The constitutional battles that could reshape gun laws in the next decade

Over the next decade, a series of constitutional fights over guns is poised to decide who can carry firearms, where they can take them, and which weapons the government can ban outright. The cases already on the docket, and those lining up behind them, will test how far the Second Amendment reaches into everyday life, from marijuana use to private property rules.

These courtroom battles will not be a narrow technical story. The emerging disputes go to the core of how courts read history, how much deference lawmakers get on public safety, and whether long‑standing federal bans on certain people and weapons survive in a post‑Bruen world.

The post‑Bruen rules of the game

Every major Second Amendment fight now starts with the same reference point: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In that 2022 decision, the Supreme Court rejected interest‑balancing tests and told lower courts to ask whether a modern gun restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The ruling has already triggered a wave of challenges to federal and state laws that once looked settled.

Under the new framework, judges are expected to compare current rules to historical analogues, often from the 18th or 19th century. According to gun owners pressing these claims, history shows that individuals keep their Second Amendment right unless they are dangerous in a way that fits past practices, and that only certain locations may be deemed “sensitive” for purposes of stricter regulation, as described in one detailed review of the Second Amendment.

This history‑and‑tradition test has encouraged litigants to attack broad categories of gun bans. One influential analysis of The Coming Assault on Categorical Gun Prohibitions notes that lower courts are now grappling with challenges to restrictions that used to be taken for granted, such as bans on certain groups of people owning guns. The same piece, titled The Coming Assault on Categorical Gun Prohibitions, highlights how quickly these disputes have moved from academic theory into active litigation.

As a result, judges must decide not only what the Second Amendment protects, but also how to read centuries‑old statutes and customs in a modern context that includes semi‑automatic rifles, background check databases, and legalized cannabis.

Two Supreme Court test cases on carry and drug use

The next set of major rulings will likely grow out of two cases the Supreme Court has agreed to hear that test the limits of gun rights. In both, the plaintiffs argue that the laws restricting them violate the Second Amendment and cannot be squared with the historical tradition standard.

According to a detailed explanation of the litigation that the Supreme Court has accepted for review, the disputes involve limits on concealed carry and bans on gun possession by people who use illegal drugs. A report from Jan describes how the Supreme Court will hear arguments in two cases where the plaintiffs say the laws at issue violate their rights.

One case focuses on restrictions that make it harder to carry a concealed weapon in public. The challengers argue that, after Bruen, such limits cannot stand unless the government can point to close historical analogues. The other case centers on a federal rule that bars gun possession by anyone who is an “unlawful user” of a controlled substance, a category that includes marijuana users under federal law even in states where cannabis is legal.

A related description of the litigation notes that the Court is expected to consider whether the government can permanently disarm someone who used an illegal drug in the past, or whether the ban applies only while a person is actively a “habitual drug user.” The same Jan account explains that the Supreme Court must decide if a law that bars possession by a habitual drug user fits with historical practices or goes too far, as summarized in a segment that highlights how the Supreme Court will weigh bans on gun possession by a habitual drug user.

Together, these two disputes are likely to generate clear guidance on how far states can go in limiting public carry and how the federal government can treat people who use illegal drugs, especially marijuana, when it comes to firearm ownership.

Marijuana, guns, and a growing constitutional clash

Marijuana has become a flashpoint in this broader fight. Federal law still classifies cannabis as a controlled substance, which means that anyone who uses it can be considered an “unlawful user” for firearms purposes even in states that have legalized recreational or medical use.

Advocates for cannabis reform see this as a direct conflict between modern state policies and federal gun rules. A recent report describes how marijuana advocates have stepped into a Second Amendment fight at the Supreme Court, arguing that people who use cannabis but otherwise follow the law should not be permanently disarmed. The same account notes that this clash pits evolving marijuana policy against long‑standing federal regulations, and explains how Marijuanaadvocates are challenging federal rules at the Supreme Court in a case covered by John Fritze.

Under the Bruen framework, the key question is whether there is a historical tradition of disarming people based on drug or alcohol use alone. Some government lawyers point to past restrictions on intoxicated individuals carrying weapons, as well as rules aimed at those considered dangerous or irresponsible. Gun rights advocates counter that those measures were narrower, often tied to behavior at a particular time and place, rather than a blanket prohibition tied to a broad status like “unlawful user.”

The outcome of the current cases will have major implications for millions of Americans who live in states with legal cannabis but remain subject to federal firearm rules. If the Court narrows the definition of who counts as an unlawful user, or limits the duration of any ban, it could open the door for more gun owners who also use marijuana. If it upholds the current approach, it will affirm the government’s power to treat drug use as a basis for disarmament, even in an era of rapid marijuana legalization.

Who can own a gun: felons, drug users, and other categorical bans

Beyond marijuana, courts are wrestling with a broader question: when can the government categorically strip people of gun rights? One of the central battlegrounds is the federal “felon‑in‑possession” law, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which makes it a crime for anyone convicted of a felony to possess a firearm.

A detailed legislative analysis notes that parties have mounted challenges to the “felon‑in‑possession” statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), and that a primary issue in these cases is whether the Second Amendment permits such broad disarmament. The same report explains that these challenges focus on whether people with nonviolent convictions can be permanently barred from owning guns, and it cites the statutory reference to 922 as a central point of contention.

The same congressional summary, in another section, reiterates that parties are pressing the courts to revisit long‑standing assumptions about who can be disarmed, including those convicted of certain misdemeanors or subject to particular restraining orders. That document again highlights the role of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) and related provisions of 922, and notes that the Supreme Court has been asked to review several petitions involving these questions, as described in the segment that emphasizes how Parties have filed petitions for further review.

These challenges overlap with the marijuana litigation because another subsection, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), covers unlawful users of controlled substances. A separate analysis of the federal gun cases points out that last year, federal prosecutors obtained a conviction against Hunter Biden under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which applies to unlawful users of controlled substances, and that this provision is now under scrutiny in the courts. That same discussion describes how the Hunter Biden case has become an example of how 922(g)(3) operates in practice, and how some judges have started to question whether such status‑based bans fit the Bruen test, as discussed in a piece that recounts how Last year’s conviction might offer an off‑ramp in a major gun case involving Hunter Biden.

Legal scholars have warned that if courts start to strike down these categorical bans, the ripple effects could be extensive. The analysis of The Coming Assault on Categorical Gun Prohibitions argues that such decisions would force lawmakers to craft more targeted, behavior‑based rules rather than broad status‑based prohibitions. That could mean a shift from lifetime bans tied to any felony to more specific restrictions tied to violence, repeated dangerous conduct, or clear evidence of risk.

Where guns can go: “sensitive places” and private property

Another front in the constitutional fight concerns where guns can be carried. After Bruen, states that responded by designating large swaths of public life as “sensitive places” are now defending those choices in court.

One key case involves a Hawaii law that bars guns on most private property unless the owner explicitly allows them. Critics call this an “anti‑gun vampire rule” because it flips the default and requires affirmative permission to carry, similar to how a vampire must be invited in. A detailed argument preview notes that Hawaii’s restrictions are being challenged under the Bruen test and that the challengers say the law fails both metrics: history and text. The same report explains that both the Trump administration and the challengers characterize the effect of the law as a near‑total ban on public carry, and that a decision is expected by the summer, as described in the section that emphasizes how Hawaii‘s restrictions fail both metrics according to both the Trump administration and the challengers.

Gun owners argue that private property rules like Hawaii’s effectively nullify the right to carry in most populated areas, since many businesses and landowners might default to banning guns. Supporters of the law respond that property owners have always had the power to exclude weapons and that the state is simply clarifying that default rule in a way that promotes safety.

At the same time, lower courts are hearing challenges to other “sensitive place” designations, such as public transit, parks, and certain entertainment venues. The outcome of the Hawaii case will likely shape how far states can go in drawing these lines. If the Supreme Court upholds the law, legislatures might feel emboldened to adopt similar private property defaults. If the Court strikes it down, they will have to look for narrower ways to regulate carry in specific locations.

Assault Weapons, large‑capacity magazines, and the next wave of hardware fights

While many of the current disputes focus on who can own guns and where they can carry them, the next decade will also bring renewed battles over what kinds of weapons are protected. The most contentious of these involve so‑called Assault Weapons and large‑capacity magazines.

According to a detailed survey of major gun cases, federal appeals courts have so far been united in upholding bans on assault‑style firearms such as the AR‑15. That same report notes that these decisions have survived panel review, although some cases have been reheard en banc, and it highlights how litigants are preparing new challenges that could eventually reach the Supreme Court, as described in a section that focuses on Assault Weapons bans.

Challengers are also attacking restrictions on large‑capacity magazines, often defined as those that hold more than ten rounds. In one set of petitions tracked by the Duke Center for Firearms Law, petitioners argue principally that LCMs are “instruments that constitute bearable arms” because they are something that one “takes up in one’s hands” and can use in conjunction with a firearm. The same summary lists these disputes in a Cert Updates table that includes columns such as Case Name, Case Number, On Appeal From, and Issue, and it describes how several petitions are waiting for the Court’s response, as outlined in the Cert Updates section of SCOTUS Gun Watch 2/27/2026.

These hardware cases raise a different set of historical questions. Instead of asking whether certain people were disarmed in the founding era, courts must decide whether modern semi‑automatic rifles and high‑capacity magazines are analogous to weapons that were widely owned and accepted in earlier periods. Plaintiffs often argue that AR‑15‑style rifles are now among the most popular firearms in the country and therefore fall within the core of the Second Amendment. Governments respond that there is a tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons and that assault‑style rifles fit that category.

Given the stakes, it is likely that at least one of these cases will reach the Supreme Court in the coming years, especially as more states adopt or refine their own Assault Weapons and magazine restrictions.

Machine guns, the federal ban, and Congress’s power

Beyond semi‑automatic rifles, some advocates are now targeting the federal ban on civilian possession of machine guns. That law, which has been in place for decades, has long been considered one of the least vulnerable gun restrictions. Yet under the Bruen framework, litigants are asking whether Congress even has the constitutional authority to impose such a sweeping prohibition.

In a recent discussion of a new lawsuit, commentators asked whether Congress has the power to prohibit machine guns at all, separate from the Second Amendment question. The conversation, hosted on a program called Future, framed the suit as a direct challenge to the federal machine gun ban and raised questions about Congress’s authority under the Commerce Clause and other constitutional provisions. The segment described how the plaintiffs are using the Second Amendment and structural arguments about Congress to attack the machine gun ban and related regulations.

The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear such a case, but the existence of this litigation signals where some activists hope to go. If courts begin to question the machine gun ban, it would represent a dramatic shift in the boundaries of permissible firearm regulation. Even if these suits fail, they will test how far Bruen’s logic can be stretched and whether there are any categories of weapons that remain clearly outside Second Amendment protection.

The Third Circuit experiments and the role of lower courts

Not all of the action is at the Supreme Court. Federal appeals courts are also playing a central role in shaping the next decade of gun law, often by applying Bruen to new fact patterns and creating splits that might eventually draw the justices’ attention.

In the Third Circuit, for example, an en banc panel recently heard arguments in two separate cases that could reshape Second Amendment rights across several states. One report describes how two Third Circuit hearings brought together judges, state lawyers, and gun rights advocates to debate where individuals can carry firearms and how far states can go in restricting certain categories of people. The same account notes that the hearings involved questions about public carry locations and the scope of disarmament rules, and that attorney Angela Cai vehemently disagreed with the challengers’ reading of Bruen, as detailed in a piece on how Two Third Circuit hearings could reshape Second Amendment rights.

These cases illustrate how lower courts are testing the limits of Bruen in real time. Some panels have taken a narrow view, upholding regulations when they find close historical analogues. Others have been more skeptical of modern gun laws, especially those that apply broadly to nonviolent offenders or that create large “gun‑free zones.”

The outcomes in the Third Circuit and other appeals courts will determine how quickly the Supreme Court needs to step in again. If the circuits split sharply on key questions like felon‑in‑possession rules, marijuana‑related bans, or sensitive place designations, the justices will face pressure to provide more uniform guidance.

The Supreme Court’s crowded Second Amendment docket

Even before new petitions arrive, the Supreme Court already has a busy pipeline of gun cases. Several sources describe how the justices are poised to decide multiple major disputes in the near future, with more waiting in the wings.

One overview explains that the United States Supreme Court is set to take up major gun rights cases in 2026, including challenges that test post‑Bruen laws. That report notes that these cases could reshape the balance between individual rights and public safety regulations, and that various advocacy groups have filed amicus briefs to influence the outcome, as described in a summary that highlights how United States Supreme will weigh major gun rights cases.

A related account emphasizes that the Supreme Court is set to take up key Second Amendment challenges in 2026, including disputes over concealed carry limits and bans on gun possession by certain groups. That description points out that these cases will test how lower courts have applied Bruen and could either reinforce or recalibrate the current approach to historical analogues, as summarized in another piece that notes how the Supreme Court will take up key Second Amendment challenges.

Behind the scenes, specialized trackers are monitoring new petitions as they arrive. One such tracker, SCOTUS Gun Watch, lists pending cases in a Cert Updates table that organizes information by Case Name, Case Number, On Appeal From, and Issue. A separate entry from Jan explains that petitioners in one case argue principally that large‑capacity magazines are bearable arms and therefore protected, and it notes that several other petitions raise related questions about assault‑style weapons and sensitive place rules, as described in a January installment of Petitioners’ arguments tracked by SCOTUS Gun Watch 1/9.