Gun Control Laws Get a Boost from Rahimi – But Here's Why It's Not the End of the Fight

In recent months, gun control advocates have been riding a high, thanks to a string of appellate wins that lean on the Supreme Court’s 2024 United States v. Rahimi decision. With rulings upholding restrictions like Maryland's  assault weapons ban and handgun license schemes, anti-gun politicians are cheering. But make no mistake: this isn't the end of the line for gun rights advocates. The fight is far from over.

In 2022, the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision rocked the gun control world, setting a standard that required gun laws to have clear historical analogs. Many saw this as a massive win for the Second Amendment community, as it held states accountable for overreaching restrictions. But with Rahimi, the Court seems to have pulled back just enough to give gun control laws a fighting chance.

So, what’s going on here? And why should you care?

What’s Really Happening with Rahimi?

At first glance, it looks like courts are using Rahimi to water down the clarity we got from Bruen. Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s concurrence in Rahimi has given these courts an excuse to take a more generalized approach when comparing historical precedents for gun laws. Instead of looking for a direct historical analog, as Bruen mandated, courts are now relying on broader "principles" rather than a "mold." This means that instead of focusing on specific historical examples, judges can lean on vaguer concepts of how past regulations might support current restrictions.

This is how gun-free zones in beaches, parks, and restaurants in California, or Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons,” are getting the green light. Courts are skirting Bruen by embracing Rahimi’s more relaxed historical framework.

The Dissenting Judges Get It

Not every judge is on board with this more generalized approach, though. We’re seeing significant pushback, especially from judges who value the strict originalist view laid out in Bruen. Take Judge Lawrence VanDyke of the Ninth Circuit, for example. He’s not buying this vague, “Rahimi lets us overgeneralize” argument. In his dissent on a case involving gun restrictions on people out on bail, he pointed out that Rahimi is being abused by judges who want more discretion to uphold gun laws.

VanDyke and others know the truth: these recent rulings are a stretch, and they’re just the latest attempt to chip away at our rights.

The Fight Isn’t Over

Here’s the thing: while Rahimi has given some courts wiggle room, it's not a guaranteed win for  gun control. In fact, we've seen some key victories for gun rights this year. The Eighth Circuit struck down a Minnesota law that barred 18-to-20-year-olds from carrying firearms. The Fifth Circuit has pushed back on restrictions for occasional marijuana users. These wins show that when judges stick to the Bruen standard, states still struggle to justify overreaching laws.

More cases are coming down the pipeline, and the fight is nowhere near over. We’re still waiting for decisions that could put some of these sketchy rulings in check. The Second Circuit is reconsidering New York’s “sensitive places” law after Rahimi, and we're likely to see more cases that test the limits of what courts can do with this "principle" over "mold" logic.

What Does This Mean for Us?

We know what’s at stake. These rulings aren’t just about restaurants or beaches – they’re about our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. And when courts start playing fast and loose with historical analogs, it sets a dangerous precedent.

That’s why  80 Percent Arms, and organizations like us, are continuing to fight. We’re not backing down. We’re challenging these unconstitutional regulations every step of the way, whether it's in the courts, through advocacy, or by continuing to offer the products that give Americans the freedom to build their own firearms without government overreach.

Our mission remains the same: protect and expand the Second Amendment. We’ve already been involved in fighting the ATF’s unconstitutional frame and receiver rule, and we’re not stopping there.

If you're tired of courts twisting historical precedents to justify more gun control, stay with us. Join the fight. Because no matter what the courts say, your right to bear arms is non-negotiable.

Stay tuned for updates on these cases and more – and keep building.