Learning Library

Full Text

# Litigating gun rights: an interview with Pete Patterson **Source:** [SCOTUSblog](https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/litigating-gun-rights-an-interview-with-pete-patterson/) **Author:** Haley Proctor **Published:** 2026-01-08 **Jurisdiction:** Federal - Supreme Court ## Summary - The interview with Pete Patterson highlights the surge of Second Amendment litigation before the Supreme Court, emphasizing the strategic and procedural intricacies of arguing gun‑rights cases such as Snope v. Brown and Bondi v. VanDerStok in the wake of the Bruen historical‑tradition test. Patterson’s experience underscores the collaborative preparation required for high‑court advocacy and the expanding docket of federal appellate challenges to firearms regulations. - The Supreme Court’s adoption of the Bruen historical‑tradition framework now governs the validity of modern gun‑control statutes, making rigorous historical analysis a core component of litigation strategy. - Effective SCOTUS advocacy relies heavily on firm‑wide support, moot courts, and logistical coordination (e.g., accommodating family), illustrating that preparation extends beyond pure legal argumentation. - Counsel often must juggle multiple high‑stakes arguments in rapid succession (e.g., presenting before the full 3rd Circuit en banc and the Supreme Court within 24 hours), demanding agility in briefing and oral advocacy. - Recent cert petitions and pending cases signal a fertile period for Second Amendment challenges, urging practitioners to monitor developing doctrines on issues such as assault‑weapon bans, felon‑in‑possession prohibitions, and statutory definitions of “firearm.” - Coalition building with other law firms, interest groups, and amici can amplify a case’s impact and provide critical resources for briefing, moot‑court practice, and post‑argument follow‑up. ## Content Litigating gun rights: an interview with Pete Patterson A Second Opinion is a recurring series by Haley Proctor on the Second Amendment and constitutional litigation. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear two cases this term involving Second Amendment challenges to firearms regulations, with several more petitions pending. Given that the Second Amendment is at the forefront of Supreme Court litigation, I could think of no one better to speak to than Pete Patterson, a partner at Cooper & Kirk PLLC (where I am of counsel). Pete, in addition to being a great colleague and accomplished litigator, is one of the top Second Amendment experts in the country. He has represented parties raising Second Amendment challenges in scores of cases, including before the Supreme Court in Snope v. Brown, where the Supreme Court last term narrowly denied cert in a case challenging Maryland’s ban on AR-15 rifles. He has also argued nearly 20 Second Amendment cases in the federal courts of appeals in the two-and-a-half years since the court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, in which it held that New York’s concealed carry law violated the Second Amendment. Pete agreed to speak with me about his experience litigating those cases and his perspective on some of the most pressing questions in Second Amendment law. Our conversation is below, which has been edited for length and clarity. This is not your first SCOTUSblog interview. You previously spoke with Nate Mowry about Bondi v. VanDerStok, which you argued before the court last term. What surprised you most about appearing before the justices? I have been fortunate enough to be at counsel table for other Supreme Court arguments, so there was not much about the argument itself that came as a surprise. One thing that I did really come to appreciate about the process is the support that goes into making an effective day at the court possible, including colleagues at the firm doing everything they could to help prepare me, lawyers at other firms going out of their way to participate in moots, and staff at the court ensuring that my wife and kids could be at the argument. VanDerStok involved firearms, but not the Second Amendment. You did not get to put the Second Amendment on the back burner while you prepared for that argument, though, did you? I did not. While VanDerStok primarily was a statutory interpretation case in which the court upheld a government regulation redefining when an item becomes a “firearm” under federal law, I also argued Range v. Garland before the en banc [full court] 3rd Circuit the day after VanDerStok. I therefore had the privilege of arguing before 24 federal judges in a 24-hour period. Range was a case challenging the federal ban on the possession of firearms by felons not wholesale but in the specific case of an individual who had a decades-old conviction for excluding lawn mowing income from a food stamp application. The 3rd Circuit ultimately ruled for our client by a vote of 13-2. The federal government did not seek Supreme Court review, and the issue of whether and in what circumstances a non-violent offender can seek as-applied relief from the federal felon-in-possession ban is one that is the subject of disagreement in the federal courts of appeals and that the Supreme Court has yet to resolve. When and how did you become involved in Second Amendment litigation? Cooper & Kirk has a longstanding and distinguished Second Amendment practice. For example, Chuck Cooper, the firm’s chairman, argued in the 5th Circuit in [the 2001 case of] United States v. Emerson, which was the first modern federal court of appeals decision to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. I joined Cooper & Kirk in 2009, shortly after the Supreme Court decided District of Columbia v. Heller [in which it held that the District of Columbia’s ban on possessing handguns was unconstitutional]. How has Second Amendment doctrine and practice changed since then? At that time, and until the court’s 2022 decision in Bruen, the biggest Second Amendment issues were what standard would apply to Second Amendment cases and whether ordinary Americans had a right to carry firearms in public. Bruen resolved both of those issues, holding that Second Amendment claims are to be resolved based on text and history and that ordinary Americans do have a right to carry firearms in public. The three years since have been spent working out the implications of that decision, including essentially redoing litigation over issues that had been resolved under the wrong standard before Bruen. As a reminder for readers, the Bruen text-and-history analysis has two stages. At the outset, the court asks whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct in which the law’s challenger wishes to engage. If so, the court proceeds to ask whether the law that burdens that conduct is part of the nation’s historical tradition... --- *Legal Topics: constitutional, criminal, civil-procedure* *Difficulty: intermediate* *Via SCOTUSblog*