In the year of 2025, 14.7 million guns were purchased by Americans.
In the first seven months of the year, there were 16,370 suicides by firearms, 4,458 children and teenagers were shot, and there were at least 25 shootings at high school sporting events.
Many of the laws regarding guns work because of the precedent set by the Supreme Court. A term of the United States Supreme Court begins on the first Monday of October, usually ending around late June-early July. Over the course of the term, the court only presides over about 80 of 7-8,000 cases.
This term, the nine justices will hear roughly 64 cases, ranging from bans on conversion therapy to 14th Amendment rights. Along with those, they are also hearing major cases to determine the limits of 2nd Amendment rights.
The 2nd Amendment rights have been under debate in the United States Government for years, discussing what restrictions should be in place regarding gun control. The two cases the court is hearing all present different concerns regarding these rights and restrictions.
These key cases are Wolford v. Lope and Zherka v. Bondi, and cover topics ranging from constitutionality of gun rights to firearm possession on private property.
The case regarding possession of guns on private property, Wolford v. Lopez, is a review of a law passed in Hawai’i that bans carrying firearms in areas deemed “sensitive places,” such as bars, parks and restaurants. The law also prohibits carrying on private property that is open to the public, unless explicitly stated by the owner of the property.
There are four plaintiffs (people bringing the case to the court) and one defendant (the person defending the law). The plaintiffs include three Maui residents, and a gun-rights organization called The Hawai’i Firearms Coalition. The defendant in Wolford v. Lopez is Hawai’i is Attorney General Anne E. Lopez, who is being represented by former Acting U.S. Solicitor General Neal Katyal.
If the Supreme Court overturns this law, that action would impose a national mandate that makes guns allowed into private-owned businesses open to the public as the default.
On the other hand, if the ruling is for Hawai’i, the law would be a local choice. This would allow the states to set their own rules and delegations for their respective communities. That means Hawai’i could keep the restrictions as they please, and Texas could implement as many as they see fit.
Either choice would affect people of varying beliefs. Some people feel protected by the law; it makes them feel comfortable and safe in public places knowing the norm is that guns are not allowed. Others feel unsafe if the ruling is overturned, as they may feel like they need protection in all places.
The other relevant case regarding gun control is Zherka v. Bondi, regarding the 2nd Amendment giving the people the right to bear arms.
Selim Zherka is a convicted felon, who challenged the US code prohibiting felons from possessing firearms. Zherka argued that because his felony was nonviolent, it was his Constitutional right to bear arms, and Congress could not take that away.
Zherka’s case was dismissed by The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, stating that the law in question was constitutional and that he had no right to a hearing. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the district court.
They held that the 2nd Amendment does not prohibit Congress from disarming convicted felons, which includes those convicted of nonviolent felonies. According to Duke Center for Firearms Law, the Second Circuit concluded that “[b]ecause history reveals a tradition of categorical legislative bans on firearms possession by classes of people perceived as dangerous, a prohibition directed at persons convicted of serious crimes is among the easiest classifications to justify.”
If the court rules with Zherka, it could change the narrative surrounding the possession of firearms by felons, putting several other cases in question, and potentially changing laws regarding possession. However, if the court rules against him, it will reinforce the government’s authority to enforce sweeping firearm bans on convicted felons, regardless of whether their crime was violent or nonviolent.
This upholding that Zherka’s 2nd Amendment rights were not violated by being denied possession of a firearm continues to fuel the debate around the Amendment. It invokes the question of whether it continues to serve the constitution properly in modern times, or if ramifications need to be made to meet the needs of the people.
Students in AP US Government classes at Lincoln are having discussions about these topics. Regarding Hawai’i’s law prohibiting public carrying, Kaida Murdock (‘26) said, “What is the line of protecting their rights and protecting the safety of people? I don’t think they should be allowed to carry arms in public places, but I agree that technically it’s violating their rights. I personally do not think this is violating the 2nd amendment.”
Though these cases are at national level in the Supreme Court, they can still be relevant to students, as they could potentially have nationwide impacts on gun regulations. When asked about the pertinence of these cases to the Lincoln community, Jillian Harding (‘26) said, “I think it’s relevant, but I think if it endangers people, firearms shouldn’t be carried, but the 2nd amend doesn’t specify if people are in danger. I believe that there should be background checks on everyone before buying a gun, that way felons can be evaluated before buying a gun, so it would show if they were violent or nonviolent, or if there were weapons involved in the crime.”
There were at least 25 shootings at schools in the first seven months of 2025, but the rulings on these cases could change the future of gun control and public safety. Change won’t come in one wave, and Lincoln students could be the future lawmakers that make the change that is needed.