July 2026 was one of the most consequential months for gun law in years. Two federal appeals courts reached opposite conclusions about the same question two weeks apart, the Supreme Court agreed to settle it, and NFA background checks more than doubled year over year.
Here is what actually happened, what it changes, and what it does not.
First, the late-June rulings that set the table
July makes no sense without the twelve days that preceded it. The Supreme Court handed down two Second Amendment decisions and took up a third case.
United States v. Hemani (June 18) — decided 9–0. The Court struck down the federal statute barring gun ownership by unlawful users of controlled substances. A unanimous result in a Second Amendment case is rare, and it surprised most observers who expected a split.
In plain terms: the old rule made it a federal felony to own a firearm if you used a controlled substance — including marijuana in states where it is legal — regardless of whether you were anywhere near a gun while using it. The Court’s problem was with permanence: being a user of something could strip a constitutional right indefinitely, with no finding that you were dangerous. Read this narrowly. Handling a firearm while actually impaired is still unlawful, lying on a Form 4473 is still a felony, and state law is untouched.
Wolford v. Lopez (June 25) — decided 6–3. Hawaii had made concealed carry close to unusable in practice by defaulting private property open to the public to “no carry” unless the owner affirmatively said otherwise. The Court held that inverted the right: a permit holder may carry into a business unless that business says no.
In plain terms: Hawaii had flipped the default. A permit holder walking into a coffee shop was committing a crime unless the owner had specifically granted permission — and almost none had, which made a carry permit close to worthless in practice. The Court restored the ordinary default: you may carry in unless the property owner says otherwise. Property rights still win. A posted sign, or simply being asked to leave, still governs.
Certiorari granted (June 30). The Court agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, consolidated with Grant v. Higgins, on whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect semiautomatic rifles in common use — the AR-15 explicitly named. Argument is set for this fall.
The test all of this turns on
One idea explains nearly every gun case decided since 2022, and it is worth understanding because it tells you how the AR-15 case will likely be argued.
Before Bruen, courts weighed a gun law’s burden on the right against the government’s public-safety justification. Governments usually won, because a judge can nearly always find a safety rationale persuasive. Bruen ended that balancing act. Now the question is historical: can the government point to a tradition of similar regulation from around the founding era? If it cannot, the law falls — however sensible it may seem today.
The second half of the test is “common use.” If a firearm is commonly owned by ordinary people for lawful purposes, it is presumptively protected. That single phrase is the whole fight over AR-15s. There are tens of millions in American hands, which makes “common use” hard to argue against — so the litigation turns on whether that is the right question at all.
When you read that the Third Circuit found AR-15s “in common use” and struck New Jersey’s ban, that is this test doing the work.
July 9: the Seventh Circuit upholds Illinois
Nine days after the Supreme Court agreed to decide whether AR-15s are constitutionally protected, the Seventh Circuit upheld the Protect Illinois Communities Act in a 2–1 decision. PICA bans a long list of semiautomatic rifles, certain shotguns and handguns, and magazines over the standard capacity.
The timing was unusual. A circuit court ruling on a question the Supreme Court has just agreed to answer has a short shelf life, and everyone involved knows it.
July 17: the Third Circuit strikes down New Jersey’s ban
Eight days later the Third Circuit, sitting en banc, went the other way. In Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, a 10–5 majority held that New Jersey’s ban on semiautomatic “assault firearms” and its ban on magazines over 10 rounds both violate the Second Amendment.
Judge Arianna Freeman wrote for the majority, applying the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen: because AR-15-pattern rifles and magazines over 10 rounds are in common use for lawful purposes, they are presumptively protected, and the state had to identify a historical tradition of comparable regulation. It could not.
This is the first time a federal appeals court has struck down a state assault weapons ban. Every previous challenge at that level had failed.
Then the court stayed its own ruling. On August 4 the Third Circuit paused the decision while New Jersey seeks Supreme Court review. New Jersey’s ban on semiautomatic “assault firearms” and its 10-round magazine limit are fully enforceable right now, and state officials have said plainly that violations remain subject to criminal prosecution. New Jersey’s cert petition is due October 15, with a possible extension to December.
If you live in New Jersey, read that twice. The law was declared unconstitutional and is still being enforced. That combination sounds impossible, but it is routine: a court can hold a law invalid and simultaneously pause its own order so the losing side can appeal without the law flipping back and forth. Until the stay lifts, nothing about what you may lawfully buy or own in New Jersey has changed.
What the split actually means
Two federal appeals courts, eight days apart, reached opposite conclusions on materially the same constitutional question. That is a textbook circuit split, and it is precisely the situation the Supreme Court exists to resolve — which it has already agreed to do this fall in Viramontes.
In plain terms: the federal appeals courts divide the country into regions. Each one has the final word in its own territory until the Supreme Court says otherwise — which means the same sentence of the Constitution can genuinely mean different things depending on which state you are standing in. Right now, a ban on AR-15-pattern rifles is unconstitutional in New Jersey and perfectly enforceable in Illinois. That is not a contradiction anyone intended; it is what happens when two regions read the same text differently, and it is exactly the condition that forces the Supreme Court to step in.
Some practical points that get lost in the headlines:
- A circuit ruling binds only its own circuit. The Third Circuit covers New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware and the Virgin Islands – and nowhere else. It has no effect in Illinois, in Arizona, or in any other state.
- Neither ruling is necessarily final. Expect further proceedings, and expect the Supreme Court’s decision to supersede both.
- Nothing here changes the federal transfer process. Background checks, Form 4473, and dealer transfers all work exactly as they did in June.
NFA litigation gathered momentum
On July 14 the Second Amendment Foundation filed supplemental briefs in three pending National Firearms Act cases, arguing that the Supreme Court’s June decisions change the analysis for suppressors and short-barreled firearms.
Worth being precise here, because a lot of coverage was not: the Supreme Court did not rule on the NFA in June. Those briefs are advocacy — an argument about what the June decisions imply, not a holding that suppressor registration is unconstitutional.
That said, the argument gained real traction shortly after the month closed. On August 5 a federal judge in Texas struck down NFA registration for suppressors and short-barreled firearms on entirely different grounds — that Congress lost its taxing-power authority when the tax hit $0. We covered that separately in our breakdown of the NFA ruling, including why it is narrower than the headlines suggest.
On the regulatory side
ATF has a proposed rule that would permit firearm sales that are not conducted over the counter — that is, not face-to-face at a dealer’s premises. It is part of a broader package of 34 rulemaking notices the DOJ and ATF issued after a review of existing firearms regulations.
On July 31, House Democrats moved to block the non-over-the-counter rule. Notably, opposition has not been purely partisan: some brick-and-mortar FFLs also filed comments against it, on the straightforward business grounds that it would put them in more direct competition with online sellers.
The rule is still proposed, not final.
The numbers: suppressors are the story
NSSF’s adjusted NICS figure for July 2026 came in at 1,061,883, up 8.5% against July 2025. Steady, healthy, unremarkable.
The NFA number is the one worth staring at. July recorded 130,013 NFA checks against 62,271 a year earlier — an increase of 108.8%. More than double.
Two causes, and they compound. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the $200 transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and AOWs. And ATF approval times have collapsed from the months-long waits that defined the process for a decade. Remove the tax, remove the wait, and a category that used to require real commitment becomes an ordinary purchase.
If you have been putting off a suppressor because of the paperwork and the wait, this is a materially different process than it was two years ago. Our guide to buying a suppressor walks through how it works now.
What this means where you live
We are based in Chandler, Arizona, but we ship to licensed dealers across the country — so the honest answer to “what changed for me” depends entirely on your state. In every case below, your state law governs what we can lawfully ship to your dealer, and none of these rulings has changed that.
- New Jersey — nothing has changed yet. The ban was held unconstitutional on July 17 and then stayed on August 4. It remains fully enforceable while the state seeks Supreme Court review. Do not treat the ruling as permission.
- Illinois — nothing has changed. PICA was upheld on July 9 and continues to be enforced. The Third Circuit’s contrary decision has no effect in Illinois.
- Other restricted states — California, New York, Massachusetts, Washington, Colorado, Hawaii, Maryland, Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island and others each have their own statutes, none of which were before either court. Your restrictions stand exactly as they did in June.
- Arizona and most permissive states — also unchanged, for the opposite reason. There is no assault weapons ban or magazine limit here to strike down, and NFA items were already available under the federal process. The rifles being litigated over in Trenton and Chicago have always been legal to buy in Arizona.
- Hawaii is the one real change. Wolford was a Supreme Court decision, so it binds nationwide, and it directly altered how carry works on private property open to the public in Hawaii and in states with comparable default rules.
The pattern worth internalising: Supreme Court decisions apply everywhere; appeals court decisions apply only in their own region; and no federal ruling repeals your state statute. A firearm can be constitutionally protected in the abstract and still illegal for your dealer to transfer to you.
Where all of this genuinely matters is the direction of travel. A Supreme Court decision this fall on whether the AR-15 is constitutionally protected will apply nationwide, and it will settle a question that has been litigated state by state since Bruen. If you are in a restricted state, that argument this autumn is the one to watch.
If you are unsure what your state permits, ask us before you order. We would rather answer the question than cancel the transfer.
What to watch next
- Viramontes v. Cook County at the Supreme Court this fall. The biggest Second Amendment question since Bruen, and the one that resolves the split.
- New Jersey’s next move. The state can seek Supreme Court review, though the Court is already taking up the underlying question.
- Whether the NFA taxing-power theory survives appeal in the Fifth Circuit.
- The non-over-the-counter sales rule — whether it is finalised, blocked, or withdrawn.
- Whether NFA check volume holds. Doubling year over year is not a trend yet; two or three more months like July would be.
Our read on where this is going
A few observations, offered as opinion rather than fact.
The “common use” test is doing more work than it can carry. Whether a firearm is constitutionally protected currently depends in large part on how many Americans already own one. That produces a strange dynamic: a design’s protection grows as it becomes popular, which means timing determines outcome as much as principle does. Expect the Court to be pushed on this in the fall, from both directions.
The Seventh Circuit’s July 9 timing was a choice. Ruling on a question the Supreme Court had agreed nine days earlier to decide guarantees a short shelf life. Courts sometimes do this to put a reasoned opinion in front of the Justices before argument. Whatever the motive, it is not a decision anyone should build plans around.
The suppressor numbers are the most underrated story of the month. Everyone is watching the courts, but doubling year over year is a genuine change in ordinary consumer behaviour, not a legal abstraction. Remove a $200 tax and a months-long wait and a product stops being an enthusiast purchase. If that holds through the autumn, it reshapes what a normal customer walks in asking for — and, frankly, it is a bigger near-term shift for a shop like ours than any of the rulings above.
And a caution. Momentum in the courts is not permission. Every ruling described here is geographically limited, appealable, or both, and none of them touches state law. The most expensive mistake in this field is reading a favourable headline as a change in what you personally may lawfully do.
The short version
Gun rights litigation had an unusually good month, the courts of appeals now openly disagree, and the Supreme Court will settle it this fall. Suppressor demand is running at double last year’s rate because the two things that made suppressors annoying — the tax and the wait — have largely gone away.
None of it changes what is legal where you live today. Court rulings bind particular jurisdictions, state law operates independently of all of this, and the gap between “a court ruled this” and “I may now do this” is where people get into trouble.
Questions about a suppressor, an SBR, or a transfer? Email chris@kazuarms.com or call 858-367-3097. We are a licensed dealer and SOT in Chandler, and we are happy to walk you through the current process — though we are not attorneys, and nothing here is legal advice.
Written August 9, 2026, covering developments through July 31, 2026. Litigation moves quickly; verify current status before relying on anything here.