The U.S. Supreme Court recently expanded Second Amendment protections through two significant rulings while signaling its intent to consider additional gun rights cases in the upcoming term beginning in October. In a 6-3 decision on June 25, the court struck down a Hawaii law requiring gun owners to obtain permission before bringing handguns onto private properties open to the public, including most businesses. This ruling followed a unanimous decision earlier in the week limiting the federal prohibition on firearm possession by certain drug users, particularly affecting millions of Americans who use marijuana.

Both rulings were guided by the legal framework established in the 2022 landmark case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which requires gun control measures to be consistent with the nation’s historical firearm regulations rather than merely serving an important government interest. Applying the so-called Bruen test, the court has set a stringent standard for evaluating firearm laws, making it challenging for legislatures to enact gun control measures.

While the justices upheld a federal law criminalizing gun possession by individuals under domestic violence restraining orders in a previous 8-1 ruling, the recent decisions emphasized that restrictions on peaceful individuals, such as marijuana users and those with concealed-carry permits, fail to meet the historical standards required by the Second Amendment. This distinction was noted by legal experts who argue that the court’s approach increasingly centers on a “dangerousness” standard to justify firearm regulations.

The Hawaii case generated notable dissent from liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who criticized the conservative majority for what she described as departing from legislative intent by broadly prioritizing gun access over other public interests. Conversely, supporters of gun rights, including attorneys affiliated with pro-Second Amendment organizations, hailed the decisions as overdue enforcement of constitutional protections and expressed optimism that the court would soon address other contentious issues, such as state restrictions on assault-style rifles and large-capacity magazines.

Indeed, the court is currently considering whether to hear challenges to bans on assault-style weapons like AR-15s and restrictions on federally licensed dealers selling handguns to adults under 21. These cases have drawn attention due to prior dissent from conservative justices, including Brett Kavanaugh, who acknowledged the common use of AR-15s by law-abiding citizens and suggested that the court is likely to tackle the issue in the near future.

As the Supreme Court’s term concludes, gun rights advocates anticipate further rulings that may reshape the regulatory landscape, while critics warn that the court’s approach may severely limit legislative ability to address gun violence. The evolving judicial standards continue to fuel a national debate over the scope and limits of the Constitution’s protections related to firearms possession.