This week, one of the nation’s oldest federal gun laws was challenged in court and came away intact.
The tax and registration requirements on short-barrel rifles in the National Firearms Act of 1934 were upheld by a Seventh Circuit panel. The ruling came down to a Supreme Court precedent from just five years after the law was passed. 1939’s US v. Miller was the only case to directly answer a Second Amendment challenge for many, many years, but I explore whether it’s still relevant in a post-Bruen era.
Two states also received rulings in two major gun cases this week. An Oregon court upheld magazine and gun sales restrictions that have been in limbo since narrowly passing via ballot initiative back in 2020. Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a split ruling in a pair of cases against New Hampshire residents who carried guns into the state without a permit.
Plus, Contributing Writer Jake Fogleman takes a deep dive into the Supreme Court’s oral arguments in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. And professor Dru Stevenson joins the podcast to give his take on who faired best in the case.
We’re also still waiting for the results of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s review of executive branch gun policies. The 30-day period President Donald Trump gave her to figure out what to do on a long list of gun-rights advocates’ priorities has ended, but there haven’t been any public statements on the result of that, and the Department of Justice didn’t respond to my request for comment. Of course, the executive order initiating the review was dropped on a Friday afternoon. So, maybe we’ll get it later today? If so, we’ll certainly cover the details. If not, I’ll dissect the situation in Sunday’s Members’ Newsletter.
The only new indication of what may be going on with the review came in a New York Times story about a modest effort to restore the gun rights of some Americans that appears to have been derailed by a celebrity controversy. That’s down in the links, along with several other interesting stories and a surprising editorial from The Washington Post.
Federal Appeals Court Rules Short-Barrel Rifles Aren’t Protected Arms
By Stephen Gutowski
Charges against a midwestern man over possession of an unregistered short-barrel rifle don’t violate the Second Amendment, according to three federal judges.
On Monday, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals panel upheld the charges after finding the guns weren’t among the “arms” protected by the Constitution. The appeals court, which oversees Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin, affirmed a lower court’s decision to dismiss Jamond Rush’s facial challenge to the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration requirements. It concluded there is no right to keep and bear short-barreled rifles in particular.
“[W]e decline to make a step one finding that short-barreled rifles are ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment’s text—at least not on this occasion under the theories presented by Rush,” Judge Joshua Kolar wrote for the unanimous court in US v. Rush. “The record does not show such firearms are commonly used by ordinary, law-abiding citizens for a lawful purpose like self-defense.”
Analysis: Does Miller Still Matter? [Member Exclusive]
By Stephen Gutowski
In 1939, the Supreme Court handed down its first significant ruling on the scope of the Second Amendment. It’s still having an impact today, but should it?
On Monday, a federal appeals court upheld the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on shot-barrel rifles. It did so primarily by citing 1939’s US v. Miller since that ruling upheld the same law’s restrictions on short-barrel shotguns.
“In sum, Miller ‘has direct application in [this] case,’ and we therefore follow it,” Judge Joshua Kolar wrote in US v. Rush. “This alone is dispositive and brings Rush’s challenge to a halt.”
Since Miller was handed down, however, there have been five other significant Supreme Court Second Amendment rulings. Most notably, it issued landmark rulings in DC v. Heller and New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen–with the latter establishing an explicit Second Amendment test. Does Miller survive those rulings?
If you’re a Reload Member, click here to read more. If not, buy a membership today to get exclusive access!
AD: The Dispatch is For The Silent Majority of Self-Directed Thinkers
Tired of partisan media cheerleading for one team? Get the news without the drama when you join The Dispatch.
Jonah Goldberg and Steve Hayes launched The Dispatch in 2019 to build an enduring presence on the center-right for original reporting and thoughtful analysis. No insulting clickbait, no false outrage, no annoying auto-play videos—just reliable journalism that prioritizes context, depth, and understanding.
Join half a million loyal readers and start reading The Dispatch today.
Reload readers: Claim your exclusive 30-day, all-access FREE trial today.
Oregon Appeals Court Upholds Gun Purchase Permit Requirement, Magazine Ban
By Jake Fogleman
One of the most sweeping gun-control measures ever passed by ballot initiative was just given the green light by a state appeals court.
A three-judge panel for the Oregon Court of Appeals handed down a unanimous ruling on Wednesday upholding Measure 114 under the Oregon constitution. The panel held that the measure, which contains a permit-to-purchase requirement for all gun sales and a ban on ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, does not violate the state constitution’s right to keep and bear arms.
“In sum, we hold that all of Ballot Measure 114 (2022) is facially valid under Article I, section 27, because the law is capable of constitutional application,” Judge Darlene Ortega wrote in Arnold v. Kotek.
Click here to continue reading.
Massachusetts Supreme Court Issues Split Rulings on Non-Resident Gun Carry
By Jake Fogleman
The Bay State can require out-of-state visitors to obtain a special permit for their lawfully owned firearms, but only if the state grants those permits using objective standards.
That was the holding the Massachusetts Supreme Court reached in a pair of related decisions Tuesday. The state’s high court upheld the dismissal of felony gun charges against one New Hampshire man while reinstating similar charges against a separate New Hampshire resident. The distinction, the court ruled, lay in the version of Massachusetts’ gun-carry laws the state charged them under.
Podcast: Unpacking Smith & Wesson v. Mexico’s Oral Arguments (ft. Professor Dru Stevenson)
By Stephen Gutowski
This week, we’ve got a longer episode than usual.
That’s because we’re doing a deep dive into oral arguments for the Supreme Court’s latest gun case, Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. Most observers, including me, thought Mexico faired poorly in its attempt to move forward with liability claims against American gunmakers over cartel violence south of the border. However, Professor Dru Stevenson, who studies gun policy at Southern Texas College of Law, had a bit of a different take.
You can listen to the show on your favorite podcasting app or by clicking here. Video of the episode is also available on our YouTube channel.
Plus, Contributing writer Jake Fogleman and I break down the latest national gun sales data for February and discuss why they suggest trouble ahead for the gun industry. We also talk about Trump’s latest omission of his gun policy priorities in a major public address, this time in his first joint address to Congress.
Analysis: What Will SCOTUS Say About Gunmaker Liability? [Member Exclusive]
By Jake Fogleman
Mexico’s attempt to place America’s largest gun businesses on the hook for cartel violence concerns found a cold reception before the Supreme Court this week.
On Tuesday, The Court heard oral arguments in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, a case pitting a foreign government against the American gun industry with up to $10 billion at stake. The entire dispute centers around the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which generally prohibits lawsuits against gun businesses for harms perpetrated by third parties using their legal products. Though the law has long been a political flashpoint, the Supreme Court has not weighed in on the bounds of its protections or exceptions until now.
While the justices questions revealed a high level skepticism for Mexico’s specific claims against Smith & Wesson, they didn’t necessarily paint a clear picture of how far they think gunmaker liability extends.
If you’re a Reload Member, click here to read the rest. If not, buy a membership for exclusive access to this and hundreds of other stories!
Outside The Reload
Washington police academy bans Sig P320 | Seattle Times | By Mike Carter
Mexico’s lawsuit is not the way to curb gun violence | Washington Post | Editorial Board
That’s it for this week in guns.
I’ll see you all next week.
Thanks,
Stephen Gutowski
Founder
The Reload
