Published September 18, 2026 at 5:02 AM ET · Updated September 18, 2026 at 8:17 AM ET
DOJ presses ahead with lawsuits over gun-carry laws
1 independent outlet is covering this story, first reported here by The Reload. Verification: Watching (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.
The Department of Justice is pressing ahead with lawsuits over gun-carry laws. The Reload reports that the litigation is moving forward.
Patriot Watch first flagged this story 13 d ago, when The Reload reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 13 d ago from The Reload.
⚖ The Constitutional Angle
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen held the Second Amendment protects carrying handguns publicly for self defense, and the government must justify carry rules with the historical tradition of firearm regulation. United States v. Rahimi shows a firearms regulation stands when it matches genuine historical analogues, like surety and going armed laws. These DOJ suits turn on history, not policy.
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Kevin P. Bruen, Superintendent of New York State Police 597 U.S. 1 (2022)
Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Thomas
New York's requirement that applicants demonstrate 'proper cause' — a special need for self-protection distinguishable from the general community — to obtain an unrestricted public-carry license violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms in public. The Court held the Second Amendment protects a right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense, and rejected the two-step means-end framework lower courts had applied after Heller.
United States v. Zackey Rahimi 602 U.S. 680 (2024)
Vote: 8-1 · Opinion: Roberts (C.J.)
When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), which bars firearm possession by persons subject to a domestic-violence restraining order containing such a judicial finding, is facially constitutional. The Court grounded the statute in the combined tradition of surety laws and 'going armed' laws, which permitted preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.
Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited
