The appeals court concluded that the government had failed to show that policy is consistent with "this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The contrast between the two cases illustrates the haphazard impact of an arbitrary, constitutionally dubious gun law.
In response to a Second Amendment lawsuit, the government says the restriction "serves legitimate objectives" and "only modestly burdens" the right to arms.
The appeals court concluded that the restriction impinges on the right to arms and is not consistent with the historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Melynda Vincent is asking the justices to decide whether it's constitutional to disarm people based on nothing more than a nonviolent criminal conviction.
The state may have a hard time showing that its broad restrictions are consistent with the "historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Millions of people are barred from owning firearms even though they have no history of violence, and they have essentially no recourse under current law.
The government failed to persuade the appeals court that 18-to-20-year-olds are not part of "the people" or that the age restriction is consistent with the "historical tradition of firearm regulation."
The president-elect lost his Second Amendment rights thanks to a nonsensical gun ban.
Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr. was sentenced to nearly four years in prison for violating a federal law that bars drug users from owning firearms.
Gabriel Metcalf argues that his prosecution under the Gun-Free School Zones Act violated his constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn says the law bans firearms covered by the Second Amendment and is not supported by historical precedent.
The ruling says some restrictions on guns in "sensitive places" are constitutionally dubious but upholds several others.
The ruling concludes that the government failed to show an Illinois ban is "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation."
Does the Second Amendment allow the government to ban guns in common use for lawful purposes?
The decision shows that the Supreme Court has forced judges who like gun control to respect the Second Amendment anyway.
Although the FBI never produced evidence that Ali Hemani was a threat to national security, it seems determined to imprison him by any means necessary.
Although critics say the Court’s current approach is unworkable, it has been undeniably effective at defeating constitutionally dubious gun regulations.
The president's son, who faces up to 25 years in prison for conduct that violated no one's rights, can still challenge his prosecution on Second Amendment grounds.
Their cases illustrate the injustice of taking away people’s Second Amendment rights based on nonviolent crimes
The former president's loss of his Second Amendment rights highlights an arbitrary restriction that applies to many people with no history of violence.
The state's gun permit policy underlines the absurdity of assuming that cannabis consumers are too dangerous to be trusted with firearms.
Likening drug users to people who are "mentally ill and dangerous," the ruling says barring them from owning firearms is not unconstitutional on its face.
The amended bill applies only to schools, polling places, and certain government buildings.
Legislators are taking a page from constitutionally dubious state laws that make carry permits highly impractical to use.
Hours before the president said "no one should be jailed" for marijuana use, his Justice Department was saying no one who uses marijuana should be allowed to own guns.
A federal judge ruled that three men who committed nonviolent felonies decades ago are entitled to buy, own, and possess guns.
Rejecting a challenge to the state's strict gun laws, the court is openly contemptuous of Second Amendment precedents.
The decision likens the federal law to Reconstruction era restrictions on firearms near polling places.
California made carry permits easier to obtain but nearly impossible to use.
The state's law, which a federal judge enjoined last month, prohibits firearms in most public places.
After a federal judge deemed the state's location-specific gun bans unconstitutional, the 9th Circuit stayed his injunction.
The court upheld several other location-specific gun bans, along with the state's "good moral character" requirement for a carry permit.
By banning firearms from a long list of "sensitive places," the state is copying a policy that federal judges have repeatedly rejected.
Before buying a handgun, residents had to obtain a "qualification license," which could take up to 30 days.
The case highlights the broad reach of a federal law that bans firearm possession by people with nonviolent criminal records.
with implications for the pending Supreme Court case of United States v. Rahimi
The appeals court is reviewing an injunction by a judge who concluded that the law is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's Second Amendment precedents.
The decision is another rebuke to states that have imposed broad, location-specific limits on the right to bear arms.
"There is no American tradition of limiting ammunition capacity," U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez says, calling the state's cap "arbitrary," "capricious," and "extreme."
The Court should take care not to allow an exception to the right to bear arms swallow the rule
Reading the cited sources from Everytown's amicus brief
Debate from the National Constitution Center on the impending Supreme Court case
American and English historical precedents show a robust individual right
