DESPITE today's Democratic filibuster in the Senate to protest inaction on gun control, prospects for new measures to rein in guns seem to be close to nil. After the nation mourned 20 first-grade children who died in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012—and 80-90% of Americans favoured expanded background checks for gun buyers—the Senate, buckling under pressure from the National Rifle Association (NRA), rejected a rather mild bill in April 2013 by a 54-46 vote. The gun lobby was powerful enough to overwhelm public opinion, fuelled by fresh memories of a deranged man slaughtering 6-year-olds with an assault weapon, and make a compromise measure disappear. Three years later—despite some defections from the gun-rights orthodoxy, like the evolution of Bob Dold, a Republican congressman from Illinois—the NRA is still one of the most formidable lobbying groups in Washington. But in the wake of the Orlando massacre in which Omar Mateen murdered 49 people in a gay nightclub and injured 53 more, there are some signs that the tide may be turning against America’s culture of liberal access to guns. By themselves, public opinion polls must be taken with a grain of salt: the half-life of post-slaughter outrage is short and gun-control advocates are notoriously less intense in their views than those who adorn their bodies with Second Amendment tattoos. So louder calls for banning assault weapons are not themselves an indication that this time angst and talk will translate into legislative action. But two developments in the courts are chipping away at the NRA mantra that the Second Amendment protects a “fundamental, individual right” for Americans to own and carry guns.

First is unexpected progress in a lawsuit brought by several families whose children died in the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012. Eighteen months ago, these bereaved Connecticut residents sued the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle as well as the wholesaler and gun store that sold it to the shooter. The gun is a “military weapon”, the complaint claimed, that enabled Adam Lanza to end 26 lives in just “264 seconds”. When it was filed, the lawsuit was seen as a mainly symbolic attempt to hold the gun industry accountable for the deaths its products help bring about. A 2005 law shielding gun makers and sellers from accountability for crimes precludes most such efforts. But the judge in the case has set a trial date and ordered the defendants to turn over documents. Even if the families’ lawsuit comes to naught, the public airing of evidence gives credence their claims and keeps the matter of the gun industry’s culpability in the public spotlight.

The second sign of trouble for the gun lobby is more tangible. In a stinging defeat for the NRA, a panel of 11 judges on the ninth-circuit court of appeals ruled on June 9th, by a 7-to-4 vote, that there is no constitutional right to carry a concealed weapon in public. The case, Peruta v San Diego, arose in 2009 when Edward Peruta and several other California residents were denied permits to carry concealed guns. Mr Peruta and his fellow plaintiffs argued that the California law empowering local sheriffs to determine whether to grant such permits runs afoul of the Second Amendment’s guarantee of a “right to keep and bear arms”. The law in question provides that permission may be granted to applicants “of good moral character” who have “completed a course of training” and for whom “good cause exists for issuance of the licence”. It was the final requirement that tripped up Mr Peruta et al. “Good cause” for carrying a concealed weapon must amount to more than a general desire to defend oneself from potential threats. There must be something to “distinguish the applicant from the mainstream”, San Diego County’s policy specifies, that “causes him or her to be placed in harm’s way. Simply fearing for one’s personal safety alone is not considered good cause.”

These standards for dispensing concealed-carry licences, the majority held, are reasonable and do not violate the individual constitutional right to bear arms that the Supreme Court upheld in District of Columbia v Heller, a landmark decision from 2008. Judge William Fletcher reasoned that since British and American laws stretching back to the 13th century permitted bans on concealed weapons, there is little support for concluding that the constitution’s framers would be on Mr Peruta’s side: “Based on the overwhelming consensus of historical sources”, Judge Fletcher wrote, “we conclude that the protection of the Second Amendment—whatever the scope of that protection may be—simply does not extend to the carrying of concealed firearms in public by members of the general public”. In its analysis of the decision in Peruta, the NRA was, predictably, upset. The appeals court “used shameful sophistry and sleight of hand to effectively deny millions of Californians their constitutional right to bear firearms in public for self-defence”, the interest group groused. The seven judges in the majority voted to “leave good people defenceless”, the NRA concluded, since California is one of five states that ban residents from openly carrying their firearms in public. Caught between a rock and a hard place, as the four dissenters noted, most of California’s gun owners have no legal way to take their weapons outside their homes.

This case may ultimately be reviewed by the Supreme Court, but it is unlikely the justices will hear an appeal any time soon. The court has recently refused to weigh in on gun rights, leaving in place a ban on assault weapons, for example, in a Chicago suburb. And even if the truncated court did hear a challenge, with Justice Antonin Scalia’s seat now empty for the foreseeable future, there is little chance of a five-justice majority to overrule the ninth circuit’s decision. The ruling in Peruta “underscores the importance of the 2016 election”, the NRA writes. “It is imperative that we elect a president who will appoint Supreme Court justices who respect the Second Amendment and law-abiding citizens’ right to self-defence”. The gun lobby is right to worry about the impact that the election will have on the scope of the right to bear arms. But it seems the main stage in the fight over access to guns may shift to the state and local levels, where reforms have had a somewhat friendlier reception among lawmakers.