Category: Courts

What are Dangerous and Unusual Weapons?

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the United States Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear “dangerous and unusual weapons,” it protects only arms in “common use.” In support of its conclusion, the Court cited the following authorities and case law:

United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), at 179.  4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).

Neither the Heller opinion nor any of the cited authorities and case law support that conclusion. Most of the Court’s citations are circular, but all invariably point to English common law and statutes that preceded the adoption of the Second Amendment.

Moreover, had the Court bothered to read its own citations, which in turn cited English common law and statutes, it would have discovered that England did not ban “dangerous and unusual weapons.” England’s prohibitions on the bearing of dangerous and unusual weapons (the citations point to body armor) did not prohibit the possession of those arms. What was prohibited was bearing those arms in public except for certain limited exceptions, such as quashing riots and stopping affrays (e.g., street fights).

Moreover, there was no “common use” test. England was a class-based society with restrictions on the arms one could keep and bear, depending on one’s class. For example, in feudal England, only the upper classes could keep and bear what we today call broadswords, except traveling merchants, whose social class would normally have precluded them from doing so. Not that English peasants and serfs could have afforded to purchase a broadsword.

Which isn’t to say that the lower classes never touched a broadsword. But it would have been in a public defense context, and they were not expected to purchase a broadsword or other weapons of war that they could not afford.

If there were a weapon in “common use,” it was the English longbow, which they could afford. The right to keep and bear arms, and the specific arms protected by the Second Amendment, which we American citizens have the right to keep and bear, simply cannot be reconciled with English statutory and English common law. At least not unless American citizens are analogous to Medieval English serfs and peasants. True, this is a view widely shared by judges and politicians, but it was not the view of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Second Amendment, or the American People who voted to enact the Second Amendment into law, or the view of those who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment that was likewise enacted into law by the American People.

During oral argument in my California Open Carry lawsuit, Judge Bybee put to me that the Second Amendment was based on the English Bill of Rights. I responded by saying that we expanded on those rights. Had I been given the time to elaborate, I would have reminded him that the English Bill of Rights applied only to Protestants (and only some of them), not to Catholics. And, of course, the English “right” to keep arms was a statutory right, not a fundamental right that we Americans have even if there were no enumerated Second Amendment right. Statutory rights exist at the whim of the legislature, and the English Parliament has long since ended any right to keep arms, let alone bear them for the purpose of self-defense.

Judge Bybee would go on to write the 7-4 en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii (2021) that held there is no right to bear any concealable arm in public, openly or concealed, because their mere existence offends the king.

The United States Supreme Court vacated the Young v. Hawaii decision and threw the case back to the 9th Circuit in 2022.

With the exceptions of prohibitions on the use and/or carrying of concealed weapons, which existed from the 13th century, and throughout the history of American colonial and American states, Heller’s embracement of prohibitions on short-barreled shotguns and machine guns cannot be reconciled with the types of arms the American People intended the Second Amendment to protect when it was enacted in 1791 or when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in 1868.

19th-century Courts and legislatures disagreed on whether firearms that are easily and ordinarily carried concealed can be banned, but they were all in agreement that the Second Amendment protects arms used in battle.

And that included cannons, a type of arm that cannot be carried on one’s person. Heller’s exclusion of arms that one would take into battle is ahistorical and inconsistent with Heller’s first citation that justified prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons” and seemingly limited the right to arms in “common use”—United States v. Miller (1939). A decision that makes no mention of “dangerous and unusual.” What Miller said was, “[O]rdinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

Indeed, the Supreme Court in Miller adopted the view of many 19th-century courts that the Second Amendment protects only weapons of war—”Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon [short-barreled shotguns] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

In 2008, when the Heller decision was published, the M-16 machine gun was part of the “ordinary military equipment,” and certainly contributed “to the common defense.”

So how did we go from the Second Amendment only protects weapons of war to the Second Amendment does not protect weapons of war?

Technically, the Heller opinion did not say that “M-16 rifles and the like” are not arms protected by the Second Amendment, but the paragraph was so poorly worded that judges have leaped to the conclusion that Heller held that they are not.

In a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace, Justice Scalia said that the Court had not decided whether hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down an airplane or firearms that can fire 100 rounds per minute are, or are not, arms protected by the Second Amendment. In the interview, Justice Scalia gave an example of what the right to keep and bear arms did not protect—walking down Main Street while carrying an executioner’s axe in a manner intended to terrorize the townfolk, as that constituted an affray.

While an executioner’s axe may have been unusual, and is certainly deadly, it wasn’t the axe per se that was prohibited; it was the carrying of the axe in a threatening manner. A woodsman’s or shipwright’s axe was commonly carried, and for certain classes of Englishmen, the carrying (bearing) of swords was required by law and custom. It was not a crime to carry them in public unless they were carried in a threatening manner.

And contrary to the defendants’ position in my California Open Carry lawsuit, which claims that simply openly carrying a firearm is, in and of itself, threatening, I have centuries of English and American common law, as well as California statutory law, saying, and California Courts holding, that merely openly carrying a firearm is not threatening.

Some people hate the mere sight of guns, and concealed carriers hate Open Carry for different reasons, but, for now, there is no Heckler’s veto of the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court could grant an “assault rifle’’ ban cert petition, and clean up the mistakes made in Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen, and US v. Rahimi. But I fear that if the Court does, it will simply poke more holes in the Second Amendment.

More on USPS Carry; Leaked Memo Confirmed Authentic

A federal judge found the prohibition on possessing firearms on some United States Postal Service properties unconstitutional. A leaked MEMO — confirmed authentic — outlines how USPS employees should deal with carriers.

In October it was reported that the prohibitions on firearm possession and carry on some USPS properties was ruled to be unconstitutional. The opinion said that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” How the USPS would be handling potential carriers has not been made publicly known, however a leaked internal MEMO contains instructions and the USPS has confirmed the authenticity of the material.

When contacted last month, the USPS addressed a query concerning the opinion. USPS Senior Public Relations Representative Felicia Lott spoke on behalf of the Service.

“The Postal Service is aware of the recent decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas regarding the ban on firearms possession on postal property, which enjoins enforcement of the ban at certain Post Offices, and the surrounding Post Office property, with respect to certain postal customers,” Lott wrote. “The Postal Service is currently analyzing the court’s decision and taking necessary steps to implement the injunction.”

Via a reddit post, an alleged postal clerk leaked an internal document dated October 24, 2025. The document states the following:

A federal court order currently permits certain postal customers to carry and possess firearms at most Post Offices, including in customer parking lots. In response to that decision, and while we work to clarify the precise scope of the court’s order, we are providing the following guidance to all our retail employees at all Postal Service retail facilities, regarding all of our customers at those facilities.

Because of this decision, there may be instances in which members of the public who are visiting Postal Service retail facilities to pick up their mail, or conduct a retail transaction, will be carrying firearms. Postal Service Employees are directed to refrain from confronting or engaging with the customer about the fact that they are carrying a firearm.

Postal Service employees should allow the customer to conduct their business in the same manner as other customers. Once the customer leaves, immediately report the matter to your supervisor or manager.

Management employees should immediately call the Inspection Service hotline at 1-877-876-2455. The Inspection Service will determine whether the ban on firearms possession can lawfully be enforced under the circumstances, and whether further action is justified. Calls to local enforcement (911) should only be made if the person is interfering with operations or if the customer is acting in a manner that raises immediate safety or security concerns.

The court’s decision does not affect the ban on firearms possession by Postal Service employees on postal property, which remains fully in place. Employees are reminded that carrying or storing firearms on Postal Service property is prohibited and can result in discipline, up to and including removal from the Postal Service. The prohibition on employee possession of firearms also means that storing firearms in vehicles that are parked on postal property is also prohibited.

Thank you for your attention.

Bearing Arms reached out to USPS Senior Public Relations Representative Felicia Lott concerning the document. In response to the request concerning the authenticity of the document, Lott said, “USPS confirms that the Service Talk is an internal employee document and refers back to its previous statement for request of any additional comment.”

An October 28 filing from the Department of Justice requested the court clarify and/or stipulate that the ruling should apply to named plaintiffs only as a membership list would not be provided by the organizational plaintiffs: Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation. The Justice Department says the court “should accordingly clarify that its declaratory judgment and permanent injunction are limited to the individual Plaintiffs and to individuals who have been identified and verified to the government as members of the organizational Plaintiffs.”

Members of SAF and FPC should be able to simply carry membership cards and or certificates with them in order to prove their status as an affected party. The court has not addressed the DOJ concerning their request as of this time.

The USPS has yet to make a public statement about the decision nor offer any guidance to Postal Service customers directly.

Why? Simple. It’s because like all goobermint, they’re scared to death that the peons may one day get fed up enough with the blatant and open corruption (See – among other’s -Nancy Pelosi’s impossible stock portfolio performance) and decide to take care of business, along with the clear understanding that, while Mao was a murderous dictator, he was very correct when he said that political power grew from the barrel of a gun and that the party should control the guns.

Why Does SCOTUS Hear So Few Second Amendment Cases?
The right to keep and bear arms occupies a curious place in American legal history.

The Second Amendment occupies a curious place in American legal history. It has been sitting right there in the Bill of Rights since those amendments were first added to the Constitution in 1791. Yet it was not until the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller that the U.S. Supreme Court got around to recognizing what many legal scholars had been saying all along: Namely, that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not a collective right, nor a state’s right.

Two years after Heller, in 2010’s McDonald v. Chicago, the Court additionally held that the individual right to keep and bear arms that applied against the federal enclave of D.C. also applied against state and local governments.

But then the Supreme Court sort of went quiet for a while. The next truly major Second Amendment case did not arrive until 2022’s New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, which extended the logic of Heller and McDonald to recognize “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

The recent news that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a new Second Amendment dispute later this term raises the interesting question of why it takes the Court so long to hear so few of these kinds of cases. What gives?

For a persuasive explanation of the Supreme Court’s pre-Heller silence on the Second Amendment, I recommend reading a 1989 Yale Law Journal article titled “The Embarrassing Second Amendment,” written by the liberal law professor Sanford Levinson. “I cannot help but suspect that the best explanation for the absence of the Second Amendment from the legal consciousness of the elite bar,” Levinson wrote, “is derived from a mixture of sheer opposition to the idea of private ownership of guns and the perhaps subconscious fear that altogether plausible, and perhaps even ‘winning’ interpretations would present real hurdles to those of us supporting prohibitory regulation.” In this telling, legal elites basically understood that if the Second Amendment was ever taken seriously, then some (or even many) gun control laws would necessarily fall. So they just declined to take the amendment seriously.

But if that explains some or all of the pre-Heller period, what explains the more recent era? One explanation may be found in an oft-quoted passage from Justice Antonin Scalia’s Heller decision. “Nothing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

I recall several Second Amendment advocates grumbling to me at the time that this passage by Scalia was both unnecessary to the outcome of the case and potentially quite injurious to the broader gun rights cause. Those advocates feared that the gun control side would immediately grab hold of the “sensitive places” exception and run with it, leading to more regulations on guns instead of less.

And the federal courts would, of course, have to deal with Scalia’s language, too. In fact, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, invoked that very language by Scalia in a notable concurrence filed in the Bruen case. “Properly interpreted,” Kavanaugh wrote, “the Second Amendment allows a ‘variety’ of gun regulations.”

Why did Kavanaugh feel compelled to emphasize that particular point in a separate concurrence that managed to garner the support of only the chief justice? I speculated at the time that Kavanaugh “may be signaling to the lower courts that, in his view, many such gun control regulations are presumptively constitutional, and lower court judges should therefore act accordingly.”

In other words, Kavanaugh and Roberts might be less hawkish on gun rights than some of their colleagues. And there might be a small but growing fissure among the Court’s “conservative bloc” over just how broadly the Second Amendment should be interpreted and enforced. That fissure, if it exists, might also explain why the post-Heller Court has not exactly been in a hurry to take up new gun rights cases.

We’ll learn more when the Supreme Court takes up this latest gun rights case, Wolford v. Lopez, in earnest later this term. For now, we’re still left to ponder the Second Amendment’s curious position.

Gun Owners of America Wins in Memphis; Judge Declares City’s Illegal Gun Control Ordinance “Dead as a Doornail”

Gun Owners of America Wins in Memphis—Judge Declares City’s Illegal Gun Control Ordinance “Dead as a Doornail”

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

November 7, 2025

Memphis, TN — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) are celebrating a major victory for Tennessee gun owners after the Shelby County Chancery Court rejected the City of Memphis’ unconstitutional and illegal gun-control ordinance.

In its ruling, the Court made clear that Memphis’ sweeping local gun restrictions were not just unlawful—but entirely void.

The following are two major points outlined in the order:

  1. The City CONCEDED its ordinance violates state law.
    Memphis admitted that every line of its handgun-carry ban, vehicle-storage rule, so-called “assault rifle” ban, and red-flag scheme is 100% illegal under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1314. (Order pp. 3, 9–11)
  2. The Judge called the ordinance “DEAD AS A DOORNAIL.”
    The Chancellor wrote that “The Ordinance and those who proposed it engaged in ‘virtue signaling,’” but “the Ordinance is as dead as a proverbial doornail as a matter of Tennessee law.” (Order p. 6)

Simply put, the Memphis ordinance is entirely unenforceable.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:

“Memphis may be known as ‘Bluff City,’ but this ridiculous ordinance is a textbook example of a city passing an illegal law just to make a political point. Of course, Memphis was bluffing—and waved the white flag the moment GOA walked into court. The judge simply read their surrender out loud. Litigation like this is critical to defending law-abiding gun owners from reckless and unconstitutional actions by local politicians. Memphis’s deceitful ‘virtue signaling’ endangered residents and visitors alike, exposing them to unlawful prosecution. Such abuses have no place in a constitutional republic.”

John Velleco, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation, issued the following statement:

“Memphis just got schooled in Gun Law 101: You can’t ‘virtue-signal’ your way around a state preemption statute. The City admitted its ordinance is illegal, the judge branded it ‘dead as a proverbial doornail,’ and the court stamped it ‘not enforceable—full stop.’”

 

SCOTUS Slates Several More 2A Cases for Consideration in Conference

The Supreme Court has already granted cert to two separate cases dealing with Second Amendment issues, and I think there’s a strong possibility the justices will agree to hear at least one more 2A-related challenge this term.

So far the Court has decided to address the constitutionality of Hawaii’s “vampire rule” prohibiting concealed carry on private property unless expressly allowed by the property owner and the federal law barring unlawful users of drugs from possessing firearms, but next week the justices will also consider four cases in conference that all have to do with the Second Amendment rights of 18-to-20-year-olds.

The lawsuits involve challenges to the federal prohibition on handgun sales to adults under 21, Florida’s law banning all gun sales to under-21s, and Pennsylvania’s ban on concealed carry for under-21s (which turns into a total prohibition on carry for young adults when the state’s open carry law is suspended during a state of emergency).

Given the circuit court splits on the issue, I believe there’s a real possibility the Court will hear one or more of these cases. But there are other live issues pending before Court, and the November 21 conference will feature almost a half-dozen of them.

Four of the cases slated for the November 21 conference are prohibited persons cases; not challenges to Section 922(g)(3) and its ban on unlawful drug users owning guns, but taking on 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on gun ownership for anyone who has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by more than one year’s imprisonment; and 922(g)(5)(A), which bars unlawful aliens from possessing firearms.

In addition, the Court has scheduled Duncan v. Bonta for its November 21 conference. That’s the challenge to California’s ban on so-called “large capacity” magazines. The Ninth Circuit has upheld the law, including the provision requiring existing owners to destroy their magazines, turn them over to law enforcement, permanently modify them to comply with California’s 10-round limit, or remove them from the state.

The appeals court, though, has stayed enforcement of that portion of the law. If the Supreme Court denies cert, it’s almost guaranteed that the Ninth Circuit would lift that stay and California could start prosecuting anyone found in possession of “large capacity” magazines, even if they lawfully purchased them.

I’d love for the Court to hear each and every one of these cases, but that’s not a realistic possibility. The Court could end up holding on to one or more of these cases pending the outcome in Wolford v. Lopez and U.S. v. Hemani, though I don’t know that either of those cases would have much of an impact on the constitutionality of California’s mag ban.

In one final bit of SCOTUS news, the lead attorney challenging Hawaii’s “vampire rule” in Wolford v. Lopez is asking for help from gun owners in order to “pay for historians, documents, affidavits, and the mountain of legal costs” associated with a Supreme Court challenge. If you’d like to help attorney Alan Beck and the plaintiffs in Wolford, you can contribute to a GiveSendGo campaign. As of Wednesday afternoon Beck had raised nearly $40,000 of his $65,000 goal, and more than 400 patriots have contributed to the cause. Hopefully we can add to the number of donors and fully fund the campaign so that Beck can deliver the strongest arguments possible in the upcoming round of briefing and oral arguments next year.

The Hidden Question for SCOTUS in Its Newest 2A Case

On the surface, the Hemani case the Supreme Court recently agreed to take up is about one thing: whether Section 922(g)(3) is constitutional as it applies to Ali Danial Hemani, who was convicted of possessing guns as an “unlawful” user of marijuana.

In answering that question, though, the justices are almost certainly going to have to answer another: whether the DOJ’s proposed rule allowing prohibited persons to apply to the Attorney General to have their Second Amendment rights resolved should bar prohibited persons from using the courts to regain their right to keep and bear arms.

Solicitor General D. John Saeur made the case for the Court to throw out the Hemani case on those grounds in his cert petition to the Supreme Court, and if the court adopts Sauer’s flawed reasoning it would have a impact well beyond Ali Danial Hemani’s conviction.

To the extent Section 922(g)(3) raises constitutional concerns in marginal cases, 18 U.S.C. 925(c) provides the appropriate mechanism for addressing those concerns. Under that statute, a person may apply to the Attorney General for relief from federal firearms disabilities. The Attorney General may grant relief if the applicant shows that “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety” and if “the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.”  If the Attorney General denies relief, the applicant may seek judicial review in district court.

That program was effectively disabled from 1992 until 2025 because the authority to grant relief had been delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and appropriations statutes have included provisos barring ATF from using funds to act on Section 925(c) applications. Recognizing that the appropriations bar applies only to ATF, however, the Attorney General recently withdrew the delegation of authority to ATF and revitalized the Section 925(c) process. An individual who seeks an exception to one of Section922(g)’s categorical restrictions could invoke that process and, if the Attorney General denies his application, seek judicial review. That process provides a more workable mechanism for granting exceptions than a court-administered regime of as-applied challenges brought by those engaged in criminal conduct.

Section 925(c), to be sure, was not operative at the time of respondent’s offense conduct. But respondent has not argued that he would have satisfied Section925(c)’s standard—i.e., that his record and reputation show that he is unlikely to “act in a manner dangerous to public safety” and that granting relief “would not be contrary to the public interest.” 18 U.S.C. 925(c). Nor did respondent file a civil suit seeking “protection from prosecution under [Section 922(g)(3)] for any future possession of a firearm.” He instead “violated the law in secret,” “tried to avoid detection, ”and raised an as-applied challenge as a defense to a criminal charge after he was caught. Section 922(g)(3) raises no constitutional concerns as applied to him.

The biggest problem with Sauer’s argument is that Section 925(c) is still not operative and available to Hemani. If you look up “federal firearms rights restoration Attorney General” you’ll find this DOJ page that says “The Department is developing a 925(c) program web-based application for those seeking to restore their federal firearms rights” and “An initial version of the application will be available online soon after the final rule is released”.

There is, however, no way for Mr. Hemani or anyone else to actually start the application process. That could change by the time oral arguments are held, but the fact that this supposed remedy has been unavailable to anyone for more than 30 years should give the justices enough reason to reject the DOJ’s position.

Another huge issue with Sauer’s suggestion is that Ali Hemani isn’t just appealing the loss of his gun rights. He’s appealing his conviction for violating a law that the Fifth Circuit has said is unconstitutional as it applies to him. Relief from firearm disabilities is one thing, but Hemani is also trying to void the conviction that led to the loss of his right to keep and bear arms in the first place, and Section 925(c) doesn’t help him in the slightest.

If the Supreme Court agrees with Sauer, then Section 922(g)(3) will still be actively enforced against all “unlawful” drug users; not only guys like Ali Hemani, but the grandmother in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma eating a THC gummy to help with the effects of chemotherapy, or the former district attorney in Pennsylvania who can’t buy or possess a gun because he uses medical cannabis.

Don’t get me wrong; I’m glad the DOJ is restarting the 925(c) process after more than 30 years. It does nothing, though, to address the constitutionality of these statutes and whether or not people should be charged and convicted for violating them going forward. That’s why it’s so disappointing, and frankly disturbing, to see Sauer’s disingenuous argument deployed here, and SCOTUS will hopefully make it clear that they reject his flawed reasoning when oral arguments take place.

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation Successful in Overturning Virginia’s Universal Background Check Law; Judge Halts Enforcement

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation Successful in Overturning Virginia’s Universal Background Check Law; Judge Halts Enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 30, 2025

LYNCHBURG, VA – In a landmark decision affirming Second Amendment protections, a Virginia circuit court struck down the state’s universal background check law for private firearm sales, granting a permanent injunction that bars the law’s enforcement statewide. The ruling in Wilson, et al. v. Colonel Matthew D. Hanley, highlights fatal constitutional flaws in the statute, rendering it completely unenforceable.

The Court declared Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:5 unconstitutional, particularly due to its discriminatory impact on law-abiding adults aged 18-20. The Court then granted our request to enjoin the administration and enforcement of the law across the entire Commonwealth of Virginia.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:

“This decision vindicates the rights of all Virginians to engage in lawful private firearm transfers without unconstitutional barriers. The Act’s enforcement mechanism was fatally flawed from the start—criminalizing everyday citizens while ignoring basic constitutional principles. We’re grateful the court recognized that patchwork fixes can’t save a broken law.”

John Velleco, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation, issued the following statement:

“We are thrilled the judge struck down Virginia’s universal background check law because it was unconstitutionally blocking young adults from exercising their Second Amendment rights. This ruling upholds the true meaning of the Constitution by ensuring all law-abiding citizens can acquire firearms without arbitrary government barriers.”

The Virginia Citizens Defense League was also a plaintiff in this lawsuit, along with GOA and GOF.

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-

TPTB in Massachusetts need their faces rubbed in McDonald v Chicago where the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment was incorporated to also be a restriction on State’s powers via the 14th amendment.

Massachusetts Says Its ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Immune to Federal Challenge

Back in August, the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners Action League filed a lawsuit challenging the new “Assault Style Firearms” law adopted as part of the broader gun control package known as Chapter 135. Though the state has banned so-called assault weapons for several decades now, the new law offers a new opportunity to challenge the ban of commonly-owned arms.

Now the state of Masschusetts has responded to the complaint filed in Hanlon v. Campbell, and as GOAL reports, the state is making the audacious argument that its gun laws are essentially immune to challenge in federal court.

Continue reading “”

OR High Court to Finally Hear Measure 114 Arguments Nov. 6

By Dave Workman

Almost exactly three years after Oregon voters narrowly adopted gun control Measure 114, which bans so-called “large-capacity magazines” and requires permits-to-purchase firearms from police, the Oregon State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments challenging the measure’s constitutionality next week.

The hearing is scheduled Thursday, Nov. 6, just two days short of the third anniversary of the controversial initiative’s passage in November 2022. The measure squeaked by with 50.65 percent approval and 49.35 percent opposed, just 1.3 percent different on a gun control question which attracted 1,926,753 votes.

But before anyone gets too excited, the Oregon Capital Chronicle is reporting the three-year battle “may not be over.”

Measure 114 was supported by gun prohibitionists and many in the faith community, while opposition involved virtually every Second Amendment organization in the country including the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Oregon Firearms Federation, Oregon State Shooting Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition. Lawsuits were filed in both state and federal courts, with U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ultimately ruling against the federal plaintiffs, while Harney County Circuit Judge Robert Raschio ruled the measure violates the Oregon State Constitution. Both rulings were appealed by opposing parties, and it is the state case which will now come before the Oregon court, after the state appeals court reversed Raschio’s ruling.

Much has happened in the interim, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen setting the tone. Some, including the Capital Chronicle, assert the Supreme Court has been “expanding” gun rights. By contrast, gun advocates argue the high court is restoring Second Amendment rights that have been eroded over the course of decades.

Much is riding on this case, particularly whether the Oregon justices rule permits-to-purchase mandates violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

Second Amendment advocates maintain that citizens do not need permission from law enforcement to exercise a constitutionally-protected right.

Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]”

This case has the potential of winding up before the U.S. Supreme Court, some gun rights advocates have suggested.

The ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban That SCOTUS Could Strike Down This Term

Last June, when the Supreme Court denied cert to a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines called Snope v. Brown, Justice Brett Kavanaugh predicted that the court would take up the issue “in a term or two.” There are pending decisions in the Third and Seventh Circuits addressing similar bans in Illinois and New Jersey, but by the time the opinions are released and cert petitions are filed, it’s almost impossible that SCOTUS could accept either case and issue a decision before their summer recess in June, 2026.

There is, however, a challenge to California’s magazine ban that is already pending review by the Supreme Court. Duncan v. Bonta is slated to be considered in the Court’s November 21 conference, so that would be one vehicle for the justices to address these bans sooner rather than later. And, waiting in the wings, there’s another case out of the Seventh Circuit dealing with bans on “assault weapons” that the Court could also take this term.

Viramontes v. Cook County is a Firearms Policy Coalition/Second Amendment Foundation challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, and it’s been fully briefed and decided on the merits at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ban in question. FPC and SAF filed its cert petition with the Supreme Court in late August, and Cook County’s reply is due on Wednesday, October 29.

The plaintiffs will have to file a reply brief, but that shouldn’t take too long, and it’s entirely possible that the Court could start its debate over granting cert before the end of year. If they accept the case, oral arguments would take place in the spring, and a decision could come down by the end of this term.

In their cert petition, the plaintiffs argue that SCOTUS “has frequently been solicitous of circuit court judges who are in apparent need of help in parsing this Court’s precedents,” noting that last term the Court granted cert to a case called Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, in response to “calls for clarification” and concern from circuit judges that they “continued to lack the guidance” to implement this Court’s precedents regarding the enforceability of certain federal statutes.

Lower courts, the plaintiffs contend, are equally in need of clarification on what constitutes “arms in common use for lawful purposes” and “dangerous and unusual” weapons that fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.

After this Court repudiated the courts of appeals’ interest-balancing regime in Bruen, courts, like the Seventh Circuit here, have expressed confusion and consternation at “what exactly falls within the scope of ‘bearable’ Arms” as a matter of plain text.

The Seventh Circuit’s reading of the Amendment to exclude arms that the court judges “can be dedicated exclusively to military use” from the scope of the term “arms” at all is just one manifestation of the confusion.

The Second Circuit very recently joined the chorus. In fact, it declined to decide whether “assault weapons” were “arms” at all, “prefer[ring] not to venture into an area in which such uncertainty abounds” when, it concluded, it could resolve the case (it thought) through application of the historical analysis.

The scope of that “uncertainty” for the Second Circuit was remarkable. It noted that it viewed “common use” as part of the plain text analysis, but it complained “the Supreme Court has not made clear how and at what point in the analysis we are to consider whether weapons are unusually dangerous.

Nor has the Court clarified how we are to evaluate a weapon’s‘ common use.’” In its view, “[t]he Court’s opinions may reasonably be read” in contradictory ways, and this “lack of clarity has led to disagreement among the parties in this case and confusion among courts generally.”

The plaintiffs go on to argue that under the Seventh Circuit’s opinion, the Second Amendment permits “anything short of a complete ban on all firearms,” except for the handguns that the Court explicitly stated are protected in Heller.

The Seventh Circuit’s test is even more toothless in this regard than the old interest balancing regime. Before Bruen, courts would at least purport to scrutinize modern laws to ensure there was some relationship between a ban and the aims of public safety. Not so here.

Under the decision below—and the circuit precedent on which it relies—“the plaintiffs” in a Second Amendment case, “have the burden of showing that the weapons addressed in the pertinent legislation are Arms that ordinary people would keep at home for purposes of self-defense, not weapons that are exclusively or predominantly useful in military service, or weapons that are not possessed for lawful purposes.” If they cannot make that showing—perhaps because precisely what is “predominantly useful in military service” is a malleable and ill-defined standard—then the restriction challenged gets no scrutiny whatsoever.

Now, I have no idea if the Court will grant cert to Duncan and Viramontes  or pass them over while the justices wait for other gun and magazine ban cases to reach their doorstep. There’s anticipation that the Third Circuit will strike down New Jersey’s ban on “assault weapons,” which would create a circuit court split that, theoretically anyway, would make the issue more compelling to SCOTUS. But the justices don’t have to wait until there’s split to take up an issue, and if the Court grants cert to both Duncan and Viramontes it can address both semi-auto and magazine bans this term instead of kicking the can down the road for another term or two.

17 Anti-Gun AGs Side With Hawaii On Purchase Permits, Inspection Requirement

A coalition of anti-gun attorneys general from 17 states has filed an amicus brief with the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of two restrictive Hawaii laws being challenged as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lawsuit revolves around two provisions of Hawaii’s permitting regime— a 30-day time limit to purchase a firearm after receiving a permit and a requirement that police inspect legally purchased firearms within five days.

The brief argues that not only do the laws directly violate the Second Amendment, but they also lack historical support and impose undue burdens on law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights. In March, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court struck down the two provisions, but the state government appealed to the full 9th Circuit.

However, the brief from the 17 anti-gun AGs urges the 9th Circuit’s en banc panel to reverse the decision striking down the provisions. The brief claims that states’ interests in implementing “appropriate, reasonable regulations tailored to their specific circumstances” is more important than the protections afforded by the Second Amendment.

Heading up the AGs’ efforts is California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the most anti-gun attorney generals in the country.

Florida judge strikes down under-21 concealed carry ban as unconstitutional

Siding with a 19-year-old man who was spotted with a gun in his waistband, a Broward County circuit judge Friday ruled that a state law barring people under age 21 from carrying concealed weapons violates Second Amendment rights.

Judge cites lack of historical precedent for age restriction 

Judge Frank Ledee issued a nine-page ruling that said Florida’s “prohibition on the concealed carry of firearms by eighteen-to-twenty year olds strips a class of legal adults of their ability to exercise the very right the Constitution guarantees.”

Ledee cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings in recent years that required analyzing the “historical tradition” of firearm regulation when determining whether laws violate the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Litigation Highlight: Plaintiffs File Second Amendment Challenge to Federal Ban on Mailing Firearms

In mid-July, two gun-rights groups and an individual plaintiff wishing to mail a handgun to her father filed suit in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that the federal ban on mailing firearms through the U.S. Postal Service violates the Second Amendment.  This federal restriction dates to 1927—as the complaint notes, it was the first federal gun control law[1] and pre-dates the National Firearms Act by almost a decade.  The lawsuit, which is still in its early stages, implicates tricky questions surrounding legislative intent and how historical tests can account for technological innovation.

Filed on July 14, the Pennsylvania case is captioned Shreve v. United States Postal Service.  The plaintiffs ask the court to strike down 18 U.S.C. § 1715, which provides that “[p]istols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person are nonmailable and shall not be deposited in or carried by the mails or delivered by any officer or employee of the Postal Service.”  The law contains exceptions for guns mailed in connection with military or law enforcement service and for “customary trade shipments” in which firearms are conveyed from manufacturers to dealers.  The statute only applies to the United States Postal Service.  Knowing violations of the ban constitute a federal crime.

Shreve, a Pennsylvania citizen, would like to mail a handgun to her father as a gift and is permitted to do so under state law. The two organizational plaintiffs, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, each assert standing because “some of the[ir] members . . .  also wish to use the U.S. Postal Service to mail their lawfully owned handguns and other concealable weapons for private, lawful purpose.”  The plaintiffs assert that they cannot use private courier services—such as UPS or FedEx—because “private common carriers have prohibited the practice [of mailing guns] for several years.”

The plaintiffs in Shreve argue that the conduct of mailing firearms is protected because, “if the Second Amendment’s plain text did not cover such ancillary acts as shipment or receipt, the government could ban these acts outright, crippling Americans’ access to firearms.”  They emphasize that, while “the U.S. Postal Service traces its lineage to 1775, . . . at no point did the Founders ever criminalize the mailing of handguns as the challenged statute does now.”  The complaint further argues that exceptions to the federal ban—including for official weapons shipped by government agencies, commercial transactions, and long guns—belie any purported public safety objective.  Plaintiffs frame the 1927 statute largely as a response to “anti-gun media sensationalism” that “did little – if anything – to curb violent crime.”  Thus, the complaint concludes, the law “is inconsistent with Founding-era historical tradition [and] violates the Second Amendment.”

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Grants Cert to Case Involving Gun Prohibition for ‘Unlawful’ Drug Users

The Supreme Court has granted cert to a second case dealing with Second Amendment issues this term; this one dealing with the federal prohibition on gun ownership for “unlawful” users of drugs.

The justices have been considering five cases involving Section 922(g)(3) in conference, but only granted cert in Hemani v. United States, which was the case the Department of Justice and Solicitor General D. John Sauer had been pressing the Court to take as a vehicle to decide the constitutionality of the federal statute.

Unlike other cases like Daniels v. United States, which revolve around someone’s conviction for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of marijuana, Hemani involves someone who was alleged to have used and sold promethazine, as well as using both cocaine and cannabis. Ali Hemani is also a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan whose actions “have drawn the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” according to Sauer’s cert petition.

In 2019, a search of his phone at a border crossing revealed communications suggesting that he was poised to commit fraud at the direction of suspected affiliates of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

In 2020, respondent and his parents traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before. Respondent’s mother was captured on video telling an Iranian news agency that she prayed that her two sons, including respondent, would become martyrs like Soleimani.

Respondent also maintains weekly contact with his brother, who attends an Iranian university that the U.S. government has designated as having ties to terrorism. And respondent has told law-enforcement officials that, if he knew about an imminent terrorist attack by “a Shia brother” that would kill innocent people, he would not report it to the authorities.

Of the five cases dealing with Section 922(g)(3), Hemani is by far the least sympathetic individual convicted of violating the statute, which helps to explain why the DOJ was eager for SCOTUS to use his case as the testing ground for the constitutionality of the law.

Still, the Court will likely consider the multiple splits in appellate courts over the statute, which includes a finding by the Fifth Circuit that laws prohibiting users of intoxicating substances do not comport with the national tradition of firearms ownership, and a Third Circuit opinion that suggests an individualized finding of dangerousness is necessary before depriving an “unlawful” drug user of their Second Amendment rights.

The DOJ’s position is that Section 922(g)(3) only disqualifies “habitual users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms,” though the statute doesn’t use the term “habitual” at all.” The DOJ also asserts that “the statute imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction—one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use.”

Continue reading “”

Virginia Judge Tosses State’s ‘Universal’ Background Check Law

Five years ago Virginia Democrats enacted a “universal” background check law (along with several other gun control measures) after the took complete control of state government for the first time in several decades.

Now Gun Owners of America has won an injunction barring enforcement of that statute.

Twenty-Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge F. Patrick Yeatts issued his opinion on Thursday afternoon, declaring that there was no need to “embark on an analysis as to whether Virginia’s background check requirements comport with the “\’historical tradition of firearm regulation’ in the United States.

In exercising judicial restraint, the Court finds it improper to resolve the question of firearm regulation through the lens of Bruen. Instead, the inherent as-applied constitutional deficiencies of the Act require that the court strike the statute in its entirety.

Not to get too into the weeds here, but the statute in question originally imposed background check requirements on all gun purchasers over the age of 18. There’s a conflict, however: Virginia law allows 18-year-olds to purchase and possess handguns, while federal law does not. So, any 18-to-20-year-old attempting to buy a handgun, even from a private party, still had to go through a NICS check and would be denied.

Yeatts previously granted an injunction as it applied to those young adults, but today he ruled that the law must be thrown out in its entirety based on a prior case know as Ayotte. If you want to geek out on the legal underpinnings behind Yeatts’ decision you can read his opinion here, but the short version is that at the moment the background check requirement on private transfers seems to be null and void.

A note of caution, though. Because this wasn’t decided on Second Amendment grounds, Yeatts left open the door for lawmakers to remedy the technical deficiencies that led to him striking down the statute.

The Court also observes that it is feasible to create a system where all individuals are treated equally in obtaining a background check. For example, Nevada law requires all firearm sales and transfers, with limited exceptions, to go through a background check conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). The FFL conducts the background check through the Nevada Department of Public Safety’s (DPS)Point of Contact system. This system interfaces with the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) to determine the eligibility of the buyer to possess a firearm-regardless of age. While Virginia has not adopted such a system, whether due to cost or other reasons, Nevada demonstrates that it is possible to implement a uniform approach.

The statute as it stands, cannot remain intact. If the legislature wishes to rewrite the law to create a system that does not impose disparate treatment based on age, it may do so. At that time, a court might rightly address the question of whether it is constitutional to require a background check to obtain a handgun through a private sale. Now is not that time.

Nevada’s law prohibits sales of handguns to adults younger than 21, so running NICS checks on private party sales involving under-21s doesn’t create a conflict with state law. I don’t know if this was his intention or not, but it seems to me that Yeatts is essentially inviting the Virginia legislature to institute a ban on handgun sales to under-21s, although I’d argue that would absolutely create a system that imposes disparate treatment based on age.

If Democrats once again regain a governing trifecta in next month’s elections we may very well have to deal with an attempt to raise the age to purchase handguns, along with a host of other anti-2A actions. For now though, Gun Owners of America has succeeded in taking down Virginia’s “universal” background check law, and that’s good news for Second Amendment advocates across the Old Dominion.

SAF Files Lawsuit to Protect Fourth Amendment Rights of High School Gun Owner

BELLEVUE, Wash. —— The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a new lawsuit in New Hampshire challenging the unconstitutional search of an 18-year-old high school senior’s vehicle, based solely on the knowledge that he is a legal gun owner.

The case, Harrington v. Crawford, stems from the search of Hillsboro-Deering High School student Jack Harrington’s vehicle while it was parked on school grounds. Harrington lawfully owns a handgun and sometimes kept his firearm in his truck – in full compliance with all federal and state laws – but always removed the gun from his vehicle before going to school. When school authorities became aware of Harrington’s gun ownership, he was subjected to aggressive interrogation by district employees which culminated in his vehicle being searched without consent. The school had no reason to believe Harrington brought his firearm to school, and no firearm was found during the invasive and unconstitutional search.

“Being public about exercising your private rights cannot be grounds for being harassed and searched on campus,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The apparent position of the school district here is ‘choose to exercise one right, give away another.’ That’s just not how it works. If simply being a gun owner is legal justification to be harassed and searched by authorities, what would stop them from submitting gun owners like Jack to searches every day? And what’s their proposed solution to avoid that abuse, that he sells his privately owned firearm?”

As noted in the complaint, “…after the Interrogation in which Jack repeatedly refused to consent to a search and after Jack’s parents were contacted by phone and similarly refused to consent to a search, Defendants searched the Subject Vehicle anyway, finding no firearm.”

“This is the type of fearmongering response we’d expect elsewhere around the country, but not in a state that allows its adult residents to legally own and possess firearms,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This case is about as cut and dry as it gets when it comes to infringing on the rights of a citizen, and we look forward to vindicating Jack’s rights in court.”

Judge Vacates Decision Requiring 2A Groups to Identify Members

A federal judge in Louisiana has rescinded his order for the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association to provide a list of its membership to the Department of Justice as part of his judgment in a case dealing with the federal ban on handgun sales to adults under the age of 21.

The new order by U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays comes after both the plaintiffs and defendants asked him to reconsider that requirement. While the DOJ did originally ask Summerhays to limit relief only to the named plaintiffs in Reese v. ATF and those SAF, FPC, and LSA members who were members when the lawsuit was filed back in 220 and “have been identified and verified by respective Plaintiff organizations during the course of this litigation,” Summerhays went even further by demanding the groups turn over lists of every member as of 2020.

That move was reported by some Second Amendment groups as Summerhays simply granting DOJ’s request, when that was not the case. It’s true, though, that the Justice Department’s proposed relief was still far narrower than what was offered by the plaintiffs. In fact, the plaintiffs stated that the DOJ’s position was even though the Plaintiffs won, they “should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”

In a press release responding to the judge’s order vacating his previous judgment, SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said the group “had no intention of releasing any private membership data and were prepared to take all necessary steps to ensure our member list was not disclosed to the government,” but added that “Luckily, the court responded to our joint motion promptly and vacated its original order.

With that order vacated and a phone conference forthcoming as to the proper scope of relief, it appears we will have more updates on the Reese order in the near future.”

While the plaintiffs and defendants agreed that Summerhays demand the DOJ receive membership lists was the wrong step, the two sides still very much disagree on the scope of the relief that should be provided now that the Fifth Circuit has held the law banning retail gun sales to adults under the age of 21 is unconstitutional.

The plaintiffs would like to see the law enjoined for all 18-to-20-year-old members of the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association, regardless of when they signed up, while the DOJ, as mentioned above, wants to limit the injunction to only a handful of young adults residing in the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

FPC’s Brandon Combs told Bearing Arms last week that Summerhays’ order was likely going to be appealed to the Fifth Circuit, but now that the judge has vacated that order in its entirety we’ll have to see what his amended judgment looks like before we know what the plaintiffs’ next step will be. DOJ has already declined to appeal the underlying decision by the Fifth Circuit regarding the constitutionality of the law, which is good, but depending on how limited the scope of the injunctive relief is, this case (or at least the remedy provided to plaintiffs) could still end up before the Supreme Court before all is said and done.

NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’

The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.

AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.

Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”

The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”

He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

NRA-Backed Plaintiffs Seek Full 3rd Circuit Review of New Jersey’s Sweeping Gun Permit Restrictions

Trenton, NJ – The National Rifle Association announced that plaintiffs in Siegel v. Platkin have filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the full court to overturn a panel decision that upheld large portions of New Jersey’s post-Bruen carry law.

The challenge—brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seven individual plaintiffs—targets the state’s near-total list of “sensitive places” and its requirement that applicants for a carry permit produce written references from four “reputable” non-relatives.

Background: From Bruen to Trenton’s Response
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self-defense, Governor Phil Murphy condemned the ruling as “dreadful” and promised to take “actions” to limit its impact. The legislature quickly passed Chapter 131, a sweeping law that made it a crime to carry in 26 broad categories and 115 subcategories of locations—ranging from beaches and parks to museums, bars, and even libraries.

The law also imposed new hurdles for permit holders: a $50 “victims-fund” tax, a $150 application fee, a $300,000 mandatory insurance requirement, and the four-reference rule that forces applicants to find non-relatives willing to vouch for their “reputation.”

Continue reading “”