Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts, Good News for Those Who Build Guns

What used to be a fringe hobby in the firearms world, building or customizing your own guns, is increasingly popular.

So, Wyomingites welcome a ruling by the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Second Amendment could apply to the buying, selling and possession of firearms parts without serial numbers.

AR-15 style rifles in particular can be built or customized to owners’ liking, using parts and accessories that can be purchased over-the-counter or ordered online.

“It’s like Barbie dolls for men. It’s all about accessorizing,” firearms enthusiast Nic George of Sheridan told Cowboy State Daily.

Court Rules On Colorado Case

At issue is whether the purchase, exchange and possession of firearms parts without serial numbers fall solely under state commercial regulations, or has Second Amendment implications.

The 10th Circuit Court on April 23 ruled the latter, Casper Attorney Ryan Semerad told Cowboy State Daily.

Continue reading “”

Yadda, Yadda, Yadda: Anti-Gunners Warn of a Bloody Apocalypse if Gun Rights are Expanded…Again.

It should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the debate over gun control that anti-gun messaging hasn’t changed much over the years. Once a particular “problem” is invented by anti-gun extremists, they generally settle in on a flawed argument to “correct” it, then just keep hammering away at it.

When Florida started the modern movement to expand the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens for personal protection in 1987, those opposed to the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense immediately began wailing about simple disagreements exploding into shoot-outs on the streets.

They predicted Florida would devolve into Hollywood’s depiction of the Wild West. But that never happened.

As the right to carry movement spread across the country, extremists still screeched about those impending Wild West scenarios unfolding in each state, but those predictions proved to be overwrought. In fact, when self-defense options were expanded for law-abiding citizens, states saw either a decline in violent crime or no significant change.

Then came the transition from expanding access to carry permits—or removing unconstitutional restrictions on who may obtain one or what they must do to be granted a permit—to promoting constitutional carry, where law-abiding citizens were simply presumed to remain law-abiding if the government didn’t first require they get a permission slip to carry a firearm for self-defense.

right to carry timeline gif

We now sit at 29 states with some form of Constitutional Carry, and in virtually every state where there has been a legislative push for such a law, those opposed repeated the same doom-and-gloom predictions they rolled out for the push to make carry permits more easily obtained.

“Our state will return to the days of the Wild West!”

“Simple arguments will explode into violent shoot-outs!”

“The streets will become a war zone!”

Again, none of that happened, just like it didn’t happen during the carry permit reforms.

Continue reading “”

The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside…Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them… — Thomas Paine

More Virginia Prosecutors, Sheriffs Say They Won’t Enforce ‘Assault Firearm’ Ban

Multiple lawsuits have been filed in both state and federal court since Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a bill outlawing the sale, manufacture, and transfers of so-called assault firearms and large capacity magazines, as well as another measure prohibiting the carrying of “assault firearms” in most public spaces. Spanberger is also facing an enforcement challenge in addition to the legal challenges, with a growing number of county sheriffs and Commonwealth Attorneys declaring their intent not to enforce the new laws if they take effect on July 1.

Earlier this week I reported on two prosecutors who’ve publicly stated they have no plans on enforcing the laws against peaceable citizens. That number has grown to at least five Commonwealth Attorneys who serve Spotsylvania County, Smyth County, Powhatan County, Pulaski County, and Scott County.

I reached out to Buckingham County Commonwealth Attorney Kemper Beasley III for comment, and late Thursday night I head back from the prosecutor, who told Bearing Arms:

My responsibility and duty as Commonwealth’s Attorney for Buckingham County is to uphold both the U.S. and Virginia constitutions.

Both documents protect individual’s rights to bear arms, and recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court have helped clarify that right and I anticipate will eventually overturn recent legislation passed in our state.

That definitely sounds like Beasley doesn’t plan on enforcing the law, but I have sent a followup asking him directly if that is, in fact, the case.

Continue reading “”

Stephen L. Miller

This is one of the keys of his campaign. Nonprofits pay a lot of people to not solve the problem they claim to be solving. Remember when Mr. Beast went to Africa and built two clean water wells, and the NGO nonprofits over there criticized him for it, as some white savior complex or something. He instantly solved the problem they claimed they were advocating and working on.

If you tackle and dent or even solve rampant homelessness, a lot of people lose their jobs and a lot of the funding and donations cease and that’s why there’s a sudden flood of negative media going his way. They aren’t scared of him winning. But they are scared that once people realize problems can be solved, a whole lot of the slush funding dries up.

Student Injured in Antioch Shooting Sues AI Detection Company

We’ve written a lot about the use of AI to detect firearms. Proponents of the technology claim it not only works but can work faster than any other tool available to prevent school shootings. Some of these systems call the police immediately upon noticing a gun, even if it hasn’t been drawn.

Assuming, of course, they don’t misidentify a bag of Doritos as a firearm. Or a clarinet.

The problem with AI is that it’s more artificial than actually intelligent. It makes massive mistakes, and because of how it works, it can create panic and confusion when it creates a false positive.

But a student injured in the Antioch High School is taking aim at the company the school used for its AI gun detection system for failing to recognize the threat.

A student injured during the deadly shooting at Antioch High School has filed a lawsuit against the company behind the school’s AI-powered gun detection system, alleging the technology failed to detect the shooter’s handgun before shots were fired.

The lawsuit, filed May 1 in Davidson County Circuit Court, was brought by Antonyous Henin, who was 17 years old at the time of the Jan. 22, 2025 shooting at Antioch High School. The complaint names Virginia-based Omnilert LLC and Lebanon-based System Integrations, Inc. as defendants.

On January 22, 2025, 17-year-old Soloman Henderson opened fire in the Antioch High School cafeteria, killing 16-year-old Josselin Dayana Corea Escalante before taking his own life.

According to the complaint, Henin was injured and another student was wounded.

At the time of the shooting, Antioch High School did not have traditional metal detectors in place. Instead, the school had AI-powered security cameras designed to identify weapons….
The lawsuit alleges Antioch High School had an Omnilert gun detection system installed and operational at the time of the shooting. The system was designed to use artificial intelligence to detect visible firearms and trigger emergency alerts.

Henin’s attorneys claim Omnilert marketed the system as technology that could “detect firearms — both indoors and outdoors — before a shot is fired” and “turn passive cameras into life-saving tools.”

Yeah, well, that worked out swimmingly, didn’t it?

Continue reading “”

Texas Democrat Prime Example of Why We’re Never Giving Up Our Guns

The purpose of the Second Amendment is the defense of this nation. Our Founding Fathers were generally smart men, and they recognized that defending our nation might mean fighting our government. It’s part of why they were largely distrustful of standing armies in the first place and preferred the militia.

But, as things have chanced in the last 250 years, a lot of people figure that the purpose of the Second Amendment has also changed. They think it’s about hunting or, if they’re feeling charitable, about personal protection, and not anything else. It’s why they want to take certain guns from us–at least, that’s the rationale we get from them now, though we know everything is in their sights.

We’re not giving up jack squat, and a Texas Democrat in the midst of a runoff is a prime example of why.

The top Democrat in a southern Texas House race, sex therapist Maureen Galindo, has called for transforming an immigration facility into a “prison for American Zionists” equipped with a castration center.

Galindo’s campaign made a vile pledge that she will introduce legislation to that effect if she gets elected to Congress after baselessly alleging her Dem runoff foe was “being paid to put Jews and Mexicans in concentration camps via Zionist trafficking networks.”

“When Maureen gets into Congress, she’ll write legislation so that all Zionism and support of Zionism is undoubtedly Anti-Semitic, since it’s Zionism harming the Semites,” her campaign wrote on Instagram last week.
“She’ll turn Karnes ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking. (lt will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists).”

Now, castrating pedophiles is a rare moment of me agreeing with a Democrat on something, but it’s literally every other word she says that’s the problem.

Zionism is simply the idea that Israel has a right to exist as a modern nation. I get that some people disagree with that position, and we’re not here to debate whether it’s the right concept or not. It is what it is, and Galindo is talking about writing legislation to round up everyone who holds a very particular belief, including a whole lot of Jews, and herding all of them into the very camp her party claims are concentration camps.

While she’s not the nominee as of yet–runoff elections are May 26th–the fact that someone this mentally damaged is this close to being the nominee is troubling, especially when you think about Graham Platner in Maine, who is likely to be their nominee for the Senate.

This is a fringe belief, though. I haven’t seen all that many people who agree with Galindo here, and that’s the good news, but I can’t help but acknowledge that I’m also not seeing loud denouncements from party leaders, either.

Regardless, this is someone who thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to round people up based on their political opinions. Right now, it’s “Zionism,” but do you really think it would stop there?

Hell. No.

So, I’m going to hold onto my AR-15s. I’m going to hold onto my standard capacity magazines. I’m going to urge everyone to do the same, and to stand up to these state legislatures that seem to think that this fringe belief being expressed by a fairly promenent Democrat isn’t anything to worry about. I’m sure the years of others talking about going after their political opponents or “breaking the spirit” in the coming years is nothing at all to be concerned about and we won’t need our guns to fend off these monsters.

But I’m keeping it ready just the same.

You want me to give up my guns and trust my government? That’s never going to happen, because there are people in this country who support some truly awful people who want to hurt me and mine, and they’re not going away anytime soon.

Missouri schools could hire armed ‘rangers’ under bill sent to governor

A bill to create a new faction of school protection officers with “physical fitness superior to a U.S. Marine” got final approval from Missouri lawmakers in the final days of the legislative session.

The legislation seeks to allow schools to hire volunteer or paid guards called “Missouri Rangers” who could carry a gun on school grounds.

The bill’s sponsor, Republican state Sen. David Gregory of Chesterfield, told senators he wanted to give schools “a choice to have a higher trained armed guard.”

He compared current protection-officer requirements to that of a “Walmart guard with a gun.” Currently, schools can appoint teachers and administrators as school protection officers, allowing them to carry a gun or “self-defense spray device” with training and a concealed carry permit.

School protection officers must undergo a minimum of 112 hours of training, according to a Department of Public Safety rule. The state also has school resource officers, which are law enforcement officers with an additional 40+ hours of training related to school safety.

Gregory’s legislation proposes a maximum of 160 hours of training, specifying that the program must include lessons on “close-quarter combat,” bomb and arson training, de-escalation and others.

Prior to training, rangers must pass a physical fitness test. For those 35 and younger, they must “complete a minimum of 40 pushups in less than one minute” and be able to run 1½ miles in less than 12½ minutes. The legislation asks the state’s Peace Office Standards and Training Commission to identify lower standards for older applicants.

The bill’s first pass through the Senate brought little opposition, garnering the support of groups like the St. Louis County Police Association in its first committee hearing. In early April, just two senators voted against the proposal, but Senate Democrats unanimously voted against it when it returned to the chamber last week with less than a day before session adjourned for the year.

House Democrats unanimously rejected the proposal, uncomfortable with the proposition of having more firearms in schools.

“The answer to guns in schools is not more guns in schools,” said state Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs, a St. Louis Democrat, advocating instead for mental health support for students.

Their arguments did not sway House Republicans, who unanimously voted in support of the bill.

State Rep. Burt Whaley, a Republican from Clever, has experience training school staff on what to do in case of a shooting. The key benefit of having a ranger, he said, was being able to quickly respond to threats.

In one school he trained, the local law enforcement estimated that it could take up to 45 minutes for them to arrive.

“It is typically another person with a gun that knows how to use it, that’s trained how to use it … they’re usually the ones that are able to subdue (a threat),” he said.

The bill follows other proposals passed last year addressing security concerns, like laws directing schools to share emergency operations plans with local law enforcement and report school safety incidents to the state’s education department.

Some of the provisions passed in last year’s legislation have yet to be implemented because of a lack of funding, such as a requirement to equip schools with bleeding control kits and train staff on how to apply a tourniquet.

Gov. Mike Kehoe has until mid-July to sign or veto bills before they become law.