You’re reading our series on 2025 state constitutional trends. All cases are handpicked and available by us state case database.
State courts considered a variety of gun rights issues in 2025. Multiple courts, including Georgia, Iowa, Kansas, and Washington, have upheld firearm restrictions under both state and federal right-to-bear arms provisions. These courts have often struggled to interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decisions and determine when and how to apply federal case law to state constitutional issues.
Prohibition of large capacity magazines
In May, the Washington Supreme Court upheld a state law that bans the sale or manufacture of high-capacity magazines that allow shooters to fire multiple times without reloading. Often used in mass shootings.
7-2 majority washington vs gator custom gun The ruling explained that high-capacity magazines are not “weapons” protected by the Second Amendment, nor is it a state’s constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. It also wrote that purchasing these products “is not necessary to the basis of the right to possess firearms for self-defense.”
The case highlighted the ongoing difficulties state and federal courts face in interpreting and applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment rulings. The trial court initially found that Washington’s ban violated the state constitution, based on federal precedent. The order came after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling. New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruenannounced a “history and tradition” test for evaluating the legality of weapons restrictions and ruled unconstitutional a New York state statute requiring proof of “special necessity” for self-defense to obtain certain concealed handgun permits.
After the US Supreme Court in 2024 America vs. Rahimi The Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court’s suspension of the ruling, noting that there was “no benefit to the trial court” in ruling that those subject to domestic violence restraining orders could be temporarily disarmed. Rahimi“This makes it even clearer.” bridge”
“I am perplexed by our Second Amendment jurisprudence; bridge and Rahimi” Chief Justice Stephen Gonzalez said during oral argument. gator custom gun.
González’s comments were similar to those of other judges considering challenges to weapons restrictions. bridge. “There are concerns about how ‘history’ and historiography can become part of legal analysis” in gun rights cases, Ohio Judge Jennifer Brunner wrote in 2022. And during oral arguments in a case challenging the switchblade ban in 2024, Massachusetts Judge David Lowy said, “I don’t know what the country’s historical tradition means. … People in Wyoming in 1867 may have had a slightly different view of whether they needed to possess the closest thing to a switchblade, but does that matter?”
A unique interpretation of the right to bear arms
The Kansas Intermediate Court of Appeals ruled in February 2025 that the state’s constitutional right to “keep and bear arms” should be applied independently of, and not concurrently with, the Second Amendment.
In 2010, Kansas voters amended the state constitution, replacing the guarantee of the “right to bear arms” for “defense and safety” with explicit protection of an individual’s “right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home, and state, for lawful hunting and recreational use, and for other lawful purposes.”
in state vs. hallMauricio Hall argued that his felony possession conviction violated state amendments. After conducting rigorous research, the Kansas Court of Appeals rejected his constitutional argument, holding that the state’s ban on gun possession by people convicted of certain felonies for several years after release was narrowly tailored to the compelling public safety interest.
In reaching this result, the court refused bridgeThe “history and tradition” test to determine whether laws regulating firearms are constitutional under the Second Amendment. The court said there was a “significant textual gap” between Kansas’ Right to Arms Clause and the Second Amendment, and it “strongly disagrees” with a lockstep approach. It went on to say that the purpose of the 2010 amendment was to “constitutionalize the rights of gun owners” recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2008. District of Columbia v. Hellera 5-4 vote said the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to own a handgun for self-defense. The court held that the state amendments did not reflect an intent to reflect the subsequent evolution of federal rights after enactment of the federal law.Heller.
of bridge This test does not map neatly to state constitutions, especially when it comes to protecting the state’s right to bear arms. bridge“When challenging gun regulations based on state constitutional protections, courts now face uncertainty about both the governing legal review and the relevant historical evidence,” said Andrew Willinger of the Duke Firearms Law Center.
age limit for gun ownership
In May, the Georgia Supreme Court unanimously upheld a law that prohibits anyone under 21 from carrying a handgun in public unless they have undergone military training.
in Stevens vs. StateThomas Stevens, 20, challenged the law based on the Georgia Constitution’s Right to Bear Arms Clause, not the Second Amendment. Stevens asked the high court to introduce stricter scrutiny from federal decisions and a “history and tradition” test into state jurisprudence.
In rejecting his claim, the court relied on longstanding precedent interpreting state provisions that explicitly give lawmakers “the power to prescribe the manner in which arms are carried.” Under this provision, the court stated that “restrictions do not violate the constitutional right to bear arms unless they are ‘unreasonable’ or ‘arbitrary'” and do not amount to “a complete denial of the right to bear arms.” Stevens said he was unable to make a convincing argument for introducing a federal test into state right-to-bear-arms case law, adding that language giving Congress the power to regulate weapons makes sense. The States Clause is “significantly different” from the Second Amendment.
Waiver of the Right to Bear Arms
in State vs. Colethe Iowa Supreme Court held that because Jordan Cole agreed to the terms of a protective order that expressly prohibited him from possessing firearms, he voluntarily waived his claim to the right to bear arms arising from that order.
The decision provides “a practical path to constitutionally disarming individuals subject to domestic violence protection orders in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s broken Second Amendment ruling.” RahimiProfessor Eric Ruben recently wrote: “Rahimi The Iowa Supreme Court’s decision upholds firearm bans in conjunction with restraining orders only if the judge finds that the defendant poses a ‘credible threat,’ and many state protective orders lacking such a finding are in constitutional limbo,” Ruben explained. call “We faced that gap.”
• • •
The majority of cases regarding the right to bear arms in the United States are heard in state courts. The above decisions highlight the difficulty these courts face in navigating recent federal jurisprudence. “There is little relief in sight for state courts struggling to interpret the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment decisions,” Reuben wrote.
Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot state court report Senior Attorney and Manager of the Justice Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Chihiro Isozaki is a consultant in the Democracy Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
Recommended citation: Kathrina Szymborski Wolfkot & Chihiro Isozaki, Litigation trends: State courts challenge gun rightsSᴛᴀᴛᴇ Cᴏᴜʀᴛ Rᴇᴘᴏʀᴛ (January 27, 2026), https://statecourtreport.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/case-trends-state-courts-grapple-gun-rights
