“If gun laws in fact worked, the sponsors of this type of legislation should have no difficulty drawing upon long lists of examples of crime rates reduced by such legislation. That they cannot do so after a century and a half of trying that they must sweep under the rug the southern attempts at gun control in the 1870-1910 period, the northeastern attempts in the 1920-1939 period, and the attempts at both Federal and State levels in 1965-1976 – establishes the repeated, complete, and inevitable failure of gun laws to control crime.”
– Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) quoted from “The Right to Keep and Bear Arms, Report of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, February 1982, p. vii.”

SCOTUS Moves Forward on ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Cases Despite Cook County’s Mootness Maneuver

The Supreme Court’s orders list released on Monday morning does contain a new development in the challenges to “assault weapon” bans in Cook County, Illinois and the state of Connecticut, but it has nothing to do with plaintiff Cutberto Viramontes’s request to be dismissed from the Cook County case or defendant (and Cook County State’s Attorney) Eileen O’Neill Burke’s request to dismiss the case against the county because of mootness.

Instead, the justices have granted Solicitor General D. John Sauer’s motion to participate in oral arguments on December 2. The Trump administration has already submitted a brief in opposition to the ban, and it would have been virtually unprecedented for the Court to deny the federal government the opportunity to participate in oral arguments once the request had been made, but it’s still good to see that the DOJ is still firmly committed to overturning these bans on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms.

For now, though, the Court has declined to address the request by Mr. Viramontes to drop out of the Cook County gun ban challenge and the argument by Burke that, without him as the lead plaintiff, the lawsuit is moot. The justices could release a miscellaneous order at any time in response to the dual requests, but as we noted last week there’s no chance of the issue disappearing from the Court’s docket.

The justices could simply tell Mr. Viramontes “no” and keep him in place, as they did with a transgender athlete who tried to drop out of a lawsuit shortly ahead of oral arguments last year. They could grant his request but decide that the other individual and organizational plaintiffs still have standing to sue over the question of whether AR-15s and other similar semi-automatic firearms are protected by the Second Amendment. In either of those scenarios, there’s no way that the justices would then turn around agree with Burke that the challenge to Cook County’s semi-auto ban is now moot.

On the off chance that SCOTUS does agree with Burke, dropping the Cook County suit does nothing to change the litigation over Connecticut’s gun ban. Even the New York Times admitted as much in its recent coverage of the new twist in Viramontes, while still giving space to voices in the gun control lobby who want to make this a bigger deal than it is.

“It’s unprecedented for a gun-rights plaintiff to abruptly pull their name from a major Supreme Court case with zero explanation,” said Janet Carter, managing director of Second Amendment Litigation at Everytown Law, the legal arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, which advocates tighter guns laws.

She added that “in a case with stakes this high,” she thought that “the public deserves to know why the lead plaintiff is suddenly walking away.”

Reached by phone, Mr. Viramontes declined to say why he wanted to drop out of the case. “I would not like to make a comment,” he said.

Which is his right. Mr. Viramontes doesn’t owe either side an explanation, nor does he have to explain his request to the justices. And I don’t recall Carter complaining when New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham recently declined to appeal a Tenth Circuit decision granting an injunction against New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period without explaining why.

I have no clue about the reason for Viramontes’s change of heart, so this is pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if he just doesn’t want the grief that will come from anti-gunners if and when SCOTUS strikes down these bans. We’ve seen how ugly the debate over gun control can get, and it could be that he just doesn’t want to be the public face of a Supreme Court decision that could invalidate some of the gun control lobby’s most cherished restrictions.

Whatever his reasons, though, the constitutional question remains. Millions of Americans own AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles, and millions more live in states where politicians have decided those firearms are too dangerous for ordinary citizens to possess. Whether those bans on the most popular rifles in the country are compatible with the Second Amendment is a question that deserves an answer, regardless of whether one particular plaintiff wants to continue taking part in the litigation.

Cook County may have found a procedural argument that it hopes will spare its gun ban from Supreme Court scrutiny, but Connecticut’s ban is still squarely before the justices. On December 2, the Court will have the opportunity to decide whether the Second Amendment protects some of the most commonly owned arms in America. Cook County might be able to dodge a Supreme Court ruling (though I doubt it), but the gun control lobby isn’t going to be able to dodge the constitutional question much longer.

AR-15s are ten times more common. Rifle murders aren’t keeping up.

New study: AR-15s are up tenfold. Rifle murders aren't. Rifles share of gun murders fell from 4.9% to 3.6%.

Americans own more AR-15s and AK-pattern rifles than ever before. If the people pushing to ban them were right, murders with rifles would be climbing right along with them. A new study of FBI data shows the opposite.

What the study found

The Crime Prevention Research Center looked at how often rifles are used in murders before, during, and after the federal “assault weapons” ban of 1994 to 2004, using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports:

  • Ownership is up tenfold. AR-15s and AK-47s went from about 1 per 100 Americans when the federal ban expired in 2004 to 10.2 per 100 in 2025.
  • The ban didn’t work. Rifles were used in 4.8% of firearm murders before the ban and 4.9% while it was in effect. The researchers found no statistically significant difference.
  • Since it expired, the share has fallen. Rifles accounted for 3.6% of firearm murders after the ban ended, even as these rifles became ten times more common.

And those numbers overstate the problem. The FBI counts every kind of rifle together, from deer rifles to .22s, so AR-15s and rifles like them are only part of an already small share.

Why it matters in Minnesota

The 2027 session opens January 12 with DFL control of the House, the Senate, and the governor’s office. The day after the election, Governor-elect Amy Klobuchar said the 2026 omnibus gun bill “is going to get passed” and “certainly should be one of our top priorities.”

That bill, SF 4067, passed the Senate 34-33 last May. It would have banned dealer sales of most semi-automatic rifles and of magazines over 17 rounds, and made every owner register the ones they already have with the state, pay a fee, and renew every three years, or face criminal charges. Other 2026 bills would have banned nearly all semi-automatic rifles outright.

In 2027, the DFL is poised to try to ban the sale, transfer, and possession of these firearms. The data says it won’t make anyone safer. It will only turn law-abiding Minnesotans into criminals for owning the most popular rifle in America. Here’s what to expect in 2027.

The Supreme Court is weighing in too

On December 2, the US Supreme Court hears Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on the AR-15 and rifles like it. The MN Gun Owners Law Center and the Caucus filed an amicus brief in the case. A ruling is expected by June, and it could decide whether bans like the one coming to Minnesota survive at all.

GunsOfLiberty

The question in 1788 was not whether Americans needed arms. It was who would hold them.

At Virginia’s ratifying convention, Patrick Henry refused to treat congressional management as the same thing as the people keeping their own arms:

“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”

— Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788 (3 Elliot’s Debates 386)

If defense is the reason, the people’s own hands are the safest place for those arms.

Liberal Gun Owner Worries Politicians He Just Elected Might Enact New Gun Control Laws.

I was wondering if anybody that’s more politically savvy than I am knows of any upcoming or planned gun restrictions either state or federally because of our massive win yesterday?

Are there any states that you expect to have a stricter gun control now that the Republicans are out? Do you think the numbers exist to push federal gun control measures?

Do you think the NFA windfall a few months ago will be repealed? Are there any specific gun control measures that you hear people talking about a lot that you think will be pushed?

Thank you. I’m just a little concerned that this might end up being a bittersweet victory as far as our second amendment rights are concerned.

— u/chooseausername69251 in Should we expect new gun control?

Brady Claims Midterm Gun Control Mandate. Voter Polling Tells a Different Story.

By Larry Keane

The Brady Campaign wasted little time claiming the Nov. 3 midterm elections as a gun control victory. In a Nov. 4 social media post, the organization proclaimed that Americans across party lines want leaders who prioritize public safety and reject the Trump administration’s so-called “guns everywhere” agenda.

With Democrats winning control of both chambers of Congress, Brady celebrated what it described as “gun violence prevention majorities” and called for action. The problem with that claim is there’s no evidence to show that’s what voters wanted.

Voter Priorities

An October Pew Research Center survey found that 84 percent of registered voters considered the economy very important to their congressional vote. The future of democracy followed at 73 percent, healthcare at 68 percent and education at 62 percent.

Gun policy (as a broad category) ranked 10th among 16 issues surveyed, with 45 percent calling it very important. That was down from 57 percent in a comparable October 2022 survey.

The contrast was particularly revealing among voters supporting Democrat congressional candidates. Just 40 percent considered gun control very important, compared with 88 percent for the economy and 82 percent for healthcare.

An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll reinforced those priorities. Asked to identify their most pressing election issue, 34 percent of likely voters selected the cost of living and 33 percent chose preserving democracy.

And when registered voters were asked whether protecting gun ownership rights or passing stricter gun control laws should take priority, the results were closely divided. Of those surveyed, 46 percent favored protecting gun ownership rights and 49 percent favored stricter laws.

Those findings complicate Brady’s assertion that election results demonstrate a broad, bipartisan demand for its policy agenda.

NSSF recently reported that organizations — including Everytown for Gun Safety — invested heavily in the midterms. Their involvement demonstrates political influence, but campaign spending, voter contacts and endorsements alone cannot establish why individual voters cast their ballots.

Campaign Threats

Michigan offers an especially consequential example of why election victories should not be confused with endorsements of every position held by a successful candidate.

Democrat Abdul El-Sayed defeated former Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat. His campaign focused heavily on healthcare, affordability and corporate influence.

But in an April 2023 video, El-Sayed proposed replacing the Second Amendment with a constitutional right to healthcare.

The video was subsequently removed from public view. When the remarks resurfaced, El-Sayed’s spokesperson said he respected the Second Amendment. Yet when asked in August whether he still favored replacing the constitutional protection, El-Sayed instead argued that more Americans were concerned about seeing a doctor than owning a firearm.

That response presents healthcare and the Second Amendment as competing priorities. They are not mutually exclusive. Americans can advocate expanded healthcare access while maintaining constitutional protections for lawful firearm ownership.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. Replacing that protection would require a constitutional amendment, including ratification by three-fourths of the states. A single senator cannot amend the U.S. Constitution.

Nevertheless, El-Sayed’s election gives him a future vote on firearm legislation and federal judicial confirmations. His previous statements are relevant to understanding how he may approach those responsibilities.

NSSF detailed the stakes in Michigan before Election Day, including proposed restrictions affecting lawful firearm owners, retailers and manufacturers.

Gun Ownership Up, Crime Down

Firearm ownership and crime statistics present another important distinction between gun control messaging and measurable public safety outcomes.

According to NSSF’s January 2026 firearm production report, an estimated 506.1 million firearms were in civilian possession based on historical data through 2023. NSSF also estimates that 26.2 million Americans became first-time firearm owners between 2020 and 2024. Those estimates reflect the enormous scale of lawful civilian firearm ownership in the United States.

Meanwhile, the FBI’s 2025 national crime statistics recorded the largest annual decline in the violent crime rate since national estimates began in 1936. Violent crime fell 9.3 percent from 2024 to 2025. Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter declined 18.1 percent, while robbery dropped 18.5 percent. The murder rate fell to 4.1 per 100,000 residents, tying the lowest rate recorded by the FBI.

Those figures do not prove that firearm ownership caused crime to decline, just as a national decline cannot establish that any particular gun control law produced the improvement. Firearms do not independently commit crimes. Criminals who misuse them bear responsibility for their actions, and effective public safety policy must account for the conduct of violent offenders. That includes examining how criminals illegally acquire firearms, enforcing laws against straw purchasing and trafficking and addressing the causes of violent crime.

NSSF’s Real Solutions. Safer Communities® campaign, which includes Don’t Lie for the Other GuyTM, FixNICS® and Operation Secure Store®, addresses specific public safety concerns through illegal-purchase prevention, improved background-check records and firearm retailer security.

Brady’s blustering about a gun control mandate is not much more than hot air. The available polling establishes a more complicated picture of the electorate than a single-issue mandate. Election victories establish who will govern. They do not, by themselves, establish why Americans voted or which firearm restrictions they want enacted.

The sad and tragic fact is that the civil rights movement, despite its honorable and courageous past, has over the years degenerated into a demagogic hustle, promoting the mindless racism they once fought against.
-Thomas Sowell