2024 has been a busy year for the Second Amendment. Most of the concrete news has been good, while even larger trends loom for a possibly landmark 2025. These trends come from certain anti-gun states, the US Supreme Court, and, of course, the recent presidential election. Let’s look briefly at what’s going on, good and bad, while priming you for what may be coming in the next twelve months.
Anti-Second Amendment Legal Initiatives
Let’s get the bad stuff out of the way first with two ludicrous lawsuits.
Mexico Sues US Gun Manufacturers
Mexico went all in on blaming everyone else for their crime problems last year when they filed a $10 billion lawsuit against US gun manufacturers. The Mexican government claims that these companies, who make a lawful product in their home country, are responsible for the havoc wreaked by the drug cartels who essentially run that nation.
The goal, of course, is to bankrupt American gunmakers, or cause them egregious harm by forcing them to spend millions of dollars defending themselves. That goal becomes even more evident when we note that former activists with Mike Bloomberg’s Everytown for Gun Safety are advising the Mexican government. It was they who initiated the lawsuit. The US Supreme Court may hear that case next year. It’s difficult to see how Mexico could be successful.
States Sue Glock
Closer to home, 15 states and the District of Columbia are suing Glock over the “Glock Switch” controversy. New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin is leading the charge, saying that Glock is knowingly producing guns that can be readily converted into “fully automatic assault weapons.” Never mind that Glock doesn’t make Glock Switches, more correctly known as auto sears, which are already illegal under federal law. It’s almost like gun control laws don’t work.
Anyway, Platkin says that Glock has refused to change the design of its guns to make Glock Switches useless. Glock, of course, should do no such thing, especially since criminals would just redesign new auto sears to fit the new parameters. But this isn’t really about auto sears. It’s about bankrupting Glock.
This case is moving forward and seems ridiculous. But if Platkin is successful, expect him to target more gunmakers. We’ll see how this goes, but it will likely drag out for some time because Glock cannot give in. Doing so would be admitting they had done something wrong, opening themselves up to even more of this stuff.
Anti-Gun Activism
Gun controllers have been on the defensive recently, but they’re always looking to exploit a tragedy. Activists have seized on the recent murder of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson to go after suppressors. Suppressors, of course, are tightly controlled by the NFA, but they are legal in 42 states.
We’ve seen some positive momentum toward easing suppressor restrictions, especially with the endorsement of the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery. That group of doctors recently issued a position statement encouraging suppressor use to reduce the hearing loss caused by shooting.
Gun controllers state, however, that suppressors encourage would-be murderers and make them more deadly because potential victims can’t hear the initial gunshots. Such statements display their ignorance of such things, but since when have gun controllers actually understood the devices they seek to restrict or outright ban?
Supreme Court Second Amendment Cases
2024 saw one major Supreme Court decision regarding firearms. Cargill v. Garland successfully challenged the ATF’s reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns. Anyone who knows anything about how firearms work saw that one coming. It’s a good sign that the Biden Administration’s use of the ATF to enact rules carrying the weight of federal law is imploding. I’m hoping that the new administration will reverse those rules entirely, negating the need for further judicial action. We’ll see.
But a potential landmark case is brewing for 2025. The Supreme Court will meet in January to decide whether to take three important cases. The first is Snope v. Brown, which challenges Maryland’s “assault weapons” ban. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals is hearing a similar case on the Illinois ban, so it seems the high court is about ready to move on this subject. Finally.
The justices will also consider Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island, which challenges that state’s magazine ban. The third is Gray v. Jennings, an interesting case from Delaware that looks to establish procedures for granting preliminary injunctions on Second Amendment cases. That may seem boring, but it’s a big deal. Right now, courts across the nation apply different standards, especially in anti-gun jurisdictions. Setting a clear precedent would end all of that and dramatically cut back on anti-gun judges’ ability to stall Second Amendment-based challenges.
The Court has outright denied several Second Amendment cases this year, so the fact that these three are being considered is a good sign. Positive outcomes would cripple the anti-gun agenda. We should know something by the last week of January.
The Hunter Biden Pardon and the Second Amendment
Whether you agree with Joe Biden’s pardon of his son, Hunter, or not, the president may have inadvertently opened the door for future Second Amendment-based legal action. Biden’s published announcement of the pardon included the following statement:
“Without aggravating factors like use in a crime, multiple purchases, or buying a weapon as a straw purchaser, people are almost never brought to trial on felony charges solely for how they filled out a gun form…”
That begs the question: if those violations are indeed victimless crimes that shouldn’t be prosecuted, then why do they exist at all? The most actively anti-gun president in American history may have just given Second Amendment litigators a huge gift, which I’ve heard they are already looking to exploit. That would be ironic indeed.
Donald Trump’s Election: Good for the Second Amendment?
Most gun owners breathed a sigh of relief when Kamala Harris lost the presidential election. Not that Trump is rabidly pro-2A, but he sure beats the alternative. And his election opens up several possibilities for rolling back the most egregious actions taken by his predecessor. Trump has already nominated a new ATF Director, Arizona venture-capitalist-turned-politician Blake Masters. Masters professed strong pro-2A sentiments in his unsuccessful bid for the Senate, and seems to be a clear upgrade, from my point of view, to current ATF Director Steve Dettelbach.
Dettelbach seemed perfectly happy to advance the Biden Administration’s radical anti-gun agenda, promulgating rules like those regulating bump stocks, pistol braces, and frames and receivers. Masters seems more Second Amendment-friendly, creating hopes that he would rescind those rules, rendering the current legal challenges moot. That will free up lots of money for gun rights organizations to use elsewhere.
More importantly, two staunch pro-2A Supreme Court justices are nearing retirement. Clarence Thomas is 76 years old. Samuel Alito is 74. I’m not suggesting that either man retire. But if they do so in the next few years, Trump will nominate their replacements. His previous three justices have been solid on the Second Amendment. Any others he might appoint would hopefully be the same.
Finally, Biden’s anti-gun program, including the ATF’s rulemaking binge, has been largely masterminded by the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention. That office is purposely staffed by professional gun control lobbyists. There’s also speculation they are ultimately behind Matthew Platkin’s Glock lawsuit. Biden created that entity, which does indeed have offices in the White House and a direct line to Biden himself. Trump hasn’t commented directly, but gun rights groups believe he will abolish that organization when he takes office.
More in 2025
This column will hopefully return in 2025. If so, we’ll keep you updated on gun rights and Second Amendment issues. We have some momentum. We need to keep it. Until next time.
