Which groups are actually winning red flag cases post-Bruen?

Question

**This is why** ERPO litigation matters right now. We're in a narrow window where *Bruen's* text-and-history test has given us real leverage, and the groups pushing cases now are setting precedent for the next decade.

FIFA (Firearms Industry Trade Association) and SAF (Second Amendment Foundation) have been most visible in challenging state-level ERPOs. SAF's work through George Knight in California and their Delaware cases have produced some solid rulings on notice and due process. The Cato Institute's amicus briefs in *Vague v. State* (Maryland) made a historical originalism argument that's worth reading if you want to understand post-*Bruen* strategy.

But here's what you won't hear from the mainstream gun media: most of the real fights are happening in state courts, not federal, which means victories don't travel. A win in Delaware doesn't stop Colorado from tightening its law. That's exactly why **don't be fooled** by isolated case wins—we need coordinated federal challenges that use *Bruen* to hammer ERPOs on text-and-history grounds nationwide.

The hard truth: we're not "winning" enough yet. States keep passing new ERPO laws. If you live in a red flag state, your legal team matters more than ever. Call your state legislators and ask which attorney general is prepared to defend *Bruen* aggressively in your courts.

Who are the litigators you've seen in your state?

David Walsh · Accepted Answer

Good breakdown of the litigation landscape, but I'd add FPC to the group doing serious constitutional work here. They've been running parallel tracks that deserve mention alongside SAF.

FPC's *Lindsey v. Driessen* (N.D. Cal.) and their Delaware interventions have produced some of the sharper text-and-history challenges to ERPO statutes. The Delaware work particularly—where they've hammered the vagueness of "danger" standards—has generated opinions that actually grapple with what *Bruen* demands from the evidentiary record, not just whether a case *can* proceed.

SAF's notice-and-due-process angles are solid foundational work. But FPC's recent filings are pushing harder on the constitutional core: whether the government can prove these laws fit within the historical tradition of temporarily separating dangerous people from weapons. That's the *Bruen* leverage you're talking about.

You're right that state court wins don't immediately generalize. But the briefs—whether they win or lose—are building the record for circuit appeals. That's where the real precedent lives.

On your point about coordinated federal challenges: filing strategy matters enormously here. Picking defendants and plaintiffs in the right districts, timing to avoid unfavorable panels. If anyone reading this is considering supporting litigation in their state, ask the organizations what their circuit strategy is. If they can't articulate one, they're probably not leveraging *Bruen* effectively enough.

Not legal advice—talk to a lawyer if you're directly affected by ERPO law in your state.

James Whitfield · Answer

ctpistol's circuit strategy point is well-taken, but I'd push back on the framing slightly. The real constitutional leverage post-*Bruen* isn't just in the briefs—it's in the injunctive relief that forces the state to actually defend the statute's historical pedigree at a preliminary injunction hearing.

GOA's work has been sharper on this front. Their *Firearms Policy Coalition v. Bonta* intervention (N.D. Cal.) and more recently their Delaware filings have pressed for preliminary injunctions that block enforcement while the constitutional question gets aired. That's not just building a record; that's stopping the harm in real time.

The distinction matters: a fully-briefed case on the merits can take years. An injunction pending appeal *requires* the government to articulate a historical basis for the law *now*. And under *Bruen*, that bar is high. If the state can't point to analogous historical tradition—not modern policy rationales—the injunction stays in place.

FPC and SAF are doing solid foundational work. But GOA's willingness to push for preliminary injunctions aggressively is forcing courts to grapple with *Bruen's* text-and-history test before the appellate briefing settles. That accelerates the constitutional baseline.

The filing strategy ctpistol mentions is real, but it's secondary to asking: which litigators are actually asking for preliminary injunctions? That's where *Bruen* leverage becomes immediate relief, not just precedent building.

Victor Malone · Answer

Both of you are dancing around the real problem here, and it's frustrating to watch. Yes, injunctions matter. Yes, circuit strategy matters. But none of this means anything if the states keep passing new ERPO laws while we're litigating the last ones.

Look at what happened in Colorado, Illinois, and Washington in the last two years. New statutes, tighter language, designed *specifically* to survive the briefs you're all praising. They're not waiting for *Bruen* precedent to settle. They're legislating faster than we're litigating.

Here's the gap nobody's filling: preliminary injunctions are great until they're not. *Lindsey* got blocked at the Ninth Circuit. Delaware's wins matter in Delaware. But where's the federal injunction that actually stops the confiscation machinery nationwide?

The honest answer: it's not there yet. Which means your real pressure point isn't the courthouse—it's the legislature. Every dollar and hour spent on *Bruen* briefing is a dollar not spent stopping the next ERPO bill in your state house. Connecticut passed theirs in 2019. New York tightened it in 2023. Massachusetts is coming for something worse.

If you're reading this in a red flag state, stop waiting for GOA or FPC to save you with preliminary injunctions. Call your state senator *today* and ask why they're not voting to repeal the law already on the books. The litigation is insurance. The legislature is the fight that actually matters.