Gun control advocates face setbacks in 2026 court fights

1 independent outlet is covering this story, first reported here by Bearing Arms. Verification: Watching (how we verify). Every headline links to the original reporting.

Read the story at Bearing Arms →

What we know

Gun control advocates are experiencing setbacks in court fights during 2026. The legal challenges involve gun control measures.

Patriot Watch first flagged this story 4 hr ago, when Bearing Arms reported it. So far this remains a single-source report. The most recent report came 4 hr ago from Bearing Arms.

⚖ The Constitutional Angle

Bruen held that when the Second Amendment's text covers conduct, the government must show its regulation is consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation. Wolford applied that to strike down Hawaii's law barring licensed concealed-carry holders from private property open to the public without the owner's consent. The setbacks stem from regulations failing Bruen's test.

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.

Jason Wolford v. Anne E. Lopez, Attorney General of Hawaii 609 U.S. ___ (2026) (slip op.); U.S. Reports page not yet assigned

Vote: 6-3 · Opinion: Alito

Hawaii's law (Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9.5(a) (2023)) prohibiting licensed concealed-carry permit holders from carrying handguns on private property open to the public without the owner's express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The decision restores the common-law default: a person lawfully carrying enjoys the implied license to enter property held open to the public unless the owner withdraws consent — a State may not flip that default to require express permission.

Precedent facts from the PW Law Library — primary-source verified & independently audited