How One Supreme Court Case Is Reinforcing the 2nd Amendment & Returning Power to the States

Opinion

“The Nation’s history and tradition, not modern policy preferences, define the limits of the Second Amendment.” — N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. ___, 142 S. Ct. 2111, 2127 (2022)

When the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022, most people thought it was just about concealed carry permits. The Court struck down New York’s restrictive “proper cause” rule for public carry. But Bruen did more than that—it changed the way all gun laws are judged, putting the focus on individual rights and historical precedent, not policy arguments or statistics. The decision was a landmark victory for gun owners across America.

Federal Gun Laws Built on Commerce

Most federal gun laws, especially 18 U.S.C. § 922, rely on Congress’s Commerce Clause power. For decades, the federal government has claimed authority over firearms simply because they might cross state lines. That’s how felon-in-possession bans, serial-number requirements, and other restrictions became federal law.

But Bruen changed the game: history—not commerce—now governs whether a law is constitutional. The Founders never authorized federal bans on private gun ownership, and many modern federal restrictions now stand on shaky constitutional ground.

Federal Courts Are Divided

Since Bruen, federal courts have split on several key sections of 18 U.S.C. § 922. The growing divide shows how broad federal regulations increasingly conflict with constitutional rights.

Felon-in-Possession (§ 922(g)(1))
The Third Circuit, in Range v. Attorney General, 69 F.4th 96 (3d Cir. 2023) (en banc), held that applying the federal felon-in-possession ban to a nonviolent offender violated the Second Amendment under Bruen’s “history and tradition” test. By contrast, the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Jackson, 69 F.4th 495 (8th Cir. 2023), upheld the same law. These conflicting rulings highlight the growing divide among federal courts—and the increasing willingness of some judges to restore gun rights to otherwise law-abiding citizens with old or nonviolent convictions.

Obliterated Serial Numbers (§ 922(k))
Some courts, such as the Southern District of West Virginia in United States v. Price, 635 F. Supp. 3d 455 (S.D. W. Va. 2022), struck down the federal ban on firearms with removed serial numbers, calling it a modern invention with no historical analogue. Others, like the Eighth Circuit in United States v. Holton, No. 22-2870, 2023 WL 5988454 (8th Cir. Sept. 14, 2023), upheld it. The debate underscores that modern regulations must align with historical tradition, not impose new obstacles for lawful gun owners.

Under Indictment (§ 922(n))
In United States v. Quiroz, No. 22-CR-310, 2022 WL 4352482 (S.D. Tex. Sept. 19, 2022), the court ruled that prohibiting firearm possession by someone merely under indictment violates the Second Amendment. Some courts, however, have reached the opposite conclusion, citing early “surety laws” to justify temporary restrictions—such as in United States v. Kays, No. 23-CR-0012, 2023 WL 5339356 (N.D. Ind. Aug. 18, 2023).

The trend remains clear: law-abiding citizens cannot be stripped of their rights before conviction, a core principle of due process and gun rights alike.

Rights vs. Federal Overreach

Bruen highlights the clash between federal power and individual liberty. For decades, Congress has relied on the Commerce Clause to regulate firearms, but Bruen makes clear that history—not bureaucratic preference—sets the standard. The Second Amendment protects citizens first, and federal overreach cannot override that right. It’s a strong reaffirmation that Americans hold a fundamental, individual right to own and carry firearms.

Restoring the Balance

Critics claim that limiting federal authority could threaten public safety. However, the Founders intentionally left most firearm regulation to the states. Bruen doesn’t erase all regulation—it restores the proper constitutional balance of power, protecting law-abiding Americans and their Second Amendment rights.

The Future of Federal Gun Laws

As these court splits widen, the Supreme Court will almost certainly step in. Federal gun laws under § 922 may eventually be narrowed to cover only truly interstate issues—like trafficking and import/export—while leaving ordinary possession and carry to the states. That’s not a crisis; it’s a long-overdue correction that puts constitutional rights first.

Conclusion

Bruen began as a case about concealed carry but is now reshaping the legal landscape for every gun owner in America. By strictly enforcing the “history and tradition” test, the Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment protects law-abiding citizens first, limits federal overreach, and restores the rightful balance of power between Washington and the states.

This is not upheaval—it’s restoration. As lower courts continue to issue conflicting rulings under Bruen, the Supreme Court will inevitably have to resolve these circuit splits and set a uniform national standard. The lesson is clear: when judges adhere to the Constitution’s text and original meaning, fundamental rights endure—and that’s exactly why elections, and the judges they shape, matter profoundly to the future of American liberty.

About Sean Maloney.

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

We are in dangerous times! We are SO CLOSE to our final funding goals! With your help we can make it!