SCOTUSblog Just Published the Anti-Gun Litigation Playbook

A SCOTUSblog legal columnist handed gun-control litigators a gift, and she probably didn't mean to.

Haley Proctor's recurring series *'A Second Opinion'* lays out exactly how the Supreme Court analyzes gun restrictions along three axes: **who** can own a firearm, **what** arms are protected, and **where** they can be carried. That framing isn't academic trivia. It is the live litigation menu that anti-gun groups are ordering from in dozens of lower courts right now.

Start with the **who**. Proctor correctly notes that *United States v. Rahimi* (2024) buried the argument that Second Amendment rights belong only to 'law-abiding, responsible citizens.' The Court held the government must prove a historical tradition of disarmament—for anyone in the political community. That is a genuine, hard-won victory. Gun-control lawyers have already shifted to narrowing it rather than reversing it, which is the smarter move and the more dangerous one.

Then comes the **what**—and this is where the bleeding starts.

Which arms are actually protected remains wide open after *Bruen*. That ambiguity is not an accident; it is a beachhead. Bloomberg-funded litigators are pouring resources into assault-weapon bans, magazine-capacity limits, and suppressor restrictions, betting that lower courts will carve out exceptions faster than SCOTUS can close them. So far, the bet is paying off in several circuits.

**The 'where' question may be the most dangerous of all.**

Sensitive-place carve-outs are the anti-gunners' favorite crowbar. Declare enough locations a 'sensitive place' and your carry permit becomes a worthless laminated card. New York tried the full blanket approach after *Bruen* and got slapped. But other blue states watched the ruling closely, drafted narrower versions, and filed before the ink dried. They are playing a longer game than the headlines suggest.

Here is the part that should keep you up at night: Proctor's column reads as straight, credible legal analysis—not a screed, not a hit piece. **That makes it more useful to the opposition, not less.** A neutral, systematic breakdown of every open constitutional question is exactly what you hand a litigator before a strategy session. It is now publicly indexed and freely available to every gun-control organization in the country.

The *who, what, and where* fight is already active. Circuit splits are widening. SCOTUS still has unanswered questions on the table, and the side that floods the zone with test cases before the Court speaks again controls the narrative.

**Know where your circuit stands** on sensitive-place definitions and arm classifications right now—not after the next ruling surprises you. And if you're not backing the legal organizations actually fighting these cases—SAF, FPC, GOA—ask yourself who you think is holding the line.

The other side already read this article. The question is whether you did too.