Category: Rights

*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.

Guns are here to stay in US, that’s an opportunity not a threat

With yet another school shooting in the news in April, the familiar rhetoric has made a reappearance nationally.

On the one hand, President Donald Trump marked the occasion by bloviating about one short section of the Constitution while systematically flouting dozens of other sections. On the other, the usual gun-control forces are fundraising off the Florida State tragedy with yet another call for “commonsense” gun regulation.

We’ve been here before, and we’ll be here again, and we’re getting nowhere. It’s not where most Americans want to be with gun issues.

As a school board member in Second Amendment-loving Pennsylvania, I see every month urgent, complex challenges connected to firearms that get less attention than shootings, but they’re important, too.

We encounter everything from parents’ worries about the psychosocial impact of active shooter drills to how to deal with kids who bring toy guns to school (sometimes with blaze orange tips unlawfully removed). There are complicated finance and legal issues related to firearms. There are discussions of “hardening” buildings as targets. There are security armories to maintain. All in all, forecasting and policy-making around issues of gun-related safety and crime are inescapable in K-12 education. I don’t foresee that changing.

Why? Because guns aren’t going away. Four in 10 American adults live in a house with a gun, according to one recent Pew survey, and civilians own an estimated 380 million guns. We can’t hide from such sobering data.

Meanwhile, positive community-building gun experiences are being sidelined. Public support for shooting sports and legal hunting have seen worrying declines. Despite two very active popular private shooting ranges in our school district near Bethlehem, for instance, our school’s rifle team — a club that offered students of all ability levels a chance to learn about gun safety in a politically neutral environment — closed down years ago and sold off its rifles for lack of community support.

Any resolve to teach beneficial, sustainable relationships with guns for sport doesn’t seem to exist. It’s easier to slap a SIG Sauer weapons maker sticker on the back of a back of a big pickup than to spend time teaching a high school kid to safely clear a chamber, clean a barrel, use a scope or handle a loaded rifle. We’ve been discussing the process of resurrecting our school rifle team (using air rifles), and I’m hopeful, but we’ll be competing with the easy allure of “Call of Duty” and online cultures.

Young Americans aren’t getting the whole story when it comes to firearms and national history either, so they easily fall prey to steroid-fueled, hyper-masculine, action-movie narratives that grossly distort American identity.

Even before the founding of our republic, Puritans in the Americas needed to protect themselves. From the moment Myles Standish stepped ashore in present day Massachusetts, in 1620, the idea of America was anointed in gunpowder and the unholy chimes of matchlock musket fire. You think Pete Hegseth is a mad Christian neo-fascist militant? You wouldn’t like a hothead soldier of fortune like Standish, whose general rule was kill-first-make-peace-later. Our early settlers were fiercely fiercely protective of their homes, and for better and sometimes worse, this impulse remains part of the American DNA.

A theme of community safety is huge in this country’s gun history, too. As the the writer Charles E. Cobb once said about incomplete portrayals of the Black civil rights movement in the 1960s: “One important gap in the history … is the role of guns in the movement. I worked in the South, I lived with families in the South. There was never a family I stayed with that didn’t have a gun. I know from personal experience and the experiences of others, that guns kept people alive, kept communities safe.”

We’ve forgotten that complex, social heritage. Instead of treating guns either as evil instruments of psychopathy, or glorifying them as extensions of an incomplete masculinity, we need to respect their place in American communities, and in our nation, for what they are: Extremely dangerous, essential and often fascinating tools of sport and defense with the deepest of roots in our history and culture.

We can recognize the horror of mass shootings and do all we can to prevent them. There are many preventative actions we can take that don’t involve Second Amendment infringement. But at the level of civic policy and education, this also means working to demystify firearms and remembering their positive contributions to American kinship and community empowerment. By doing so, we help prevent gun pathologies from taking root and give law-abiding gun owners the right to protect themselves.

Guns aren’t going away. The Second Amendment certainly isn’t going away. It’s time to see that as an opportunity, not a threat.

This is a contributed opinion column. Bill Broun teaches writing at East Stroudsburg University[Pennsylvania]. He is a school director for Saucon Valley School District. [Hellerstown PA]

Something for them to think about as they ‘weigh’: ACTA NON VERBA

Trump’s DOJ Weighs Gun Rights as a Focus for Civil Rights Division

The US Justice Department’s top civil rights official said the division is considering making gun rights a formal priority, in a significant shift from its traditional focus.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in an interview with Bloomberg that the department is reviewing whether certain state and local gun control measures infringe on citizens’ rights.
“The Second Amendment is one of the constitutional rights we are committed to defending,” Dhillon said. “We’re adding that to our analysis where states are violating constitutional rights.”
She declined to name specific jurisdictions under review but added, “I think it’s all pretty obvious where people’s rights are being violated.”
Cities including New York have maintained some of the nation’s strictest gun-permitting laws, despite a Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s “proper cause” requirement in 2022. That rule required gun permit applicants to show special justification for self-protection, which the court ruled unconstitutional.
The consideration of gun rights as a new priority for the Civil Rights Division is already reflected in an investigation launched in March. The government is looking into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed-carry permits. The US says the inquiry will examine whether the delays constitute a pattern of Second Amendment violations.
The Sheriff’s Department said in a statement in March that it is “committed” to processing the applications “in compliance with state and local laws to promote responsible gun ownership.”
Historically, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has prioritized voting rights enforcement, housing and employment discrimination cases and police oversight. Notable actions include consent decrees targeting major city police departments and enforcement of federal voting protections. Expanding the division’s mandate to cover gun rights would be a major change.
Since Dhillon took office this year, the Justice Department has made campus antisemitism, religious expression and banning transgender women in women’s sports central priorities, reflecting goals of President Donald Trump’s administration.

Germany Is Revoking Gun Rights from AfD Supporters—and It’s a Warning Shot for the West

In Germany, owning guns is a privilege that can be taken away—not for breaking the law, but for holding the wrong political opinion.

Members and supporters of the right-leaning Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party are now facing mass gun license revocations. The reason? The German government has labeled the AfD a “right-wing extremist” group—a political designation that suddenly makes its members “unreliable” under the country’s gun laws. And just like that, firearms must be surrendered or destroyed.

If that sounds outrageous, it should. But it’s not surprising.

Here in the U.S., we’ve already seen our own political establishment flirt with these kinds of tactics. Remember when New York’s then-Governor Andrew Cuomo said pro-gun conservatives “have no place” in his state? Or when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors labeled the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization”? Label first. Punish later.

That’s the playbook being used in Germany right now. And it’s worth paying attention to.

Government Labels a Popular Opposition Party “Extremist”—Then Comes the Crackdown

In 2021, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), designated the entire AfD as a “suspected threat to democracy.” That move allowed the government to surveil, wiretap, and investigate the party and its members.

It didn’t stop there.

Courts have now upheld revoking gun licenses from AfD members, based solely on their political affiliation. In one case, a couple in North Rhine-Westphalia lost legal ownership of over 200 firearms. They weren’t criminals. They weren’t accused of wrongdoing. They were just AfD members.

Another court in Thuringia blocked a blanket gun ban for all AfD members—but left the door wide open for revocations on a case-by-case basis.

In Saxony-Anhalt, officials are reviewing the gun licenses of 109 AfD members. As of last fall, 72 had already been targeted for revocation, with the rest under active review. The justification? Supporting a party the state now claims is “working against the constitutional order.”

And the courts are backing it up. According to a March 2024 ruling, former or current AfD supporters “lack the reliability” required to legally own firearms.

Why the AfD’s Platform Sounds Familiar to American Ears

You don’t have to support the AfD to see the dangerous precedent here. In fact, many of their stated positions would be right at home in American politics:

  • Support for limited government and individual liberty
  • Stronger penalties for violent crime
  • Calls for unbiased law enforcement and judicial independence
  • Opposition to political censorship
  • A demand for simple, fair taxes for middle- and low-income citizens

On gun rights, their platform is clear: “A liberal and constitutional state has to trust its citizens… The AfD opposes any form of restrictions of civil rights by tightening firearms legislation.”

Sound extreme to you? Or does that sound like something a lot of Americans already believe?

Continue reading “”

CCRKBA CELEBRATES 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF LEXINGTON, CONCORD: 2A BIRTHDAY

BELLEVUE, WA – This Saturday, April 19, 2025 marks the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the date which could easily be recognized as the birthday of the Second Amendment, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms calls on all freedom-loving Americans to join in the celebration.

“April 19th marks that day in history when the government of the era sent troops to seize the arms of Americans, and our ancestors replied with a decisive ‘No’,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “While the Declaration of Independence didn’t happen for another 15 months, the Revolutionary War actually began at Lexington Commons and the Concord North Bridge in the Spring of 1775, and it can honestly be said Americans have been fighting hard and shedding blood ever since to defend not just their natural right to be free from tyranny, but to protect and perpetuate what was and remains the uniquely American concept of freedom and liberty.

“The events of that April morning didn’t just show the British that our forefathers had drawn the proverbial line in the sand,” Gottlieb continued. “The two battles solidified the importance of our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and we honor the wisdom of our Founders to make it the cornerstone of our Bill of Rights.

“The Second Amendment,” he observed, “isn’t enshrined in our Constitution just so people can hunt ducks and deer. The right protected by the Second Amendment guarantees that Americans can defend themselves, their families and their homes from oppressive tyranny, and from crime and brutality. The Amendment doesn’t give us anything. Instead, it protects the fundamental rights we are born with from government infringement.

“The Founders knew what they were doing,” Gottlieb said. “They gave us a Republic, and the means to keep and protect it. They provided guarantees for our freedoms of speech, religion, the press and our privacy. We cannot be compelled to testify against ourselves, nor can we be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, or deprived of legal representation. The right to keep and bear arms is our insurance policy that all of these other rights will not be trampled, nor turned into government-regulated privileges.

“The Second Amendment is part of our heritage,” he added. “Today it is sad there are so many willing to erase it, while at the same time it is gratifying there are so many more willing to protect it. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is going to make sure we keep it that way.”

Missouri House Votes to Allow Guns on Public Transit, Lower Concealed Carry Age

The Missouri House just sent a clear message: gun rights shouldn’t stop at the bus stop.

In a 106-45 vote on Thursday, lawmakers passed House Bill 328, a measure that would legalize concealed carry on public transit and lower the minimum age for a concealed carry permit from 19 to 18. The bill now heads to the Missouri Senate for consideration.

Currently, even Missourians with valid concealed carry permits are barred from bringing firearms onto public transportation. But that could soon change if HB 328 becomes law.

“It’s about time that we allow those people who use public transportation to exercise the same rights as everyone else in our state,” said Rep. Tim Taylor (R-Bunceton), the bill’s sponsor. For many gun rights advocates, the current law forces permit holders to disarm just because they choose to ride the bus or train.

Opposition to the bill was sharp, with critics arguing that expanding where guns can legally go won’t improve public safety.

“More access to guns does nothing to improve public safety,” claimed Rep. Yolanda Young (D-Kansas City).

House Minority Leader Ashley Aune (D-Kansas City) also criticized the measure, especially the portion lowering the permit age to 18.

“That means high school kids could legally carry concealed weapons,” she said. “What could go wrong with that?”

But under current Missouri law, 18-year-olds serving in the military can already obtain a concealed carry permit. This bill would expand that access to all 18-year-olds, not just those in uniform.

Supporters argue that if an 18-year-old is legally an adult and can vote, sign contracts, and serve in the armed forces, they should also be trusted to carry concealed—especially in environments like public transit where law enforcement may not be readily available.

As the bill moves to the Senate, it’s expected to generate even more debate over where the line should be drawn between public safety and Second Amendment rights.

Gun Rights Group to Bondi: Target 2A Violations in 12 Specific States

Six days after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi announced creation of the Department of Justice “Second Amendment Task Force” to protect Americans’ gun rights, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms sent a letter urging her to immediately focus the task force’s attention on 12 specific states where alleged “egregious violations” are occurring.

Those states are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Washington. The common denominator in all these states is a Democrat-controlled legislature and governor’s office.

As reported earlier by Ammoland, activists energized by Bondi’s announcement are calling for action in their states, many of which coincidentally happen to be on the above list.

Continue reading “”

ATF facial recognition: Chairman Andy Biggs seeks records as gun owners sound alarm

Gun owners across America have every reason to be outraged. According to a March 27, 2025, letter from Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been secretly using facial recognition technology to track and identify gun owners—all without sufficient oversight, transparency, or even basic training for agents.

Biggs, who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance, is now demanding that Acting ATF Director Kash Patel hand over all documents relating to the agency’s use of facial recognition software. The call for answers follows multiple bombshell Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports and revelations that the ATF conducted at least 549 facial recognition searches between 2019 and 2022, often on law-abiding Americans exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“The Subcommittee has concerns about ATF’s use of facial recognition and AI programs and the effects that its use has upon American citizens’ Second Amendment rights and rights to privacy,” Biggs wrote.

A Pattern of Overreach

This latest scandal adds to a growing list of examples proving that the federal government simply cannot be trusted with gun owner data. As AmmoLand News previously reported, the ATF has flirted with or outright pursued unconstitutional surveillance for years—compiling digitized firearm transaction records and maintaining nearly 1 billion records at its National Tracing Center.

Continue reading “”

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

March 19, 2025 

Washington, D.C. – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). This action follows more than three decades of Congressional funding restrictions that have rendered ATF unable to process individual applications. 

The rule removes outdated regulations and is part of a broader review of firearm-related policies under Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). Upon the interim final rule’s expected publication tomorrow, the DOJ will begin allowing individuals who are not “dangerous to public safety” to use the statute and petition to have their gun rights restored. 

Key Points of the Rule Change: 

  • Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from using funds to process gun rights restoration applications, making the statute obsolete. 
  • ATF will no longer handle individual firearm disability relief applications under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). DOJ will instead carry out the statute and process petitions for gun rights restoration. 
  • The DOJ rule goes into effect immediately upon publication and will simultaneously accept public comments on the rule before issuing a final version. 

Gun Owners of America remains committed to monitoring this process and ensuring that any future policies respect the constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens. 

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

“For decades, law-abiding Americans who have had their gun rights unfairly restricted have been left in legal limbo—creating an unconstitutional de facto lifetime gun ban. This bureaucratic failure has denied thousands of individuals their lawful opportunity to restore their rights. The DOJ’s decision to finally withdraw ATF’s authority in this matter is an encouraging sign that this administration is serious about protecting the Second Amendment for all Americans.” 

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“Since its enactment in 1992, Gun Owners of America has fought against the ‘Schumer Amendment’ which defunded the federal gun rights restoration statute. GOA and thousands of would-be gun owners are grateful to President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for once again allowing gun owners to petition to have their gun rights restored by the Department of Justice. We hope to see many more infringements repealed as the federal government carries out President Trump’s executive order Protecting Second Amendment Rights.”