“The more time that the Democrats spend focusing on impeachment and other insane vendettas against President Trump, the less they will have to focus on a legislative agenda that is even more insane.”
– Stephen Kruiser
Category: Goobermint
AR-15s are ten times more common. Rifle murders aren’t keeping up.
Americans own more AR-15s and AK-pattern rifles than ever before. If the people pushing to ban them were right, murders with rifles would be climbing right along with them. A new study of FBI data shows the opposite.
What the study found
The Crime Prevention Research Center looked at how often rifles are used in murders before, during, and after the federal “assault weapons” ban of 1994 to 2004, using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports:
- Ownership is up tenfold. AR-15s and AK-47s went from about 1 per 100 Americans when the federal ban expired in 2004 to 10.2 per 100 in 2025.
- The ban didn’t work. Rifles were used in 4.8% of firearm murders before the ban and 4.9% while it was in effect. The researchers found no statistically significant difference.
- Since it expired, the share has fallen. Rifles accounted for 3.6% of firearm murders after the ban ended, even as these rifles became ten times more common.
And those numbers overstate the problem. The FBI counts every kind of rifle together, from deer rifles to .22s, so AR-15s and rifles like them are only part of an already small share.
Why it matters in Minnesota
The 2027 session opens January 12 with DFL control of the House, the Senate, and the governor’s office. The day after the election, Governor-elect Amy Klobuchar said the 2026 omnibus gun bill “is going to get passed” and “certainly should be one of our top priorities.”
That bill, SF 4067, passed the Senate 34-33 last May. It would have banned dealer sales of most semi-automatic rifles and of magazines over 17 rounds, and made every owner register the ones they already have with the state, pay a fee, and renew every three years, or face criminal charges. Other 2026 bills would have banned nearly all semi-automatic rifles outright.
In 2027, the DFL is poised to try to ban the sale, transfer, and possession of these firearms. The data says it won’t make anyone safer. It will only turn law-abiding Minnesotans into criminals for owning the most popular rifle in America. Here’s what to expect in 2027.
The Supreme Court is weighing in too
On December 2, the US Supreme Court hears Viramontes v. Cook County, a challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on the AR-15 and rifles like it. The MN Gun Owners Law Center and the Caucus filed an amicus brief in the case. A ruling is expected by June, and it could decide whether bans like the one coming to Minnesota survive at all.
Democrats Say the Second Amendment Limits Gun Control. Just Don’t Ask Them How.
Among the dozens of amicus briefs filed in defense of “assault weapon” bans last week, there are a few that stand out, either because of the ludicrous nature of their arguments or who’s making them.
In the case of the brief filed on behalf of 189 Democrats in Congress, it’s both the “who” and “what” that makes the brief notable. While not every Democrat on Capitol Hill lent their support to the brief (Ilhan Omar and Alexandria Ocasio Cortez are absent, for example), a substantial majority of Democrat House and Senate members did (including John Fetterman, for anyone who mistakenly thinks he’s a moderate when it comes to Second Amendment issues). Their argument is simple, but it’s also glaringly incomplete.
The basic premise of the brief is that “lawmakers have broad authority to address gun violence, subject to the Second Amendment’s limits.” Fair enough, I suppose. But the obvious question then becomes, what are those limits?
Although the Second Amendment imposes constitutional limits on firearms regulation, within those limits, decisions about whether and how to regulate assault weapons properly belong to federal, state, and local lawmakers.
This is a repeated theme in the brief. They even state that judges are responsible for interpreting and enforcing those limits. But they fail to identify what those limits would actually prohibit Congress from doing.
On pages 4 and 5, they point out that Heller recognized an individual right that isn’t unlimited. They also cite Bruen and Rahimi for the proposition that modern regulations need not be identical to historical restrictions, arguing that legislatures retain regulatory authority, particularly when confronting new technologies or changing public-safety concerns.
But they broadly ignore Heller’s actual holding that D.C. couldn’t ban handguns commonly possessed for lawful self-defense or require firearms to be stored in such a way that made them inaccessible for use in self-defense.
That’s a pretty big omission, given that Viramontes and Grant are all about whether commonly possessed semi-automatic rifles can be prohibited.
On page 17, the Democrats do acknowledge that “the enshrinement of a right takes certain policy choices ‘off the table.’” Yet again, though, they decline to state what those policies might be.
If the government can prohibit the possession of some of the most popular rifles in America, what firearms are beyond the reach of legislators who want to ban them? Handguns? Shotguns? Every semiautomatic firearm? The lawmakers offer no answers, just repeated assurances that constitutional limits exist somewhere out there, even as they urge the justices not to enforce one of the most consequential limits identified by the Supreme Court: the protection of arms in common use for lawful purposes.
Imagine 189 members of Congress telling the Supreme Court that the First Amendment absolutely limits the government’s ability to censor speech, but that lawmakers should still be free to ban political commentary they consider dangerous. And when asked what speech the government can’t prohibit, they simply repeat that the First Amendment has limits on government power, without ever saying what those limits are.
If these Democrats want to assert that there are limits on Congress’s power to regulate firearms, I’m in full agreement. But when they argue that those limits don’t include a ban on the most popular rifles in the country, they’ve lost me. And I’d like to know what, exactly, these lawmakers believe is off-limits thanks to the Second Amendment.
They repeatedly acknowledge that constitutional boundaries exist, but never identify where those boundaries lie. That’s a glaring omission from 189 members of Congress asking the Supreme Court to uphold restrictions on a fundamental civil right. If they believe the Second Amendment actually constrains their authority, they ought to be able to tell the American people what they think it prevents them from doing.
And if they can’t or won’t tell us, the most logical conclusion is that they don’t really believe the Second Amendment places any meaningful limits on their power at all.
The legal possession and carrying of assault weapons in New York City’s crowded public spaces would also force officers to make rapid, highly fraught determinations based on little information about who is likely to be a lawful and peaceful firearm carrier and who intends to use the firearm for criminal harm. To be sure, police officers are tasked everyday with decisions that test the tensions between public safety and constitutional rights. Officers rely on their training, understanding of the law, and best judgment to determine which activities require further investigation and which do not.
But the legalization of assault weapons in New York City would make these encounters even more difficult to navigate. The presence of these weapons in public places would lead to alarm and increased emergency calls, and it would be the rare situation where an officer could discern without intrusive investigation whether the person was carrying the firearm legally. Judging correctly whether an individual carrying an assault weapon means no harm could be the difference between life and death. NYPD officers, committed to following the law and keeping people safe, would regularly be put in a seemingly impossible position. A constitutional doctrine that puts our officers in this bind ignores the reality of policing in a densely populated and pedestrian-focused city like New York.
NYPD officers regularly do not encounter this problem with handgun possession because the City’s licensing regulations allow only concealed carry. See 38 R.C.N.Y. § 5-01(b). Currently, if an officer sees a firearm carried in the open or receives a report of such behavior, there is probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred, permitting the officer to intercede. That certainty would disappear if the carrying of assault weapons became legal because assault weapons can only be carried openly. NYPD officers should not be placed in a position where they are constantly having to determine, with no good options, how to thread the needle between Second Amendment rights and their mission to protect the public from harm.
Finally, the NYPD is aware that organizations representing other law-enforcement entities have filed a brief in support of petitioners, arguing, among other things, that those entities “welcome the help” from citizens armed with assault weapons “in fighting crime” so that the “burden on law enforcement” is eased.22 The NYPD strongly disagrees with this sentiment. In the NYPD’s institutional experience, the job of law enforcement will become much more difficult and dangerous, at least in a densely populated city such as New York, if members of the public are carrying highly powerful and particularly lethal firearms.
Whatever the merits of these amici’s views when it comes to their own jurisdictions, they simply make no sense in a place like New York City. The Second Amendment should pose no barrier to New York City and New York State choosing a different path for protecting our officers and the public.
— New York Police Department amicus brief in Viramontes v. Cook County
The Constitution’s Red-Headed Stepchild — The Second Amendment.
Recently, thanks to the invaluable Instapundit, I read an article from Shooting News Weekly (which I have since supplemented with other research and reading), that describes what happened when a 22-year-old off-duty soldier, traveling in a Honda SUV in Washington, DC, was stopped by U.S. Park Police due to an expired license tag. The soldier, Jakob Noonan, is from Oklahoma and was only in DC because he has been mobilized as part of the National Guard safety task force sent to help protect DC and its residents. And his story illustrates all too well the hostility that some of our overseers harbor against those who desire to exercise our Constitutional right to protect ourselves in these somewhat dangerous time
When the police stopped his vehicle, they spotted an empty pistol holster in the SUV and asked Noonan if he had a firearm in the vehicle. The young guardsman confirmed there was a firearm in the vehicle and that it was registered to him in his home state of Oklahoma, which is an open-carry state. But because he did not have a District of Columbia concealed-carry permit, the police decided to arrest and charge him under DC Code § 22-4504 for carrying a firearm without a license.
DC’s penalties for a violation of § 22-4504 are draconian. A conviction carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, a $12,500 fine (for first-time offenders), and forfeiture of his firearm to DC. The SUV in which the young guardsman was riding is also subject to seizure and forfeiture to the DC government. And a conviction would automatically trigger federal law, 18 U.S. Code § 922(g)(1), which would make it unlawful for him to possess any firearm in any state, even in Oklahoma which issued his carry permit. Such a penalty would not require a separate court proceeding. It becomes automatic upon a conviction by the DC court. And a subsequent prosecution for violating § 922 carries with it fines of up to $250,000 and a fifteen- year prison sentence.
All of that is quite a load of “justice” for a young National Guardsman, who was busted by the Park Police for honestly answering their question that he was in possession of a handgun, as authorized by his home state of record.
FPC Wants Court to Allow Nonresident Carry in Colorado
Colorado is a prime example of what happens when you let too many Californians move into a state. They take over and start wanting the same terrible laws they left California over. If only there was some way to stop them.
One issue in Colorado that predates the current sorry state of affairs is that if you’re a nonresident, you can’t carry a firearm at all unless your state recognizes Colorado’s permits. Luckily, open carry is still legal…unless you’re in Denver.
That’s why Denver is being sued, and why the Firearms Policy Coalition has made an important ask of the court.
From a press release:
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) announced today that it filed a motion for preliminary injunction in Hoffman v. City and County of Denver, asking the federal court to immediately block enforcement of the Colorado and Denver gun carry ban regime as to Plaintiff Gene Hoffman and similarly situated peaceable nonresidents, and require Colorado to allow them to obtain carry licenses on the same terms as Colorado residents.
The State of Colorado generally requires a permit to carry a concealed handgun but refuses to issue those permits to nonresidents. Instead, the State recognizes permits from another state only when that state recognizes Colorado permits.
Denver separately bans open carry, so peaceable people from outside those states can be left with no lawful way to carry a handgun at all while in Denver. And because federal law generally prohibits firearm possession within 1,000 feet of a school unless the person has a license issued by the state where the school is located, Colorado’s refusal to issue permits to nonresidents creates a massive labyrinth of prohibited areas throughout the State where affected travelers can be effectively disarmed—or risk federal prosecution and imprisonment simply for carrying a firearm.
Colorado law also reserves certain carry privileges in public university and government-building parking areas for permit holders.
“Colorado and Denver cannot turn their borders into a police-state checkpoint where peaceable people are forced to surrender their rights.
The right to bear arms throughout the United States belongs to the People—not only Colorado residents. Colorado and Denver have created an insane regime that completely disarms peaceable Americans simply because they live somewhere else, and we’re asking the court to put an end to it now.
FPC and our Grassroots Army will continue to Fight Forward and eliminate all of these unconstitutional and immoral residency-based bans,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.
FPC’s motion argues that the case should be straightforward under the Supreme Court’s binding precedents—the Second Amendment protects the People’s right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, and that protection does not disappear when someone crosses a state line.
As the filing explains, “the Second Amendment, like every guarantee in the Bill of Rights, ‘has the same meaning in all parts of the United States.’”
The historical record makes Colorado’s position even worse. Far from supporting residency-based disarmament, early American laws often gave travelers more protection to carry arms, not less.
The motion identifies colonial laws requiring people traveling away from home to carry arms and later laws expressly exempting travelers from carry restrictions.
The motion also argues that Colorado’s discrimination against nonresidents violates the Constitution’s Privileges and Immunities Clause, which protects Americans from being denied fundamental privileges simply because they come from another state.
I mean, they ain’t wrong.
About any of it.
From her quoted statements, she wants to make it less dangerous for her gangs.
Minnesota: Somali Democrat Mayor Pushes Gun Ban as Fix for Somali Gang Crime
St. Louis Park Mayor Nadia Mohamed (D), the first Somali-American elected mayor in Minnesota, suggests the solution to Somali gang gun violence is to ban firearms.
A clip of Mohamed expressing her support for a gun ban has made the rounds on social media.
Bearing Arms quoted part of her comments wherein she dismissed criticism of the Somali gangs as “rhetoric” that is “irresponsible” and turned to gun control as a solution:
A crime is a crime is a crime is a crime. But what the rhetoric you are pushing, at best is irresponsible, at worst is dangerous. So you may be wondering, hey Mayor, how can we solve for this then? How can we have conversations that are effective, that can actually get something done? And the answer is easy.
Ban guns.
On October 4, 2026, Breitbart News pointed to reports indicating alleged Somali gang-related gunfire broke out at Eden Prairie High School in a Minneapolis suburb Friday around 9:00 p.m.
A news release from the Eden Prairie Police Department said two Somali males were injured during the shooting, one of whom was 17 and the second of whom was 18. The injuries they sustained were not life-threatening.
San Diego County Sues Filament Maker Over Its 2A Ties
There’s nothing illegal about selling plastic filament for 3D printers, even if some customers use that filament to manufacture firearms. But according to officials in San Diego County, there’s something legally actionable about a filament maker embracing the Second Amendment community and touting its products to people who print their own guns.
On Monday, San Diego County, aided by Giffords Law Center, filed suit against Polymaker LLC, accusing the company of violating California’s Unfair Competition and False Advertising laws by allegedly promoting it’s products to the 3D-printed firearms community. The county isn’t claiming that Polymaker sells guns, unfinished frames or receivers, or even a product that’s uniquely suited for making firearms. Instead, much of its case rests on what Polymaker has said and done while selling a lawful, general-purpose product.
According to the county’s complaint, Polymaker developed firearm-themed products, sponsored and worked with gun-printing influencers, offered technical advice about using its filament for firearm applications, and cultivated relationships with the broader 3D gun community. San Diego contends those activities helped facilitate violations of California’s restrictive laws governing privately manufactured firearms.
While this lawsuit implicates the Second Amendment, it raises substantial First Amendment questions as well. From the complaint:
To be clear, 3D printing filament is not inherently illicit and has many lawful, productive purposes, and this lawsuit does not seek to ban the sale of filament in California.
Rather, the People bring this lawsuit to hold Polymaker liable for its strategic business choice to design and market its filaments in order to profit from the illegal manufacture of 3D printed ghost guns in California.
These actions violate California law and reflect a conspicuous disregard for the public safety interests of Californians that those laws are designed to protect.
San Diego isn’t taking aim at what Polymaker sells. It’s suing over how the company talks about its products, who it talks to, and what those customers might legally do with them in much of the rest of the country, where California’s idiotic laws are not in place.
Nowhere in the complaint does San Diego allege that Polymaker is designing or marketing it’s filaments with California specifically in mind. Instead, the county heavily relies on California’s ridiculously broad definition of a “firearm precursor part,” which includes “any forging, casting, printing, extrusion, machined body or similar article . . . that is marketed or sold to the public to become or be used as the frame or receiver of a functional firearm once completed, assembled or converted.”
In support of its lawsuit, San Diego County points to the California DOJ’s designation of the Ghost Gunner “AR-00,” which is nothing more than a solid block of aluminum, as a “firearm precursor part” simply because it’s marketed as something that can eventually become a firearm frame or receiver.
While that might buttress San Diego County’s argument, it’s also a perfect illustration of just how expansive and open-ended California’s law is. Under San Diego’s theory, a company that produces a general-purpose product can be held liable for promoting one particular use because California prohibits that activity, even when the marketing isn’t specifically directed at Californians.
Punishing commercial speech directed at a nationwide audience because that speech promotes conduct that’s illegal in one state, even when the same conduct is perfectly lawful elsewhere, seems like a pretty clear violation of the First Amendment to me.
If California can turn a spool of plastic into a regulated “firearm precursor part” based largely on how it’s marketed, then this case isn’t just about what Polymaker sells. What the company says about its products, and even who it associates with and employs, are also fundamental parts of the county’s litigation, and you don’t have to be a Second Amendment supporter or a 3D-printing aficionado to be extremely concerned about where this theory can lead.
Pandering to invaders
Gavin Newsom signs Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha into law as new California state holidays.
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law a bill that formally recognizes two Muslim holidays as state holidays on Sunday, making it the second state to formally recognize both holidays statewide.
California Assembly Bill 2017 officially added Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha to the list of state holidays, which would permit public schools and colleges to close and allow state employees to be eligible to observe the holidays.
However, schools and businesses will not be required to close on these days, and courts will be required to stay open.
This makes California the second state in the country, after Washington state, to pass statewide legislation recognizing the Muslim holidays.
Before signing AB 2017, Newsom had multiple bills on his desk that provided protections and exceptions for other religious observances, including Jewish holidays such as Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur.
For example, AB 395, which reached the governor days before AB 2017, would codify these Jewish holidays, among others, into state law and require state agencies and facilities like schools to “make every reasonable effort” to avoid scheduling significant functions for those days.
Another bill, AB 1763, would also guarantee students in K-12 be allowed excused absences for religious holidays.
Though these bills were introduced and presented to the governor before AB 2017, Newsom did not sign the additional bills into law until Wednesday, prior to the midnight deadline.
…The resolution would not have banned Flock cameras, but would have directed the city manager to conduct a review of the city’s contracts, guidelines and policies for the technology. By referring the resolution to a committee, the City Council prevented a public hearing from being held on the matter.
Justice Department sues San Jose, police over gun permit fee
(KRON) — The U.S. Department of Justice announced Wednesday that it has filed a lawsuit against San Jose and its police department, alleging the city charges private individuals unreasonable fees to exercise their Second Amendment right to lawfully carry a firearm.
According to a Justice Department press release, San Jose’s firearm permit fee is the highest in the country at nearly $1,600 per license.
“Indeed, San Jose’s fee towers over those imposed by the country’s biggest cities. New York, Washington, D.C., Boston and Chicago all charge a small fraction of San Jose’s fee,” the Justice Department said.
“All law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. This right is not a luxury reserved for a privileged few, but a fundamental element of our republic,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon said. “You don’t need a law degree to recognize that charging a fee several times higher than the cost of the firearm itself is illogical, and an unconstitutional attempt to impede Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”
The Justice Department said people who believe a state or local government has infringed on their right to keep or bear arms can submit a complaint through its Second Amendment Section.
If you’re under the impression that this was some sort of simple oversight by that intern who wrote the original ordnance, you need to think again. The gun-grabbing crowd will never stop.
Forest City passes ordinance after rewrite following Second Amendment backlash
After Cops & Congress reporting, town attorney revises urban archery code before commissioners approve measure with one no vote
By Annie Dance | Cops & Congress | News & Commentary
Forest City commissioners approved a revised urban archery ordinance Monday night after Cops & Congress reporting drew attention to broader weapons restrictions when used lawfully, buried inside the proposal and triggered hundreds of comments on social media.
Forest City gun ordinance draws Second Amendment scrutiny
·
Read full story
The ordinance passed with one dissenting vote from John Mark Bennett.
Before the vote on Sept. 14, the town attorney, Elizabeth T. Miller, known as Beth, revised the code to explicitly protect the lawful defense of people and property — language that had become a central point of concern after the original ordinance was published in the town’s meeting agenda packet.
Miller, a registered Democrat, is also the attorney for the town of Rutherfordton. She has been practicing law since 1988, according to the state bar public directory.
The original proposal had been drafted by intern Ben Roach, according to their July meeting documents, and then reviewed by the town manager, Janet Mason, town attorney, and police chief Chris LeRoy before it was placed on Monday’s agenda. Roach is the son of Paula Roach, who serves as Rutherford County Deputy County Manager and Finance Director.
Despite those reviews, the first version proposed changes to Forest City’s firearms and nonfirearm weapons ordinances without expressly preserving an exception for a person lawfully defending themselves or their property.
That changed after the issue became public.
The revised ordinance now states that Forest City’s prohibition on discharging firearms does not apply to “any person while exercising a legal right to defend persons or property.”
The same protection was added to the section governing bows, crossbows, air rifles, slingshots and other nonfirearm projectile weapons.
Supreme Court Orders New York City to Defend Stun Gun Ban in ‘Caetano 2.0’
Six months ago, AmmoLand warned that the Second Circuit appeared ready to preserve New York City’s stun gun ban by claiming the challengers had not supplied enough evidence that electronic arms were in “common use.”
That is exactly what happened.
Now, the Supreme Court has ordered New York City to respond in Calce v. New York City, giving the justices an opportunity to stop lower courts from using that evidentiary maneuver to evade the Second Amendment.
The Court’s official docket shows that New York City waived its right to respond on August 6. On September 8, the Supreme Court requested a response anyway. The city’s brief is due October 8.
The order does not mean the Court has agreed to hear the case or ruled against New York City. It does mean the petition will not be rejected without the justices first receiving the city’s defense of a ban that should have been dead after Caetano v. Massachusetts.
Second Circuit’s Attempt at an Escape Route
In March 2025, AmmoLand’s Dean Weingarten reported that U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos had placed the “common use” burden on the challengers. Ramos held that stun guns and Tasers were not presumptively protected because the plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient evidence showing the arms were commonly possessed for lawful purposes.
When the Firearms Policy Coalition appealed, AmmoLand reported that the organization argued the ruling “[flew] in the face of the Second Amendment” because electronic weapons plainly fall within the ordinary meaning of “arms.”
Following the Second Circuit’s March 2026 oral argument, AmmoLand examined Mark Smith’s analysis of the case. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, described Calce as a layup under Caetano. AmmoLand nevertheless warned that the panel appeared interested in a narrow procedural ruling that would leave the ban intact without directly declaring stun guns unprotected.
On April 13, the Second Circuit did exactly that.
Second Circuit Says Citizens Failed to Prove Their Rights
In a summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for New York City.
The panel held that the plaintiffs bore the burden of establishing that stun guns and Tasers are in common use for lawful purposes at the first stage of the Bruen analysis. It then faulted them for failing to introduce sufficient admissible evidence in the district court.
That allowed the city to win without proving that its ban is consistent with America’s historical tradition of arms regulation.
This is not a minor procedural dispute. It determines who must prove what when the government bans an entire category of arms.
Under Bruen, once the Second Amendment’s plain text covers a person’s conduct, the government must justify its restriction using history. But if a hostile court inserts “common use” into the plain-text inquiry, it can force citizens to prove that an arm is popular enough before the government carries any constitutional burden.
The government can then ban an arm, suppress its ownership, and argue that the resulting lack of ownership proves the arm was never protected. That is a constitutional Catch-22 created by the infringement itself.
This wasn’t on my radar, but good to know it’s been – sort of – resolved.
UPDATE: Washington Reverses, Says NRA-Certified Instructors Can Teach
The Washington State Patrol (WSP) appears to have reversed course on allowing certified National Rifle Association firearms instructors to provide safety training as part of the upcoming permit-to-purchase training requirement, TGM has learned.
The problem was first reported by TGM here.
In an email to subscribers of a list of potential instructors Monday, WSP Commander Kevin Baird advised, “The email sent September 11, 2026 regarding NRA sponsorship of firearm safety training resulted from a misunderstanding of the terminology used and how the statute is written.
“I’m pleased to report that the NRA Executive Director, Josh Savani, reached out to me on Friday to clarify the NRA’s position. Based on that clarification, independent NRA-certified instructors may provide the firearm safety training required under RCW 9.41.1132 and RCW 9.41.070.
“However,” Baird continued, “as with all other training providers, WSP must still review and certify the training curriculum to ensure it includes all elements required by law. Those requirements include:
RCW 9.41.1132(1):
(a) Basic firearms safety rules;
(b) Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and talking to children about gun safety;
(c) Firearms and suicide prevention;
(d) Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
(e) Safe handling of firearms;
(f) State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearms transfers and locations where firearms are prohibited;
(g) State laws pertaining to the use of deadly force for self-defense;
(h) Techniques for avoiding a criminal attack and how to manage a violent confrontation, including conflict resolution; and
(i) Live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range that include a demonstration by the applicant of the safe handling of, and shooting proficiency with, firearms.
“We have not yet begun reviewing individual curricula,” Baird wrote. “That process will begin once we have processed the majority of the training-provider applications.
“My apologies for the confusion created by the previous email,” he said. “We are working to provide information as quickly and transparently as possible while developing the processes and procedures necessary to implement this significant undertaking. As someone described it to me last week, ‘we are building the airplane while flying it.’ We appreciate your patience and understanding as we work through these implementation details.”
Last week’s announcement created a furor, drawing longtime gun rights activist—and NRA-certified firearms instructor—Jane Milhans into the fray. She singlehandedly brought the problem to NRA’s attention, initiating a scramble on both ends, with NRA exchanging information with Baird.
The situation also drew attention from TGM, Ammoland News and radio host Jason Rantz writing about it at Seattle-Red.
As reported last week, an exchange of messages regarding whether NRA-certified instructors would be okayed to provide the necessary safety instruction required by the new state law, RCW 9.41.1132, ignited the controversy.
A message sent last week by WSP to members of a ListServ P2P group, which stated, “RCW 9.41.1132 (3) states (bolding added for emphasis): ‘The training must be sponsored by a federal, state, tribal, county, or municipal law enforcement agency, a college or university, a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training, or a firearms training school with instructors certified by a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training.
“We reached out to the NRA to determine if an NRA Certified Trainer would be considered to be ‘sponsored’ by the NRA thereby meeting the requirement of ‘a nationally recognized organization that customarily offers firearms training’.
“The answer they provided is: NO. They said because these individuals are neither employees nor contractors, and the NRA is not involved in scheduling, promoting, etc. of the classes, the NRA would not be considered as sponsoring any classes for them.”
This was the original message that set off the communications flurry resulting in Monday’s reversal.
“While NRA-certified instructors are not employees or contractors of NRA,” Savani explained, “holding a current certification does entitle an instructor to certain rights and privileges that could be seen to make them ‘sponsored’ for purposes of RCW 9.41.1132(3). For example, NRA certified instructors are permitted to use NRA trademarks in promotion of their NRA training courses. We do not allow use of our marks lightly, and use of these marks puts NRA’s imprimatur on any of our courses being taught by a certified instructor.”
Pro-2A Group Sues Oregon Over Out-Of-State Permit Recognition
A pro-Second Amendment group filed a lawsuit against Oregon on behalf of one of its lobbyists, accusing the state of leaving no way for non-residents to carry firearms for personal protection.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the group’s Oregon state director, Cynthia Ladd, sued the city of Salem, Oregon, and Marion County, Oregon, Sheriff Nick Hunter Friday in the United States District Court for the District of Oregon, demanding that the state’s ban on non-residents carrying firearms be ruled a violation of the Second Amendment. In the complaint, it noted that for over four-fifths of Americans, there was no option to carry firearms in the state.
Apparently Oregon thinks your constitutional rights have a residency requirement. 🙄
They don’t.
We’re taking another anti-gun state to court! https://t.co/te4WkvCWr1
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 11, 2026
“Oregon seems to believe that your constitutional rights come with a residency requirement, but the Second Amendment protects the rights of all Americans,” GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “Law-abiding gun owners should not lose their right to carry a firearm for self-defense simply because they cross a state line.”
Oregon does not recognize any other state’s concealed carry permit, according to the National Rifle Association.
A similar case centered on out-of-state residents could be considered by the Supreme Court. Liberty Justice Center filed a petition on Aug. 24 asking the high court to hear Johnson v. Jacobsen, regarding Minnesota’s refusal to recognize a long-haul truck driver’s concealed carry permits from Florida and Georgia.
Attorneys for the state of Massachusetts failed to convince a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit that accused the state of delaying the processing of carry permits for out of state residents. In an Aug. 28 ruling, Chief United States District Judge Denise Casper of the District of Massachusetts, an Obama appointee, allowed the litigation to proceed
In June, the Supreme Court narrowed the applicability of a federal law prohibiting users of marijuana roughly a week before it issued its ruling in Wolford v. Lopez, a ruling that struck down Hawaii’s “vampire rule” targeting concealed carry.
MASSIVE WIN: The U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico has granted summary judgment holding the state's 7-day waiting period law for firearm purchases unconstitutional!
The NRA brought forward the case with @MSLF, in partnership with @NSSF. pic.twitter.com/hv4uSORDZf
— NRA (@NRA) August 28, 2026
Gun rights lawsuit aims at Colorado’s state & local carry restrictions.
DENVER–Colorado is facing yet another lawsuit over statewide and local gun rights restrictions, this one challenging the state’s concealed carry permitting and the City of Denver’s open-carry ban.
The latest lawsuit, brought by the National Rifle Association and two out-of-state gun owners, argues that the state and city’s carry laws “together leave otherwise qualified nonresidents who travel to Denver with no lawful means to carry a handgun there for self-defense.”
The complaint marks the latest in a line of recent legal challenges, brought by both gun rights groups and the Trump administration, targeting restrictive gun laws in Colorado.
Guilt-Trip Didn’t Work, So Now Regulations Follow Gun Store’s Recent Move
It’s amazing how guns and alcohol are treated similarly despite being very different. I don’t just mean that one is a liquid and one is a solid. Elementary science is too obvious, after all. What I mean is that while alcohol can and sometimes is consumed on the premises of a retail location, guns are almost never used on those premises. Unfortunately, many towns try to act like they are.
Goleta, California wasn’t one of those. Maybe they didn’t think it would ever be an issue, but when a gun store secured a location that had been vacant for three years, some members of the community lost their minds. They tried to guilt-trip the owner.
It didn’t work, so now they’re trying something “new,” but it’s as old as governments.
City of Goleta representatives said they have taken note. They acknowledged that there are no current restrictions on where a gun store can open within town limits. A business license was issued to Goodland Guns to operate in the new location in early June.
Continued public outcry over the issue, however, has sparked action at city hall.
“We are going to bring some options back that could lead to a change in our zoning or an ordinance that would put potentially more restrictions where gun stores could be located,” Goleta City Manager Robert Nisbet told SFGATE via phone Tuesday.
Nisbet said the issue is slated for discussion at the upcoming City Council meeting on Sept. 1.
He said while he couldn’t speak for what the City Council will ultimately decide to do, he noted that he believes it is “looking forward to putting greater restrictions on [gun stores].”
Nisbet noted that while the city currently allows gun shops only in commercial zones, it would be unable to ban them altogether. “There’s the Second Amendment, the right to bear arms,” he said. “Cities cannot really restrict gun stores [wholesale] within a city. You can’t do it.”
“The general concept is to make it more restrictive, what we define as sensitive zones, places like a daycare,” he added.
Again, it’s not like gun stores are notorious shooting locales. There aren’t stray bullets flying hither and yon from the parking lot.
People go in, conduct perfectly lawful business, and then leave.
What Nisbet, though, is telling us is that they’d rather have left a commercial property vacant where it apparently had a history of being broken into and vandalized, thus making it more of an eyesore, than see a business move in and restore it into working order.
Goodland Guns owner Dan Ashton sat down with Cam on Thursday to talk about the situation, but from my point of view, he’s done nothing wrong, and some people in Goleta need to get their knickers untwisted.
Of course, what follows from this kind of “thinking” is that gun stores get relegated purely to higher crime areas, then get blamed for the higher crime, even though they’re simply not allowed to operate elsewhere.
Nisbet himself said it. The concept is to make it more restrictive to do business if you’re a gun store owner. Daycares aren’t going to be impacted by a gun store’s location unless some parent gets distracted by whatever Kel-Tec came up with next instead of remembering to pick Junior up on time. That’s about it.