Category: Rights

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.

“Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that `if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.’ It is a very serious consideration-that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.”
–Samuel Adams, 1771

Bondi DOJ Alleged to Back Warrantless ‘Home Invasion’ of Gun Owners

Attorney General Pam Bondi and the rest of the Trump Administration appear to be the most pro-Second Amendment administration in recent history, if not ever. That would be a fantastic thing all on its own were it not for the fact that the DOJ still keeps doing some anti-Second Amendment things.

Yeah, the title is still applicable in my book, but that’s because the bar is so low single-sell organisms can’t limbo under it.

However, the latest issue is a bit more complicated than it might look on the outside. It seems a man was shot by police in Montana after they entered his house without a warrant. The DOJ is apparently backing up the state in this case.

But the devil is in the details.

“The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing an argument that threatens to hollow out the Fourth Amendment’s core protection: that Americans may be secure in their homes against warrantless searches.

The lawsuit is Case v. Montana. After a difficult breakup, William Trevor Case was at home alone when police arrived for a so-called “welfare check.” They spent nearly an hour outside his house. Officers walked around the property, shined flashlights through windows, and even discussed calling his relatives or reaching him directly. They never did. Instead, they retrieved rifles and a ballistic shield, broke down his door without a warrant, and shot him.

Case survived, but his rights did not.

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the police’s warrantless entry. Apparently, the government’s “reasonable suspicion” that Treavor Case might need “help” was sufficient to justify an armed warrantless intrusion into his home. That standard is alarmingly low. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and judicial approval before government agents may enter a home. It does not permit entry based on a hunch.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Caniglia v. Strom in 2021. In that case, officers entered a man’s home without a warrant after a domestic dispute, claiming they were acting as “community caretakers.” The Court unanimously rejected that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Fourth Amendment’s protections do not vanish just because police say they are trying to help. The Court allowed for true emergencies—cases of imminent harm or death—but drew a clear line against open-ended “caretaking” exceptions.”

The welfare check is something that’s been around for years, and most people don’t seem to think much of it. Case was someone dealing with a difficult time in his life, one that could spark depression or suicidal ideation, and someone got worried about it. So, they called the police to check on him.

It happens all the time, and it’s saved lives. People who were injured or sick were found and rushed to the hospital where they could be treated.

However, this highlights the potential dark side of welfare checks.

It doesn’t help that police didn’t think Case was in need of immediate aid, yet they claimed he’d said he would “shoot it out” with law enforcement. They suspected he might try to ambush them and die via suicide by cop. Of course, the person who claimed that was one of the officers on the raid, and so I don’t know how valid that claim actually was, especially as he wasn’t arrested over making a threat, apparently.

So, they armed up, got ballistic shield, and never bothered to just knock on the door and see if he’d answer.

I don’t know how Case was unaware that someone was outside, shining a flashlight into the window, or if he did and that was why he was hiding in a closet with a handgun.

Honestly, the whole thing is wonky as all get out to me, and it would have been best of the DOJ had just stayed out of it or at least defend the Fourth Amendment for gun owners.

What makes this worse is the fact that it’s not hard to get the police to conduct a welfare check. Anyone can do it and justify it for almost any reason. The police will just respond, and if they respond like they did with Case, it’s not difficult to see how something could go sideways and an innocent person be killed.

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.”

Glocks, Guns, & Government Overreach: How California Keeps Missing the 2nd Amendment Express

California’s recent surge in gun control legislation, especially Assembly Bill 1127, which effectively bans Glock and Glock-style handguns, reveals a troubling pattern of the state enacting laws that conflict with the Second Amendment, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and established Supreme Court rulings. This relentless legislative push threatens the constitutional rights of California citizens and demands urgent corrective action.

The Second Amendment and Supreme Court Guidance

The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Landmark Supreme Court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that this right includes possessing firearms for lawful self-defense. The Court emphasized that the right to self-defense is central to the Amendment and that restrictions cannot apply to weapons “in common use.” California ignores this legal precedent.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court reaffirmed this position, ruling that gun regulations must reflect the historical understanding of the right at the time the Amendment was adopted. States must justify any restrictions based on this historical framework, especially when banning firearms like Glocks, which are essential tools for lawful self-defense.

Again, California ignores this legal precedent.

Continue reading “”

4chan to British Censors: Get Stuffed.

A funny thing happened on the way to once-Great Britain’s transformation into George Orwell’s dystopian Airstrip One: The renegade users of the anonymous 4chan forum got themselves legal representation and told British busybodies to sod off.

A little background.

4chan’s exploits are legendary, if not always savory.

Ever wanted to know how lefties came to believe that the perfectly innocent “OK” hand gesture is some kind of secret code for white supremacy?

That was 4chan.

When Pepsi held an online contest in 2012 to name a new Mountain Dew flavor, 4chan users hijacked it, flooding the rankings with names like “Hitler Did Nothing Wrong” and “Diabeetus.” That same year, they rigged a contest where fans could vote for Taylor Swift to perform at their school. I hesitate to tell you this part, but they rigged it so that the winning school was the Horace Mann School for the Deaf.

So I’m not saying that 4chan is a bunch of world-saving good guys. They aren’t. What I am saying is that it is unwise to mess with the DGAF anonymous users of a forum dedicated to cultural and political pranks, and who often describe themselves as “weaponized autists.”

They will come for you if you do.

And Another Thing: “Weaponized autists” is their term, not mine.

Even the Trump administration tried to warn off the U.K.’s censors. Last week, Marco Rubio’s State Department warned that the “human rights situation worsened” in Britain in 2024 and criticized the country’s so-called Online Safety Act, which is used and abused by British authorities to stifle speech around the world.

Including 4chan.

Big mistake — but not for the reason I would have guessed.

Instead of going after the U.K.’s censorship board — aka the Office of Communications — in ways only they could dream up, 4chan hired Byrne & Storm, P.C. and Coleman Law, P.C. to represent them against His Majesty’s Craptaculent Government.

Coleman Law is headed up by Ron Coleman. I’ve known Ron (virtually) for probably 20 years, and can tell you that you don’t want to be opposite him in court.

“According to press reports,” 4chan’s new lawyers said in a statement, “The U.K. Office of Communications (‘Ofcom’) has issued a provisional notice under the Online Safety Act alleging a contravention by 4chan and indicating an intention to impose a penalty of £20,000, plus daily penalties thereafter.”

However, “4chan is a United States company, incorporated in Delaware, with no establishment, assets, or operations in the United Kingdom. Any attempt to impose or enforce a penalty against 4chan will be resisted in U.S. federal court.”

And: “American businesses do not surrender their First Amendment rights because a foreign bureaucrat sends them an e-mail. Under settled principles of U.S. law, American courts will not enforce foreign penal fines or censorship codes.”

Finally, they warned that if needed, “we will seek appropriate relief in U.S. federal court to confirm these principles,” and that “United States federal authorities have been briefed on this matter.”

The same U.S. authorities at State, I’d wager, that just ripped the U.K.’s censors a new one last week.

So color me shocked that 4chan pursued a legal remedy against Britain’s notorious nannies, instead of doing what they do best, and waging an attritional war of embarrassment and manipulation.

At least for now.

Original Intent: What the Founders Had to Say About Guns
The very idea of American freedom hinges on the right to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution took effect March 4, 1789 – and the Bill of Rights a while later on December 15, 1791. Among other freedoms, this included the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. But now it’s 2025, more than 230 years removed from that great work of America’s Founding Fathers. So where do our gun rights stand – and what would those men think if they could see us today?

The Birth of Gun Control Meant Death to Liberty

In 1934 – more than 140 years after the Bill of Rights and nearly a century after the last remaining Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836 – the nation’s first successful gun control bill became law. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, and he led a trifecta in the Swamp that included a supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. The gun control that they passed regulated, for the first time, various types of firearms differently. Even with the majorities necessary to bulldoze the minority opposition, they knew an outright ban wouldn’t fly. So, instead, they passed a bill technically regulating the sale and taxation of certain types of arms – and, in practice, pricing out most Americans from owning them.

Three decades later, Democrats once again held both houses of Congress and the presidency. And, once again, they capitalized on a series of crises to justify further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. With the Gun Control Act of 1968, we got the establishment of prohibited persons – entire groups of people who would be stripped of the right to be armed. Guns could no longer be bought and sold commercially without going through a federally licensed dealer, in person.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the background check as a way to weed out prohibited persons. This was followed quickly by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which made certain semi-automatic firearms illegal for anyone, though it expired in 2004. Democrats have been trying ever since to pass another ban – this time, without a sunset clause.

Every gun control law passed in this nation’s history – and the time between them seems to shrink with each one – brings us farther from the Founders’ vision of liberty. Yes, in the last few years, Supreme Court rulings, executive actions, and the spread of the constitutional carry movement through the states all seemed to push back on this slow march to disarmament. But freedom today doesn’t mean what it did to the Founders. They envisioned something quite different, and nothing paints a better picture of that vision than their own words.

Continue reading “”

DOJ Issues “Relief From Disabilities” Proposal

On July 22, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a proposed rule to revive a statutory process for the restoration of Second Amendment rights lost under federal law as a result of convictions or other disqualifying circumstances. NRA-ILA will be submitting its own comments on the proposal, and we urge our members to do so as well. Thoughtful, pro-gun comments will ensure the best outcome for this critical program.

NRA often emphasizes that it represents peaceable, law-abiding gun owners. Yet the Second Amendment is a restraint on government; it is not a prize the government bestows only on whom it chooses. There are limits to the restrictions the government can place on gun ownership, even when (as is almost always the case) it claims to be acting in the interest of “public safety” or “keeping guns out of the wrong hands.” Rights restoration is an important corrective measure when the government’s “public safety” efforts overshoot the mark.

Continue reading “”

No, It Wasn’t Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot
All liberty involves tradeoffs. So does repressing liberty.

Inevitably, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some observers looked at the problem of a radicalized young man who drove hundreds of miles to plan and carry out the murder of somebody whose political views he abhorred and concluded that the problem is the tool used by the assassin. A few of those observers even gloat that Kirk was shot after defending the right to keep and bear arms when he discussed the tradeoffs inherent in balancing the benefits and dangers of liberty.

Much political discourse was already stupid, but too many people want to make it even stupider.

After Kirk’s assassination, amidst widespread mourning over his death as well as despicable celebrations of the conservative activist’s murder, came a spate of malicious chuckling over the nature of the crime. Charlie Kirk, you see, was shot with a rifle, and he’d once called shooting deaths the price of keeping the Second Amendment. How ironic!

Except that’s really not what Kirk said.

I had a lot of disagreements with Kirk, but this wasn’t one. His comment about the Second Amendment and deaths was part of a larger discussion about the dangers inherent in liberty. He emphasized that you can’t have the good parts of being free without also suffering the negative consequences.

Asked at an April 5, 2023, Turning Point USA event about the Second Amendment, Kirk answered:

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government….Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price—50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving—speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services—is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road.”

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am—I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal,” he added.

Kirk might also have mentioned that free speech is also dangerous. Unfettered speech is important to the function of a free and open society. But protecting speech risks the popularization of vicious, totalitarian ideas like those of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. It runs the danger of the radicalization of lost souls who encounter bad ideas, embrace them, engrave “Hey fascist! Catch!” lyrics from the antifascist song “Bella Ciao” and gaming memes on rifle cartridges, and then murder their political opponents.

Undoubtedly, the same people would have found that equally ironic.

And Kirk’s larger point is true across the board. Any freedom that allows us to live to our fullest, any restriction on state intervention into our lives, can be abused by the worst among us. Evil people are shielded by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as are good people. We give up such protections at our peril in hopes of rooting out evil.

What peril? Kirk touched on this in his 2023 talk when he said, “the Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government” and noted that “governments tend to get tyrannical.”

Yes, freedom can be abused by bad people. But if we can’t trust everybody to use freedom wisely, why would we trust people in government to wisely administer a more restrictive regime by which they get to disarm the public, censor speech, invade homes at will, and more? Those who seek coercive power over others by working in government are at least as prone to abuse their position as is anybody else.

There are tradeoffs not just in liberty, but in restricting liberty. Given that we have a natural right to be free, and that Kirk was correct to say that all governments tend towards tyranny, we’re better off trusting in more freedom, rather than less. That’s a recognition that there are no risk-free options.

The Call for Gun Control Gets Even Dumber

But the focus on Kirk’s death by gunshot gets even stupider. The conservative activist was reportedly killed with a single round from a Mauser Model 98 .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle. The Mauser 98 was originally designed in the 19th century for military use but has long since been largely supplanted in that role by semi-automatic and then select-fire weapons, most using less-powerful cartridges (yes, the most common cartridges used in AR- and AK-type weapons are generally less-powerful than other cartridges used for hunting).

But the old design remains ideal for hunting large game animals. It is accurate if properly zeroed, has a longer effective range than many modern military weapons, and cartridges such as the .30-06 are likely to cleanly drop an animal with a single shot. That’s why many of the old rifles were adapted, sometimes with modifications, for hunting. Modern bolt-action hunting rifles used for stalking deer, boar, elk, and the like are variations on designs that go back to the Mauser 98 and similar rifles.

That is, the hunting rifle allegedly used to murder Charlie Kirk is an example of the only type of firearm gun control advocates say they don’t want to ban or restrict. No major law advocated in recent years, such as magazine capacity limits or bans on semi-automatic weapons, would have affected it.

Blame Culture?

Some observers are upset that the left—the radical fringe of it, anyway—is blamed for Kirk’s murder when Tyler Robinson’s family is conservative, Mormon, culturally traditional, and comfortable with firearms. But the Robinson family didn’t shoot Charlie Kirk. Tyler Robinson committed this crime after he adopted views very different from those of his family, embraced the use of violence against political foes, and inscribed antifascist slogans on his ammunition before taking a fatal shot.

If we’re going to delve into culture wars, we could mention the unfortunate use of speech in the social media cesspool. That’s where Robinson was seemingly radicalized, where people celebrated Kirk’s death, and where a few even called for more targets. But that’s part of the tradeoffs of liberty.

If we’re all to be free, and we should be, some will use freedom in repulsive ways. We should punish those who push action to criminal extremes. But all liberty can be misused. And not only are the risks of liberty worth the dangers, they’re also far less perilous than granting governments enhanced powers that they’ll inevitably abuse.

*cough* Declaration of Independence *cough*

Image

This moron is the type of domestic enemy we swear oaths to defend the nation against. And he’s a Senator.
Since he doesn’t agree with the quotation, even though he may reside in the U.S. and even have been born here, he is not an American since these are some of the fundamental first principles the nation was founded on.

Minneapolis Mayor Who Attacked Prayer Now Moves To The Next Amendment Of The Bill Of Rights

Democratic Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey attacked gun ownership and the Second Amendment during an MSNBC appearance on Wednesday in which he doubled down on dismissing prayer.

Frey’s initial comments criticizing those who prayed came during a Wednesday morning press conference after an active shooter opened fire during an all-school mass held by the Annunciation Catholic School on Wednesday morning, killing two children and wounding at least 17 other people. Frey praised “other countries” that passed sweeping gun control after shootings while appearing on “The Briefing with Jen Psaki.”

“We have more guns in America than people. Say that again. We have more guns in America than people. Why? Why is it so easy to get a gun? Why is it so easy to get a whole heap ton of guns? Why is it that you can buy a gun virtually every month if you wanted to? What good is that?” Frey ranted to host Jen Psaki. “We’re not talking about your father’s hunting rifle. We’re talking about people that have gotten guns that seemingly — in this case, legally — that obviously have a whole ton of mental health issues.”

WATCH:

“You’re not right in the head if you’re going to a church to shoot it up. You’re not right in the head. But the fact that you have guns, in fact, many, many guns, why is that okay?” Frey continued. “You know, this has gone down in other countries and they say, ‘You know what, we’re not going to allow this anymore. We don’t want this to happen anymore. We’re going to do something about it.’”

Australia carried out a mandatory “buy back” of semi-automatic rifles and shotguns after a 1996 mass shooting in Port Arthur. Canada passed legislation banning over 1,500 types of firearms in the wake of an April 2020 mass shooting in Nova Scotia that killed 23 people.

Other Democrats, including Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut and Democratic Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota also called for gun laws, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” in the wake of the shooting. Frey’s comments drew praise from Klobuchar and CNN host Dana Bash during a Wednesday afternoon segment on the network, during which Klobuchar called for the ban on so-called “assault weapons.”

“Assault weapons” is a euphemism that gun-control advocates use to gain support for banning certain semi-automatic firearms with features that provide a cosmetic similarity to firearms capable of fully-automatic operation.

“What has incorrectly been termed an ‘assault weapon’ is a semi-automatic firearm that fires just one bullet with each pull of the trigger (versus a fully automatic firearm — machine gun — which continues to shoot until the trigger is released),” the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) said in a fact sheet. The NSSF estimated that over 24 million “modern sporting rifles,” which include the AR-15, are “in circulation” in a July 2022 release.

Why Does a Pro-2A Lawmaker Want Tennessee to Appeal Ruling Striking Down Gun Control Laws?

Earlier this week we reported on a significant win for gun owners in Tennessee, where a three-judge panel ruled that two of the state’s gun laws violate the Second Amendment as well as the state’s constitution. So why is a lawmaker who boasts of being a Second Amendment supporter now asking the state’s attorney general and governor to keep defending the law by appealing the decision?
The challenge, brought by Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and three members of the Tennessee Firearms Association, was successfully litigated by Tennessee Firearms Association head John Harris, who persuaded the panel in Gibson County Chancery Court that the the state’s “intent to go armed” statute and ban on concealed carry in parks do not fit within the national tradition of gun ownership.
Both of these laws blatantly infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, but the “intent to go armed” statute is particularly egregious, since it allows police to have reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed if they see a person carrying a firearm, even on the premises of their own home.
That reasonable cause justifies an officer in stopping, detaining, questioning, charging or arresting the individual for that crime. The statutes do provide certain affirmative defenses, such as the individual had a handgun permit or that they were in their own home, but those defenses do not shield the individual from being stopped, questioned or arrested. Indeed, Tennessee law currently puts the burden on the individual to raise and demonstrate those defenses at trial.
Republican Rep. Chris Todd praised the panel’s ruling, calling it “one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written opinions I’ve seen.” Yet Todd is also calling on Gov. Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti to appeal the Chancery Court decision and continue defending the statutes.
In a statement, Todd argues that an an appellate court would affirm the decision, which in turn “would give the outcome even greater weight by making it a binding precedent in Tennessee and serving as a reference point for similar cases nationwide.”
Todd’s statement brought a rebuke by state Senator Brent Taylor, who urged Lee and Skrmetti to not appeal the panel’s decision, and the Tennessee Firearms Association took a similar dim view of the representative’s request, arguing that an appeal could delay the effectiveness of the ruling “perhaps by years”, as well as “risking that the court might reverse the ruling on technical grounds that avoided the constitutional challenge.”
One must wonder whether Rep. Todd was being “coached” perhaps by other Legislators or advocates who actually oppose the ruling since the law is quite clear that if litigation can be resolved on technical issues that completely avoid a constitutional challenge to a statute (e.g., standing, mootness, etc.) that the court is required to dispose of the case whenever possible without striking down a blatantly unconstitutional statute. See, for example, Tennessee Supreme Court ruling Owens v. State, 908 S.W.2d 923, 926 (Tenn. 1995).
Todd’s position is essentially to let the courts throw out these laws, while Taylor’s argument is that by dropping any appeal the state legislature can take action to repeal the laws.

Todd is correct that a Chancery Court ruling aren’t generally binding precedent that’s applicable throughout the entire state, but I think Taylor has the stronger argument here. The state mustered no real evidence to support the idea that either statute fits within the national (or state) tradition of keeping and bearing arms, and continuing to defend them in court would be a waste of time and taxpayer money in addition to risking the panel’s decision being reversed on some kind of technical grounds.

The legislature is tasked with making laws, as well as repealing them, and full repeal would be the quickest and easiest way to remove these infringements from the books. I’d like to see both Lee and Skrmetti announce that no appeal will be made and publicly ask lawmakers to address the issue by repealing the statutes in accordance with the court’s decision.

I know nothing about Rep. Todd, so I’ll take his stated support for the Second Amendment at face value. Even if he has the best of intentions with his proposal, though, it still sounds like a bad strategy to me, and he should be working to convince his colleagues to back repeal bills instead of trying to convince the governor and AG to continue defending the indefensible.

CIVICS REVOLUTION: Conservatives Are Reviving Traditional Education With a Modern Twist.

The classroom subject of “civics” evokes antiquated images of Cold War-era conformity, but Andrew Hart describes a recent teacher workshop on civics with a schoolboy’s exuberance: “It was really refreshing. I was, like, wow.”

The weeklong seminar at the Museum of the American Revolution in Philadelphia delved into the writings of Aristotle and Cicero, the Founding Fathers, Abraham Lincoln, Frederick Douglass, and civil rights titans W.E.B. Du Bois, Martin Luther King Jr., and Malcolm X.

“We spent the first full day just talking about philosophy,” said Hart, who teaches history and government at a Florida private school. “It was almost like a graduate course with a professor who is an expert.”

Forty-five states are considering 198 bills related to K-12 civics education.
AP

The Jack Miller Center, a leading civics education provider, organized the seminar, part of a cottage industry that is reviving the tradition of studying the rights and duties of American citizenship, updated for modern sensibilities. After decades of neglect in the wake of the 1960s social upheavals and emphasis on STEM competency, civics is making a comeback. Universities are opening multimillion-dollar civics schools, some with deans and doctoral programs, and more than half the states now have civics requirements or competency tests in K-12. The boom reached a crescendo this summer with 45 states considering 198 bills related to K–12 civic education.

But reintroducing the subject in today’s hyper-partisan climate is not simply about making students learn the ABCs of government and practicing the art of rhetoric. Civics now comes with a warning label – “the most bitterly contested subject in education today,” according to The Atlantic – placing it squarely in the crosshairs of the culture wars.

The tension around civics reflects the national disagreement about the meaning of the United States in the 21st century: Is America a land of opportunity and freedom for all? Or is it designed to award unearned privilege to a select few, and second-class status to everyone else? The answer determines how middle schoolers and high schoolers are taught about the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Gettysburg Address, Dr. King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, and other key texts of the American experience.

Ideological disagreements over the nation’s identity have led to bitter clashes over curricula, reading assignments, and library books in local school boards and state legislatures.

Continue reading “”

Teaching Liberty: Hillsdale College & The Second Amendment

Hillsdale College, founded in 1844 by a group of Freewill Baptists, has established itself as one of the preeminent private educational institutions in the United States, with a particular defense of the traditional liberal arts, as well as a robust focus on the foundational principles of the United States. Of these foundational principles, the college educates its students on the meaning of the Second Amendment in theory and practical application. Watch our “American Rifleman Television” feature segment above to see how Hillsdale approaches teaching the Second Amendment to a new generation of Americans.

“The college, from its origins, was given to four principles or what we call “pillars,” and that is high learning, it’s here to promote and to furnish high learning,” said Dr. David Whalen, associate vice president for curriculum at Hillsdale college, as well as a professor of English. “Faith. The Christian faith is foundational here. Moral formation of our students, so moral character is important. And then finally, freedom. The college, in fact, was said to exist by virtue of gratitude for the inestimable blessing of civil and religious freedom. So freedom is very important here.”

Even as early as the mid-19th century, Hillsdale College practiced what it preached regarding its defense of freedom, liberty and the U.S. Constitution. A higher percentage of Hillsdale College students enlisted to fight for the Union in the Civil War than any other western college. Four Hillsdale college students earned the Medal of Honor. Sixty students gave their lives during the war.

In front of Hillsdale College’s Central Hall, a monument commemorates the Hillsdale students who gave their lives in the Civil War.

“The curriculum here is robust. It’s rich, but it’s also, and this is important, integrated. These courses aren’t designed to provide smatterings of knowledge. They are not designed to create little dilettantes who know a little bit about a lot of the different things,” Whalen said. “Instead, they all presume upon and lean upon each other. They bespeak a unity of knowledge. There’s a kind of integration in these courses, or at least we strive for a high degree of complementarity and integration in these courses so that, you know, you’re not just graduating students who have minds full of clutter, but who have intellects capable of a kind of comprehensive vision of the world at large.”

As part of its core curriculum, a series of courses that every Hillsdale student must take, there’s a comprehensive look at early American political thought, culminating in an intensive look at the U.S. Constitution. Courses also explore the historical roots of Western civilization, as well as the American heritage, specifically in cultivating a greater understanding of the “American experiment of liberty.”

“ As I often tell my students, it’s important to remember that both reason and experience show us that it is true that liberty is not a grant from a government, but is rather a gift from God. And so we spend a lot of time in class talking about what that means,” said Dr. David Raney, NRA Director and professor of history, John Anthony Halter Chair in American History, the Constitution and the Second Amendment. “At a very basic level, in a free society, it’s each citizen’s not just right, but responsibility, to step forward and provide the means by which they can defend all of their God-given liberties. And that typically means the ability to keep and to bear arms.”

Continue reading “”

Somebody Finally Admits It!
Licensed Citizens are “Responsible Gun Owners”

Here’s something you don’t see every day, especially at a “mainstream” publication such as Axios, where a recent story — which (full disclosure) included a quote from yours truly — featured a stunning acknowledgement from the CEO of the Alliance for Gun Responsibility, a Seattle-based, billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group.

“While we acknowledge more guns pose a greater threat to our communities, CPL holders tend to be responsible gun owners,” Alliance boss Renee Hopkins told Axios.

From an anti-gunner in the Evergreen State, that’s a choking mouthful. Just to make sure it wasn’t a typo, I spoke with reporter Christine Clarridge, a veteran journalist not known for flubbing a quote and was satisfied the remark was accurate.

Which raises the question: If the gun control crowd admits law-abiding, legally-armed citizens are not a problem, why do anti-gun-rights advocates continue pushing legislation which they know will only affect the good guys? The easy answer: They know honest citizens will remain so and they also know trying to get criminals to comply is a dead-end endeavor.

Back in 2021, Dr. John Lott, founder and CEO at the Crime Prevention Research Center, did an essay on just how law-abiding CCW permit holders are. To give readers an idea about where his research went, Lott wrote this: “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms-related violations at one-twelfth of the rate at which police officers. In the 19 states with comprehensive permit revocation data, the average revocation rate is one-tenth of one percent. Usually, permit revocations occur because someone moved or died or forgot to bring their permit while carrying.”

Dr. John Lott, founder of the Crime Prevention Research Center,
says private citizens licensed to carry are far more law-abiding
than most other people.

He added, “Academics have published fifty-two peer-reviewed, empirical studies on concealed carry. Of these, 25 found that allowing people to carry reduces violent crime, and 15 found no significant effect. A minority (12) observed increases in violent crime. These 12, however, suffer from a systematic error to varying degrees: they tend to focus on the last 20 years and compare states that recently passed concealed carry laws with more lenient states that had sustained growth in permits over the past two decades. The finding that crime rose relatively in such states is consistent with permit holders reducing crime.”

The Axios piece centered on Clarridge’s report about the rising number of concealed pistol licenses in Washington state. I’ve been reporting on this for some years, but the establishment media avoids the story like the Olympic shooting competitions. Nobody on the left wants to acknowledge the Evergreen State has more than 709,000 active CPLs, and that roughly 20 percent of those licenses are held by women. What’s the number in your state, and what percentage of armed citizens are women?
Continue reading “”

Supreme Court’s Failure: Path to Tyranny ~ & Why Armed Americans Must Care

The recent inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the people’s right to keep and bear arms isn’t just disappointing—it invites tyranny. When the Court refuses to protect a right so explicitly anchored in the Constitution, it risks turning once‑free people into subjects. And as the founding generation understood, tyranny compels rebellion.

Background: What This Means For You

If you’re new to this issue: the Second Amendment guarantees a natural, individual right of self‑defense. Landmark cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that Americans have the right to own functional firearms, especially handguns, for lawful purposes in their homes.

Two years later McDonald v. Chicago made clear that this right applies at the state level as well.

Since then, lower courts have been left to navigate whether gun regulations are allowed under an “in‑common‑use” and historical tradition approach, not interest balancing. Yet, gun‑rights advocates have seen many victories blocked, and equally many restrictions upheld under vague standards.

The Court’s Recent Defeat: Antonyuk and Beyond

In its latest term, the Court chose not to review Antonyuk vs. James, a critical Second Amendment case from New York’s courts. That means the lower court’s decision—and the State’s restrictive Concealed Carry Improvement Act—remains in place.

Despite calls from Justices Thomas and Alito for clarity, the Court laid down no reasoning. That silence undermines not just precedent, but the credibility of the constitutional right itself.

Without Court guidance, states pushing severe carry limits and licensing regimes can continue to chip away at our right to armed self‑defense—state power overriding individual liberty, even where founding principles say otherwise.

Why This Matters to Armed Americans

Our in-depth article over at Arbalest, “The Failure Of The U.S. Supreme Court To Ensure The Sanctity Of The RKBA”, spells it out: the failure of the Court to act is not neutrality—it is bowing to tyranny. Masked under slogans like “strong gun laws reduce violence,” the real outcome is disarming law‑abiding citizens, while leaving government unchecked.

A citizenry that cannot defend itself is at the mercy of government power. If free people allow erosion of the right to bear arms, they lose the final safeguard against arbitrary state authority. The author warns: this is not philosophical—they mean actual disarmament, or worse.

Last Words

The failure of the high Court has weakened the natural law right. Its refusal to grant certiorari in key Second Amendment cases refuses to protect the sanctity of those rights. It allows anti‑gun states to continue trampling self‑defense protections under the guise of regulation. This is not legal evolution—it’s legal surrender.

If you’re ready to dig into the full arguments, precise citations, and rhetorical power of the original, I encourage you to visit our article and read it in full. It lays out, step‑by‑step, how judicial inaction signals tyranny—and why now is the time for armed citizens to pay attention.

Fifth Circuit Issues Another Common Sense Decision on Guns

When it comes to deciding Second Amendment cases, there’s probably no appellate court more cognizant of the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms than the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges on the court have, among other things; ruled several ATF rules out of bounds, upheld the right of “unlawful” users of marijuana to possess firearms (so long as they’re not actively under the influence), and declared that adults under the age of 21 have a Second Amendment right to purchase handguns from firearm retailers.

Now the court has issued another common sense decision in favor of our right to keep and bear arms: police don’t have the authority to stop and search someone just because they were carrying a gun.

That ruling came from a three-judge panel in a case called U.S. v. Wilson. From the decision:

On March 16, 2022, federal agents stopped Damion Wilson pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). As he was approaching Wilson, Deputy U.S. Marshal Michael Atkins “noticed a bulge in [Wilson’s] waist area” that seemed like “a hard object.” ROA.252 (alteration in original).

Based on his training, Deputy Atkins believed the object was a concealed firearm. Atkins and other federal agents then ordered Wilson to stop and put his hands up. Wilson complied. The agents asked Wilson if he was armed, and he replied that he was. The agents ordered Wilson to drop the backpack he was wearing, to turn around, and to place his hands behind his back. The agents handcuffed him. While Wilson was being cuffed, Deputy Atkins asked him if he had a concealed weapons permit. Wilson admitted that he did not.

The agents took the gun—which was loaded with an extended magazine—from Wilson.Deputy Atkins told Wilson that he was not under arrest and that agents wanted to talk to him about Wilson’s friend—a federal fugitive named Malik Fernandez. Wilson denied having seen or spoken to Fernandez in six years. However, on Wilson’s public Instagram account, officers found a photo of Wilson and Fernandez together that had been posted approximately four months earlier.

Local police then arrested Wilson for carrying a firearm without a permit. Incident to that arrest, officers searched Wilson’s backpack and found marijuana. Officers then obtained a search warrant for Wilson’s apartment and found more marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and approximately$1,700.

Wilson ended up being charged by DOJ with several crimes, but he moved to suppress all physical evidence and statements stemming from his stop and arrest. While a district court judge rejected his argument, the Fifth Circuit found it more persuasive… though in the end their decision didn’t help his case. The key takeaway for gun owners, though, is this:

Undoubtedly, obtaining a driver’s license is more difficult than acquiring a concealed carry permit in a shall-issue State. Based solely on the observation that someone is driving a car, does an officer have reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed?

Obviously, no: “[S]topping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” without “articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered.” This was true even though driving, like carrying a firearm, is “subject to state regulation.”

… Put differently, officers cannot assume that citizens engaging in an activity subject to licensing are unlicensed. Without more facts, it is “[in]sufficiently probable that the observed conduct suggests unlawful activity.”

… If anything, the Constitution’s prohibition on presuming illegality should be stronger for gun owners than for car drivers. Unlike driving on public highways, which is a State-created and State-regulated privilege, “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

So regardless of how States’ permitting schemes are set up, keeping and bearing arms is preemptively lawful nationwide. We therefore refuse to “single out the Second Amendment for disfavor,” ), and we reject the district court’s categorical rule that presumes Louisiana gun owners are committing crimes.

The panel, though, concluded that Wilson’s stop was justified under Terry because there were other factors that created a “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot”; primarily his relationship with Fernandez, who was a federal fugitive allegedly involved in a shootout related to drug trafficking.

For those of us who don’t regularly pal around with drug traffickers or violent offenders, the Fifth Circuit’s decision offers real protection against unlawful searches just because we’re exercising our Second Amendment rights… at least in those states under the court’s jurisdiction. It’s unclear whether Wilson will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but even if he does the Court will most likely be able to respond without discussing the Second Amendment implications of the appellate court’s decision.