No. 26-270: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/191/attachments/original/1790876846/2026.10.01_FPC_Amicus.pdf?1790876846. Summary (p.3): "When it comes to nonviolent felons, such as Mr. Johnson, 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(1) fails that test." The test they mean is Bruen's historical-tradition test. Part I (pp.4–5) states that Heller's footnote 26 "presumptively lawful" line still requires "historical justifications," and that "[s]ome courts—including the Tenth Circuit below—read 'presumptively lawful' as 'conclusively lawful' and forbid any as-applied challenge to prohibitions on firearm possession by felons." That sentence is the amici's description of the court below; this row has not independently quoted the Tenth Circuit slip. Binding in the Tenth Circuit as the court of appeals decision that the Supreme Court left in place. Persuasive authority in other circuits and in state courts. Cite the brief as an amicus in a denied-certiorari case. § 922(g)(1) remains in force. Keep separate from Johnson v. Jacobson (Minnesota reciprocity, No. 26-255), Cordova, Squire, Hembree, and Harris.

Panel decision stands — 9th Cir. No. 24-2701 (D.C. No. 3:20-cv-06761-EMC). Opinion filed Aug. 21, 2026 (DktEntry 62.1): VACATED and REMANDED with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of standing. California and Giffords Law Center filed a petition for panel rehearing. Cover title is PETITION FOR PANEL REHEARING. Rule 40. DktEntry 65.1, filed Oct. 5, 2026. Order filed Oct. 13, 2026, clerk stamp Molly C. Dwyer, Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Before Callahan, H.A. Thomas, and Johnstone, Circuit Judges. The order states: The panel has unanimously voted to deny the petition for panel rehearing (Dkt. 65). The petition is therefore DENIED. The Aug. 21, 2026 disposition stands.

Cite the Aug. 21, 2026 panel opinion in State of California v. ATF, 9th Cir. No. 24-2701, in an unfinished-frame, 80% lower, polymer80-style kit, or self-manufacture case. The panel vacated the district court order and remanded with instructions to dismiss without prejudice for lack of standing. California and Giffords lacked standing to demand that ATF regulate unfinished frames and receivers more aggressively, including Example 4. On Oct. 13, 2026, the same panel denied their petition for panel rehearing. The August 21, 2026 vacatur and remand for lack of standing is the disposition.

Cert pending — SCOTUS No. 26-46. Public docket as of Sept. 29, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-46.html. The City of New York waived a response Aug. 6, 2026. The Court requested a response Sept. 8, 2026, then due October 8, 2026. Sept. 25, 2026: City moved to extend that response from October 8 to November 23, 2026. Sept. 28, 2026: extension granted; response due November 23, 2026. Lower court unchanged: 2d Cir. No. 25-861-cv, summary order April 13, 2026, affirming summary judgment for the City. N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01 and N.Y.C. Admin. Code § 10-135 remain in force.

This is the live *Caetano* / common-use-at-step-one vehicle. New York's response is due November 23, 2026. Pair Viramontes and NAGR v. Lamont. New York’s stun-gun ban is still in force. Cite the Second Circuit disposition as the April 13, 2026 summary order in No. 25-861-cv. Cite in stay and continuance papers: the Court has called for a response on whether *Caetano* still controls a Bruen step-one common-use summary-judgment path. Quote *Caetano* and the filed petition.

District final judgment — D. Haw. 1:24-cv-00496-JAO-WRP (Otake, J.). ECF 107 filed Aug. 31, 2026: DENIED plaintiffs' MSJ (ECF 65) and GRANTED the State's counter-MSJ (ECF 71); clerk directed to enter judgment for defendant and close. Filed Nov. 20, 2024 as Pinales v. Lopez; remaining plaintiffs Juda Roache, Aloha Strategics LLC, JGB Arms LLC, and SAF (Elijah Pinales dismissed, ECF 98). PI denied Feb. 7, 2025 (ECF 45). HRS §§ 134-2 / 134-7 remain in force. Appeal window open; Ninth Circuit next. PWGG v. Bonta is the live California Ninth Circuit case, and Meyer v. Raoul is the Illinois case.

Cite ECF 107 as a D. Haw. judgment. This is a D. Haw. loss. The usable piece is the intrafamilial-gift split: the court conceded no Founding-era restriction on parents gifting arms to 18–20-year-olds (militia laws cut the other way) and then used 19th-century analogues. That Founding-vs-later-history move is the Bruen-step-two hook in CA under-21 acquisition motions, gift/loan/constructive-possession age arguments, and any reply to a state that analogizes only to commercial sales bans. Pair with Worth v. Jacobson (8th Cir. under-21 carry win; cert denied Apr. 21, 2025, No. 24-782) and Meyer v. Raoul. A published 9th Cir. opinion in this appeal would bind CA. Hawaii law is still in force.

Open — Cross-SJ oral argument held Aug 24, 2026 at 10:30 a.m. before Judge John L. Kane (D. Colo.); taken under advisement; written decision pending. PI denied Nov. 13, 2023. Cross-SJ briefed May–July 2025. Key 10th Cir. authority Ortega v. Grisham is now a plaintiff-only final judgment on remand (D.N.M. Docs 126–127, Aug. 27, 2026). Colorado's 3-day wait remains in effect until Kane rules.

High-value vehicle for waiting-period / cooling-off / post-background-check delay arguments. Direct 10th Cir. authority is Ortega: acquisition is protected; categorical waits lack historical analogue. As of Aug. 27, 2026 that holding is a final judgment on remand — still plaintiff-only in New Mexico, but binding circuit law in Colorado. Cite Ortega's mandate and law-of-the-case language when a trial court treats the published reversal as only a preliminary injunction. Under Browning, NM's statute remains in force beyond the plaintiff-only judgment, and Kane has not yet applied Ortega to C.R.S. § 18-12-115. Beckwith is the 1st Cir. split, and the California 10-day framing is PC 26815/27540.

Decided — 9th Cir. No. 25-693, published Aug. 27, 2026. Panel 2-1 (Koh, J., joined by de Alba, J.; Lee, J., dissenting in part) AFFIRMED C.D. Cal. (Selna, J., 8:23-cv-02413) Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. Plaintiffs stipulated away the Second Amendment claim (June 24, 2024); the opinion is 1A/4A/5A only. Statute remains in force. En banc / cert window open.

Adverse published 9th Circuit authority for California gun cases that try to suppress FFL store recordings as a government search. Majority: a search, if any, occurs when the government actually accesses the recordings — not when the dealer’s cameras roll. Cite the majority: dealer compliance with § 26806 is not state action, and the search question is government access to the recordings. If DOJ/ATF/local actually obtained the files (warrant, court order, or inspection), that acquisition is the 4A event; Carpenter and Chatrie still apply to government access. Lee dissent is usable for home-FFL inspection (unbridled timing, including hypothetical 2 a.m. / Christmas-Day searches) and for 1A chill of political talk at gun shops, but it is a dissent. Richards v. Bonta is the California 10-day waiting-period case.

Open — S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-07956, complaint filed Sept. 11, 2026 (Doc. 1, 41 pages + 10 exhibits). Civil cover sheet and summons request same day (Docs. 2–3). Judge unassigned on the first three entries. Counsel: Mirel Fisch, Law Office of Mirel Fisch. Putative Rule 23(b)(2) class of out-of-state holders of NYC Non-Resident Carry licenses subject to 38 RCNY § 5-25(g)(3)(a). Named plaintiffs: Brad G. Hendrick (Hudson Cty., N.J.), Christopher Amalfitano and Erin K. Amalfitano (Somerset Cty., N.J.), Richard M. Rocca (Northampton Cty., Pa.), Roger Restaino (Fairfield Cty., Conn.). Several have written add-firearm denials from License Division (Hendrick Jan. 23, 2025; C. Amalfitano May 13, 2026; E. Amalfitano June 8, 2026; Restaino Sept. 1, 2026). Claims: Second Amendment / § 1983; Privileges and Immunities (Art. IV, § 2); Equal Protection (14th). Relief: declaration, permanent injunction putting NC holders on the same listing terms as NY-resident Carry / Special Carry licensees, nominal damages, fees. § 5-25(g)(3)(a) remains in force. Mills v. NYC is the resident listing and one-gun-on-the-person case. Howeth and Johnson v. Jacobson are different cases.

For a client who holds or is seeking a City NC card in New York City or the Southern District of New York, the listing cap is a live licensing condition. Cite the pending complaint for continuance and licensing-condition briefing, and the listing cap remains in force. Portable pieces nationwide: (1) already-licensed nonresident treated worse than resident on the same carry card; (2) Art. IV P&I + equal-protection overlay on listing privileges; (3) backup-gun / repair-gap theory when the only listed serial is unavailable. Not a California charge.

Open — E.D. Ky. No. 2:26-cv-00091-SCM (Meredith, J., Northern Division, Covington). FPC-supported facial challenge to the National Firearms Act. Complaint Feb. 26, 2026; amended complaint Apr. 26, 2026; cross-motions for summary judgment fully briefed (plaintiffs' MSJ Dkt. 17, Apr. 24; government cross/opposition Dkt. 21). Order signed Aug. 31, 2026: oral argument on the pending SJ motions SET for Oct. 20, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. at the United States Courthouse in Lexington, Kentucky. NFA remains in force. Jensen is the N.D. Tex. enumerated-powers injunction after the tax zero-out, already operational for covered parties.

For charged conduct that is NFA registration, Form 4/Form 1, a suppressor, or an SBR, the Oct. 20, 2026 argument is continuance and stay briefing, and the line to quote is 'the constitutional status of the NFA scheme is being briefed to judgment.' If the client is a Jensen covered party, that permanent injunction is the live shield; Roberts is the competing 2A and enumerated-powers merits vehicle in a different district. After Berger (3d Cir. Sept. 1, 2026) treated silencer registration as a Bruen n.9 shall-issue hoop, a written SJ ruling in Roberts — win or loss — becomes the contrast cite. California PDs: on a federal 5861(d) sentencing or a state analogue, PC 33410/suppressor and SBR charging remain in force today.

Decided — 3d Cir. No. 24-2125, published Sept. 1, 2026 (Restrepo, Bibas, Chung). Opinion by Bibas, J. AFFIRMED E.D. Pa. 5:22-cr-00033-002 (Leeson, J.) convictions for possessing a machinegun (18 U.S.C. § 922(o)) and an unregistered silencer (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)). Argued July 8, 2025; held pending ANJRPC en banc. Judge Chung joins the judgment but does not join Part III (silencer non-infringement theory). Federal machinegun ban and NFA silencer registration remain in force.

Cite the September 1, 2026 opinion in 3d Cir. No. 24-2125 for the machinegun, silencer, and delay points below. On a § 922(o), conversion-parts, or machinegun case, quote the step-one sentence. Quote: 'At step one, machine guns are firearms, so they are “Arms” protected by the text of the Second Amendment.' Berger's war-weapon / Tommy-gun / 'not commonly used for lawful purposes' language is the sentence prosecutors will paste onto CA AWB and AR-15 charges. Distinguish the charged item: a converted automatic is not an AR-15 in common use; Viramontes/Grant is the Supreme Court vehicle for that rifle. Second, NFA silencer / Form 4 / 5861(d) cases: prosecutors will paste 'minimal, objective hoop' and Bruen n.9. Cite Chung's refusal to join Part III (tension with Bruen's rejection of means-end burden balancing) and Jensen, which enjoined NFA registration after the tax zero-out on enumerated-powers grounds — a different theory, still operational for covered parties. On a California DROS, 10-day wait, or CCW delay, Berger's Part III decides the silencer-registration hoop. Bruen n.9 itself flags lengthy wait times and exorbitant fees as the as-applied out; Lawson v. Campbell is the delay case. Cite the opinion as Third Circuit authority.

Cert pending — SCOTUS No. 26-453. Official docket as of Oct. 9, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-453.html. Docketed October 5, 2026. Petition filed September 28, 2026. Cover is dated September 27, 2026 and still reads No. ______. Response due November 4, 2026. Lower court: Second Circuit No. 23-8093. Docket decision date August 18, 2025. The petition's related-proceedings line states: judgment entered August 18, 2025; amended opinion and amended judgment entered March 5, 2026; rehearing en banc denied June 30, 2026. District: N.D.N.Y. No. 1:23-cv-00658-DNH-CFH, motion to dismiss granted November 21, 2023. Petitioners: Jeremy Kellogg and Jonathan Harmon. Respondent: Jonathan D. Nichols, individually and in his capacity as statutory licensing officer pursuant to N.Y. Penal Law §§ 265.00(10) and 400.00. Counsel of record: Amy L. Bellantoni, The Bellantoni Law Firm. The petition's account of the decision below is the petition's account. The petition's question is Article III adversity of the licensing officer.

Quote the filed petition. Question presented, petition p. i: "Whether the rule that a judge who neutrally adjudicates claims under a statute is not adverse under Article III to a litigant who challenges that statute extends to a judicial officer who, in acting on license applications, personally administers the challenged regulatory scheme rather than resolving disputes between adverse parties." That sentence is the pending question in No. 26-453. The response is due November 4, 2026, and No. 26-453 is pending. The petition's theory is a judicial officer who administers New York Penal Law § 400.00. California sheriffs and police chiefs are not that officer. Quote the petition at page i for the question presented. The petition says Bruen was a suit against such an officer. That citation is the petition's account of Bruen. The lower court is Second Circuit No. 23-8093. This is a § 1983 prospective-relief claim. It is not a California Penal Code charge.

Open — 5th Cir. No. 25-30324, rehearing en banc granted (United States v. Squire, 182 F.4th 481 (5th Cir. 2026); Higginson, J., dissenting from the grant). From E.D. La. (Vitter, J.), cover docket 2:24-CV-41-1. Louisiana amicus (Murrill / Aguiñaga) filed in support of appellant and reversal, asking the court to construe 'possess in or affecting commerce' to require a present connection to ongoing interstate commerce and to leave § 922(g)(1) in place. FPC amicus, Sept. 10, 2026, urging the en banc court to hold that Congress cannot use the Commerce Clause to turn purely local firearm possession into a federal crime merely because the gun crossed a state line in the past (Lopez / Morrison; noneconomic local conduct). FPC points to Thomas, J., in Hemani, 146 S. Ct. 1677, 1696 (2026) (§ 922(g)(3) Commerce Clause critique; cited FPC's Hemani amicus). These filings are amici, and the en banc opinion has not issued. Ninth Circuit remains Scarborough-bound. Statute remains in force.

Federal 922(g)(1) preservation and element-challenge tool, not a California dismissal case. Ninth Circuit still treats Scarborough as requiring only that the firearm previously traveled in interstate commerce. Cite Scarborough for the Ninth Circuit prior-travel element, and cite United States v. Squire, 182 F.4th 481 (5th Cir. 2026), as the pending en banc. Use for: (1) preserving a present-connection / as-applied Commerce Clause argument in CA federal FIP cases while 5th Cir. en banc is pending; (2) distinguishing 'receive ... which has been shipped or transported' from 'possess in or affecting commerce' (Louisiana's surplusage argument); (3) continuance/stay language if the en banc opinion creates a circuit split heading to SCOTUS. Section 922(g)(1) remains in force. California Penal Code § 29800 is not a Commerce Clause statute. Rahimi and Bruen address dangerousness; 925(c) restoration, Harris, and Hembree are different cases.

Open — 3d Cir. No. 25-2546 (Porter, Matey, Ambro), opinion filed Sept. 8, 2026. Official slip: https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/252546p.pdf. Unanimous panel REVERSED D.N.J. Younger abstention/stay and held NSSF has associational Article III standing to challenge N.J. A1765 (N.J.S.A. 2C:58-33 to -35 public-nuisance / 'reasonable controls') after six State enforcement actions, including against members Glock and Sig Sauer. Younger does not apply: NSSF is not a party to the state suits and is not Glock's owner/manager. Catch-22 rejected — the State may not bounce the association for suing too early (NSSF I, 80 F.4th 215 (3d Cir. 2023)) and too late (Younger). Remanded for the district court to decide the preliminary-injunction request on the merits. The opinion decides standing and Younger abstention; PLCAA preemption of A1765 is with the preliminary injunction on remand. A1765 and pending State enforcement suits remain in force. District: D.N.J. 3:22-cv-06646-ZNQ-TJB (Quraishi, J.), originally NSSF v. Platkin. Cheeseman / ANJRPC v. Davenport is the assault-weapon and large-capacity-magazine en banc case, a different statute.

Thin for a street-level CA firearms prosecution; stronger for FFL / manufacturer / association clients and for any CA case where the State or a city leans on AB 1594-style public-nuisance or 'reasonable controls' theories. Immediate uses: (1) the Porter Catch-22 paragraph when a government tries to bounce an associational challenge as both too early and too late; (2) Younger fence — membership in a trade group facing a parallel state enforcement action does not automatically wipe the federal case; Cite the September 8, 2026 slip for the standing and Younger reversal; A1765 remains in force.

Open — W.D. La. 6:26-cv-02650-DCJ-DJA (Joseph, J., Lafayette). Filed July 22, 2026 as Pool v. Hodges; defendant substituted to Col. Frank J. Besson (Rule 25(d)). FAC Doc. 17 filed Aug. 27, 2026. Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 18 / 18-1) filed Sept. 1, 2026. Prior ECF 13 (Aug. 21, 2026) limited the inquiry to La. R.S. § 40:1379.3(C)(4) and did not decide the GFSZA. Louisiana 21+ permit floor remains in force. Roache v. Lopez is a District of Hawaii acquisition judgment, and PWGG v. Bonta is the California acquisition case, on different dockets.

For a California 18-to-20 client, cite Reese v. BATFE, 127 F.4th 583 (5th Cir. 2025), and Worth v. Jacobson, 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024); Pool v. Besson is a pending Western District of Louisiana motion. This is a pending W.D. La. preliminary-injunction motion. The usable piece for a CA defender is the permit-age / school-zone trap: a client who is 18–20 may lawfully possess but cannot get a CCW (Penal Code §§ 26150(a)(2), 26155 — 21+), and without a license the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act is a 1,000-foot felony exposure on ordinary travel. Same structure as Louisiana. Pair with Reese v. BATFE, 127 F.4th 583 (5th Cir. 2025) (18–20 are 'the people'; federal 18–20 handgun-sale ban invalid) and Worth v. Jacobson, 108 F.4th 677 (8th Cir. 2024) (21+ carry-license floor invalid). Roache v. Lopez is an adverse District of Hawaii acquisition and gift judgment on a different docket. The California acquisition case is PWGG v. Bonta. If the Western District of Louisiana enters an injunction, cite it in California as persuasive authority.

Cert denied — SCOTUS No. 25-1219. Official docket checked Oct. 5, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1219.html. Title: United States, Petitioner v. Charles Hembree. Lower court: Fifth Circuit No. 24-60436, decision date January 27, 2026. Oct. 5, 2026: respondent's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis GRANTED, and the United States' petition DENIED. Distributed for Conference of 9/28/2026 on July 15, 2026. The Court denied the petition on October 5, 2026, and the January 27, 2026 opinion remains the Fifth Circuit decision. The January 27, 2026 opinion was not vacated. Opinion: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60436-CR0.pdf. Panel: Higginson, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges. Higginson wrote the opinion. Willett concurred. Cite the docket and the opinion. Johnson v. United States, Tenth Circuit, SCOTUS 26-270, is still pending, and United States v. Squire is the Commerce Clause en banc case, on different dockets.

For a federal § 922(g)(1) case whose only felony predicate is simple possession of a controlled substance, cite United States v. Hembree, No. 24-60436, slip op. at 16 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2026). Quote United States v. Hembree, No. 24-60436, slip op. at 16 (5th Cir. Jan. 27, 2026): the conviction 'violates the Second Amendment as applied' and is reversed. Quote the burden line on slip op. at 15: history and tradition do not support 'simple possession as a valid felony predicate under § 922(g)(1).' Use Kimble, 142 F.4th 308, 316–18 (5th Cir. 2025), as the limit the court applied: drug trafficking is inside the ban; unproven distribution conduct and presentence-report facts from the gun case are not the predicate. The Supreme Court denied the United States' cert petition on October 5, 2026 (No. 25-1219) and granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis the same day. The opinion stands in the Fifth Circuit. Cite the opinion in the Ninth Circuit as persuasive authority from the Fifth Circuit. The opinion itself describes the Ninth Circuit as treating § 922(g)(1) as constitutional as applied to felons generally. In a California federal court, cite the slip as Fifth Circuit persuasive authority for a simple-possession predicate; the panel did not decide a facial challenge, and the October 5, 2026 order is a certiorari denial in No. 25-1219. Pair Diaz, Kimble, Connelly, and Mitchell as the Fifth Circuit's own framework, and Johnson v. United States as the still-pending nonviolent-felon petition from the Tenth Circuit. § 922(g)(1) remains in force. Official opinion: https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/24/24-60436-CR0.pdf. Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1219.html.

Cert pending — SCOTUS No. 26-60. Public docket as of Sept. 29, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-60.html. Respondents waived; the Court then requested a response (originally due September 25, 2026) and the petition was distributed for the Conference of September 28, 2026. The docket now shows the motion to extend the response to October 26, 2026 was granted. As of the Sept. 29, 2026 docket, the line after the Conference of September 28, 2026 is the granted extension of the response to October 26, 2026. The docket shows no grant and no denial of certiorari. Sept. 24, 2026: brief amici curiae of the National Rifle Association of America and the Second Amendment Foundation filed (Greenlee for NRA-ILA; Moros for SAF). PDF: https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1512240/26-60-nra-lowry-amicus-brief.pdf. The September 24, 2026 filing is an amicus brief. Brief argues militaristic advertising and military/civilian overlap are historically ordinary and do not prove Article III traceability. Lower court unchanged: 4th Cir. No. 24-1822, 167 F.4th 175 (Feb. 11, 2026), reversed the Article III dismissal and vacated the alternative PLCAA merits dismissal as advisory. Cite the public docket and 167 F.4th 175. Post 2104620430984348105 is not the docket.

Cite 167 F.4th 175 for the Article III and PLCAA ruling. The petition remains pending. Cite 167 F.4th 175 on (1) consumer-protection and false-advertising theories used to impose industry-wide liability for a third-party crime; (2) Article III independent-criminal-actor traceability, including the Quattlebaum dissent; (3) First Amendment protection of speech promoting lawful arms, which the petition also flags under the Second Amendment. Use 167 F.4th 175 when a filing needs the standing/PLCAA overlay; pair with Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280 (2025). The petition remains pending. Distinct from Defense Distributed (SCOTUS 26-184, 3D-printer files) and from the N.D. Tex. frame/receiver case.

PI granted in part — D. Md. 8:26-cv-02963-DKC (Chasanow, J.). Memorandum Opinion ECF 35 and Order ECF 36 filed Sept. 10, 2026. Preliminary injunction (plaintiffs only) bars Montgomery County, Marc Elrich, and Marc R. Yamada from enforcing County Code §§ 57-1 and 57-11(a)(1) against Silver Spring Jewish Center, Inc. and Rabbi J. Menashe Shapiro to the extent those provisions prohibit selling, transferring, possessing, or transporting a handgun in THEIR respective places of worship. Bond waived. Facial and as-applied challenges to 100-yard buffers around other places of public assembly DENIED at the PI stage. The preliminary injunction runs to Silver Spring Jewish Center, Inc. and Rabbi J. Menashe Shapiro, and only to a handgun in their respective places of worship. The order is a preliminary injunction. Coordinated but not consolidated with Barreto v. Montgomery Cnty., 8:26-cv-02912-DKC. State's Attorney has deferred criminal prosecutions pending resolution; County police may still issue civil citations except as to these plaintiffs. County Code Ch. 57 remains in force for everyone else. Distinct from Novotny v. Moore (statewide Maryland location-ban cert) and Carralero/May v. Bonta (California SB 2).

Cite ECF 36 in a California paper for a client charged in or near a church, synagogue, or mosque under Penal Code § 26230 or SB 2. Cite the order: as-applied relief is limited to these two plaintiffs, and only as to a handgun in THEIR places of worship. Cite Wolford's 9th Cir. church-carry history (no colony/state/territory banned firearms at worship until after the Fourteenth Amendment), which this court treated as persuasive. Cite ECF 36 as a plaintiffs-only preliminary injunction. Montgomery County's ordinance is not enjoined countywide, the 100-yard buffer remains in force, and SB 2 is not decided by this order. Cite Carralero/May v. Bonta for the California SB 2 case and Novotny v. Moore for the Maryland statewide location-ban petition. July 30 is the filing date. This order is the preliminary injunction. Official opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.609948/gov.uscourts.mdd.609948.35.0.pdf. Official order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mdd.609948/gov.uscourts.mdd.609948.36.0.pdf.

Decision and Order — N.D.N.Y. 1:22-cv-00986-GTS-PJE, Document 205, filed Sept. 30, 2026 (Suddaby, J.), 54 pages. Dated September 30, 2026, Syracuse, New York. Plaintiffs' summary-judgment motion (Dkt. 178) and the cross-motions of Kindlon (Dkt. 182), Rusin (Dkt. 186), and James (Dkt. 187) are each GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. Official PDF: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829/gov.uscourts.nynd.134829.205.0.pdf. Part III.E grants plaintiffs' motion on the ban of concealed carry in airports (analyzed as N.Y. Penal Law § 265.01-e(2)(n)) and the decree permanently enjoins enforcement of the provision it cites as § 265.01-d(2)(n) "with respect airports," effectively immediately. Defendant James's request for a stay of any injunction is DENIED. Claims challenging public parks, licensed establishments where alcohol is consumed, theaters, and zoos are DISMISSED because the court follows Antonyuk v. James, 120 F.4th 941 (2d Cir. 2024) (Antonyuk II). Within three days of entry the parties must file letters specifying what portion of the complaint survives; if no letters are filed, the remainder is dismissed and a judgment issues without further order. Cite Document 205. Post 2105373544796266898 is not the order. Distinct from Christian v. James and May/Carralero. Footnote 9 (p.46) flatly rejects the argument that plaintiffs are not law-abiding because they invoked the Fifth Amendment at their depositions. See note 2 (pp.35–36), quoting U.S. ex rel. Belfrage v. Shaughnessy, 212 F.2d 128, 130 (2d Cir. 1954). Footnote 9 and note 2 are rulings in a civil summary-judgment order. Cite footnote 9. Post 2105354835340177781 restates it. Document 205 controls.

Cite Document 205 in a sensitive-places paper. The decree states that the defendants and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and persons in concert who receive notice are PERMANENTLY ENJOINED, effectively immediately, from enforcing N.Y. Pen. L. § 265.01-d(2)(n) with respect airports, and regulations, policies, and practices implementing it. Part III.E is the airport analysis, and it identifies the ban as Section 265.01-e(2)(n). Cite both § 265.01-d(2)(n) and Section 265.01-e(2)(n). The opinion never uses the word unsecured. Cite the decree as written. It does not use the word unsecured, and it is not a license to carry past TSA screening. Plaintiffs' reasons, which the court adopts, include TSA-compliant checked firearms and the fact that defendants did not appeal the court's prior preliminary injunction of this provision. Parks, alcohol-establishment, theater, and zoo claims were dismissed; those bans are not enjoined here. James's stay request is denied on page 51 even though plaintiffs did not oppose it. In a California sensitive-places paper, cite Document 205 as a Northern District of New York order. Cite the bind Suddaby applied: follow circuit sensitive-place precedent unless intervening Supreme Court decisions make overruling almost inevitable (United States v. Emmenegger, 329 F. Supp. 2d 416, 429 (S.D.N.Y. 2004); Monsanto v. United States, 348 F.3d 345, 351 (2d Cir. 2003)). He still dismissed the parks, alcohol, theater, and zoo claims. Cite May/Carralero on SB 2 with Document 205. Cite Christian v. James for the parks cert petition. Document 205 does not decide a California statute. Cite footnote 9 and note 2 from Document 205 in a California status paper. When a California status attack treats a client's invocation of the Fifth, or silence at a deposition, as proof the client is outside the "law-abiding" category, quote: "The Court flatly rejects Defendants' argument that Plaintiffs are not law abiding because of their invocation of their Fifth Amendment rights at their depositions in this action." Cite Belfrage, 212 F.2d at 130, with that quotation. Cite the order as a civil summary-judgment record in the Northern District of New York. The opinion says civil juries may be instructed that they can draw an adverse inference from the invocation. The rejection is that the inference, alone, and without other evidence, does not carry James's point on this record. Cite Okatan as the opinion cites it. Okatan does not forbid impeachment in this order, and taking the Fifth is not a Second Amendment safe harbor in this order.

Open — petition for certification pending at the New Jersey Supreme Court. Lower: N.J. Super. App. Div. A-3192-24 (Gummer, Paganelli, Vanek), unpublished per curiam June 18, 2026, official PDF https://www.njcourts.gov/system/files/court-opinions/2026/a3192-24.pdf, affirming Warren County Law Division GPA-0006-24 (May 22, 2025) that upheld the NJSP April 11, 2024 FPIC denial. App. Div. affirmed on a mixed totality under N.J.S.A. 2C:58-3(c)(5) (prior Freehold denials, authorized 2017 psych records, a family incident, and online posts) and said there was enough even without the psych records. Constitutional attacks treated as inadequately briefed and as foreclosed by In re M.U., 475 N.J. Super. 148 (App. Div. 2023). Cite the opinion under R. 1:36-3. It is unpublished. SAF amicus (Schmutter / Hartman & Winnicki) filed a brief on Sept. 8, 2026, urging the Court to grant certification and reverse, or to grant the pending M.U. petition and remand. The official Appellate Division PDF is the June 18, 2026 opinion. Sept. 12, 2026 is the date of that PDF in this record. No public C-number is on the SAF caption or a public list. Certification is sought. The petition remains pending. 2C:58-3(c)(5) remains in force. Distinct from Pratt v. Westbrook.

Cite the June 18, 2026 unpublished opinion and Bruen n.9 in a California CCW or good-moral-character paper when the State uses 'character,' social-media, or uncharged speech instead of a conviction or an objective prohibitory category. Cite Pratt v. Westbrook with Bruen n.9. Cite the June 18, 2026 opinion as unpublished. The panel said the constitutional claims were poorly briefed, and the record is not speech-alone. In a California suitability paper, cite Bruen n.9 for narrow objective criteria rather than a temperament veto. Cite NJ (c)(5) as New Jersey's statute in that hearing. The New Jersey Supreme Court petition remains pending. In re M.U. remains the New Jersey intermediate rule the Appellate Division applied.

Open — C.D. Cal. 8:22-cv-01421 (filed Aug. 1, 2022; originally Carney, J.; reassigned to Ramírez Almadani, J., after Carney retired). PI granted March 2023, published as Boland v. Bonta, 662 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (C.D. Cal. 2023): UHA microstamping, chamber-load-indicator, and magazine-disconnect requirements likely violate the Second Amendment. Ninth Circuit No. 23-55276 partially stayed the PI (CLI and MDM reinstated pending appeal; microstamping injunction remains in force). Oral argument Aug. 2023; held pending Duncan en banc; after Duncan (March 2025) supplemental briefing completed; fully briefed and awaiting the same 11-judge en banc panel as Renna (9th Cir. 23-55367). On Sept. 3, 2026, CA DOJ added 25 semiautomatic handgun models to the Roster of Certified Handguns pursuant to the unstayed microstamping injunction (20 Smith & Wesson, 3 SIG Sauer, 2 Biofire). Official list: https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/recently-added. Case still seeks complete invalidation of the UHA roster conditions. CLI, MDM, and the roster itself remain in force except as to microstamping. Distinct from Renna v. Bonta (S.D. Cal. 3:20-cv-02190 / 23-55367) and from United States v. California.

Cite Boland v. Bonta, 662 F. Supp. 3d 1077 (C.D. Cal. 2023), in a Penal Code § 32000, off-roster, or dealer DROS paper. For a client charged under PC § 32000 (manufacture/sale of an 'unsafe' handgun), in an off-roster possession or transfer matter, or in a dealer DROS issue: (1) cite the official recently-added list before treating a 2026 Smith & Wesson, SIG, or Biofire model as off-roster — 25 models were certified Sept. 3, 2026 because of the unstayed microstamping PI; (2) cite Carney: the UHA conditions 'generally prohibit Californians from acquiring state-of-the-art handguns' that are protected arms, and the State identified no historical tradition (662 F. Supp. 3d at 1085–86) — United States v. California ECF 44 reuses that language; (3) cite the Ninth Circuit stay: the Ninth Circuit reinstated CLI/MDM; only microstamping stays down; (4) Renna v. Bonta is a different docket, and this docket is not the Glock-platform / AB 1127 case. United States v. California is that case. Cite Renna v. Bonta for the companion UHA appeal (23-55367, same en banc panel) and cite United States v. California for CLI/MDM as a current enforcement target. In a continuance paper, cite the operative microstamping injunction: it is why new models exist on the roster at all. If that injunction is lifted, the certification freeze can return.

OLC memorandum opinion for the Attorney General, dated Sept. 17, 2026, signed T. Elliot Gaiser, AAG, Office of Legal Counsel. Official PDF: https://www.justice.gov/olc/media/1461811/dl. Advice, not a judicial holding. Not a nationwide injunction. 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and 922(c)(1) remain on the books. OLC concludes those provisions 'may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers who sell handguns' to otherwise law-abiding 18-to-20-year-olds. Opinion does not address § 922(x) (under-18), § 922(t)(1)(C) (under-21 NICS investigative period), § 922(g), or sales to persons under 18. Fn. 14: states are not bound; lists Cal. Penal Code § 27505 among other state age floors. State 21+ acquisition and carry statutes remain in force unless a court said otherwise. Distinct from PWGG v. Bonta (CA under-21 acquisition). Distinct from Roache, Pool, Brown, Meyer, and the FPC v. ATF tracker.

For a California client age 18–20, cite Cal. Penal Code §§ 27505 and 27510 before any federal advice. Cal. Penal Code §§ 27505 / 27510 remain in force; OLC fn. 14 says states are not bound. Cite the OLC opinion as federal charging advice. It is not California law and it is not Ninth Circuit law. Immediate use: (1) Federal 922(b)(1)/(c)(1) dealer-sale or straw-adjacent cases involving an 18–20 transferee — DOJ's own OLC says criminal penalties against the dealer for that class of sale may not be imposed; move to dismiss or seek declination, and put the slip opinion in the packet. For a California under-21 acquisition paper, and for a 21+ CCW paper under PC 26150(a)(2) / 26155, cite the opinion as persuasive only: the Wolford three-question 'the people' analysis, the militia-at-18 history, and the 26th Amendment line quoted from Worth, 108 F.4th at 691 (Benton, J.). The California acquisition case is PWGG v. Bonta. Cite the opinion for §§ 922(b)(1) and 922(c)(1). The opinion does not address § 922(x), § 922(t) waits, or § 922(g). Cite Reese, the 5th Cir. holding on the same federal statutes. Cite Roache for the adverse D. Haw. acquisition and gift judgment.

Open — D.N.J. lead 1:24-cv-07098-KMW-MJS (Williams, J.; Skahill, M.J.), consolidating Struck (originally 3:24-cv-09479). Caption now Matthew Struck, Daniel Francisco, Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., and National Rifle Association of America v. Jennifer Davenport (Attorney General) and Jeanne Hengemuhle (NJSP Superintendent); Platkin and Callahan substituted out under Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d). Docs. 91-1 and 91-2, filed Sept. 14, 2026: Struck/FPC/NRA plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and statement of material facts, seeking a declaration that N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-3(i) and N.J.A.C. § 13:54-1.9 (one handgun per 30-day period) are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against enforcement. Motion date on the SMF caption: December 15, 2026. Same-day Benton plaintiffs' MSJ (Doc. 92-4) on the consolidated docket. 2C:58-3(i) and 13:54-1.9 remain in force. Distinct from Lopez v. Los Angeles (CA municipal 1-in-30). Distinct from Cheeseman / ANJRPC v. Davenport (NJ AWB/LCM). Ninth Circuit Nguyen v. Bonta (CA statewide 1-in-30; FPC's cited analogue) is not a ruling in this case.

Cite the Sept. 14, 2026 summary-judgment motion in a New Jersey one-handgun-per-30-days file. It is not a California charge win. Cite Docs. 91-1 and 91-2 for a New Jersey file under 2C:58-3(i) and 13:54-1.9. For a California municipal one-in-30 paper, cite Lopez v. Los Angeles (LA/Inglewood municipal 1-in-30, still in force) and Nguyen v. Bonta (9th Cir. statewide 1-in-30 analogue cited in the MSJ). Cite Nguyen, not this motion. Cite the Struck motion as a pending motion. It does not invalidate any rationing statute. Cite the docket. New Jersey has not been enjoined. A continuance or stay paper in a New Jersey rationing prosecution, and the same paper in a California municipal rationing prosecution, can note that cross-MSJ is now on file with a December 15, 2026 motion date. Cite those motions. Official SMF (Doc. 91-2): https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/8901/attachments/original/1789419258/2026.09.14_091-2_SMF.pdf. Tracker: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/struck. CourtListener: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69201905/struck-v-platkin/. New (official Doc. 91-1 TOA + introduction, 2026-09-17). The Sept. 14 MSJ cites Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032 (2026); United States v. Hemani, 146 S. Ct. 1677 (2026); and Ass'n of N.J. Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Att'y Gen. N.J., 183 F.4th 211 (3d Cir. 2026) (Cheeseman/ANJRPC en banc) passim, plus Nguyen v. Bonta, 140 F.4th 1237 (9th Cir. 2025). Intro (Doc. 91-1 at 2) quotes Nguyen: one-gun-a-month laws are 'facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected' (140 F.4th at 1239–40). Quote Nguyen (and Cheeseman if in the Third Circuit), not this pending motion, in a CA paper. Cite the Doc. 91-1 table of authorities and the introduction. The remaining body pages are still a scan. Official memo: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/8901/attachments/original/1789419257/2026.09.14_091-1_Memo_ISO_P's_%28FPC%29_MSJ.pdf. 2C:58-3(i) remains in force.

Open — D. Minn. 0:26-cv-04123. Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed Sept. 24, 2026 (Doc. 1, 13 pages) by the United States against the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, and the City of St. Paul. Cause: 34 U.S.C. § 12601 pattern-or-practice. Nature of suit 440. Judge not yet assigned. Counsel: Harmeet K. Dhillon (AAG, Civil Rights), R. Jonas Geissler (DAAG), Barry K. Arrington (Chief, Second Amendment Section), Mark K. Hellie (trial, signer, Minn. Atty. No. 0346251), Keith W. Gaines, Peter J. Abernathy; Daniel N. Rosen (U.S. Attorney, D. Minn.), David W. Fuller (Civil Chief). Prior: Civil Rights Division Notice of Suit dated Sept. 17, 2026; pre-suit deadline Sept. 23, 2026, 5:00 p.m. ET. Minn. Stat. §§ 624.7131, 624.7132, and 624.714 remain in force. Distinct from Johnson v. Jacobson (non-reciprocity / § 624.714 subd. 16, SCOTUS 26-255) — complaint ¶14: 'This action does not concern public carry.' Distinct from United States v. City of San Jose (filed § 12601 CCW-fee complaint).

Cite Doc. 1, filed Sept. 24, 2026, in a waiting-period or permit-to-purchase paper. Cite Doc. 1 for a Minnesota file under §§ 624.7131 and 624.7132. For a California waiting-period paper, cite Richards v. Bonta (CA 10-day, PC 26815/27540), Ortega (10th Cir. quotes the complaint itself cites), Nguyen v. Bonta, 140 F.4th 1237 (9th Cir. 2025) (1-in-30; cited in Doc. 1 ¶¶3, 26, 31), RMGO v. Polis (CO 3-day), and Beckwith v. Frey (SCOTUS 26-258 on a 72-hour wait). Cite the United States' litigating position in Doc. 1, not as a holding: ¶3 Ortega 148 F.4th at 1143 ('[A]cquiring, purchasing, and possessing firearms is a necessary predicate to keeping and bearing them'); ¶4 (90-percent PTP/wait); ¶14 ('This action does not concern public carry'); ¶18 (both paths, up to 30 days). Johnson v. Jacobson is the public-carry case. Cite Doc. 1 as a complaint. The wait has not been enjoined. Cite Yukutake v. Lopez (9th Cir. en banc, modest shall-issue acquisition friction) in a California federal court. This complaint does not overrule Yukutake. Continuance/stay language in waiting-period or PTP prosecutions can note that DOJ has now filed a § 12601 complaint (D. Minn. 0:26-cv-04123, Sept. 24, 2026); that is a calendar fact only. Cite United States v. City of San Jose for the other § 12601 complaint. Official complaint: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mnd.236327/gov.uscourts.mnd.236327.1.0_2.pdf. Docket: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/74845045/united-states-v-state-of-minnesota/.

Cert denied — SCOTUS No. 26-255. Official docket checked Oct. 5, 2026: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-255.html. Oct. 5, 2026 line: Petition DENIED. Prior lines remain: Sept. 2, 2026 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/28/2026; respondent waiver Aug. 31, 2026; SAF coalition amicus Sept. 15, 2026; Huang Tiange and Corey Biazzo amicus Sept. 22, 2026. No response was requested. The Oct. 5, 2026 line is Petition DENIED. Cite that line. The docket checked Oct. 5, 2026 shows that denial. A GVR line is not on the docket checked that day. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 16 remains in force. Eighth Circuit remains adverse and undisturbed: 176 F.4th 1055 (May 26, 2026). X (Moros 2107107557840142608) is secondary to the docket. Keep separate from Johnson v. United States (SCOTUS 26-270).

Portable traveler / non-reciprocity authority for any client arrested while carrying on a valid out-of-state CCW in a state that does not honor it — including California clients traveling and travelers into California (pair Hoffman v. Bonta and Duvall v. State of Maryland). Cite the Eighth Circuit's adverse opinion, 176 F.4th 1055 (May 26, 2026), and the Oct. 5, 2026 docket line, Petition DENIED. The Court previously turned away Gardner on similar traveler facts. Immediate uses: (1) the continuance and stay hook that treated 26-255 as pending is retired, because the Oct. 5, 2026 line is Petition DENIED; (2) contrast language — the Eighth Circuit said non-reciprocity 'does not restrict any arms-bearing conduct,' which is the government's likely Bruen step-one line in CA nonresident-carry and traveler cases; (3) Bruen n.9 'trust but verify' once a person is already licensed, not a rolodex of state licenses. SAF coalition amicus is ON the docket as of Sept. 15, 2026 (Moros of record) — quote the filed brief if used at all. The Oct. 5, 2026 line is Petition DENIED. Official petition: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-255/419936/20260824142412427_No.%20%20Petition.pdf. Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-255.html. New (official docket Sept. 2, 2026) — DISTRIBUTED for Conference of Sept. 28, 2026. Cite the SCOTUS docket. Moros 2097727140792074466 (Sept. 9) is secondary commentary (long-conference timing; amicus-in-support practical advice). The Court has still not requested a response. Cite the Oct. 5, 2026 line, Petition DENIED, for the disposition. Cite the Sept. 2, 2026 distribution line as the conference assignment that preceded it. The Sept. 2, 2026 long-conference distribution after a waiver is a calendar fact. The disposition to cite is the Oct. 5, 2026 line, Petition DENIED. The Sept. 28, 2026 conference, not 'response due Sept. 28,' was the calendar fact as of the Sept. 2, 2026 distribution. The continuance and stay hook that treated 26-255 as pending is retired. The Oct. 5, 2026 line is Petition DENIED. The order-list line to cite is the Oct. 5, 2026 Petition DENIED. No response was requested. If a Justice later requests a response, that is a different docket event (see Calce v. City of New York). Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-255.html. New (official docket Sept. 15, 2026) — SAF/NRA/CRPA/SALC/MNGOC/CCRKBA amicus is ON the docket (submitted). The SAF/NRA/CRPA/SALC/MNGOC/CCRKBA amicus is on the docket as submitted. Cite the filed brief. Quote the filed brief if used at all. Cite the Eighth Circuit, which remains adverse, and Gardner as the caution. The Sept. 28, 2026 conference is the calendar fact recorded on the Sept. 2, 2026 distribution. The disposition to cite is the Oct. 5, 2026 line, Petition DENIED. The continuance and stay hook that treated 26-255 as pending is retired. The Sept. 28, 2026 conference and the filed supporting amicus remain docket facts. The Oct. 5, 2026 line is Petition DENIED. The merits test remains Bruen. Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-255/424260/20260915115457667_26-255%20Second%20Amendment%20Foundation%20brief%20-%20KTM%20approved%20PDF.pdf. Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-255.html. New (official SAF/NRA/CRPA/SALC/MNGOC/CCRKBA amicus, 2026-09-17). Argument I heading: 'Travelers From Other States Were Historically Exempted from State and Local Restrictions on Carrying Firearms.' Quote-ready history: 1686 East Jersey exempted 'all strangers, travelling upon their lawful occasions thro' this Province, behaving themselves peaceably'; 1813 Ky. Acts 100, 'unless when travelling on a journey.' Amici: traveler's-exception laws are 'more well-represented' than the surety/affray analogues used in Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 698; Bruen n.9 may allow a state's own shall-issue permit but a state 'may not refuse to honor the permits issued by other states.' CA overlay in Argument II (pp. 15–16): nonresident carry still costs 'anywhere between about $500 and $2,000, depending on the county and city'; PC 26165(a)(1) 16-hour training; some agencies require a psych exam under PC 26190(e); two-year renewal PC 26220(a); n.5 cites Blank v. Santa Clara County Sheriff's Department. Pair United States v. City of San Jose on the same 26190(e) psych/fee theory. Cite the Sept. 15, 2026 SAF/NRA/CRPA/SALC/MNGOC/CCRKBA brief as an amicus. Cite 176 F.4th 1055 (May 26, 2026) for the Eighth Circuit opinion. Eighth Circuit remains adverse. The Sept. 28, 2026 conference is the distribution line that remains on the docket. The Oct. 5, 2026 line is Petition DENIED. Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-255/424260/20260915115457667_26-255%20Second%20Amendment%20Foundation%20brief%20-%20KTM%20approved%20PDF.pdf. New (official Huang/Biazzo amicus, Sept. 22, 2026). Distinct from the Sept. 15 SAF traveler's-exception brief already on this row. Amici say three points were not developed the same way in the petition or other amici: (1) the Second Amendment is a uniform national right of the people and does not change at a state line — text, history, and Fourteenth Amendment incorporation; interstate comity and Article IV citizenship (Saenz v. Roe) do not shrink it; (2) Bach v. Pataki, 408 F.3d 75 (2d Cir. 2005), Peterson v. Martinez, 707 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2013), and Culp v. Raoul, 921 F.3d 646 (7th Cir. 2019) are not post-Bruen answers — Bach's premise was rejected in McDonald, Peterson was a concealed-carry-only pre-Bruen case, and Culp used means-end scrutiny; (3) this is a clean pleading-stage step-one vehicle: McCoy's dismissal after Minnesota added Texas shows selective reciprocity is unstable, and the Court can correct the framework without deciding every licensing question. Pair Hoffman v. Bonta for travelers into California. Cite the Sept. 22, 2026 Huang/Biazzo brief as an amicus. Cite 176 F.4th 1055 (May 26, 2026) for the Eighth Circuit opinion. Eighth Circuit remains adverse. Cite the Oct. 5, 2026 line, Petition DENIED, for the disposition. No response was requested. Official PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-255/425274/20260922224415240_Huang%20Biazzo%20Brief.pdf. New (official docket Oct. 5, 2026). Petition DENIED. The continuance and stay hook that treated 26-255 as pending is retired. The Oct. 5, 2026 line is Petition DENIED. No response was requested. What a traveler prosecution can still use: (1) the Eighth Circuit's adverse step-one opinion, 176 F.4th 1055 (May 26, 2026), stands in that circuit only; (2) cite the Sept. 15 SAF coalition amicus (traveler's exception: 1686 East Jersey; 1813 Ky. Acts 100) and the Sept. 22 Huang/Biazzo amicus as amicus quotes in a denied case; (3) Gardner is now joined by this denial as a caution that the Court has again turned away a traveler-reciprocity petition. Minn. Stat. § 624.714, subd. 16 remains in force. Pair Hoffman v. Bonta and Duvall v. State of Maryland. The Oct. 5, 2026 line on 26-255 is Petition DENIED. Bank signal: none.

Open — 1st Cir. No. 25-1918. Appeal from D. Mass. 1:21-cv-10960 (Casper, J.) (filed as Granata v. Healey). District opinion/judgment Aug. 29, 2025: court rejected the challenge to Massachusetts' Approved Firearms Roster and AG handgun-sales regulations (FPC characterizes the opinion as approval of the MA handgun ban; district terminated that date). Notice of appeal Sept. 24/26, 2025. Fully briefed. United States amicus (Jan. 28, 2026) supporting appellants and urging reversal; unopposed motion to participate in oral argument (Aug. 5, 2026). ARGUED Wednesday, Sept. 9, 2026, 9:30 a.m., En Banc Courtroom, 7th Floor, Boston, before Barron, Gelpí, and Rikelman (appellants/amicus 15 min, appellees 15 min); submitted; opinion pending. The First Circuit opinion is pending. Cite the Aug. 29, 2025 district judgment, which rejected the challenge, and the Sept. 9, 2026 argument. Massachusetts roster and AG sales regulations remain in force. Pair Renna v. Bonta. The panel opinion is pending. Cite the Aug. 29, 2025 district judgment and the Sept. 9, 2026 argument until that opinion is on the docket. Keep separate from Recchia v. Campbell (1st Cir. MA AWB, decided) and Lawson v. Campbell (D. Mass. nonresident LTC delays).

Portable roster/feature-gate authority for California UHA/roster practice (Renna v. Bonta). It applies beyond Massachusetts. Cite for: (1) the live First Circuit vehicle attacking a state approved-handgun roster after a district loss; (2) the United States' amicus urging reversal (Jan. 28, 2026) and sharing argument time; (3) oral argument completed Sept. 9, 2026 (Barron, Gelpí, Rikelman); submitted; opinion pending. Cite Granata for the First Circuit vehicle, the Jan. 28, 2026 United States amicus, and the Sept. 9, 2026 argument. A California roster rule is not invalidated on this record. Cite the Sept. 9, 2026 argument as argument. The opinion is pending. Keep separate from Recchia v. Campbell and Lawson v. Campbell. Cite the panel opinion when it is on the docket. The opinion is pending. Pair with Renna.

Open — C.D. Cal. (Ramírez Almadani, J.), 8:26-cv-01697-MRA-ADS. NEW (ECF 55, filed Sept. 30, 2026, 4 pages): Defendants' Supplemental Request for Judicial Notice of New Evidence in Support of Defendants' Opposition to the Motion for Preliminary Injunction, signed Sabrina T. McGraw. Official PDF: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1027170/gov.uscourts.cacd.1027170.55.0.pdf. The State asks the Court to notice three Bureau of Firearms webpages as of Sept. 29, 2026: (1) Recently Added Handgun Models, showing Glock 43X CA* added to the Roster of Handguns Certified for Sale on September 29, 2026, and 34 other models added since September 3, 2026, 31 of which have a chamber-load indicator and/or magazine-disconnect mechanism (https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/recently-added); (2) the Handguns Certified for Sale search page, including the plus-symbol legend that a model meeting Penal Code § 16885 "machinegun-convertible pistol" cannot be sold, transferred, or delivered by a dealer beginning July 1, 2026 unless a § 27595 exception applies (https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/search); (3) the Glock 43X CA roster listing, which the State says has no plus symbol and therefore is not a machinegun-convertible pistol under § 16885 (https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/handgun/43x-ca). Live OAG pages checked this pass: model title is "43X CA*" (asterisk, not plus); added-to-list date 09/29/2026. Footnote 1: Defendants "are in the process of meeting and conferring with the United States regarding Defendants' anticipated motion to supplement the record on the motion for a preliminary injunction with this newly available information," citing L.R. 7-3's seven-day notice, and they say the PI is under submission (ECF 49). ECF 55 is a request for judicial notice. Cite ECF 55 as a request for judicial notice. The request asks the Court to notice the roster pages. Mootness of AB 1127 / § 27595(a), and whether one rostered Glock model satisfies Heller, are questions the request does not decide. Penal Code §§ 27595(a) and 32015 remain in force. Same day: ECF 56, United States' Second Notice of Supplemental Authority (4 pages, 183 words), Patrick Todd, attaching Glock, Inc. v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01525-KAD (D. Conn.) Document 31. Official notice: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.1027170/gov.uscourts.cacd.1027170.56.0.pdf. Cite ECF 56 as the United States' Second Notice of Supplemental Authority. Judge Ramírez Almadani's order is not ECF 56. The United States writes that the sister court granted a PI against a statute banning sale of handguns with cruciform trigger bars, and that plaintiffs were likely to succeed "because Glock bans are presumptively unconstitutional under Bruen step one and there was no historical analogue" (ECF 56 at 3, citing Exhibit A at 7–10 and irreparable harm at 10–11). That "Glock bans" sentence is the United States' characterization. Cite Glock Inc. v. Griffin, Document 31, for the court's words. Document 32 on Glock Inc. v. Griffin is now the Connecticut injunction order; ECF 56 attached Document 31 only. Prior: complaint filed July 1, 2026; TRO denied July 9, 2026 (ECF 26); State PI opposition ECF 43 and United States opposition to the motion to dismiss ECF 42 filed Aug. 25, 2026; United States reply in support of PI filed Sept. 1, 2026 (ECF 44). Papers set dual hearings for Sept. 11, 2026, Courtroom 9B, with a time conflict between the prior lock (MTD 10:00 a.m. / PI 1:30 p.m.) and the ECF 44 caption (PI at 10:00 a.m.). ECF 55 caption: Sept. 11, 2026, 1:30 p.m., Courtroom 9B. ECF 56 caption: Sept. 11, 2026, 10:00 a.m., Courtroom 9B. Keep separate from Glock Inc. v. Griffin.

Highest immediate CA acquisition utility after Renna. For any client charged in connection with a Glock-platform pistol, unrostered handgun, AB 1127 / PC § 27595, or UHA CLI/MDM roster condition: (1) quote Heller 554 U.S. at 629 against "you can buy something else"; ECF 44 repeats that line and pairs it with Renna 667 F. Supp. 3d at 1062 and Boland 662 F. Supp. 3d at 1085–86; (2) lock step one to Wolford's three inquiries — oppose any extra "meaningful restraint" screen the State is inviting; (3) acquisition is keep: Nguyen (9th Cir.) + Ortega (10th Cir.) + Ezell, now collected in one federal PI reply on this docket; (4) MDM can disable the gun without a magazine — Boland language reused here for self-defense burden; (5) § 12601 is a federal-enforcement overlay, not a private cause of action, but ECF 44's concession-and-pattern theory is the stall-breaker on the MTD. After ECF 112, cite this docket for the Glock-ban vehicle. Pair with Boland (MDM/CLI) and Renna v. Bonta. ECF 56 (Sept. 30, 2026) is a notice. Cite it as a notice. If a sister-district cite helps a continuance or a PI brief, use Glock Inc. v. Griffin's quotes (Doc. 31 at 7 and 9–10) and Document 32's actual command, with this posture in the same paragraph: District of Connecticut preliminary injunction; defendants accepted Bruen step one for that PI; the judge said the outcome may differ on a fuller record; the injunction runs to the post-October 1, 2026 commercial Class D felony, not possession; cite it as District of Connecticut law. Cite Document 31 at 7 and 9–10 and Document 32's command for the court's words. ECF 56's "Glock bans are presumptively unconstitutional" sentence is the United States' characterization in ECF 56. It is the United States' wording, not Judge Ramírez Almadani's and not Judge Dooley's. ECF 55 is party advocacy. One rostered Glock model (43X CA*, added Sept. 29, 2026) is the State's "other guns are available" refresh. Answer with Heller 554 U.S. at 629, already collected in ECF 44. Cite Penal Code §§ 27595(a) and 32015 as in force. AB 1127 is not withdrawn on ECF 55 or ECF 44. The roster add to cite is 43X CA*, added Sept. 29, 2026. A Glock 17 is not the model ECF 55 notices. The State's plus-symbol / § 16885 coding is the State's description of its own webpage; the live listing title is 43X CA* (asterisk). The meet-and-confer is a conferral on ECF 55. ECF 55 is the request for judicial notice. Penal Code §§ 27595(a) and 32015 remain in force.

PI granted — D. Conn. 3:26-cv-01525-KAD (Dooley, J.). Document 31 (Sept. 30, 2026, 12 pages) is the opinion. Document 32 (Sept. 30, 2026, 2 pages) is the separate Order. Official opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctd.173033/gov.uscourts.ctd.173033.31.0.pdf. Official order: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ctd.173033/gov.uscourts.ctd.173033.32.0.pdf. The same order also covers National Shooting Sports Foundation Inc. v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01528-KAD. Document 32 enjoins defendants from enforcing the portion of Public Act 26-41 / H.B. 5043 that makes it a Class D felony for any individual or firm, partnership, corporation, limited liability company, association, or other similar entity that knowingly imports into Connecticut or knowingly advertises, sells, offers, or exposes for sale any convertible pistols, as defined in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202 as amended by the Act, manufactured on or after October 1, 2026. Cite Document 31 (Sept. 30, 2026) as the opinion and Document 32 (Sept. 30, 2026) as the preliminary injunction. A final judgment is not these papers. Cite them as District of Connecticut law. Complaint and TRO/PI motion filed Sept. 21, 2026. Joint hearing Sept. 29, 2026. Defendants' opposition was Document 26 (Sept. 28, 2026). HB 5043 became Public Act 26-41 on May 26, 2026, effective October 1, 2026. One sentence of Document 31 cites "No. 25-cv-1525" and "No. 25-cv-1528"; the caption and the rest of the papers use 3:26-cv-01525 and 3:26-cv-01528. The caption controls. Distinct from United States v. California & Bonta, Bathras v. Moore, and The Firing Pin v. James. The NSSF companion stays on this card.

Paste only with this posture on the card. Two papers: Document 31 is the opinion; Document 32 is the injunction. Neither is a final judgment, neither is Ninth Circuit law, and neither is a ruling on Cal. Penal Code §§ 27595 or 32015. Usable sentences from Document 31, quoted: (1) for the PI only, defendants accepted plain-text coverage, so HB 5043 "fails the inquiry at Step One" and is "presumptively unconstitutional," Wolford, 609 U.S. at 196 (Doc. 31 at 7); (2) cruciform-trigger-bar handguns, unconverted, are "extremely popular for purposes of self-defense," with possession and carry "protected by the Second Amendment" (Doc. 31 at 9), citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 624–25, and Lamont, 153 F.4th at 242; (3) founding-era proving laws do not match the how or the why of a sale ban aimed at later conversion (Doc. 31 at 10); (4) the court said a fuller record may produce a different outcome (Doc. 31 at 9). Document 32's command, quoted: defendants are enjoined from enforcing the Class D felony on knowing import into Connecticut, or knowing advertisement, sale, offer, or exposure for sale, of convertible pistols manufactured on or after October 1, 2026. Quote the order. The command to quote is the Class D felony on knowing import into Connecticut, or knowing advertisement, sale, offer, or exposure for sale, of convertible pistols manufactured on or after October 1, 2026. Possession, pre-October 1 manufacture, and a repeal of the Act are outside that quoted command. In United States v. California & Bonta, cite those sentences as a sister-district preliminary injunction. Cite Document 31 at 7, including the court's "presumptively unconstitutional" quote with Wolford, 609 U.S. at 196, and cite Document 32's command. That sentence is the United States' characterization in C.D. Cal. ECF 56. It is DOJ's wording, not the court's. Cite Document 31 and Document 32 for the holding those papers actually make. Do not say Slimline or Series VI pistols were held to be outside the statute. The court drew no inference from the filing date. Pair Bathras v. Moore and The Firing Pin v. James as sibling dockets only. Cite NAGR v. Lamont as the Second Circuit assault-weapon case the opinion cites. Cite Document 31 and Document 32 for this preliminary injunction.

Open — D. Colo. 1:26-cv-04837-NRN. Document 13, filed Oct. 7, 2026, is Plaintiffs' Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (22 pages). Official PDF: https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/19285/attachments/original/1791412621/2026.10.07_013_P%27s_%28FPC%29_MPI.pdf?1791412621. CM/ECF header: Case No. 1:26-cv-04837-NRN, Document 13. Rule 7.1 certification states counsel conferred with counsel for all defendants, including those who have not yet appeared, and all defendants oppose the motion. Document 13 is the opposed motion for a preliminary injunction. Cite Document 13 as that motion. An order granting an injunction is not in the pages read. C.R.S. §§ 18-12-203(1)(a), 18-12-213(1), 18-12-105 and Denver Rev. Mun. Code § 38-118 remain in force. The header suffix is NRN. The judge's full name is not spelled on the pages read. Certificate of service (Oct. 7, 2026) serves John Walsh as Denver District Attorney, 310 17th St., Suite 5300, Denver, CO 80202. FPC tracker also lists a First Amended Complaint dated Oct. 6, 2026 (filename 2026.10.06_009): https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hoffman-v-denver. This pass read the FPC tracker listing for a First Amended Complaint dated Oct. 6, 2026 (filename 2026.10.06_009) at https://www.firearmspolicy.org/hoffman-v-denver. The PDF at that listing is unread. Complaint Doc. 1 (Sept. 29, 2026) remains the pleading previously read. Distinct from Howeth v. City and County of Denver, Hoffman v. Bonta, Johnson v. Jacobson, and Elite Precision Customs v. ATF.

Cite this as a pending D. Colo. complaint in 1:26-cv-04837-NRN. Document 13 is the opposed preliminary-injunction motion. For California law or Tenth Circuit law, cite an opinion from that court. The usable piece for a California defender is the stacked-statute / visitor-zero-carry theory with a California plaintiff: when a city bans open carry and the state will not issue or honor a nonresident CHP, a qualified California visitor has no lawful public-carry channel in Denver. California is named in the complaint's 15-state non-reciprocity list. Immediate uses: (1) framing for a CA client arrested in Denver, or counseling a CA CCW holder who travels there; (2) pair Hoffman v. Bonta as the inbound-to-California analogue the complaint itself cites; (3) pair Howeth v. City and County of Denver as the parallel NRA Denver stacked-ban suit — cite the docket you mean, and keep this caption separate from Howeth v. City and County of Denver; (4) 922(q) school-zone overlay for a traveler without a Colorado-issued license. Relief options in the prayer are argument. Cite them as the prayer. An injunction order is not in the papers read. Howeth pleaded D.R.M.C. § 38-117; this complaint pleads § 38-118. Cite § 38-118 on this card and § 38-117 on Howeth v. City and County of Denver. Bank signal: none. New (Document 13, Oct. 7, 2026): A preliminary-injunction motion is now on file and all defendants oppose it. Cite Document 13 as the opposed motion. An injunction order is not in the pages read. A merits opinion is not in the pages read. Cite Document 13 as the motion. C.R.S. §§ 18-12-203(1)(a), 18-12-213(1), 18-12-105 and Denver Rev. Mun. Code § 38-118 remain in force. The stacked-statute / visitor-zero-carry theory on this card is still complaint posture, now also the ask in an opposed PI motion. Bank signal: none.

Open — D. Colo. 1:26-cv-03690-DDD (Domenico, C.J.; Starnella, M.J.). Verified complaint filed Aug. 12, 2026 (Doc. 1) by Greg Howeth, Zackary Dougherty, and the National Rifle Association. Originally assigned to Mag. Starnella; incomplete caption so no summons issued Aug. 13 (Doc. 3). Denver counsel appeared Aug. 18 (Doc. 4) and Aug. 24 (Doc. 8). Non-consent to magistrate Aug. 27 (Doc. 9); reassigned to Chief Judge Daniel D. Domenico Aug. 27/28 (Doc. 10); designation 26-cv-03690-DDD. Scheduling/planning conference set Nov. 18, 2026. CSSA announced joinder on X Sept. 1, 2026 (CSSA1926/2094839234536632693) as its '5th active lawsuit'; CSSA is not a plaintiff on Doc. 1 and is not on the CourtListener docket as of last update Aug. 31, 2026 — announced pending docket, not a party of record. Cite the verified complaint filed Aug. 12, 2026 (Doc. 1). A merits opinion is not the paper on this docket. Denver open-carry ban (D.R.M.C. § 38-117(a), (b), (f) as pleaded in this complaint) and Colorado resident-only CHP / limited reciprocity (C.R.S. §§ 18-12-203, 18-12-213) remain in force. Distinct from Hoffman v. City and County of Denver (FPC/Gene Hoffman; 1:26-cv-04837; complaint pleads Denv. Rev. Mun. Code § 38-118) — same stacked-statute theory, different plaintiffs and docket. Keep separate from Hoffman v. City and County of Denver. Cite § 38-117 on this card and § 38-118 on Hoffman v. City and County of Denver. Keep separate from Elliott v. Denver 1:26-cv-02948 (CSSA is a plaintiff there) and the DOJ Denver AWB/mag suit. Distinct from Johnson v. Jacobson and Elite Precision Customs v. ATF.

Cite this as a pending D. Colo. complaint, 1:26-cv-03690-DDD. For California law or Tenth Circuit law, cite an opinion from that court. The usable piece for a CA defender is the stacked-statute / visitor-zero-carry theory: when a city bans open carry and the state will not issue or honor a nonresident CHP, a qualified visitor has no lawful public-carry channel. California analogue is the combination of PC 25400/25850 (no unlicensed public carry; open carry effectively closed) plus Hoffman v. Bonta (CA nonresident CCW). Immediate uses: (1) framing for a traveling client arrested in Denver or a CA client carrying on an out-of-state permit where reciprocity is closed; (2) continuance/watch hook while Howeth is live if the charge is Denver open-carry or CO nonresident CHP; (3) Wolford same-meaning-everywhere language already in the complaint. Cite it as Bruen/Rahimi merits. Obergefell recognition is not the test stated in the complaint. Howeth is a city-level stacked-ban vehicle. The merits test remains Bruen. Distinct from Johnson v. Jacobson (SCOTUS 26-255 traveler-exception / GCA-style reciprocity petition — different take) and Elite Precision Customs v. ATF (interstate FFL handgun sale). Cite Doc. 1 and CL docket 74643179. CSSA X (Sept. 1) is secondary.

Memorandum Opinion filed Oct. 5, 2026 — D. Md. 1:26-cv-02074-RDB (Bennett, J.), Doc. 42, 45 pages. Plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction motions (ECF 21 and 29) are denied in the consolidated Bathras and Duffy cases. A separate order follows. The case continues past the preliminary stage. SB 334 was codified Oct. 1, 2026, and its substantive provisions take effect Jan. 1, 2027, so the ban is currently unenjoined and not yet in force. Official copy (CM/ECF header on the PDF): https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/17798/attachments/original/1791235016/2026.10.05_042_OPINION_Denying_P%27s_%28FPC%29_MPI.pdf?1791235016. FPC tracker: https://www.firearmspolicy.org/nra-v-moore. This card does not quote the separate order. Judge is Bennett. Bathras is the lead plaintiff. A caption reading "Judge Bathras" is an error. X (gunpolicy 2107223443221754196; 2AFDN 2107218087137382496) is secondary to Document 42. Distinct from Glock Inc. v. Griffin and United States v. California.

Paste Document 42, not the X thread, and put the denial on the page. Bennett, J., found that machinegun-convertible pistols, including Glock and Glock-style handguns, fall within the plain text because SB 334 reaches common handguns before any conversion. Use that finding in a California AB 1127 / machinegun-convertible-pistol paper at Bruen step one. Then say the same opinion denied the preliminary injunction. The judge held the plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed because he treated the ban as consistent with restrictions on "excessively dangerous weapons," and he accepted a "commensurate response" to "today's unrelenting tide of mass shootings and gun violence." That second step is the posture a defender distinguishes: a district-court preliminary ruling from outside the Ninth Circuit, issued before any final judgment. SB 334's substantive provisions become effective Jan. 1, 2027, and nothing enjoins them before then. Tell a California court that Maryland denied a preliminary injunction and has entered no final ruling. Cite 111 F.4th, not the opinion's "111 U.S." pinpoints. Pair United States v. California (Glock-platform suit) and Glock Inc. v. Griffin (Connecticut PI, the other way).

Cert pending — SCOTUS No. 26-184. Response requested Sept. 24, 2026, due Oct. 26, 2026. The petition is awaiting the Court's action, and New Jersey's ban on publishing or distributing 3D-printer firearm files remains in force. Lower court: 3d Cir. No. 23-3058, decided Feb. 12, 2026 (cited as 167 F.4th 65; pin not re-pulled from a reporter). Docketed Aug. 12, 2026; linked 25A1468. Caption: Defense Distributed, et al. v. Jennifer Davenport, Attorney General of New Jersey. Petition filed Aug. 10, 2026 (counsel of record Charles Randall Flores, Flores Law PLLC). Respondent waived response Sept. 18, 2026. DISTRIBUTED for Conference of Oct. 9, 2026 (entered Sept. 23, 2026). SoT is the SCOTUS docket, not X. Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-184.html. Petition PDF: https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/26/26-184/418580/20260810173137422_26-%20Petition%20and%20Appendix%20Volume%201%20of%202.pdf. X (2AFDN 2103237257788358732) is secondary. Distinct from Defense Distributed / SAF v. Blanche, Struck v. Davenport, and Cheeseman / ANJRPC v. Davenport.

Pending cert petition with a response requested after a waiver, and no ruling yet. Describe it to a court as a pending petition. The live event is cert-stage docket activity, so it isn't ready to paste. Use this row as the pending First Amendment and arms-information vehicle (digital designs, CAD files, technical information that enables manufacture). Mint a module from a grant, a GVR, or a merits opinion. Pair with Rigby v. Jennings (Delaware instructions ban survived under the Third Circuit Defense Distributed opinion) and keep it separate from the federal frame-receiver case (Defense Distributed / SAF v. Blanche). Official docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/26-184.html.

Live history (permanent injunction issued; later dissolution/appeal activity)

Non-resident and out-of-state applicant issues. Membership-certificate practical utility for CA public defenders handling multi-state clients.

SUPERSEDED / RETIRED — live tracker is HI #99 (Calce v. City of New York, SCOTUS No. 26-46). Official docket: Response Requested Sept. 8, 2026; due October 8, 2026. This row was distributed for the September 28, 2026 conference while the City had waived; that conference date is stale.

Live Calce card is #99. Response due October 8, 2026. Fence: this row is retired; the Sept. 28 conference date is stale.

Pending in U.S. District Court, E.D. Virginia (Judge Leonie M. Brinkema). No preliminary injunction ruling yet as of July 2026. Response deadlines extended to July 31, 2026. Filed May 2026.

Clean federal 2A / Bruen framework challenge that complements the state constitutional theories in the parallel Curtis and Crump cases. Valuable for extracting high-quality historical analysis, standing arguments, and PI/TRO briefing that can be adapted for federal 1983 actions, habeas petitions, or persuasive authority in state courts.

Stipulated Judgment and Permanent Injunction entered August 14, 2026 (D. Haw. 1:26-cv-00233-MWJS-WRP).

Direct enforcement tool for Hawaii PTA delay/denial cases in Kauai. Pattern evidence of Alan Beck forcing Hawaii counties to comply with state statutory processing deadlines via 2A + state-law overlay. Modest portable value for “shall-process within X days” challenges elsewhere.

On hold. Conference scheduled 2026-06-29 (per FPC tracker).

Direct California authority for LCM / magazine-capacity challenges. Strong portable framing for other states’ magazine bans and for “common use” / historical-tradition arguments in acquisition and possession cases.

On hold. Conference scheduled 2026-06-29 (per FPC tracker).

Parallel magazine-ban authority useful for California defenders facing LCM charges or civil restrictions; reinforces “common use” and historical-tradition arguments that travel across jurisdictions.

On hold. Conference scheduled 2026-06-29 (per FPC tracker).

AWB framing at SCOTUS level; useful for California assault-weapon / feature-based ban challenges and for distinguishing “common use” versus “dangerous and unusual” arguments.

On appeal. Three-judge panel (Gibson County Chancery) declared both statutes unconstitutional, void, and of no effect on Aug 22, 2025. Court of Appeals stayed the judgment Sept 30, 2025; statutes remain enforceable. Oral argument held June 23, 2026 (W2025-01327-COA-R3-CV). Plaintiffs filed supplemental authority citing Wolford v. Lopez (July 1, 2026). Decision pending.

Strong portable framing for any statute that treats the exercise of the right to bear arms as a crime first and a defense second. Direct authority that parks and recreational areas are not sensitive places. Useful language for attacking vague “intent” or “going armed” offenses, burden-shifting schemes, and expanding sensitive-place lists. Dual federal/state constitutional holding provides comparative value for state-constitution arguments.