In June 2025, the Supreme Court denied cert in Snope v. Brown, over dissents from Justices Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch. This case had been stuck in docket purgatory for nearly eight months. Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the denial of cert, but wrote “this Court should and presumably will will address the AR–15 issue soon, in the next Term or two.” The Court took two such cases about a year later in July 2026. A decision is likely to come by July 2027. Here, about two years will lapse between the cert denial and the issue being resolved. Though, to be fair, this issue has been pending since 2008 or so after Heller was decided. So the more accurate count is about two decades.
What can explain each of these changes? Well, the cert grant means that a Justice who did not join the dissental flipped his or her vote to grant cert. After Snope, Justice Kavanaugh clearly became the fourth vote. After Tingley, I would wager that Justice Gorsuch became the fourth vote. After Parents Protecting Children, I think Justice Barrett changed course, as she wrote a strong concurrence in Mirabelli. I am not sure who flipped after Arlene’s Flowers, but my guess would be Justice Kavanaugh.
I suppose the initial cert denial can be due to vehicle problems, though all of these cases are brought by sophisticated counsel who tee up the issues neatly. Something else may be going on. At least in Snope, Justice Kavanaugh apparently just wanted to clear some other items off the docket before going for the AR-15 case.
— Josh Blackman in Cert Denied, Cert Delayed, Cert Granted
Chicago wants news guns, but: They Found a NEW Way to Target the Gun Industry
“Chicago has announced a new approach to firearm procurement—but is this really just about government purchasing, or does it signal a broader strategy to influence the firearms industry?
In this video, I break down Mayor Brandon Johnson’s executive order, explain exactly what it does (and doesn’t do), and discuss why this policy could become a model for other cities and states. We’ll look beyond the headlines to examine the constitutional, legal, and practical implications for gun owners and the firearms industry.”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9YMKt9u2rmk
[note: My opinion is that any state that bans firearms for citizens should not be permitted to arm its law enforcement anywhere in the state (including city law enforcement) by procuring firearms and ammo contracts from firearm and ammo manufacturers, and firearms and ammo manufacturers and dealers/sellers should not provide them firearms or ammo. Failing this, the following should be implemented by firearms and ammo manufacturers/sellers/dealers:
1. Repeated background checks via the federal NIC’s system for each individual armed law enforcement person to be conducted at the beginning of each duty period – after all this is a separate possession (for duty) case each time just like they impose on us civilians each time we buy-to-possess a firearm. These checks will be reported to the firearms and ammo manufacturer and they get to decide the continued possession, and issue a ‘permission for continued possession’ each time for each check if the background check is passed – after all, this is what these ban and constitutional rights violation states impose on civilians when they purchase firearms.
2. Their law enforcement firearms should be single shot only, requiring each round to be loaded manually and the gun can not hold more than one round at a time (so no revolvers). After all, these states do not want civilians to possess semi-auto firearms so their law enforcement should not either.
3. If a law enforcement department/agency receives any complaint about an officer, that officer should immediately be red flagged and their home invaded by an armed tactical team and their property taken and them denied actual due process – after all, this is what these states impose on civilians.
4… and more…]