Since Bruen, lower courts have been flooded with challenges. Some regulations have been upheld, others struck down, and many remain in limbo as cases move through appellate courts. What has emerged is not a single, clear post-Bruen rulebook, but a collection of battlegrounds where judges, lawmakers, and litigants are struggling to apply an 18th- and 19th-century historical framework to 21st-century problems.
This article surveys the major post-Bruen battlegrounds, explains why courts disagree, and outlines what observers should watch for as the law continues to evolve.
“Sensitive Places”: The Front Line of Post-Bruen Regulation
Why it matters
The Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment right to carry arms is not unlimited. The Court reaffirmed that firearms may be restricted in “sensitive places,” citing historical examples such as legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses. The problem is that Bruen did not provide an exhaustive list—or a precise definition.
The post-Bruen strategy
Many states responded to Bruen by expanding lists of prohibited locations. Instead of denying permits, they restricted where permit holders could lawfully carry. These lists often include:
- public transportation,
- government buildings,
- schools and universities,
- entertainment venues,
- places that serve alcohol,
- and sometimes broad categories of private property.
Why courts disagree
Courts diverge on how broadly “sensitive places” can be defined. Key points of disagreement include:
- Historical scope: Was historical regulation limited to a narrow set of locations tied directly to core governmental functions, or does it support broader restrictions?
- Analogical reasoning: Can modern spaces like subways or sports arenas be analogized to historical gathering places, or are those analogies too strained?
- Practical effect: At what point does a sensitive-place regime become so expansive that it functionally nullifies the right to carry?
Some courts have allowed narrow lists closely tied to historical examples. Others have blocked expansive schemes that turn large portions of daily life into no-carry zones.
What to watch for
Expect further appellate rulings that clarify:
- whether entire categories (such as “all private property unless posted otherwise”) are constitutional,
- how geographically dense restrictions can be before they violate the Second Amendment,
- and whether states must justify each location individually with historical evidence.
Training Mandates and Licensing Requirements
Why it matters
Bruen did not strike down licensing itself. It rejected discretionary licensing that requires applicants to show a special need. Objective requirements—training, background checks, fingerprinting, and fees—remain widespread.
The legal question
The constitutional issue is not whether training is a good idea, but whether a specific training mandate is consistent with historical tradition and does not operate as a de facto denial of the right.
Why courts disagree
Judges are split over:
- Historical precedent: While militia laws often required training, they did not always condition the right to possess or carry arms on prior government-approved instruction.
- Burden level: How long, expensive, or complex can training be before it becomes unconstitutional?
- Timing: Is pre-licensure training fundamentally different from post-licensure or voluntary training?
Some courts view reasonable training as analogous to historical expectations of arms proficiency. Others are skeptical when training mandates appear designed to slow, deter, or selectively burden applicants.
What to watch for
Key indicators going forward include:
- judicial treatment of multi-day or high-cost training requirements,
- litigation over recurring or renewal-based training,
- and challenges arguing that training is being used as a proxy for discretionary denial.
Age Limits on Firearm Possession and Carry
Why it matters
Age-based restrictions are among the most actively litigated issues after Bruen. Challenges often focus on 18–20-year-olds, who are legally adults for many purposes but are restricted from purchasing or carrying certain firearms.
The historical tension
Historically, young adults were often required to serve in militias and bring their own arms—suggesting access rather than exclusion. At the same time, some historical laws treated minors differently in limited contexts.
Why courts disagree
Disagreements center on:
- Who counts as “the people” protected by the Second Amendment,
- how to interpret militia-era expectations, and
- whether modern age limits reflect tradition or modern policy judgments.
Some courts have invalidated age-based carry or purchase bans, finding insufficient historical support. Others have upheld them, emphasizing public safety and narrower interpretations of historical evidence.
What to watch for
Expect continued circuit splits, especially on:
- handgun purchase restrictions for young adults,
- public carry eligibility,
- and whether courts treat possession differently from purchase.
“Assault Weapon” Restrictions
Why it matters
Restrictions on so-called “assault weapons” represent one of the most politically charged and legally complex post-Bruen battlegrounds.
The Bruen-era framing
Post-Bruen challenges typically argue that:
- commonly owned semi-automatic rifles are “in common use” for lawful purposes,
- historical bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons do not apply to modern firearms widely possessed by civilians.
States counter that these weapons are unusually dangerous and that historical analogues exist for regulating especially lethal arms.
Why courts disagree
Judicial disagreements stem from:
- definitions of “common use” and how to measure it,
- disputes over historical analogues for weapon-type bans,
- and differing views on whether lethality alone justifies regulation.
Some courts have enjoined enforcement of bans, while others have allowed them to remain in place pending full review.
What to watch for
This area is widely expected to return to the Supreme Court. Key signals include:
- whether appellate courts converge or continue to split,
- how courts treat magazine capacity limits in parallel,
- and whether the Supreme Court clarifies how Bruen applies to weapon-type restrictions.
Domestic Violence Prohibitions
Why it matters
Restrictions on firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders raise particularly sensitive constitutional and public-safety concerns.
The legal challenge
Post-Bruen, defendants have argued that such prohibitions lack clear historical analogues. Governments argue that historical traditions of disarming dangerous individuals support modern domestic violence restrictions.
Why courts disagree
Courts wrestle with:
- whether historical laws targeting “dangerousness” are sufficiently analogous,
- how temporary civil orders compare to criminal convictions,
- and how to balance due process concerns with preventive safety measures.
This category has already produced Supreme Court engagement, underscoring its importance.
What to watch for
Future rulings are likely to focus on:
- procedural safeguards in restraining order processes,
- distinctions between temporary and permanent prohibitions,
- and how explicitly courts define “dangerousness” as a historically grounded concept.
Prohibited-Person Categories (Felons, Nonviolent Offenders, and Beyond)
Why it matters
Longstanding prohibitions on firearm possession by felons have generally survived constitutional scrutiny, but Bruen has reopened questions about scope and justification.
Emerging fault lines
Challenges increasingly distinguish between:
- violent and nonviolent offenses,
- historical felonies versus modern regulatory crimes,
- lifetime bans versus time-limited restrictions.
Why courts disagree
Judicial disagreement arises from:
- incomplete historical records on categorical disarmament,
- debates over whether modern felony definitions align with historical understandings,
- and differing views on rehabilitation and restoration of rights.
Some courts have upheld broad prohibitions, while others have questioned lifetime bans for nonviolent offenses.
What to watch for
Key developments to monitor include:
- as-applied challenges rather than facial challenges,
- restoration-of-rights frameworks,
- and whether courts begin requiring individualized dangerousness assessments.
Why the Disagreements Persist
The persistent divergence among courts is not accidental. It reflects three structural realities of the post-Bruen landscape:
- Historical evidence is incomplete and contested, forcing judges to make interpretive choices rather than apply bright-line rules.
- Analogical reasoning is inherently subjective, especially when mapping centuries-old practices onto modern society.
- Lower courts are waiting for further Supreme Court guidance, and are reluctant to move too far ahead of future clarifications.
As a result, constitutional outcomes often depend as much on judicial philosophy and methodology as on the regulation itself.
What Comes Next
For gun owners, policymakers, and legal observers, the post-Bruen environment demands attention and patience. The contours of Second Amendment law are being reshaped incrementally, through case-by-case adjudication rather than sweeping rulings.
Future Supreme Court decisions are likely to:
- clarify the scope of “sensitive places,”
- address weapon-type bans directly,
- and refine how history and tradition should be applied in difficult cases.
Until then, Bruen in practice means uncertainty, litigation, and a constitutional dialogue that is far from over.
