How have courts ruled on challenges to local bans on weapons at protests in the last decade?
Executive summary
In the last decade, federal and state courts have moved from deferential review of weapon restrictions toward a historically grounded test that has produced a string of high-profile wins for gun-rights challengers but also a patchwork of mixed outcomes; appellate courts have struck down some local bans on carrying firearms in public while other courts have preserved narrower restrictions and bans tied to specific places or categories of people [1] [2]. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen reshaped that landscape by requiring modern regulations to align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation, and lower courts have been wrestling with what that test means in practice ever since [1] [2].
1. Courts have shifted to a “historical tradition” test that rewrites review of protest‑era weapon bans
Since Bruen, courts no longer apply interest-balancing tests for Second Amendment challenges but instead ask whether a modern restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, forcing judges to parse 18th and 19th century practices as the touchstone for contemporary bans on weapons at protests and in public spaces [1] [2].
2. Appellate courts have invalidated broad local bans on public carrying, including open‑carry rules
A notable example is the Ninth Circuit’s January 2026 decision finding California’s ban on openly carrying firearms in most urban counties unconstitutional under Bruen, reversing a lower court and emphasizing there was insufficient historical analogue for an urban open‑carry ban [3] [1]. Media reporting framed that ruling as a partial reversal of state restrictions covering roughly 95% of California’s population and as likely to spur further challenges to place‑based prohibitions [4] [5].
3. The Supreme Court is testing limits on location‑based prohibitions, particularly for private property and businesses
The Court’s 2026 docket includes cases like Wolford v. Lopez that question whether states may categorically bar firearms on private property open to the public without the owner’s consent, and early argument coverage suggested the conservative majority may be skeptical of some state laws that broadly restrict bringing guns onto private public‑facing property [6] [7]. Lower courts have issued mixed preliminary relief in such disputes—e.g., temporary restraining orders and partial reversals in Hawaii—illustrating the unsettled status of place‑based rules [7].
4. Outcomes remain mixed: some specific restrictions survive while broad bans are vulnerable
While appellate panels have struck down sweeping bans on public carry, other courts have continued to uphold narrow or historically grounded restrictions—courts have, for instance, uniformly sustained some categorical disqualifications such as bans on felons possessing firearms in the post‑Bruen world and have left in place some place‑specific rules depending on historical analogues and factual records [2]. Reporting from legal observers and scholars notes that decisions striking down bans are sometimes forecasted to be reversed on further appeal, underscoring judicial uncertainty [5] [1].
5. Legal and political actors are actively shaping test outcomes; agendas matter
Gun‑rights groups have flooded federal dockets with dozens of cases seeking to use Bruen to invalidate modern restrictions, while gun‑safety advocates and state attorneys general are vigorously defending statutes—including “sensitive places” bans and private‑property rules—so outcomes often reflect litigation resources, choice of forum, and the factual record assembled to meet Bruen’s historical inquiry [8] [9]. Commentary from outlets such as The Guardian, Reuters, and Courthouse News highlights how historical narratives (e.g., origins of the Mulford Act) and political framing influence both litigation and public perception [10] [4] [1].
6. The near term will be defined by Supreme Court rulings and further as‑applied challenges
With the Supreme Court poised to decide pivotal cases about guns on private property and other place‑based rules in 2026, lower‑court divergence is likely to continue until the Court provides clearer guidance on how strictly to apply Bruen’s historical test to modern protest‑era weapon bans; until then, expect a continuing mix of reversals, partial upholds, and intense litigation over factual records and historical analogues [6] [7] [1].