It’s Been a Good Week For The Second Amendment

For once, gun rights advocates have a reason to celebrate. According to Washington Gun Law President William Kirk, two federal courts handed down rulings in favor of the Second Amendment on the very same day – both significant in scope, both carrying national implications. Coming on the heels of another victory earlier in the week, Kirk called it “a very positive week” and a rare stretch of momentum for constitutional carry and firearms rights.

New York’s Residency Requirement Struck Down

The first case, Higbie v. James, came out of the Northern District of New York. As Kirk explained, the case challenged a state law that restricted concealed carry licenses to New York residents or those who conduct their principal business in the state. In practice, it meant visitors – whether tourists, truckers, or business travelers – couldn’t apply for a permit even if they otherwise met all legal qualifications.

“This was essentially saying your Second Amendment rights end at the state line,” Kirk said, underscoring how out of step such a rule was compared to other constitutional protections. No other right – speech, religion, voting – vanishes simply by crossing a border. Yet New York had insisted gun rights were different.

Mootness and Other Legal Roadblocks

Kirk noted that New York fought hard to dismiss the case before it reached the merits, raising defenses like mootness, standing, and Eleventh Amendment immunity. The state even argued that because some counties had begun allowing nonresidents to apply, the issue was no longer live.

But the court wasn’t buying it. Quoting directly, Kirk said the judges emphasized that “a defendant’s voluntary cessation of a challenged practice will moot a case only if the defendant can show the practice cannot reasonably be expected to recur.” In other words, New York couldn’t simply tweak a rule during litigation to dodge review, then reverse course later.

Why Plaintiffs Didn’t Need to Apply First

Another state argument – delivered with what Kirk described as a “straight face” – was that plaintiffs lacked standing because they hadn’t even applied for a license. The problem? They legally couldn’t apply. Forcing citizens to go through a futile process before challenging an unconstitutional restriction made no sense, and the court agreed.

As Kirk put it, the Supreme Court has made clear that “plaintiffs should not be required to engage in futile acts before bringing a constitutional challenge.” That principle sealed the defeat of New York’s procedural defenses.

Historical Tradition Argument Falls Apart

At the heart of Higbie v. James was the test laid out in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. If an activity is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the burden shifts to the government to justify the restriction with a historical tradition of similar regulation.

The state had none. As Kirk explained, New York admitted licensing laws of this type didn’t even appear until the early 20th century – far too recent to satisfy the Bruen standard. The court concluded there was “no supportive historical tradition” for restricting carry permits to residents, rendering the law unconstitutional as applied to the plaintiffs.

Florida Case Expands Rights for Medical Marijuana Patients

The second major win came from Florida in the case of Florida Commissioner of Agriculture v. Attorney General of the United States. This case dealt with 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(d)(3) and 922(g)(3), federal statutes that bar unlawful drug users from possessing firearms. The plaintiffs weren’t street-level criminals, but medical marijuana patients acting in compliance with Florida law.

Initially, a district court dismissed the case, ruling that cannabis users were neither “law-abiding” nor even part of “the people” under the Constitution. But a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit saw things differently.

The Court Rejects the “Irresponsible” Label

Kirk explained that the government argued marijuana users were “dangerous, unpredictable, and not part of the people.” The appellate panel rejected that characterization, noting the worst offense alleged was a misdemeanor under state law. Historically, Americans have not been disarmed for mere misdemeanors.

Drawing on Rahimi, the panel also rejected the government’s broad use of the term “irresponsible.” As Kirk stressed, letting Washington disarm anyone it labeled as irresponsible could quickly become a “catch-all” tool for mass disarmament.

Narrow but Important Victory

The panel’s opinion was clear: medical marijuana patients cannot automatically be lumped in with felons or other dangerous individuals. “The federal government failed to establish that disarming medical marijuana users is consistent with this nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation,” Kirk quoted.

This doesn’t mean individuals can legally possess firearms while under the influence of drugs – a line Kirk emphasized he fully supports. But it does mean patients shouldn’t lose their rights for days or weeks on end simply because of lawful treatment recommended by a doctor.

A Week of Wins Builds Momentum

Kirk pointed out that these two rulings weren’t isolated. Just two days earlier, another court struck down New Mexico’s statutory waiting period in Ortega v. Lujan Grisham. Three major victories in one week signal growing consistency in how courts apply the Bruen framework.

For years, states like New York and California relied on arguments about “public safety” to uphold restrictions. Now, courts are demanding historical analogues, and when states can’t provide them, the laws are falling.

Why This Matters Beyond New York and Florida

Though the rulings are limited to specific plaintiffs and jurisdictions, the reasoning carries national weight. Residency restrictions like New York’s exist elsewhere, and challenges are likely to spread. Likewise, the Florida case opens the door to further challenges against federal statutes that paint with too broad a brush.

Kirk reminded viewers that consistency is key: “Lawful and responsible gun ownership mandates that people cannot possess firearms while under the influence. But why should a person be disarmed six days a week because on the seventh they follow their doctor’s advice?”

Highlighting the Extremes

From my perspective, what makes this week so interesting is how both cases highlight the extremes governments will go to in limiting rights. New York essentially argued that rights stop at its border, while the federal government claimed medical patients stop being “the people” when using a treatment legal under state law.

Both positions show how fragile constitutional protections can become if courts don’t enforce limits. And both victories remind us that the judiciary is beginning to demand real historical justification, not vague claims of safety or responsibility.

Looking Ahead

As Kirk noted, these wins are not the end of the road. Appeals will almost certainly follow, and other states are watching closely. But together with Ortega v. Lujan Grisham, this week marks a meaningful pushback against laws that disarm peaceful citizens.

“It’s been a very positive week,” Kirk concluded, emphasizing the importance of staying educated and prepared. If the momentum continues, the Second Amendment may see even more protections restored in the months ahead.