Supreme Court Sidesteps Two Major Gun Rights Cases

Since the landmark Bruen decision in 2022, we’ve seen a tidal wave of Second Amendment challenges across the country. Courts have been forced to reevaluate gun laws under a stricter, history-based standard. And while we expected this new era to usher in sweeping pro-gun victories, the results have been… mixed.

I'm especially frustrated by two recent decisions—not in the rulings themselves, but in the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear them. In both cases, the high court had a chance to clarify the post-Bruen landscape and rein in inconsistent lower court rulings. Instead, they chose silence.

1. New York’s Post-Bruen Power Grab

After Bruen struck down New York’s “may issue” permitting scheme, the state legislature fired back with the Concealed Carry Improvement Act (CCIA)—a thinly veiled act of defiance. Among other things, it:

• Banned carry in a sweeping list of “sensitive places,” including public transportation, parks, and churches.
• Required applicants to turn over social media accounts for review.
• Expanded training and permitting requirements beyond reason.

Gun rights groups quickly challenged the law, arguing it blatantly ignored the Supreme Court’s directive in Bruen. A mixed bag of lower court rulings followed, but when the case made its way up to SCOTUS, the justices refused to take it.

That means the Second Circuit’s decision—largely upholding the law—stands. In practice, New York’s aggressive restrictions remain in place, and the Court did not explain.

2. Worth v. Jacobson: A Missed Opportunity for Clarity

Meanwhile, in Minnesota, a very different legal battle unfolded. In Worth v. Jacobson, the Eighth Circuit ruled that Minnesota’s ban on issuing carry permits to 18–20-year-olds was unconstitutional. The court said the restriction failed the Bruen test and had no historical precedent.

Here’s where it gets interesting: both sides asked the Supreme Court to review the decision.

Why? Because federal courts around the country are all over the map on this issue:

• A federal court in Hawaii upheld a similar age-based restriction.
• The Fifth Circuit struck down the federal law banning handgun purchases by adults under 21.
• Now, the Eighth Circuit has also chimed in.

This kind of circuit split is exactly the kind of situation the Supreme Court is supposed to resolve. Yet once again, they declined to hear the case.

What Does This Mean for Gun Owners?

When Bruen was handed down, it was a clear mandate: gun laws must be rooted in this nation’s historical tradition. But in the years since, lower courts have chipped away at that clarity, and the Supreme Court hasn’t stepped in to stop them.

Even in Vanderstok v. Garland, where the Court earlier this year upheld the ATF’s authority to regulate so-called “ghost guns,” we saw more ambiguity than conviction. That decision shocked many gun rights advocates and signaled a possible retreat from the bold constitutional clarity of Bruen.

With these two recent denials, the Court sends a troubling message: we’re not ready to finish what we started.

In the meantime, gun owners are left navigating a patchwork of conflicting rulings, arbitrary restrictions, and unanswered constitutional questions.

We’re watching closely—but for now, the silence from SCOTUS is louder than words.