Supreme Court Issues 9-0 Unanimous Decision Changing Second Amendment & 4th Amendment

 

Barnes v. Felix case, why the Court struck down the “moment of threat” rule, and how

this changes self-defense cases, concealed carry laws, and police encounters forever.

Supreme Court Issues 9-0 Unanimous Decision Changing 

Second Amendment & 4th Amendment Fight!

There were two separate 9–0 rulings in 2025:

• Fourth Amendment — Barnes v. Felix (May 15, 2025): The Court unanimously rejected the “moment-of-the-threat” test in police-force cases and said courts must assess the totality of circumstances (including officers’ conduct leading up to a shooting) when judging reasonableness. That refines Fourth-Amendment excessive-force doctrine; it doesn’t rewrite the Amendment’s text. 

Example: Officers chase a teen for a busted taillight into a dim alley. Without waiting for backup or announcing themselves, they rush in with guns drawn, corner him, and shout conflicting commands. The teen, panicking, reaches toward his waistband to pull out a phone; an officer fires.

Under the old “moment-of-the-threat” view: the court would look almost only at that split second—hand to waistband—and might deem the shot reasonable.

• Under Barnes v. Felix: the court weighs the totality—the minor offense, failure to identify, rushing in without lights/backup, creating the close-quarters panic—and could find the force unreasonable because the officers’ earlier choices helped manufacture the danger.

Two officers spot a driver with a broken taillight and, without lights or siren, sprint after him into a narrow apartment hallway. They don’t identify themselves or wait for backup, shout conflicting commands, and crowd him against a door. Panicking, the driver fumbles for his phone; an officer fires. Under Barnes v. Felix, a court would weigh the minor offense, the failure to announce, and the officers’ rushed tactics that created the close-quarters panic—and could deem the shooting unreasonable because the officers helped manufacture the danger.

• Second Amendment (industry-adjacent) — Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos (June 5, 2025): The Court unanimously held that the PLCAA shields U.S. gun makers from Mexico’s lawsuit because the complaint didn’t plausibly allege aiding-and-abetting illegal sales. That’s a statutory immunity decision; it didn’t change core 2A rights like Heller/Bruen. 

Example: A government sues “Acme Arms,” saying cartel shootings use lots of Acme pistols. The complaint lists recovery stats but no concrete facts that Acme knowingly helped illegal sales—no ATF warnings about a specific dealer Acme ignored, no emails urging straw purchases, no shipments after clear red flags. The Court says PLCAA immunity applies and the case is dismissed. (If the complaint had alleged, for example, “Acme told Dealer X to keep selling to Straw Buyer Y despite ATF warnings,” it might fit an exception—but absent that, PLCAA blocks the suit. Core 2A doctrine doesn’t change.)

Bottom line: Fourth-Amendment use-of-force law tightened up for police (broader evidence considered), while Second-Amendment doctrine itself didn’t shift—the S&W case was about liability under PLCAA. The primary 2A framework still comes from Heller, McDonald, and Bruen. 

More on the unanimous Smith & Wesson ruling

Reuters

Supreme Court spares US gun companies from Mexico's lawsuit

Jun 5, 2025

AP News

Supreme Court tosses Mexico's $10B lawsuit claiming US gunmakers have fueled cartel violence

Jun 5, 2025

washingtonpost.com

Supreme Court unanimously blocks Mexico's lawsuit against U.S. gunmakers

Jun 5, 2025

Please Like & Share 😉🪽

@1TheBrutalTruth1 Sept 2025 Copyright Disclaimer under Section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976: Allowance is made for “fair use” for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, education, and research.