2nd Amendment News Round up: Judge Strikes Down New York's Body Armor Ban, DOJ Targets Permit Delays, and the AR-15 Case Heads to the Supreme Court

It was a busy week for the Second Amendment. A federal judge in New York ruled that body armor is protected by the Second Amendment, the Justice Department opened another investigation into slow-walked gun permits, gun-rights groups went back to court over New Mexico's waiting period, and the clock is ticking toward the biggest AR-15 case the Supreme Court has ever heard. Here's what happened and why it matters.

1. Federal judge: body armor is an "arm," and New York's ban fails

On Wednesday, October 21, U.S. District Judge John L. Sinatra Jr. ruled that New York's ban on most civilian body armor purchases violates the Second Amendment. The case is Heeter v. James.

New York passed the law in 2022, shortly after the Buffalo Tops grocery store shooting. The state argued that modern synthetic armor like Kevlar isn't covered by the Second Amendment because early Americans didn't have it. The judge didn't buy it. Pointing to Heller, he wrote that the Second Amendment covers "all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding," and that "body armor is an 'Arm' protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment."

Under the Bruen test, that put the burden on New York to show a historical tradition of similar laws. The state leaned on medieval English laws restricting armor in public and on pre-Civil War regulations. Judge Sinatra found neither was enough to support an outright ban on buying protective gear.

What it means right now: The judge permanently barred New York from enforcing its restrictions on buying and selling body armor, but he also granted the state's request for a 14-day stay so it can appeal. That means the law is still enforceable until roughly November 4 unless a higher court extends the stay, so don't order armor to a New York address just yet. A separate New York law that makes it a crime to wear body armor while committing certain violent felonies with a firearm isn't affected. The New York Attorney General's office said it is "reviewing the decision." Expect this to go to the Second Circuit. It's also one of the first times a federal court has applied Bruen to defensive gear rather than a firearm, which could matter well beyond New York.

2. DOJ opens another investigation into permit delays

On Thursday, October 22, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division opened an investigation into the Middletown and Waterbury police departments in Connecticut. The question is whether they're unnecessarily delaying firearm permits, including carry permits, and forcing qualified applicants into what DOJ called "a potentially years-long appeal process."

This follows a similar investigation the department opened on October 14 into Pennsauken Township, New Jersey. Both rely on a line from Bruen warning that "lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees" can effectively deny ordinary citizens their right to carry.

"This right is not a luxury reserved for a privileged few, but a fundamental liberty for all," said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon.

Why it matters: For years, the only option for someone stuck in a permit backlog was to sue on their own dime. Now the federal government's Second Amendment Section is taking complaints directly and opening investigations into local departments. If you've been stuck in a permit delay, DOJ has an online complaint form (linked below).

3. New Mexico keeps enforcing its waiting period, so 2A groups sue again

New Mexico's 2024 law (House Bill 129) makes buyers wait seven days to take possession of a firearm, even after they've passed the federal background check. In August 2025, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the challengers in Ortega v. Grisham, and this past August U.S. District Judge James Browning entered final judgment against the law. The catch: that judgment only protects the two people who brought the case. The state has appealed again and says it will keep enforcing the waiting period against everyone else.

On Monday, October 19, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the Second Amendment Foundation, the NRA, two New Mexico gun groups, several local firearms businesses and an individual NRA member filed a new lawsuit, NSSF v. Torrez, against Attorney General Raúl Torrez. They want the court to block enforcement against their members and customers who clear a background check. On Friday, October 23, they asked for a preliminary injunction to stop enforcement while the case moves forward.

"Criminals do not purchase firearms at retail and do not submit to a waiting period before illegally obtaining a gun," said NSSF's Lawrence G. Keane.

One more waiting-period note: on October 19 the Supreme Court declined to hear Beckwith v. Frey, a challenge to Maine's 72-hour waiting period, so for now these fights stay in the lower courts.

4. Countdown: the Supreme Court hears the AR-15 case December 2

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on the morning of December 2 in Viramontes v. Cook County, consolidated with Grant v. Higgins. The question is simple and huge: whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semi-automatic rifles.

The Court agreed to take the cases on June 30, and Cook County's and Connecticut's briefs defending their bans were due October 21. A ruling would likely come by the end of the term next summer. Whatever the justices decide will shape every state "assault weapon" ban in the country, including the challenges still waiting in the pipeline. The Court received a new petition just this month challenging New Jersey's ban on AR-15-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines.

Meanwhile, the Court continues to turn away most challenges to the federal felon-in-possession law. It declined to hear United States v. Hembree earlier this month, and its November 6 conference has 17 more firearms cases on the list, most of them felon-in-possession challenges.

We'll be covering the December 2 argument here, and if you're following our Hunting with an AR-15 series, this is the case that decides whether a lot of Americans can legally own the rifle we're talking about.

The bottom line

Courts are taking Bruen seriously, and the federal government is now actively enforcing the Second Amendment against local foot-dragging. But states like New York and New Mexico are showing they'll appeal and keep enforcing until they're forced to stop. The December 2 argument is the one to watch.

This article is for entertainment and informational purposes only. It isn't professional, legal, or safety advice. Always check the facts and local laws and regulations for yourself, and use your own judgment before you act on any legal or regulatory information.