Texas Law Updates

Second Amendment: The Changing Landscape

Recent decisions, current law, and the cases that may reshape gun rights next.

Second Amendment law has changed substantially in only a few years. The Supreme Court has rejected older approaches that allowed courts to balance gun restrictions against governmental interests and has instead focused courts on the text of the Second Amendment and this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

But that framework has generated new questions: Who can be disarmed? Where can firearms be prohibited? What weapons are protected? What happens when firearms and drugs intersect? And how closely must a modern law resemble historical firearm regulations?

Last Legal Review: September 6, 2026
At a glance

Where Things Stand

Tap any case for a plain-English explanation.

Part 1 — The modern framework

How We Got Here

  1. 2008FOUNDATIONAL
    District of Columbia v. Heller

    The Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms, particularly for self-defense in the home. The right is not unlimited.

  2. 2010APPLIES TO STATES
    McDonald v. City of Chicago

    The Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller applies against state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment.

  3. 2022MAJOR CHANGE
    New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen

    The Court replaced interest balancing with an analysis grounded in constitutional text and historical tradition.

Bruen Changed the Test

Before Bruen, many courts applied a form of interest balancing: they considered the individual's Second Amendment rights and weighed them against the government's public-safety interests.

Bruen rejected that approach. When conduct is protected by the text of the Second Amendment, the government generally must justify its restriction by demonstrating consistency with the Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Does the Second Amendment's text cover the conduct?
Yes
Government must demonstrate an adequate historical tradition supporting the restriction.

Public safety remains important, but courts may not simply decide that a restriction is constitutional because a judge believes its benefits outweigh the burden on the right.

Part 2 — Controlling law

Rahimi: Bruen Does Not Require a Historical Twin

CONTROLLING LAWDECIDED

United States v. Rahimi

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
602 U.S. 680 (2024)
Decided
June 21, 2024
Last reviewed
September 6, 2026

Rahimi involved the federal prohibition against firearm possession by a person subject to a qualifying domestic-violence restraining order.

The Supreme Court rejected the argument that Bruen required the government to locate a historical law identical to the modern statute.

Historical firearm regulations need not be exact copies of modern laws. Courts instead examine whether modern restrictions are relevantly similar to historical regulations in the reasons they burden firearm possession and the way they impose that burden.

What the Court Held
  • • The federal restriction could constitutionally be applied to a person whom a court had found posed a credible threat to another person's physical safety.
  • • A modern firearm regulation need only be relevantly similar to historical regulation — a historical twin is not required.
Why it matters
  • • Bruen's history-and-tradition test is demanding, but it is not a search for an identical law from 1791.
  • • The constitutional question may depend heavily on why a person is being disarmed and the circumstances surrounding the restriction.
  1. June 21, 2024
    Decided
Important Lesson From Rahimi

Bruen's history-and-tradition test is demanding, but it is not a search for an identical law from 1791.

The constitutional question may depend heavily on why a person is being disarmed and the circumstances surrounding the restriction.

Part 3 — New decision

Hemani: Firearms and Marijuana

Can Marijuana Use Automatically Cost Someone Their Second Amendment Rights?

RECENT DECISIONDECIDED

United States v. Hemani

Whether applying 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) to a person based on his unlawful use of a controlled substance violated the Second Amendment under the circumstances presented.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Docket
No. 24-1234
Decided
June 18, 2026
Last reviewed
September 6, 2026

Ali Hemani lived in the Dallas area. During a 2022 search of his family's home, he cooperated with federal agents, surrendered a firearm, pointed officers toward marijuana, and later acknowledged using marijuana approximately every other day.

More than six months later, the federal government prosecuted him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits firearm possession by certain unlawful users of controlled substances. The prosecution relied on his admitted marijuana use.

On June 18, 2026, the Supreme Court held that the government's prosecution of Hemani under § 922(g)(3)'s unlawful-user provision was inconsistent with the Second Amendment under the circumstances presented.

What the Court Held
  • • Applying § 922(g)(3)'s unlawful-user provision to Hemani on these facts was inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
  • • The decision addresses the circumstances presented; it does not announce that every person who uses a controlled substance may lawfully possess a firearm.
Why it matters
  • • Federal law still contains § 922(g)(3), and marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law.
  • • The constitutional limits on when § 922(g)(3) can be applied have therefore become especially important.
  • • The analysis may turn on the relationship between drug use, intoxication, firearm possession, dangerousness, and the specific facts.
  1. 2022
    Search of family home; firearm surrendered
  2. 2023
    Federal prosecution under § 922(g)(3)
  3. June 18, 2026
    Supreme Court decision
THC Laws in Texas Have Also Changed THC & Drug Charges
What Hemani Does NOT Mean

This decision does not mean that people who use marijuana may always legally possess firearms.

The constitutional analysis may depend on the relationship between drug use, intoxication, firearm possession, dangerousness, and the specific circumstances of the case. Courts may treat these situations differently:

  • • Historical drug use
  • • Regular drug use
  • • Present intoxication
  • • Possessing a firearm while intoxicated
  • • Firearm possession separated in time from drug use
Why This Matters in Texas
  • • Federal law still contains § 922(g)(3).
  • • Marijuana remains a controlled substance under federal law.
  • • The constitutional limits on when § 922(g)(3) can be applied have therefore become especially important.
Part 4 — New decision

Wolford: Where You May Carry

Can a State Make Most Private Property Off-Limits to Licensed Carry Unless the Owner Says Yes?

RECENT DECISIONDECIDED

Wolford v. Lopez

Whether a state may prohibit licensed carry on private property open to the public unless the owner expressly authorizes it.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Docket
No. 24-1046
Decided
June 25, 2026
Last reviewed
September 6, 2026

Following Bruen, Hawaii enacted a law that generally prohibited firearms on private property open to the public unless the property owner expressly authorized firearm possession.

That meant a licensed individual could potentially be barred from routinely visited places such as gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, retail stores, barber shops, laundromats, and other businesses open to the public.

The Supreme Court held that this default prohibition violated the Second Amendment.

What the Court Held
  • • A default rule barring licensed carry on private property open to the public, absent owner permission, is inconsistent with the Second Amendment.
  • • The Second Amendment protects carrying a firearm for self-defense as Americans go about ordinary daily life.
Why it matters
  • • States retain authority to designate constitutionally permissible sensitive places.
  • • States cannot simply transform huge portions of ordinary public life into prohibited carry zones without adequate historical support.
  1. 2023
    Hawaii enacts post-Bruen carry restrictions
  2. June 25, 2026
    Supreme Court decision
The Core Principle

The Second Amendment protects carrying a firearm for self-defense as Americans go about ordinary daily life.

A licensed individual could have been barred from routinely visited places such as gas stations, grocery stores, restaurants, coffee shops, retail stores, barber shops, laundromats, and other businesses open to the public.

What Does This Mean in Texas?

Wolford does not erase Texas restrictions on carrying firearms. Texas law continues to regulate firearm possession at specific locations and under particular circumstances.

  • • Schools and educational institutions
  • • Courtrooms and government buildings
  • • Polling places
  • • Airports and secured areas
  • • Bars / 51% locations
  • • Sporting events
  • • Hospitals and nursing facilities where applicable
  • • Businesses providing statutory notice
  • • Private property
  • • Criminal trespass
  • Unlawful Carrying Weapons

The constitutionality of a particular location restriction can present a separate question from whether the Texas statute currently prohibits possession there.

Important warning

Do not assume that a constitutional argument gives someone permission to ignore an existing criminal statute. Constitutional challenges ordinarily must be raised through the courts.

Part 5 — What we're watching

The Next Major Case: AR-15s

The Question

Does the Second Amendment protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles?

Pending case — the law has not yet changed
WHAT WE'RE WATCHINGARGUMENT SCHEDULED

Viramontes v. Cook County

Does the Second Amendment protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles?

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Docket
No. 25-238 (consolidated with No. 25-566)
Certiorari granted
June 30, 2026
Oral argument
December 2, 2026
Decision expected
2027
Last reviewed
September 6, 2026

Lower courts have divided over how Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi apply to restrictions commonly described as "assault weapons" bans.

The Supreme Court has now agreed to decide the issue. This could become one of the most important Second Amendment decisions since Bruen.

Why it matters
  • • Whether AR-15-style rifles constitute protected "arms"
  • • The significance of a firearm being commonly possessed for lawful purposes
  • • How the "dangerous and unusual" concept applies
  • • Whether governments may prohibit an entire category of commonly owned semiautomatic rifles
  • • What historical analogues are relevant
  • • How courts determine whether a modern weapon falls within the Second Amendment's protection
  1. June 2, 2025
    Snope v. Brown — certiorari denied; issue left unresolved
  2. June 30, 2026
    Certiorari granted in Viramontes
  3. December 2, 2026
    Oral argument scheduled
  4. 2027
    Decision expected — no decision has been issued
Before the Decision: What We Were Watching
  • • Whether the Court would take up an "assault weapons" case at all after declining review in Snope v. Brown.
  • • Whether the Court would frame the question around the text of the Second Amendment or around historical tradition.
  • • Whether magazine-capacity restrictions would be swept into the same analysis.

No decision has been issued.

Background

Snope v. Brown — The Road to Viramontes

BACKGROUNDCERTIORARI DENIED

Snope v. Brown

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Docket
No. 24-203
Certiorari denied
June 2, 2025
Last reviewed
September 6, 2026

The Supreme Court declined to review a Fourth Circuit decision concerning Maryland's ban on AR-15-style rifles.

A denial of certiorari is not a ruling on the merits.

Separate writings from members of the Court indicated significant interest in resolving whether bans on AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles are constitutional.

  1. June 2, 2025
    Certiorari denied
  2. After denial
    Issue remains unresolved nationally
Snope
Court declines review
Issue remains unresolved nationally
Viramontes
Supreme Court grants review
Argument December 2, 2026
Decision expected
2027
Part 6 — Unsettled

The Constitutional Questions Courts Are Still Working Out

DEVELOPING

Who Can Be Disarmed?

Felony convictionsNonviolent felony convictionsDomestic-violence ordersDrug usersPeople currently intoxicatedOther categories classified as prohibited persons

Rahimi and Hemani demonstrate that courts are increasingly examining the particular justification for disarmament rather than treating every prohibited-person statute as presenting exactly the same constitutional issue.

DEVELOPING

What Counts as a "Sensitive Place"?

SchoolsCourthousesGovernment buildingsParksPublic transportationRestaurantsBarsHospitalsEventsPrivate businesses open to the public

Bruen recognized historical sensitive-place restrictions, while Wolford makes clear that governments cannot simply label enormous portions of ordinary life off-limits.

MAJOR CASE PENDING

What Weapons Are Constitutionally Protected?

AR-15-platform riflesOther semiautomatic riflesMagazine-capacity restrictionsWeapons characterized as "dangerous and unusual"

The Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether the Second Amendment protects AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. No decision has been issued.

Viramontes v. Cook County
DEVELOPING

How Close Must the Historical Analogy Be?

Courts continue to determine how closely a modern firearm law must resemble restrictions that existed around the relevant historical periods.

Bruen and Rahimi provide the framework, but its application continues to generate litigation.

IMPORTANT FOR CRIMINAL CASES

Can Someone Challenge a Gun Law "As Applied" to Them?

Some constitutional challenges argue that a law is invalid in every circumstance. Others concede that a statute may generally be constitutional but argue that applying it to a particular person or particular set of facts violates the Second Amendment.

Recent Second Amendment cases demonstrate why the facts surrounding the individual defendant can matter greatly.

The procedure for raising an as-applied constitutional challenge can depend upon whether the case is in state or federal court and the procedural stage of the criminal case.

Part 7 — Tracker

Second Amendment Case Tracker

CaseCourtIssueStatusLast development
District of Columbia v. HellerU.S. Supreme CourtIndividual right / home possessionDECIDEDJune 26, 2008 — Decided
McDonald v. City of ChicagoU.S. Supreme CourtApplication to statesDECIDEDJune 28, 2010 — Decided
New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n, Inc. v. BruenU.S. Supreme CourtPublic carry / history-and-tradition testDECIDEDJune 23, 2022 — Decided
United States v. RahimiU.S. Supreme CourtDomestic violence restraining orders / dangerousnessDECIDEDJune 21, 2024 — Decided
United States v. HemaniU.S. Supreme CourtControlled-substance users / § 922(g)(3)DECIDEDJune 18, 2026 — Supreme Court decision
Wolford v. LopezU.S. Supreme CourtPrivate property open to public / public carryDECIDEDJune 25, 2026 — Supreme Court decision
Snope v. BrownU.S. Supreme CourtSemiautomatic rifle prohibitionCERTIORARI DENIEDAfter denial — Issue remains unresolved nationally
Viramontes v. Cook CountyU.S. Supreme CourtAR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic riflesARGUMENT SCHEDULED2027 — Decision expected — no decision has been issued
Part 8 — If you are charged

Constitutional Rights and Criminal Charges

Question One

Does a statute prohibit the conduct?

Question Two

Can that statute constitutionally be applied in these circumstances?

Someone may technically fall within the language of a criminal statute while still having a legitimate constitutional challenge to application of that statute.

A constitutional defense ordinarily must be litigated in court. Do not rely on a belief that a statute will eventually be declared unconstitutional as a reason to disregard current firearm laws.

Part 10 — Alerts

Stay Updated

Choose Your Legal Updates

Pick the areas of Texas and federal law you want to hear about. You can change this any time on this device.

Part 11 — Authorities

Cases & Legal Sources

This section provides general legal information about developing constitutional law and is not legal advice. Court decisions may be clarified, limited, or extended by later rulings. Using this Guide does not create an attorney-client relationship.