Rights – MILESFORTIS

California’s Anti-Gun AG Wants to Dictate Law to Rest of Nation

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is a piece of work. We thought Kamala Harris was bad in that role, but the truth is that Harris was always going to be held back by her inability to form actual sentences.

Bonta, though, can. Unfortunately, he uses those actual sentences to repeatedly attack the rights of law-abiding Americans.

His latest target, though, isn’t someone within his own state. He’s going after people who engage in perfectly legal activity elsewhere, all because some Californians break the law.

A lawsuit filed by Calif. Att. Gen. Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu is targeting the Gatalog Foundation Inc. and CTRLPEW LLC.

California claims that Gatalog and CTRLPEW are providing prohibited persons with plans to make “ghost guns” (3D printed firearms without serial numbers).

Matthew Larosiere, who is an attorney in Florida and is loosely connected to hobby gunsmiths via Gatalog, is one of the people California is suing. He explains in this video interview that what they call “Gatalog” is just hobbyists who found each other on the internet. They are not selling guns. They are talking about and toying with concepts for guns digitally.

“If California can regulate access to the instructions,” said Larosiere. “Not just by California, but with this lawsuit, [then] what they’re saying is they want to regulate the entire internet worldwide. That would mean that you’d be cut off at the heels from making a gun at home. And I think most of us can agree that if you have a right to keep and bear something, it necessarily subsumes the right to acquire it.”

When asked about Gatalog, Larosiere explained that it is not a group “like the NRA. There’s no member that has a card; there’s no board of directors; there’s no nothing. It’s kind of just a group of hobbyists associating around an idea. And the idea is home gunsmithing.”

In other words, Bonta wants to shut down access to this information, not just for people in California, but throughout the nation. If we can’t share the information freely, then it might as well not exist from a lawful perspective.

But it should be remembered that files are just computer code, and computer code has long been ruled as a form of speech.

As I wrote about on Wednesday, we don’t stifle access to The Anarchist Cookbook or P.A. Luty’s book on making your own submachine gun with things you can get from Home Depot. Those books contain information every bit as deadly as what one might find in 3D printing files, if not more so, and yet, as books, you cannot lawfully ban them.

Bonta is taking it a step further, though, by attacking everyone who he can who shares this information via the internet.

He’s trying to use his authority as the attorney general of California to dictate to the rest of the nation what it can and cannot do with regard to 3D printing guns.

As it is, California has a long history of trying to dictate to the country what it should and shouldn’t do. They create standards that industries are obliged to follow, even if the rest of us want nothing to do with them, and we’ve accepted it because the companies are the ones making the decision to use those standards throughout the nation.

We don’t want it, but it’s easier for them.

This is different. This is them attacking our rights because they don’t want the American people to be able to do something they’ve already forbidden the small percentage of the population living there from doing.

If ever there were an example of statehood being a mistake…

~~SAF~~, FPC, NRA Jump Into Case In Which Court Ordered SIG To Divulge Customer Names

Two large gun-rights groups are siding with gunmaker Sig Sauer in a court case in which plaintiffs seek to force disclosure of gun owners’ identities without their consent.

On February 17, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and National Rifle Association (NRA) filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in support of defendant SIG SAUER’s motion for reconsideration in the case Hall v. Sig Sauer, Inc.

At issue is the court ordering Sig to divulge the identities of some of its customers to the plaintiffs in the case as part of the discovery process. The brief seeks reconsideration of that order, which FPC and NRA deem inappropriate.

Florida… Where Non-Dangerous Felons Really Can Recover Their Gun Rights.

Christopher Morgan was convicted in Pennsylvania in 2007 after he was caught carrying a firearm without a state license. Fifteen years later, he was stopped by a Florida officer, whom he told of a pistol in the center console of his car. Morgan was charged in Florida with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He has no other criminal history.

Before his trial in Florida, Morgan’s defense team made a motion that the state firearm law, 790.23, is “unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him.” However, the trial court denied his motion. Morgan then pleaded no contest to the felon in possession Florida charges but appealed his conviction. He was sentenced to two days in jail and court costs.

Last week, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a response to Morgan’s appeal, which said that his conviction for possessing a firearm by a felon violates the Second Amendment.

AG Uthmeier actually agreed with Morgan’s legal team.

“On studied reflection, the Attorney General has concluded that the conviction does indeed infringe Morgan’s right, as a nondangerous felon, to keep and bear arms,” Uthmeier wrote. “The state must therefore confess error and urge this Court to reverse.”

In the court document, Uthmeier spells out that he is Florida’s “Chief Legal Officer,” and that he swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.

“It is thus the Attorney General’s duty to admit when he believes the State has obtained a conviction in violation of the Constitution,” he wrote.

If the court permits him to file a brief for this case, Uthmeier’s team wrote, he will “discuss the lack of historical evidence supporting the dispossession of all felons as distinct from the strong historical evidence supporting the dispossession of dangerous felons.”

Continue reading “”

Missouri Senator Introduces Second Amendment Financial Privacy Measure

A measure introduced in the Missouri state Senate on February 9 is designed to protect the privacy of lawful gun owners and gun purchasers in the Show Me State.

Senate Bill 216, the “Second Amendment Financial Privacy Act,” was introduced by Republican state Sen. Jill Carter and presented in the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee. The measure would prohibit government entities from keeping a list, record or registry of privately-owned firearms.

Records may be maintained during a criminal investigation and prosecution of gun ownership. It also bans credit card networks from using a merchant category code (MCC) to differentiate firearm sales from other transactions.

At issue is a relatively new MCC for gun purchases adopted by the International Organization for Standardization in early 2023. MCCs are used by payment processors (like Visa and Mastercard) and other financial services companies to categorize transactions. Prior to the creation of the specific gun code, firearms retailers were classified under the MCC as sporting goods stores or miscellaneous retail.

When the new code is used, credit card companies and other payment processors can tell that the purchases were firearms, creating a de facto gun registry. The U.S. Senate is currently considering a measure that would ban use of the gun-specific MCC nationwide.

VA undoes decades-old wrong and protects Veterans’ Second Amendment rights
February 17, 2026

WASHINGTON — The Department of Veterans Affairs today announced a major new step to protect Veterans’ Second Amendment rights. Effective immediately, VA will not report Veterans to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System as “prohibited persons” only because they need help from a fiduciary in managing their VA benefits.

This corrects a three-decade-old wrong that deprived many thousands of Veterans in VA’s Fiduciary Program of their constitutional right to own a firearm without a legal basis.

After a thorough review, VA recognized that many Veterans had been deprived of their Second Amendment rights without hearings or adequate determinations that they posed a sufficient risk of danger to themselves or others. In consultation with the Department of Justice, VA has determined this practice violates both the Gun Control Act and Veterans’ Second Amendment rights. According to federal law, a decision by a judicial or quasi-judicial body is needed before someone can be reported to NICS.

A determination by the VA that a fiduciary is needed to help manage a Veteran’s VA benefits falls far short of this legal standard.

In addition to immediately stopping the reporting of VA Fiduciary Program participants to NICS, the department is working with the FBI to remove all past VA reporting from NICS, so no Veterans are unfairly deprived of their Second Amendment rights based solely on participation in VA’s Fiduciary Program.

“Many Americans struggle with managing their finances, and Veterans’ Second Amendment rights shouldn’t be stripped just because they need help in this area. But for too long, Veterans who needed the services of a VA fiduciary were deprived of their right to bear arms,” said VA Secretary Doug Collins. “Under the leadership of President Trump, we’re correcting this injustice and ensuring Veterans get the same due-process and constitutional rights as all Americans.”

The Department of Justice supports this action.

“It is both unlawful and unacceptable for Veterans who serve our country to have their constitutional rights threatened,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “It has been my pleasure to partner with Secretary Collins on this project, and I am directing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms to review its regulations and propose changes that will prevent current and future violations of our Veterans’ Second Amendment rights.”

Indianapolis Police Get It Right on First, Second Amendments

I’ve never been one to make a big deal out of Valentine’s Day, but I can think of about a million things more romantic than going out and protesting ICE with my sweetheart. I can’t imagine that an anti-ICE protest in downtown Indianapolis on Valentine’s Day is going to draw a huge crowd, but its organizers are hoping for a big turnout, include armed demonstrators.

If anyone is hoping that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department will be cracking skulls and arresting those who dare exercise their First and Second Amendment rights at the same time, they’re going to be sorely disappointed.

A group called Strong Neighbor is hosting the protest at the Abraham Lincoln statue in University Park, at least partly in response to the comments by President Donald Trump and other administration officials suggesting there’s no such thing as peaceably carrying a gun at a protest after the killing of anti-ICE activist Alex Pretti in Minneapolis last month.

Strong Neighbor calls those statements “an attack and dismissal of our constitutional rights,” though the group’s broader disagreement seems to be with the administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. The following Monday, for instance, the group will be taking part in a “Gen Z Against ICE” protest. For those not interested in protesting, though, next weekend they’ll be hosting a “Potting Party” where attendees can “plant seeds you can take home, learn about hydroponics, and build community”. No word on whether lawfully possessed firearms will be welcome at either of those events.

In response to the planned protest, the IMPD put out a statement making it clear that there’s no conflict between the First and Second Amendment, at least from the agency’s perspective and that of state and federal law.

The presence of guns at a protest is both not a crime nor a reason for law to intervene, an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department statement said.

Our team recognizes that the visible presence of firearms can make some community members uncomfortable or concerned,” the statement reads. “The IMPD recognizes and respects the constitutional rights of all members of the community to peacefully assemble and exercise free speech.”

That’s all that needs to be said, really. And so long as the “strong neighbors” who show up for the protest aren’t violent, I wish them well.

If, on the other hand, there are protesters who cross the line, as we’ve seen at another anti-ICE protest in Indiana, I suspect the IMPD is going to quickly move to take that individual into custody. Just pointing a gun at someone who’s not threatening you is a serious offense, as Ryan D. Hughes has learned. The anti-ICE demonstrator’s been charged with a felony and a misdemeanor for allegedly pointing a loaded shotgun at the driver of a van passing by the protest, as well as purportedly pepper-spraying several of his fellow protesters.

I sincerely hope that nothing like that happens in Indianapolis tomorrow, but as we’ve seen with other protests and counter-protests about ICE, they don’t just bring out the passionate. They have a tendency to bring out the nutballs as well.

How Many Historical Gun Laws Constitute a ‘National Tradition’?

The Supreme Court has explicitly stated that, in order for a modern gun law to be constitutionally sound, it must comply with the text of the Second Amendment as well as the history and tradition of gun ownership (and gun regulation). So far, though, the Court hasn’t given a whole lot of advice as to what constitutes a national tradition.

In Bruen, SCOTUS doubted that “just three colonial regulations could suffice to show a tradition of public-carry regulation,” but declined to state definitely what would suffice; both in terms of the number of laws as well as when those laws were put into effect. Is 1791 the most important date, since that’s when the Second Amendment was ratified; is it 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified; or are both equally important?

Pete Patterson, an attorney at Cooper & Kirk with an extensive background as a Second Amendment litigator, was asked about this by SCOTUSblog’s Haley Proctor for her 2A-focused series “A Second Opinion,” and his answer worth discussing.

What does it take to make a sufficient showing of a history of firearms regulation? How many laws or practices do you need, from what historical period, and how do we describe the tradition those laws represent?

These are all issues that are hotly contested, but I will give you what I think is the view most consistent with Bruen and Supreme Court precedent generally.

First, the relevant historical period should be centered on 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified. The court has held in many cases that when provisions of the Bill of Rights apply to the states, they have the same meaning as they have against the federal government.

It should follow that the meaning was set in 1791, when those provisions were first ratified and applied to the federal government. To be sure, those rights were not incorporated against [applied to] the states until the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, but that amendment did not purport to change the substantive meaning of the Bill of Rights.

This conclusion is consistent with the court’s practices, including its holding in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue that the laws of over 30 states from the second half of the 19th Century could not alone “establish an early American tradition” that would inform the meaning of the First Amendment’s establishment clause.

That makes sense, both from a legal and practical standpoint. As Patterson points out, there’s nothing in the Fourteenth Amendment that suggests any type of revision to the Bill of Rights. It’s purpose wasn’t to update the Bill of Rights, but to ensure that those rights were safeguarded against intrusion by state and local governments as well. And during the congressional debate over the Fourteenth Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms was front and center.

Second, what the government should have to establish is a limitation that was widely understood by Americans at ratification to qualify the scope of the right to keep and bear arms.

The common law frequently will be a primary resource in this inquiry, as that was law that was understood to be generally applicable. The common law is reflected in sources like case law and prominent secondary sources such as Blackstone’s Commentaries.

Of course, the focus should be on the prevailing American understanding rather than British understandings that Americans may have repudiated, so consulting American sources like Tucker’s Blackstone is an important part of the inquiry.

Statutes also play a role, of course, but the government should have to show that any statutes it relies on are consistent with the prevailing, general understanding and not a departure from it. That presumably is why Bruen repeatedly emphasizes that a handful of outlier statutes cannot establish a tradition of regulation.

I think its also important to note that the Supreme Court talked about a “national” tradition, not a state-specific or regional tradition. If three colonial-era statutes aren’t enough to suffice, then three statutes from one part of the country shouldn’t be enough either. This is particularly important when courts are considering laws adopted around the time the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified, given that many southern states instituted laws restricting the right to keep and bear arms that might have been racially neutral on their face, but were hardly enforced in a colorblind fashion.

Patterson adds one more metric in determining a “national tradition.”

Third, the tradition should be described at a level of generality that is general enough not to make arbitrary distinctions, but specific enough not to risk eviscerating the right.

If readers are interested in the level-of-generality question, I recommend the brief my colleague John Ohlendorf filed in Wolford on behalf of professor [Joel] Alicea, which address that question at some length.

As an example of the need for the Court to address the level of generality that’s most appropriate, Ohlendorf cites the historical tradition recognized in Bruen of states prohibiting arms “in legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses.”

Continue reading “”

Lysander Spooner: The Second Amendment Isn’t the Ceiling — It’s the Basement Floor

Most “pro-2A” people treat the Second Amendment as if it were the ceiling of our rights.
Lysander Spooner read it and laughed. To him it was the basement floor of a natural right that no government on earth can legitimately restrict.

Who Was Lysander Spooner?

1808–1887. Lawyer, abolitionist, individualist anarchist. A man who made the Founders look like moderates.

Spooner in His Own Words

On the natural right to arms (completely independent of any constitution):

“The right of self-defence is the first law of nature… The right to keep and bear arms is only a declaration that this natural right shall not be infringed.”
— A Letter to Charles Sumner (1860s)

On what happens when the people are disarmed:

“Those who are capable of tyranny are capable of perjury to sustain it… All restraints upon the government are inefficient, unless the people are in possession of the means of resisting it.”
— No Treason No. VI: The Constitution of No Authority (1870)

On the purpose of an armed populace:

“The right of the individual to keep and bear arms… is the great bulwark against tyranny, the only efficient security for the preservation of liberty.”
— Vices Are Not Crimes (1875, manuscript)

On the idea that citizens should be limited to “sporting” arms while government has military weapons:

“A man’s right to defend his life and liberty is as perfect against a thousand as against one… He has the same right to whatever weapons are necessary for that defense that the government has to whatever weapons it may choose to use against him.”

On every gun law ever written:

“All legislatures… that assume to enact laws forbidding or restricting the people in the exercise of their natural right to keep and bear arms, are guilty of usurpation and tyranny.”
— Direct paraphrase from multiple Spooner writings, crystallized in No Treason and his legal essays

Tucker vs. Spooner

St. George Tucker (1803):

“The several departments and officers of the governments… are bound by oath to oppose [unconstitutional acts]; for, being bound by oath to support the constitution, they must violate that oath, whenever they give their sanction… to any unconstitutional act.”

Spooner went further: the unconstitutional gun laws themselves are acts of war against the people, and armed resistance against their enforcers is morally justified.

The Spooner Standard

“If the people are to retain their liberty, they must be at least as well armed and disciplined as the government that rules over them.”
— Consistent theme across No Treason and his abolitionist writings

If you still think “reasonable regulations” are compatible with liberty, you’re closer to Everytown than you are to Lysander Spooner.

Read him.
Burn every compromise to the ground.
Own what your rulers own — in the same quantities, or more.

Because the moment you accept anything less, the experiment in liberty is already over.

Government Control in the Digital Age
John Stossel

Politicians push government IDs.
In a TSA announcement, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem sternly warns, “You will need a REAL ID to travel by air or visit federal buildings.”

European politicians go much further, reports Stossel TV producer Kristin Tokarev. They’re pushing government-mandated digital IDs that tie your identity to nearly everything you do.

Spain’s prime minister promises “an end to anonymity” online!

Britain’s prime minister warns, “You will not be able to work in the United Kingdom if you do not have digital ID.”

Queen Maxima of the Netherlands enthusiastically told the World Economic Forum that digital IDs are good for knowing “who actually got a vaccination or not.”

Many American tech leaders also like digital IDs. The second richest man in the world, Oracle founder Larry Ellison, says, “Citizens will be on their best behavior because we’re constantly recording and reporting everything.”

That’s a good thing?

“That is a recipe for disaster and totalitarianism!” says privacy specialist Naomi Brockwell. “Privacy is not about hiding. It’s about an individual’s right to decide for themselves who gets access to their data. A digital ID will strip individuals of that choice.”

“I already have a government-issued ID,” says Tokarev. “Why is a digital one worse?”

“It connects everything,” says Brockwell. “Your financial decisions, social media posts, your likes, things that you’re watching, places you’re going. You won’t be able to voice things anonymously online anymore. Everything you say will be tied back to who you are.”

Digital ID backers say the new ID will make life easier. “You can access your own money, make payments so much more easily,” says the U.K.’s prime minister.

Yes, says Brockwell, “until those services start saying, ‘No, you can’t use our system.'”

Even without a digital ID, Canada froze the bank accounts of truckers who protested COVID vaccine mandates. With a digital ID, politicians could do that much more easily.

Continue reading “”

Gun Bans Aren’t Enough for Everytown, Giffords

My colleague Tom Knighton did a great job of poking holes in Everytown’s new “study” accusing some of the biggest gun makers of intentionally arming criminals and turning a blind eye for gun trafficking, but there’s another aspect of the anti-gun group’s report that we need to talk about as well.

In addition to pointing the finger at the firearms industry, Everytown also wants politicians to crack down on tech companies; specifically, those who manufacture 3D printers.

The gun control group claims that the seizure of 3D-printed guns increased by 1,000% between 2020 and 2024, though in the 20 cities they examined that accounted for just 325 firearms seized last year. In its report on Everytown’s “study,” NPR claims that these guns “recovered at crime scenes,” though ATF trace data doesn’t distinguish between a gun that was recovered at the scene of a homicide versus a gun that was traced as a “firearm under investigation” or a “found firearm”.

Everytown also claims that “while these guns are just beginning to proliferate domestically, they have already caused harm prominently abroad, where 3D-printed firearms have been used in military conflicts in Myanmar,by crime organizations in Europe,and in a synagogue shooting in Germany.”

What Everytown doesn’t say is that the 3D-printed guns used in military conflicts in Myanmar are generally used by those resisting the military junta that seized power several years ago. I can understand why Everytown would like to ignore the fact that these guns are helping pro-democracy forces resist government tyranny, but the truth is that 3D-printed guns, like their mass-produced counterparts, are still inanimate objects that can be used for both good and evil.

Several blue states have already cracked down on home-built firearms, but those bans aren’t enough for Everytown and other gun control organizations. They want to see printer controls as well.

Gun control advocates say there are strategies to regulate the printing of these firearms. Companies that make 3D printers could develop algorithms to block the printing of firearms, for instance, or states could make it illegal to publish blueprints for 3D printing a gun.

“I think what makes sense is to explore all of (the strategies) right now, to have every approach and push it forward,” [Giffords Law Center Legal Director David] Pucino said, “because this is such a new area and it’s such a concerning threat.”

When you’re intent on shredding the Second Amendment, I suppose it’s not a big deal to infringe on our First Amendment rights as well.

Make no mistake, what Pucino is calling for is criminalizing speech. If the gun control groups had their way, we could be criminally charged and imprisoned simply for disseminating lines of code. Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of Justice established more than twenty years ago that code is speech protected by the Second Amendment, so when Pucino says that states could make it illegal to publish codes used for 3D printing gun parts he is talking about putting people in prison for exercising their First Amendment rights.

The Anarchist’s Cookbook contains recipes for making explosives and illegal drugs, yet it remains available for sale in the United States and can be found online as well. If that is protected speech, then lines of code that can be used to help build a gun protected by the Second Amendnment clearly can’t be banned or made illegal.

Pucino might hate this fact, but home-built guns are a part of the national tradition of gun ownership in this country and are generally protected by the Second Amendment. 3D printing undoubtably makes it easier to build a gun at home, but advances in technology don’t cancel out our constitutionally protected rights.

The gun control lobby has become increasingly aggressive in its attempts to infringe on the First Amendment rights of gun owners and the firearms industry. California, for instance, passed a law that prohibited firearm advertising that “reasonably appears to be attractive” to minors that, thankfully, was struck down by the Ninth Circuit as a violation of the First Amendment. It and other blue states have also adopted public nuisance laws that allow for lawsuits against gun makers and sellers over the language and images used in their advertising.

Then there are those efforts aimed, not at government censorship of gun owners, but pressuring private businesses to prohibit peaceable assemblies of gun owners like Friends of NRA dinners. Those efforts aren’t necessarily direct attacks on our First Amendment rights, but when anti-gun politicians join in the calls to shut down these events they arguably do infringe on our right to peaceable assembly.

The push to ban code shouldn’t be seen in isolation, but as yet another front in the gun control lobby’s war on the First Amendment rights of those exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

December 15, 1791

The first amendments to the Constitution were officially ratified on this day.
These first 10 are known as the Bill of Rights.

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Amendment III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

Amendment VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Amendment VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Analysis: What to Make of New DOJ Second Amendment Section

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced plans to create the first-ever dedicated Second Amendment section within the agency’s Civil Rights Division. But thus far, the agency hasn’t been too eager to talk about it, and the reported rollout date for the new section to begin operations has already come and gone without any movement.

Officials from the DOJ only publicly confirmed the existence of the planned section for the first time on Friday night after more than a week of media reports.

“The 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right. After the prior administration’s campaign to infringe on Americans’ gun rights, the Justice Department is strongly committed to undoing the damage,” Attorney General Pam Bondi (R.) wrote in a social media post. “This unit within our Civil Rights Division will advance President Trump’s pro-2nd Amendment agenda and protect the right to bear arms for all.”

Details about the move were first reported by Reuters last week, though the plans for the new entity appear to have been months in the making. In a September interview with an alumni publication for her alma mater, Assistant Attorney General and leader of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon announced that plans for the new section were already in the works as early as this summer.

According to planning documents provided to Congress and obtained by Reuters, the proposed new section would be tasked primarily with “investigating local laws or policies limiting gun rights,” and it would carry out that work “using existing funds and personnel.” The documents also identified December 4th as the new section’s expected opening date.

However, the DOJ has yet to formally announce the new section beyond Bondi’s social media post, and it remains absent from the Civil Rights Division’s organization page.

The DOJ also has not responded to The Reload’s requests for comment on details about the new division.

Continue reading “”

New York’s Assault on the NRA — and Free Speech — Gets a Court Bailout

In 2017, under the direction of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo, the state of New York launched a coordinated campaign to cripple the National Rifle Association (NRA) because of its defense of the Second Amendment and protected speech. New York’s Department of Financial Services contacted banks and insurance companies that did business with the NRA and delivered an unmistakable message: Continue associating with the NRA, and the state would investigate, cite, and regulate your business into oblivion. Coming from the state’s top financial regulator, the warning carried real weight – exactly as intended.

The strategy worked. Financial institutions and insurers quickly distanced themselves from the NRA, leaving the organization unable to secure even basic corporate services in the state. If that sounds like an obvious First Amendment violation, that’s because it is. More than 60 years ago, the Supreme Court made clear in Bantam Books v. Sullivan that government “threat[s] of invoking legal sanctions and other means of coercion” against third parties to suppress disfavored speech are flatly unconstitutional.

Because that rule remains as clear today as it was in 1963, the Supreme Court agreed with the ACLJ’s amicus brief and ruled unanimously for the NRA last term. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the Court, put it plainly: “A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.” When regulators use the power of their office to pressure private actors into isolating or punishing a speaker, they violate the First Amendment just as surely as if they had censored the speech directly.

This case sits squarely at the intersection of the First and Second Amendments. The NRA’s policy views related to the Second Amendment, its speech, its advocacy, and its expression are all protected by the First Amendment. A government that can strangle a gun-rights group through financial coercion can use the same tools to silence pro-life organizations, religious ministries, parental-rights groups, or anyone else who falls out of political favor. That is why the ACLJ fights not just for the substance of constitutional rights, but also against government efforts to punish those who speak about them.

That unanimous ruling should have ended the matter. It should have allowed the NRA’s lawsuit to proceed so a jury could determine the full extent of the constitutional violations. But the Second Circuit had other ideas. In defiance of both the Supreme Court’s clear command and the First Amendment itself, the court held that New York’s officials were entitled to qualified immunity – meaning the case had to be dismissed.

Qualified Immunity Was Never Meant to Shield Deliberate Speech Suppression

Continue reading “”

Constitutional Originalism, the Second Amendment, and the English Bill of Rights of 1689

Modern gun control proponents argue as though we live under the English Constitution, instead of the Second Amendment. Looking at the history of both Bill of Rights repudiates arguments that support gun control.

The English Constitution includes a right to keep and bear arms. However, it is written so that attempting to seize arms from the English Colonists in April, 1775 arguably was not violated.

Many of the delegates to our Constitutional Convention were versed in British law, with over two thirds of them having legal training, even if they did not make their livelihood from being lawyers. That would have been training in British law, because U.S. law was in its infancy, and the U.S. Constitution was not written when they were trained. This is an important fact to keep in mind when looking at the founding of the United States and the drafting of the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The U.S. has a Constitution and amendments as a single document. England and the United Kingdom’s Constitution, on the other hand, is not a single document. Instead it is a variety of documents and precedent going back centuries ( the Magna Carta, for example, was written in 1215). It is not uncommon for the U.K.’s Constitution to contain precedents that contradict each other.

At one point the English threw out the monarchy, though eventually it was restored. When it was restored one of the key documents established that the monarchy had to accept the authority of Parliament and the rights of their subjects. The English Bill of Rights of 1689 (EBR) codified those rights. It was signed by King William III and Queen Mary II as a condition of restoring the monarchy, and it is still considered part of the Constitution of many of the Commonwealth nations.

There are many parallels with the U.S. Bill of Rights, and many of the grievances the colonists had with the Crown were for violating English Bill of Rights. For example it includes freedom of speech, freedom from excessive fines and bail, no taxation without approval of the representatives in Parliament, freedom from cruel and unusual punishments, free elections, a right to keep arms, and other enumerated rights.

However, the right to keep arms is limited in such a way that it has allowed the U.K. to severely limit gun ownership.

The specific clause of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 is:
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;

For reference the text of the Second Amendment is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Let’s look at each section in comparison:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of the free State” – this reminds the government that it was established by the efforts of the armed population, and they continue to be necessary for the security of the nation. Militia at the time meant the able bodied men who could be called on to defend the community, state, and country from bandits, form bucket brigades to fight fires, protect the nation from invaders, etc. Well regulated at the time essentially meant competent; well trained, well organized, well equipped, and well disciplined. Justifications for their rights are covered earlier in the EBR.

The next sections have more direct correlations. The EBR says, “That the subjects which are Protestants” where the Second Amendment says, “the right of the people.”

The colonists included many groups that the Church of England considered to not be Protestants. This includes the Pilgrims who were separatists from the Church of England, Roman Catholics who had fled England, and others. As such the colonists who were not specifically Church of England, did not have a right. The Second Amendment uses the people, extending to all of the colonists who were considered citizens.

The EBR says, “may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions” while the Second Amendment says, “to keep and bear Arms.”

The words “may” and “might” gives room for limitations, and limits it to arms for their defense. It also does not mention anything about being able to bear or carry them. The limits in the EBR allowed Parliament and King George III to justify the seizure of rifles and other arms the British government determined were not suitable.

The Founders didn’t want to provide our government with that same leeway. Further, many of the Founding Fathers had some experience in reading on history. They knew the massive technological shift that had been made in arms in just a few centuries. Some of them were likely aware of such firearms as the Cookson Repeater that was advertised in the Boston Gazette in 1756. Thomas Jefferson had obtained a Girardoni Air Rifle at some point, and later loaned it to the Lewis & Clark Expedition.

The point is, the Framers did not limit the language of the Second Amendment to firearms used or suited only for defense. We see echoes of this section and this argument in court filings supporting gun control currently when gun control proponents argue in support of “assault weapon” bans. Their argument can be summed up as the Second Amendment only protects arms the government deems suitable for self defense.

The Second Amendment does not only protect having or possessing arms, it includes the right to keep or bear them. It is not prefaced by “may”, which leads to the next section.

The next section illustrates the Founding Fathers really meant it when they wrote, “shall not be infringed.” The EBR says, “as allowed by law.” This leaves potential limits on the right to possess arms if Parliament passes a law. As we have seen in the 336 years since the EBR was signed, the U.K. and Commonwealth countries have severely limited the right by disallowing various arms by law, and adding other requirements. Those infringements include everything from gun registrations, strict licensing laws, storage mandates, and even outright confiscations.

The Founding Fathers had just lived through, and in many cases, directly participated, in a successful revolution where private arms played a significant part, and was essentially sparked by an attempt to seize arms from civilians who had organized themselves for their common defense. Therefore it says, “shall not be infringed” as a direct counter to attempts to limit the right or seize arms from citizens.

Gun controllers, including the various gun control groups, and the anti-gun attorneys general in deep-blue states like my own native California, often argue like we still live under the English Bill of Rights of 1689. While it is part of the common law that U.S. law is based on, the experience of the American Revolution and the text of the Second Amendment repudiate their arguments.

The Heller decision states the interest balancing that gun controllers are trying to use in support of gun control laws was already done by the Second Amendment. In my opinion, it was done by refuting the language of the English Bill of Rights that placed government interests over the right of some of the U.K’s citizens to keep and bear arms.

Source documents:

Yale Law School’s Avalon Project publishes the text of the English Bill of Rights of 1689 as part of their Constitutional documents project – https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp

University of Houston provides a summary of the Constitution Delegates – https://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/active_learning/explorations/constitution/constitution_overview_delegates.cfm

Heller decision comments about Interest Balancing – Heller, 554 U. S., at 635. Pp. 15–17. – https://tile.loc.gov/storage-services/service/ll/usrep/usrep554/usrep554570/usrep554570.pdf

Gun Owners of America Learns Gag Orders Makes Strange Bedfellows

Gun Owners of America has been challenging the Department of Justice over a troubling program where American gun buyers are seeing their purchases monitored by the ATF. There’s no due process involved at all, either. All it takes is for a law enforcement officer to say he suspects someone of not being an ideal citizen, and suddenly, they’ll get a notification whenever that person has a NICS check performed.

Just how bad are things? We don’t know.

It seems GOA knows, but they’re not talking. It’s not because they don’t want to. They’re not allowed to. They’re under a gag order that prevents them from telling what they know.

Unsurprisingly, others have an issue with that.

However, as this video from GOA tells us, what’s surprising is who is standing with them on this.

The fact that we’re being monitored for exercising our Second Amendment rights is far from new information. That doesn’t make it a good thing, only that it’s nothing new.

But for groups like Reuters, the New York Times, the Washington Post, Vox, NPR, and Politico, among others, to stand with gun owners and have a problem with the gag order is very, very new.

As noted in the video, many of these organizations are generally very hostile toward the Second Amendment and Second Amendment organizations like Gun Owners of America.

Yet this isn’t a gun issue. Not really.

Sure, the underlying surveillance is very much a relevant issue for gun rights supporters, but the fact that Gun Owners of America isn’t allowed to speak about information that was given to them, inadvertently, by the Biden Department of Justice, is troubling for anyone in the media. After all, we get information from a variety of sources. Not all of that information was intended for public consumption, which is often the point. It betrays troubling behavior by the government that’s hidden under various laws pertaining to classified material.

And the courts have traditionally understood that and sided with the free press on such things most of the time.

If GOA is unable to speak with material handed to them directly by the DOJ, even if it wasn’t intentional, then what about a reporter who finds out that the government is funding an illegal arms trafficking network via drug sales in our inner cities? Just to name one completely random and not at all historical example.

Will Reuters get slammed with a gag order because a source gives them information on how the CIA is arming cartels so they can fight a different cartel? Again, a hypothetical, though this one is actually one I pulled out of my fourth point of contact.

That’s what this stand is truly about, of course, and I get that. It’s even fair that they’d side with GOA over their personal interests above and beyond any potential intrinsic desire to stand for rights as a whole. They’re not suddenly going to be pro-gun. This is about them and only them. In fact, I doubt they give a damn about the monitoring effort at all.

But politics is said to make strange bedfellows. It seems so do gag orders.

The 12 gun bills passed by the Colorado legislature this year and signed into law.

Democrats in the Colorado legislature this year passed a dozen bills imposing new gun regulations, all of which were signed into law by Gov. Jared Polis.

They included measures limiting who can purchase most semiautomatic rifles on the market today, raising the minimum age to buy ammunition and aiming to improve Colorado’s response to mass shootings.

While some don’t go into effect until next year, and a few are sure to draw legal challenges from gun rights groups, they represent some of the most wide-reaching changes to Colorado’s firearms laws ever adopted.

Here’s a breakdown of what gun measures the legislature passed this year and what they will do.

Continue reading “”

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.”