Anchor
The Second Amendment after Bruen
Rule ChangesHow the Supreme Court's 2022 history test is remaking gun law across America
June 18th, 2026: Supreme Court Rules 9-0 in Hemani, Limiting Drug-User Gun BanNew here? Follow stories to track developments over time. Create a free account to get updates when stories you care about change.
Overview
Updated Jun 26The Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment rulings in June 2026, both expanding gun rights. On June 25, Wolford v. Lopez struck down Hawaii's rule barring licensed gun carriers from entering businesses without advance property-owner permission—a decision that also applies to similar laws in California, New York, Maryland, and New Jersey.
A week before Wolford, all nine justices ruled in U.S. v. Hemani that prosecuting a casual marijuana user for gun possession violates the Second Amendment. The government failed to show a historical tradition of disarming people based solely on drug use; the federal ban stands, but prosecutors must now demonstrate a closer link to dangerous behavior. In California, the full Ninth Circuit heard arguments on the open-carry ban (Baird v. Bonta) on June 3 and on the ammunition background check law (Rhode v. Bonta) on March 25, with both decisions pending.
Why it matters
Every gun law in America now lives or dies on a history test, and the Supreme Court just decided two more chapters.
Questions about this story
Free account needed to ask — your question is kept and asked for you right after sign-up. Answers are public.
No questions yet — be the first to ask.
Key Indicators
95%
California residents affected by open-carry ban
The prohibition applied to all counties over 200,000 people; challenge now before the full Ninth Circuit en banc
450+
Bruen-related court decisions since 2022
Double the Second Amendment cases filed in Heller's first year
88%
Gun laws upheld post-Bruen
Most regulations survive the history test despite initial fears
9-0
Hemani Supreme Court vote
Unanimous ruling limiting the federal drug-user gun ban to prosecutions with a historical grounding
Voices
Curated perspectives — historical figures and your fellow readers.
Play
Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.
Most of these play right now — no account needed. Sign up to save scores, keep a streak, and unlock Debate and Predict.
Log in
Sign Up
WHO SAID WHAT?
Can you match the quotes to the right people?
Rounds
People
Per question
Scoring
- points for each correct match.
- time bonus when you answer in under seconds.
- streak bonus once you hit correct in a row.
Score:
Round /
streak
— Who said this?
Tip: press 1– to answer.
Score:
Round /
streak
+
Base +
⚡ Speed +
🔥 Streak +
Streak reset · the answer was
No answer in time · it was
Next Up
Round
of
Score
points
Correct
Best Streak
Time Bonus
Avg. Time
points — sign up to put that on the leaderboard.
Now try on this story
Higher or Lower
A number from this story, against one from elsewhere in the news — guess which is bigger, then keep the chain going. 5 rounds, 3 strikes; a miss costs a strike and resets your streak.
Example
Anchor
EU tariff revenue
$52B
Big for this kind of number
Mystery
Pentagon AI contract
?
Round 1
Streak: 0
Mystery
?
Keyboard: ↓/L lower · ↑/H higher
0 pts
Best streak: 0 · Rounds: 0
0 points — sign up to put that on the leaderboard.
Now try on this story
Timeline
The Second Amendment after Bruen
Order five events from this story, oldest at top. Each in the right slot scores 1 — neighbours within one slot count too. Your previous result — green ✓ for exact slots, yellow ~ for off by one. Cards now in true chronological order.
Loading puzzle…
Tap 💡 Free hint to lock the oldest into slot 1 — that leaves just four to order. Type pills are clues.
0/5
Exact slot
0/5
Within 1
Sign up to save your score and track a streak across stories.
Now try on this story
Connections
Sixteen names from the news. Find the four hidden groups of four. Four mistakes max.
Loading today's puzzle…
0/4 groups
Mistakes
Sign up to keep a daily streak — a new puzzle lands every day.
Now try on this story
Exit debate?
Your progress in this debate will be lost.
How it works
- 1 Two AI personas square off on this story.
- 2 You predict who'll win each round — correct picks earn XP.
- 3 One crossfire question is yours to fire. Pick it carefully.
Couldn't generate a topic
Select Your Champions
Choose one persona for each side of the debate
DEBATE TOPIC
Choose personas with different perspectives for a more dynamic debate.
SIDE A (PRO)
Select debater for this side:
No debate personas available right now.
SIDE B (CON)
Select debater for this side:
No debate personas available right now.
VS
Get ready to make your prediction...
Round of
Claim
Evidence
Stakes
Crossfire Answer
Closing Statement
Claim
Evidence
Stakes
Crossfire Answer
Closing Statement
Your Crossfire Question
Generating arguments...
Who's Got This Round?
Make your prediction before the referee scores
The referee scores both sides on
Correct predictions earn +20 XP
· Press 1 or 2 to pick
Evidence
40%
Logic
30%
Detail
20%
Style
10%
Round Results
Your Pick
Not this time
(%)
Overall Score
/10
Your Pick
Not this time
(%)
Overall Score
/10
Set the Crossfire
Pick the question both personas must answer in the final round
Crafting crossfire questions...
Choosing a question earns +10 XP crossfire bonus
🏆
Total XP Earned
Cred Change
Predictions
Debate Oracle! You called every round!
Sharp Instincts! You know your debaters!
The Coin Flip Strategist! Perfectly balanced!
The Contrarian! Bold predictions!
Inverse Genius! Try betting the opposite next time!
XP Breakdown
Base completion
+20 XP
Rounds played ( rounds x 5 XP)
+ XP
Correct predictions ( correct x 20 XP)
+ XP
Crossfire bonus
+10 XP
Accuracy
%
Prediction History
Round
You picked:
✓
✗
Now try on this story
Keep debating to level up your credibility and unlock achievements
People Involved
Lawrence VanDyke
U.S. Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit
Author of majority opinion in Baird v. Bonta
N. Randy Smith
Senior U.S. Circuit Judge, Ninth Circuit
Dissented in Baird v. Bonta
Rob Bonta
California Attorney General
Defending California's open-carry ban before the full Ninth Circuit en banc panel (argued June 3, 2026); Baird and Rhode decisions pending
Mark Baird
Plaintiff
Prevailed in challenging California's open-carry ban
Organizations Involved
Mountain States Legal Foundation
Public-interest law firm
Represented Mark Baird in successful challenge
Colorado-based conservative nonprofit that litigates gun rights, property rights, and environmental regulation cases.
Supreme Court of the United States
Federal Court
Decided Wolford v. Lopez (6-3) and U.S. v. Hemani (9-0) in June 2026, both expanding gun rights under Bruen
The nation's highest court, which fundamentally reshaped Second Amendment law in 2022.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Federal appellate court
En banc panels heard Baird v. Bonta (June 3, 2026) and Rhode v. Bonta (March 25, 2026); both decisions pending
The nation's largest circuit court, covering California and eight other states.
Timeline
July 1967 June 2026
17 events
Latest: June 18th, 2026 · 2 months ago
Showing 8 of 17
Tap a bar to jump to that date
-
Supreme Court Rules 9-0 in Hemani, Limiting Drug-User Gun Ban
Latest Supreme CourtJustice Gorsuch wrote for a unanimous Court that prosecuting Ali Hemani, a regular marijuana user, for gun possession violated the Second Amendment. The government could not show a historical tradition of disarming people based solely on drug use; the federal ban remains in place, but prosecutors must now tie the restriction to dangerousness.
-
Ninth Circuit En Banc Hears Baird v. Bonta
LegalThe full Ninth Circuit heard argument on California's urban open-carry ban. California argued it can criminalize open carry as long as concealed carry remains available; gun rights advocates argued both carry methods are independently protected under the Second Amendment.
-
Ninth Circuit Vacates Baird Panel Opinion, Orders En Banc Review
LegalThe full Ninth Circuit vacated the January 2 panel decision that struck down California's open-carry ban and ordered the case reheard by the full court.
-
Ninth Circuit En Banc Hears Rhode v. Bonta
LegalThe full Ninth Circuit heard argument on California's requirement that gun owners pass a background check before each ammunition purchase. The DOJ and 26 states filed briefs supporting the challengers.
-
Supreme Court Hears Hemani
Supreme CourtOral arguments on whether drug users can possess firearms. Challenges federal prohibition for unlawful substance users.
-
Supreme Court Hears Wolford
Supreme CourtOral arguments on Hawaii's sensitive places law. Tests how broadly states can ban guns from public locations.
-
Bonta Issues Statement on Open Carry
Public StatementAttorney General called open carry dangerous, saying it 'terrorizes children' and 'instills fear throughout our communities' in statement supporting en banc petition.
-
California Files En Banc Petition
LegalAttorney General Bonta petitioned full Ninth Circuit to vacate panel decision and grant en banc rehearing. Mandate stayed pending decision.
-
DOJ Backs Gun Owners in Ammunition Case
LegalJustice Department's Civil Rights Division filed en banc brief supporting gun owners challenging California's ammunition background check system in Rhode v. Bonta.
-
Ninth Circuit Strikes Down Urban Open-Carry Ban
Court DecisionVanDyke wrote majority opinion finding California's ban on open carry in populated counties unconstitutional. Creates circuit split.
-
Supreme Court Refines Bruen in Rahimi
Supreme CourtCourt clarified historical test, allowing analogical reasoning rather than exact matches. Upheld domestic violence gun ban.
-
District Court Dismisses Baird Case
LegalLower court rejected Baird's challenge. He appealed to Ninth Circuit.
-
Supreme Court Decides Bruen
Supreme Court6-3 ruling struck down New York's concealed-carry law. Established historical tradition test for gun regulations.
-
Baird Files Lawsuit
LegalMark Baird sued California, challenging open-carry restrictions. Mountain States Legal Foundation represented him.
-
California Bans Unloaded Open Carry
LegislationGovernor Jerry Brown signed AB 144, prohibiting open carry of unloaded handguns statewide. Took effect January 1, 2012.
-
Heller Decision
Supreme CourtSupreme Court ruled Second Amendment protects individual gun rights. Opened modern era of constitutional challenges.
-
Reagan Signs Mulford Act
LegislationCalifornia banned loaded open carry after Black Panthers armed patrol. Governor Ronald Reagan backed the restriction.
Historical Context
3 moments from history that rhyme with this story — and how they unfolded.
1967
The Mulford Act (1967)
After the Black Panthers conducted armed patrols in Oakland, California banned loaded open carry. Republican Don Mulford authored the bill. Governor Ronald Reagan—who supported gun rights generally—signed it, saying he saw 'no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.' The NRA backed the restriction. Thirty armed Black Panthers had occupied the state Capitol in May 1967, frightening lawmakers into swift action.
Then
California prohibited loaded open carry statewide, disarming the Black Panthers' copwatching patrols.
Now
Became the foundation for California's incremental restrictions, culminating in the 2011-2012 total open-carry ban.
Why this matters now
The Ninth Circuit's ruling directly challenges laws descending from the Mulford Act, raising questions about whether racial motivations undermine historical justifications.
2008
District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess firearms, striking down D.C.'s handgun ban. Justice Scalia's majority opinion anchored gun rights in self-defense but noted the right isn't unlimited. For 14 years, lower courts applied a two-step test: Does the Second Amendment cover this conduct? If yes, apply heightened scrutiny balancing government interests against individual rights.
Then
D.C.'s handgun ban fell, but many state and local restrictions survived interest-balancing tests.
Now
Opened modern Second Amendment litigation but left regulations largely intact through balancing frameworks.
Why this matters now
Bruen explicitly rejected Heller-era balancing tests, replacing them with pure historical analysis and dramatically shifting the landscape.
2016-2017
Peruta v. San Diego County (2016-2017)
A Ninth Circuit panel initially ruled California must allow either open or concealed carry. But the full court reversed en banc, finding no Second Amendment right to concealed carry since open carry remained theoretically available. Gun rights advocates appealed to the Supreme Court, which denied review. The en banc decision allowed California to maintain its dual ban by threading a logical needle: concealed carry isn't protected because open carry exists; open carry can be banned because it's dangerous.
Then
California's dual ban survived despite the logical tension, preserving strict carry restrictions.
Now
Bruen obliterated Peruta's reasoning by rejecting interest-balancing and demanding historical support for each restriction.
Why this matters now
Baird v. Bonta revisits the same circuit with a new test, showing how Bruen upended precedents that once protected state gun laws.
Sources
(34)Related Stories
Supreme Court tests whether marijuana users can own guns
Rule Changes
Updated May 30
Ninth Circuit tosses California ghost gun lawsuit over standing
Rule Changes
Updated 5 days ago
Colorado requires a permit and training to buy many semiautomatic guns
Rule Changes
Updated Aug 2
Supreme Court opens prison gates wider for federal inmates
Rule Changes
Updated May 20
Supreme Court takes up transgender sports bans
Rule Changes
Updated May 20
Federal judge rules Idaho abortion ban unconstitutional without a health exception
Rule Changes
Updated Aug 15