This week, I want to update you on three important legal battles where Idaho is leading the charge to protect Second Amendment rights across our nation. These cases demonstrate how far some states will go to infringe on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans, and how Idaho continues to stand strong against these attacks.

First, my office joined a 25-state coalition of attorneys general challenging Massachusetts’ unconstitutional firearm licensing requirements that trap out-of-state travelers. The case involves a New Hampshire resident who was arrested and charged in Massachusetts simply for voluntarily disclosing to law enforcement that he was legally carrying a firearm—despite lacking a Massachusetts license that would have been nearly impossible for him to obtain.

Massachusetts requires nonresidents to navigate a burdensome permitting process with lengthy delays of 40 to 170 days, high fees, and vague “suitability” criteria that give bureaucrats broad discretionary power to deny applications. This creates an impossible situation where law-abiding Americans lose their constitutional rights simply by crossing state lines.

Law-abiding Americans should not forfeit their Second Amendment protections based on geography. The Constitution guarantees certain rights that cannot be subject to differing standards just because you’re traveling through a hostile jurisdiction. There is no well-established historical tradition of barring nonresidents from transporting or possessing firearms while traveling, yet Massachusetts continues to criminalize this fundamental right.

In the second case, my office co-led a 27-state coalition asking the Supreme Court to strike down California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. This case, Duncan v. Bonta, represents a direct attack on some of the most commonly owned firearm components in America.

One study found that Americans own more than 542 million magazines capable of holding over ten rounds. About half of all privately owned magazines hold more than ten rounds. Most pistols are manufactured with magazines holding ten to seventeen rounds, and many popular rifles come with magazines holding twenty or thirty rounds. Take the Glock 17—one of the most popular handguns in America—which comes standard with a 17-round magazine.

Despite this overwhelming evidence of common use, the Ninth Circuit engaged in judicial gymnastics to uphold California’s ban. The court claimed that magazines aren’t “arms” protected by the Second Amendment, comparing them to “cartridge boxes and belts that hold bullets.” It’s the equivalent of saying a car’s gas tank is just an accessory because it only holds fuel.

The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning is out of step with the Constitution. If magazines aren’t protected by the Second Amendment, states could make an easy end-run around constitutional rights by simply banning all firearm components. The court’s logic would permit states to limit the capacity of revolvers or other firearms without detachable magazines, effectively neutering the right to keep and bear arms.

In the third case, my office co-led another 27-state coalition challenging Washington state’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. This case, Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, follows the same pattern as California’s unconstitutional restrictions on commonly owned firearm components.

Like California’s ban, Washington’s restrictions ignore the overwhelming evidence that these magazines are in common use by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes including self-defense, hunting, and sporting activities. Washington’s failure to identify any historical tradition supporting such bans demonstrates that these restrictions violate the Second Amendment.

These cases are part of a troubling pattern where courts in jurisdictions hostile to Second Amendment rights consistently distort Supreme Court precedents to uphold any firearms regulation that comes before them. Whether they’re misapplying the “common use” test, inventing new exceptions to constitutional protections, or making loose historical analogies, the effect is to trample the constitutional liberties of citizens.

In Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court was clear that the Second Amendment protects arms “that are unquestionably in common use today” for lawful purposes. Plus-ten magazines meet that test. The Constitution protects the right of law-abiding citizens to travel with their firearms. These are straightforward applications of established constitutional principles.

As your Attorney General, I will always fight to protect your Second Amendment rights. These legal battles directly protect Idaho families by ensuring that your constitutional rights travel with you when you leave our state and by stopping the spread of these unconstitutional restrictions before they reach Idaho’s borders.

The Constitution doesn’t change based on which state you’re in or which court is hearing your case. Idaho will keep leading the fight to ensure that principle protects our families wherever they travel.