Gun Owners Have a Lot to Be Worried About With Cameras, AI, and Gun Rights

George Orwell’s 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual. It was based on the very real concern of a government becoming a totalitarian surveillance state where all the people did was observed, recorded, and scrutinized for any sign of WrongThink. It was a terrifying glimpse into Orwell’s fears should his own preferred ideology of socialism take hold and go too far, but it wasn’t just about socialism, either. It was what the state could do when no one stopped it.

And while we’ve often invoked the imagery of Big Brother to make a point about surveillance overreach, things are scarier now than ever before…and gun owners are especially concerned.

Manufacturers of AI software that uses surveillance cameras to search for guns say it makes people safer, but some gun rights activists told Cowboy State Daily they think that’s a brazen violation of Second Amendment and privacy rights.

Companies such as Volt for years has provided gun-detection software to schools, which the company claims helps stop school shootings.

The city of Hobbs, New Mexico, has outfitted about 70 video cameras with software from another company, ZeroEyes.

ZeroEyes claims that the software helps cameras quickly detect drawn firearms, which are then verified at company facilities by human observers, who can alert local authorities.

Gun-detecting AI software doesn’t require dedicated cameras, it can be applied to existing surveillance, traffic and web cameras.

What Difference Would It Make?

Firearms enthusiast Nic George of Sheridan told Cowboy State Daily that he understands the good intentions behind the software, but the broader implications of what gun surveillance might lead to are troubling.

“Right now, it might not be a problem. But what’s the next step?” he said.

As things stand, programs like ZeroEyes raise murky questions when it comes to gun rights, George said.

Now, this particular piece goes on to suggest one potential problem would be someone being charged with brandishing because they pulled their gun in a legitimate self-defense situation, but the camera doesn’t see the other person’s weapon. It’s a fair concern, but I have bigger worries.

Earlier this week, Cam wrote about some concerns regarding the controversial Flock cameras. Thanks to an add-on to the system, your neighborhood Flock cameras can potentially detect all of your electronic devices, such as cell phones, Bluetooth-enabled earbuds, smart watches, etc.

And yeah, the RFID tag on your gun that the dealer forgot to remove.

Still, even without that, these are still cameras. If a system like ZeroEyes can be installed on Flock cameras, imagine you go for a walk, only to have the cameras detect you and that you’re armed. They follow you as you walk around the block, stop to chat with the neighbors, pet the dog from down the street that always wags its tail at you, then circle back home.

Congratulations, you’ve just shown them that you do have a gun in your home, that you carry it, and they may well know every electronic device in your home, which the authorities could then use to spy on you.

I’m not saying that this will happen, mind you, only that I’m not seeing a lot of reasons why it can’t, and that worries me. The fact that AI gun detection software has a track record of not being able to tell the difference between a gun and a bag of chips doesn’t make me feel any better.

Maybe I’m being paranoid, but just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you, and while I know that the ATF probably has a lot of ways to determine who has a gun and who doesn’t, that doesn’t mean I have to allow them to make it easier for them, state authorities, or the local cops.

The Urgent Case for Better Church Safety.

Sunday morning, July 5, 2026. St. John’s Lutheran Church in Effingham, Illinois, sat peaceful under a quiet sky. Volunteers had just begun to arrive to prepare for services. Just the ordinary rhythm of a house of worship going about its day. Then a man driving a stolen car slipped inside, asking for the pastor.

Church security didn’t blink. They noticed the out-of-state plates and saw the man approach. Safety team members made contact as he entered. The man asked for the pastor, but the safety volunteers sensed something was wrong. They called 911.

Police rolled in. There was a struggle. A gun was produced. One shot was fired. From the details it sounds like it might have been an attempted suicide. Either way, the intruder went down with life-threatening wounds. A few days later, he died of his injuries.

Thankfully no innocents were hit. No blood on the pews. No parents clawing through wreckage crying out for their kids. The pastor lived. Tragedy was averted, prevented by extraordinary vigilance.

Breathe easy? Not quite. Close your eyes and run the other reel.

Unlocked side doors. Nobody watching the parking lot or the doors. No radios calling out warnings.  Chaos explodes where hymns should rise. Gunfire shatters stained glass and the pastor and others go down. Children scream from the daycare area. Paramedics arrive to heartbreak. A community is gutted, forever asking, “Why didn’t we see it coming?”

That nightmare is one lazy policy choice away. Churches aren’t fortresses, they’re sanctuaries. Open doors, welcoming smiles, coffee and cookies. But evil doesn’t check the welcome sign. It walks right in.

FBI patterns show Sundays hosted the most active shooter incidents than any other day in 2022.  It shouldn’t surprise that Sundays reliably top the day for the most violent religious activity incidents pretty much every year. Barely half of Protestant churches have a real plan for such horrors.

Researching this, I initially found the number of churches with “church safety” as higher, but that’s because researchers counted the 21% of houses of worship with “No Firearms” policies as among those with safety programs. “Gun-Free Zone” signs have no preventative or survival value.

The rest? Hoping and praying. Winging it. That’s not faith. That’s playing Russian roulette with your flock.

Continue reading “”

Is China Also Meddling in Second Amendment Fight?

I do not hate any groups of people because of where they come from, what their ancestors did, or anything beyond their own actions as individuals, which might then land them in a group that I hate. People who hurt others, especially children, for example.

But I don’t blink about hating governments, and China has been a special case in my mind for years.

On Thursday night, President Donald Trump took to (most of) the airwaves to announce some disturbing evidence regarding China and its attempts to meddle in the 2020 election.

Considering Trump and his election integrity fight, I understand him bringing it up, though the American Left is looking at the same evidence we are and claiming it’s nonsense, as is the fact that American intelligence personnel downplayed the threat.

What I got out of that, though, beyond the obvious, was a reminder of how China isn’t just meddling in our elections. As a nation, I honestly believe they are trying to destabilize us entirely. It’s speculation on my part, to be sure, but let me put it out there for your consideration.

First, let’s talk about so-called Glock switches.

These devices have been around for decades, but were just some obscure toy that only a handful of people ever got to lay eyes on. Then, a few years ago, they started showing up on American streets. They were thrown on the back of Glocks and similar firearms, then used to spray rounds throughout our inner cities.

While these can be printed domestically, a large number of the devices recovered come from Chinese manufacturers. They’re then shipped into the United States, often with some ridiculous nomenclature that obscures what they really are, and then end up in the hands of some of the worst people in our communities.

Meanwhile, what is China doing? They’re using their own English-language media outlets to pretend that gun rights are a human rights violation. In light of these two facts, their concern rings extra hollow.

But it’s easy to dismiss Chinese media as propaganda because that’s what it is.

However, in his speech, President Trump also alleged that China intended to pay American “journalists” large sums of money to amp up the criticism against the president in their work. Yes, this is a violation of journalistic ethics, but how many will figure that they’re just being paid to say the same thing they always would?

To be clear, I’m not sure if any accepted the offers or if the offers were actually made. That information didn’t seem to make it into any of the coverage of the recently declassified documents.

Yet, if they would do it about elections, might they also pay journalists to ramp up the pressure for gun control? What about using a billionaire and his network of NGOs to fund anti-gun organizations?

After all, China does not benefit from a strong United States. It wants to be the dominant power in the world, and we stand in the way of that. Even if there’s never been any discussion of invading the American mainland, thus needing gun control to minimize the risk to Chinese troops, the gun control debate creates a kind of pressure point that can be exploited.

Especially if gun confiscation were to ever come to pass in a meaningful way.

At that point, the United States would explode into civil war. Our ability to project power abroad has to be drawn down while we deal with such massive destabilization domestically. China, naturally, would fill in the gap.

Look, I’m not saying this is happening. Again, this is speculation, but it’s not something I pulled out of the ether, either. There’s evidence they’ve tried this with our elections, for crying out loud. Influencing a political debate would be trivial by comparison.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the need to preserve all the things that matter. Not just items or ideas, but skills and competencies. Above all of that, though, there’s a profound need to protect the United States and our basic civil liberties, for which the Second Amendment stands as the insurance policy for all the others.

China is a global threat, and nothing that the president said downplays that in the least. The question is, what else are they meddling with while no one is or was willing to pay attention?

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.”

Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, 1787

Breaking: Third Circuit Says Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘Large Capacity’ Magazines Is Unconstitutional

In a long-awaited opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has released its en banc decision in a trio of cases challenging New Jersey’s ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines, holding that the ban violates the Second Amendment’s protections for the right to keep and bear arms.

Besides the majority opinion, there are five opinions concurring either in whole or in part, along with three dissenting opinions, so Second Amendment attorneys and amateur law nerds like myself will have a lot of reading to do this weekend. Here’s the most important part of the majority opinion as an appetizer.

Applying the framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we agree with the District Court that New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR-15s violates the Second Amendment. However, because the record supports the same result for all semi-automatic rifles—not only Colt AR-15s—we will MODIFY the District Court’s order so that it deems the Assault Firearm Provisions unconstitutional with respect to the full class of semi-automatic rifles. We will AFFIRM that part of the order as modified.

The LCM Provisions also violate the Second Amendment, so we will REVERSE the District Court’s order with respect to those. Because the LCM Provisions violate the Second Amendment, we need not address the Takings Clause challenge.

While other circuit courts have upheld “assault weapon” bans by claiming they’re “dangerous and unusual” (or “unusually dangerous”), are not commonly-used for self-defense, and so close to machine guns that they’re not even protected by the Second Amendment, the Third Circuit rejected each and every one of those claims.

Continue reading “”

Government Throws in Towel on Defending Post Office Gun Ban

The U.S. Justice Department this week signaled it would no longer defend against a challenge to the federal ban on firearm possession, storage, and carry at U.S. Post Offices.

The government filed a motion with the U.S. Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of FPC v. Blanche, a gun rights group’s victory against the post office gun ban. A lower court in Oct. 2025 found the ban unconstitutional, citing that the first mail service in America was established in 1639, but the USPS waited until 1972 to specifically prohibit firearms on postal property.

Until this week, the government was still doggedly standing by the ban on appeal.

“The Trump DOJ spent far too long defending an immoral and unconstitutional ban that treated peaceable Americans like criminals,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in a statement. “Now, after losing on the merits and failing to gut the relief protecting our members, the government is finally waving the white flag. Good.”

For now, the victory in FPC v. Blanche protects members of the FPC and the Second Amendment Foundation, pending further challenges, rulings, and possible repeal of the ban by the USPS.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED IN CASE CHALLENGING UNLAWFUL SEARCH

BELLEVUE, Wash. — July 16, 2026 — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a motion for summary judgment in a case challenging the unconstitutional search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s vehicle that was based solely on the knowledge that he is a legal gun owner.

The case, Harrington v. Crawford, stems from an unlawful search of Hillsboro-Deering High School student Jack Harrington’s vehicle while it was parked on school grounds. Based only on an overheard conversation that Harrington lawfully owned a firearm, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent. No firearm was found during the illegal search as it was safely stored at his home, nowhere near the school campus.

“Entirely lawful and constitutionally protected conduct cannot be the grounds for a search,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “School officials, especially when accompanied by law enforcement as was the case here, need at minimum reasonable suspicion to search a student’s vehicle. Here, those officials learning that our client was a gun owner gave them that suspicion. They are mistaken. If that were the case, student gun owners all over the country could be subject to repeated and endless harassment.”

As noted in the motion, “Defendants relied upon a week-old, stale report of a single comment made by Jack and overheard by an assistant coach…relating to Jack’s storage of his handgun in the glove box of his truck while at a gas station nowhere near campus – indisputably legal and constitutionally protected conduct. At no point during the interrogation, the search, or at any time since, have defendants brought forth a single shred of evidence of unlawful conduct by Jack. Moreover, defendants confirmed that they did not view Jack as a threat to school safety; they did not believe Jack had a weapon on his person during the interrogation; and Jack had no previous disciplinary issues.”

“District officials – and even a school resource officer who should know better – took it upon themselves to violate the constitutional rights of a peaceable, adult, firearm owner for no other reason than they learned of his status as a gun owner,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This young man was interrogated and coerced into allowing school officials to search his vehicle because he chooses to exercise his rights as a private citizen. Law enforcement and school officials are required to understand the law and to follow it, and in this case, it appears they failed at both.”

The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States….Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America
— Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789.

Even The Trace Admits We’re Seeing More Guns and Less Crime

The gun control movement is based on a simple premise: more guns lead to more crime, and the only way to truly make the United States safer is to reduce the number of firearms in circulation.

When the modern gun control lobby got started in the 1960s, that idea seemed somewhat logical. Violent crime kept going up, and every year more and more guns were added to the mix. In 1991, though, violent crime peaked and then started its decade-long decline, but we continued purchasing millions of firearms each year.

From the early 1990s to 2020, violent crime and homicides fell by more than 50 percent, and after a brief spike during the COVID pandemic they are once again plummeting, this time to lows not seen since at least the 1960s, and probably not for a century or more. The number of privately-owned firearms, meanwhile, has grown to more than 400 million according to most estimates.

Even Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun “news” site The Trace can’t ignore the fact that while gun sales are rising, crime is dropping.

Gun violence is down, significantly, as gun sales are ticking up for the first time in years.
… Shooting deaths and injuries remain at historic lows in the United States, continuing the trend seen in Q1 and in recent years.

Data from the Gun Violence Archive shows 6,458 shooting deaths, and 11,781 shooting injuries in the first six months of the year. Both represent the lowest number since 2015.

The per-capita figure of 1.9 shooting deaths per 100,000 Americans is also the lowest in that span.

Still, a few states have seen increases in shooting deaths, including New Hampshire, Connecticut, Iowa, and Massachusetts. These are smaller population states, so a few incidents can have a big impact; a June mass shooting in Iowa helps explain that state’s increase this year.

Two of those states also have incredibly restrictive gun laws, which is yet another bit of evidence that gun control doesn’t stop violent criminals.

While The Trace admits that “gun violence” is down and gun sales are up, it does try to minimize the increase in gun purchases.

An estimated 7.3 million firearms have been sold in the United States — about 4.5 million handguns and another 2.8 million long guns. That would be enough to arm every single resident of Tennessee.
The numbers represent a 2.7 percent increase in gun sales through six months compared to 2025. This marks the first time in six years that we’ve seen an increase in sales.

While the uptick is notable, the raw total is still lower than any year from 2020 to 2024.

A handful of states are posting huge increases compared to the first six months of last year. These include three states where legislation to restrict gun buying advanced or took effect:

  • Virginia, where a suite of gun safety laws, including a currently paused ban on assault-style weapons, were signed by Governor Abigail Spanberger. The state’s gun sales soared 73 percent this year. The state’s 117,802 sales in June 2026 were the highest of any state, despite Virginia ranking 12th in population.
  • Connecticut, where dealers say a proposed “Glock ban” propelled an increase of 25 percent.
  • Rhode Island, where a ban on assault-style weapons took effect on July 1, 2026. In the first six months of the year, gun sales climbed 86 percent higher than in 2025.

Yes, when Democrats try to ban guns, it leads to a lot of people purchasing them. Go figure.

While this is the first time in six years that gun sales are up year-to-year, it’s not like sales have been non-existent. In the first six months of 2025, for instance, The Trace says there were 7,093,785 gun purchases. Compare that to the 4,539,309 purchases in the first half of 2010, and it’s easy to see that even with numbers off their peak in 2020, the new “normal” is well above what it was just a few years ago.

This year The Trace estimates 7,287,997 firearms have been sold since January. That’s roughly the same number (7,487,384) that were sold in the first six months of 2016. The big difference is that in 2016, that figure was a 16 percent increase in sales compared to the year before, while this year’s increase is a more modest 3 percent. Again, the floor is higher than it was just a decade ago.

If the “more guns equals more crime” theory were correct, then the United States should be seeing record high levels of “gun violence.” Instead, we’re living in what is likely the safest moment in the past 100 years, if not the entirety of U.S. history. With tens of millions of Americans keeping and bearing arms to protect themselves and others, it’s clear that the Second Amendment isn’t at odds with public safety, but is an integral component in keeping the peace.