Category: Goobermint
No Other Constitutional Right Is Policed Like the Second Amendment
The Bill of Rights protects speech, religion, the press, assembly, due process, privacy, and the right to keep and bear arms.
Only one of those rights has an entire federal agency built around regulating, restricting, investigating, and prosecuting the tools necessary to exercise it.
The Second Amendment.
That agency is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
There is no federal Bureau of Speech.
No federal Bureau of Religion.
No federal Bureau of Press and Assembly.
No federal agency licenses newspapers before they publish, inspects churches for recordkeeping violations, registers printing presses, or forces Americans to pay a tax before exercising a First Amendment right.
But when it comes to the Second Amendment, Washington has built exactly that kind of bureaucracy.
Other Rights Are Abused by Bureaucrats. The Second Amendment Is Policed by Them.
Federal agencies have abused power against other constitutional rights, too.
The FBI and DOJ have targeted speech, political activity, and religious Americans.
The NSA has raised Fourth Amendment concerns through surveillance.
DHS and TSA have expanded federal search power in the name of security.
The IRS has been accused of politically selective enforcement.
Those abuses are real.
But they are not the same as having an entire agency whose firearms mission is aimed directly at the people, businesses, products, paperwork, and transactions tied to one constitutional right.
The ATF does not merely investigate violent criminals who misuse firearms.
It regulates firearm dealers.
It inspects Federal Firearms Licensees.
It polices paperwork.
It interprets federal gun laws.
It issues rules affecting lawful gun owners.
It decides whether products used by peaceable Americans are legal today and criminal tomorrow.
Other agencies violate constitutional rights when they overreach, but the ATF’s firearms mission is overreach by design.
Lawsuit challenges Denver, state over gun & magazine bans.
DENVER–A Colorado gun rights groups and three Denver-area gun owners on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit challenging Denver’s decades-old ban on so-called “assault weapons,” as well as Colorado’s statewide prohibition on standard-capacity ammunition magazines, arguing both laws violate the Second Amendment.
The suit was filed in U.S. District Court by the Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), and individual plaintiffs Ray Elliott, Trevor Alley and Michael Vitco, all Denver residents.
CSSA is the Colorado state affiliate of the National Rifle Association (NRA).
At issue is Denver’s 1989 ordinance banning the sale, manufacture and possession of firearms the city labels “assault weapons,” and Colorado’s 2013 law banning magazines that hold more than 15 rounds. The complaint argues both laws are, in practice, magazine restrictions as Denver’s ordinance defines a banned “assault weapon” chiefly by whether it accepts a magazine over 15 rounds.
Supreme Court’s Wolford Decision Could Blow A Hole In New Jersey’s AR-15 Ban Defense
The Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez was about Hawaii’s attempt to turn most private property open to the public into gun-free zones by default. But the ruling may have just handed gun owners in New Jersey a powerful new weapon in the fight against the state’s ban on so-called “assault firearms.”
On June 26, attorneys for the Cheeseman plaintiffs in Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General notified the Third Circuit that Wolford directly affects the pending challenge to New Jersey’s semiautomatic firearm ban.
Their point is simple: New Jersey cannot force gun owners to prove at the starting line that banned firearms are “in common use” before the Second Amendment even applies. Under Wolford, the first question is much more basic.
Does the law regulate “Arms”? If yes, the Constitution is already in play.
Wolford Reaffirms The Plain Text Test
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the Court in Wolford, explained that Bruen’s first step asks whether the law falls within the Second Amendment’s plain text. That includes whether the law concerns “Arms,” meaning weapons “customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes,” according to the Court.
Phrasing matters. The Second Amendment does not protect only whatever gun a state lawyer is willing to admit is useful for home defense. It does not protect only handguns. It does not protect only muskets. It protects “Arms.” And Wolford confirms that the category includes weapons customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes. That is a problem for New Jersey.
That matters in Cheeseman because New Jersey’s ban plainly regulates firearms. Not accessories. Not conduct divorced from arms. Firearms.
The Cheeseman letter seizes on that language, telling the Third Circuit that “the only predicate question” is whether the law concerns “Arms.” The plaintiffs argue that the answer is “beyond dispute,” meaning the Second Amendment presumptively protects possession of the banned firearms. From there, the burden shifts to New Jersey.
That is the part anti-gun states hate. They want gun owners trapped in a never-ending preliminary debate over whether AR-15s, modern semiautomatic rifles, and similar arms are common enough, useful enough, or favored enough by judges to count. Wolford makes that harder.
Supreme Court strikes down blue state’s ‘vampire rule’ in major win for gun rights
Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the law ‘violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms’
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled against Hawaii on Thursday, handing concealed-carry permit holders a major victory in a 6-3 decision.
The Supreme Court sided with the plaintiff in Wolford v. Lopez, who contested Hawaii’s state law requiring a property owner’s explicit permission to allow lawful gun owners to bring firearms into public businesses.
“Hawaii’s law at issue here violates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote. “This regime hobbles what the Second Amendment protects: the right of Americans to carry arms for self-defense as they go about their daily lives.”
The ruling reverses a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which had upheld Hawaii’s restrictions after the state enacted them in response to the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision.
Why is it that, after being told their gun laws are unconstitutional, so many areas that are run by anti-gun extremists seem to respond with something along the lines of, “Oh yeah? Watch what we do next!” We saw this type of response after the landmark NYSRPA v. Bruen decision that affirmed law-abiding gun owners have a right to carry firearms for self-defense away from the home.
Like spoiled children who run to their room when told they can’t do something by their parents, anti-gun extremists ran to anti-gun legislatures to ram through more anti-gun laws that seek to circumvent the Bruen decision. We saw several states, including Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York, quickly pass and enact new laws to restrict the lawful carry of firearms.
The laws in both New Jersey and New York—based on expanding so-called “sensitive places” where carry is prohibited to the point where virtually nowhere is deemed suitable for lawful carry—have suffered losses in court, while Hawaii’s may soon be dealt a crushing blow to its anti-self-defense regime by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In apparent preparation for a loss, anti-gun extremists ran to the Hawaii legislature shortly after the Supreme Court heard the challenge to its unconstitutional law, filing yet another feeble attempt to potentially circumvent a ruling by the Court.
Meanwhile, Bearing Arms recently reported the U.S. Virgin Islands, has adopted “a massive gun control bill,” even as the U.S. territory is already facing a lawsuit challenging existing policy relating to the issuance of their gun permits.
In December of last year, the Second Amendment Section of the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ announced its intent to sue the Virgin Islands Police Department for “an unconstitutional permitting process” in the V.I. As part of that announcement, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who’s in charge of the Civil Rights Division and created its Second Amendment Section, was quoted in a release, stating . . .
The newly-established Second Amendment Section filed this lawsuit to bring the Virgin Islands Police Department back into legal compliance by ensuring that applicants receive timely decisions without unconstitutional obstruction.
So, similar to other anti-gun jurisdictions, the most virulently anti-gun operators in the V.I. responded to being told they were doing something wrong…by doubling down on the wrongness.
Bearing Arms describes the VI effort as an attempt to moot the lawsuit challenging the permit issuing process, a procedure Hawaii should have probably considered in light of the hard questions its counsel faced during the Supreme Court hearing on its initial attempt to circumvent Bruen.
But along with the apparent attempt to moot the suit regarding carry permit issuing in the island territory, Bearing Arms reports there’s also language seeking to impose bans on popular semi-automatic firearms and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds, as well as adding restrictions on where permit holders may lawfully carry firearms for self-defense—the so-called “sensitive place” restrictions on carry that jurisdictions like New Jersey and New York implemented that led to their laws being challenged in court.
Similarly, semi-auto and magazine bans are also being challenged by Harmeet Dhillon’s team of attorneys, most notably in Denver, Colo., and Washington, D.C.
So, as with others, the V.I. appears to be thumbing its nose at the Second Amendment and the Trump administration by doubling down on anti-gun efforts when told they are already doing something unconstitutional. Disappointing, but hardly surprising.
We will be sure to continue to post updates on these cases, as well as what we presume will be other cases coming out of other anti-gun government agencies at the state, local, or territorial level.
Like All Gun Control Measures, 3D Censorware Mandates Are Doomed to Fail.
The Assn. of 3D Printing supports the legislation in New York and California, but “it’s not going to work,” [Chairman Bill] Decker said. “It’s more of a political statement than anything else.”
Criminals still will come up with ways to make guns from 3-D printers, either by altering their designs or taking their printing projects elsewhere, Decker said.
The more aggressive the technology becomes, the more likely that it also blocks unintended items, said Rory Mir, director of open access and technology community engagement at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group. Some harmless pipes might look like gun parts, or an S-shaped wall hanger might resemble an auto sear trigger used to modify a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun.
“These sort of censorship algorithms don’t work, and they wind up capturing and blocking a lot of lawful speech,” Mir said.
If print instructions are submitted for a cloud-based artificial intelligence search, it also risks the privacy of people’s artistic and proprietary creations, Mir said.
— David A. Lieb in In California and New York, a push to take aim at guns made with 3-D printers
Another Day, Another Reason ‘Public Safety’ Arguments for Gun Control Fall Flat
As Cam noted earlier this week, the Second Amendment Foundation is suing the sheriff in Contra Costa, California, over some rather bizarre concealed carry rules.
In particular, he will not issue a permit for any firearm that has a red dot sight or a flashlight, as well as any single-action only firearm. While I vehemently disagree with his position on SAO firearms, one can almost see the argument there. After all, single-action handguns have to be carried cocked and locked, which makes a lot of people nervous. It’s a non-issue, though, but I also understand many people don’t realize it. Still, we don’t base our rights around what makes other people scared, so it’s still a non-starter.
But the other things are a big issue in and of themselves, and it’s part of something I’ve noticed for a while with anti-gunners. Despite their claims about wanting to keep the public safe, they actively attack things that help keep the public safe.
Even if you think gun control works, most anti-gunners will still say the right to self-defense exists. They can’t afford not to, granted, but that right is there, has been affirmed by the courts numerous times, and that means we have a right to use a firearm in self-defense.
Now, let’s think about the sheriff in Contra Costa for a moment.
Red dot sights make it faster for someone to get a weapon on target and help to increase accuracy, particularly during high-stress situations. That means the rounds go where they’re meant to go, preferably into the bad guy and not someone standing off to the side who isn’t part of anything except, maybe, trying to be a good witness on your behalf.
Flashlights on a weapon are beneficial for properly identifying your target in a dark alley or parking lot. They help people make sure there’s actually a threat to their life by helping them identify the weapon as, you know, an actual weapon. They help to make sure the person you’re pointing the gun at is someone who needs a gun pointed at them, rather than someone else who popped up at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Both of these things are almost as common as oxygen in this day and age, and many firearms are built around them being added rather easily, and that’s assuming the gun didn’t come with the red dot from the factory. Moreover, they help make sure the good guys don’t shoot someone who doesn’t deserve it.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, we’ve got New Jersey.
For all the state’s many sins against the Second Amendment, the one that stands out for our purposes here is its ban on hollow-point ammo. While it’s sometimes framed as expanding so as to cause more damage to the person being shot, the reality is that hollow points are in my gun because they have less of a chance of overpenetrating my target and hitting someone or something else that doesn’t need shooting.
Yes, I should pay attention to both my target and what’s beyond it, but if lives are on the line, I can’t guarantee I’m going to get everything right. Police departments use hollow points for the same reason I do, so that officers don’t end up shooting through bad guys and into bystanders.
New Jersey, though, has banned them and is very strict on the subject, even prosecuting people who came in from out of state with them in their firearms.
From red dots to hollow points, the items that make it so the general public is safer in self-defense situations are treated like they’re somehow making guns less safe for that public. There’s no evidence of any of it, but they scare someone somewhere, so screw our rights because it makes someone nervous.
Why, if I were more cynical, I’d swear that the reason they do this is because they want innocent people to get shot, all so they can demonize self-defense even more than they already have.
But they wouldn’t do that, now, would they?
Texas: Pro-Gun Rhetoric vs. the Reality of Lingering Restrictions
Texas has long positioned itself as a bastion of Second Amendment freedom. With its deep gun culture, cowboy heritage, and constitutional carry law enacted in 2021, the Lone Star State projects an image of unapologetic support for the right to keep and bear arms. Politicians often tout Texas as a model for the rest of the nation, where law-abiding citizens can carry without government permission. Yet, a closer examination of its statutes reveals a more nuanced, eye-opening picture.
Truth is, Texas does not even rank in the top 10 of the most pro-Second Amendment states in various assessments, precisely because its legal framework is still riddled with technical requirements that are problematic for responsible gun owners.
Recent events have brought this tension into sharp focus. The arrest of NBA star James Harden in Houston exemplifies how Texas’s vaunted permitless carry law falls short of the “shall not be infringed” ideal in practice. On June 13, 2026, police pulled over Harden during a traffic stop in downtown Houston. Officers spotted a handgun resting openly in the vehicle’s cup holder. Harden acknowledged ownership, but the firearm was not secured in a holster. He was arrested and charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon, a Class A misdemeanor.
This incident ignited widespread discussion on social media. Gun owners across platforms questioned the logic: In a “constitutional carry” state, why does a loose gun in one’s own car trigger criminal charges? The answer lies in the specifics of Texas Penal Code §46.02. While permit-less carry allows eligible adults (generally 21 and older, not otherwise prohibited) to carry handguns openly or concealed without a License to Carry (LTC), open carry of a handgun requires it to be in a holster if visible. This applies in public places and explicitly in motor vehicles. A handgun in plain view, such as in a cup holder, on a seat, or in a door pocket, must be holstered for lawful open carry. Concealed carry avoids the holster mandate, but visibility changes the rules.
Texas law does not define “holster” in exhaustive detail, but courts and enforcement interpret it as a device designed to secure the firearm to the person or vehicle in a manner that prevents it from being loose, ultimately the decision on what is considered “secure in a holster” is arbitrary and based on the opinion of law-enforcement officers. Even magnetic mounts or simply placing the gun in a safe direction often fails this test. The result is a technical violation that hands law enforcement and prosecutors a tool to charge individuals based on placement rather than any demonstrated threat or criminal intent. Harden was released on a low bond, and such cases often resolve with minimal consequences for first-time, law-abiding offenders. But the principle stays troubling.
This holster requirement for visible handguns in vehicles is not a minor footnote. It stems from pre-2021 laws and survived the push for constitutional carry. Before HB 1927, open carry was more restricted. The 2021 reform expanded rights by removing the permit requirement for holstered carry, but it preserved the holster mandate for anything visible. Proponents argue this balances public safety and open carry; critics see it as a half-measure that supports unnecessary government micromanagement of how citizens exercise a fundamental right. Compare this to states with stronger reputations for minimal interference. In places like Arizona, Vermont, or Alaska, often ranked higher for gun freedom, carry laws emphasize simplicity.
Many true “constitutional carry” areas impose fewer conditions on vehicle transport or visible carry, focusing prohibitions on prohibited persons, sensitive places, or reckless behavior rather than technical securing requirements. Texas’s more extensive statutes, including detailed rules on display in vehicles and watercraft, contribute to its absence from many top 10lists of gun-friendly states. Strong culture and pro-2A politicians are assets, but layered regulations undermine the claim of maximal liberty.
Defenders of Texas law point to progress. “Constitutional carry” was a significant victory after years of advocacy. Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine provide strong self-defense protection. Long guns enjoy broader open carry freedoms, and there are no statewide registration or permit mandates for ownership. Yet, the persistence of rules like the vehicle holster requirement reveals a reluctance to fully embrace the simplicity that “shall not be infringed” demands. In truly elite pro-2A environments, the default is liberty, with narrow, clearly justified exceptions. Technical gotchas erode trust and create opportunities for selective enforcement.
Social media reactions to the Harden case highlighted broader frustrations, with gun rights advocates noting the irony; a state that mocks “gun control” states for overregulation still gives officers discretion over cup holder placement. Others emphasized personal responsibility, secure your firearm properly, but the core complaint is philosophical. Why should law-abiding adults need to navigate such details in their private vehicle? This isn’t about celebrity exceptions; it’s about consistent principles. If the goal is empowering citizens as their own protectors, especially in rural areas with slow response times or urban settings with variable policing, laws should minimize friction for the compliant majority.
Broader Texas gun laws add context. Prohibited places are still extensive: schools, polling places, certain government buildings, and private property with proper signage. Age restrictions (with some court challenges for 18–20-year-olds) and disqualifiers for certain misdemeanors persist. While these exist nationwide, they illustrate that Texas has not purged all pre-existing controls. Extensive statutory language around carry modes creates gray areas that defense attorneys and instructors must constantly clarify. Firearms trainers often dedicate time to vehicle-specific scenarios precisely because of these nuances. Critics from the gun control proponents use such incidents to argue thatpermit-less carry is reckless, but that misses the point. Partial reforms invite exactly the kind of “gotcha” enforcement that undermines public confidence.
True Second Amendment maximalism would prioritize clear, minimal rules focused on prohibiting the dangerous rather than regulating the method of carry for the responsible. Texas has a vibrant gun culture and elected leaders who claim to champion 2A causes. Events like the Harden arrest, however, serve as teachable moments. They spark necessary debates about whether statutes truly reflect the state’s professed values. Gun owners should push legislators for further simplification: clearer definitions, broader allowances for vehicles without technical traps, and a continued emphasis on intent over form. Strong culture is vital, but when law still equips prosecutors with tools to penalize technicalities absent criminal mindset, it undercuts the promise of constitutional carry.
The Second Amendment is not a suggestion or a privilege granted by the state. It is an inalienable right. Texas has advanced farther than many states, but genuine unencumbered recognition is still lacking. Incidents like this remind us that rhetoric must align with reality, and that vigilance from the gun community is essential to close the gaps between profession and practice. For a state that prides itself on independence and self-reliance, settling for “mostly pro-2A” should be unacceptable.
The goal must be straightforward defense of the Second Amendment. Anything less is infringement.
Democrats Want Taxpayers to Fund Gun Control Advocacy Through the CDC.
U.S. Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-N.C.) introduced legislation that would put the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in charge of creating a publicly accessible federal database of “gun violence prevention” research.
The Gun Violence Prevention and Public Safety Database Act of 2026, listed as H.R. 9274, would direct CDC to build and maintain an online database of research related to “gun violence” and public safety. It would also authorize $5 million in taxpayer money each fiscal year from 2026 through 2030 to carry out this goal.
That isn’t neutral housekeeping. It’s a taxpayer-funded effort to create a federal clearinghouse for a gun control agenda that begins with a goal — create more restrictions on law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights — then searches for the “right” data to justify it.
Don’t be shocked that we’re extremely skeptical of this scheme. Just look at the track record.
A Federal Stamp for Gun Control Research
Rep. Foushee’s bill would require CDC to include research from federal public health data systems, peer-reviewed journals, research organizations and information issued or commissioned by federal, state or local government agencies. It would also require CDC to publish inclusion criteria and update the database every six months.
That gives federal officials broad discretion to decide what research is elevated, what receives the implied credibility of a CDC platform and what lawmakers, media outlets and gun control activists will later cite as “the science.”
But, as we’ve seen over and over and over again, “gun violence prevention” isn’t a neutral phrase for a sizeable contingent in Washington, D.C. It is the preferred branding of gun control groups and activists to promote bans on commonly owned firearms, magazine limits, waiting periods, firearm retailer liability schemes, firearm purchase delays and government-funded programs that target the lawful firearm industry instead of violent criminals.
Go figure that Rep. Foushee’s own announcement says the bill is endorsed by Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Safe States Alliance. That’s not incidental, that’s the point.
Gun Stores Slap Lawsuit On Jared Polis Over Warrantless Transaction Searches
An alliance of firearms dealers and Second Amendment advocates sued Democratic Colorado Gov. Jared Polis over a law authorizing warrantless searches of gun sales records.
Polis signed HB26-1126, which allows any “peace officer” to inspect the sales records of any gun store without a warrant at any time and for any reason, on June 2. The lawsuit filed by the Colorado Shooting Sports Association (CSSA), the Colorado Federal Firearms Licensees Association (CFFLA) on behalf of three federal firearms licensees (FFL) challenges the warrantless inspection provisions of the bill on Fourth Amendment grounds.
“The statute provides no notice of regularity, empowers an overbroad class of inspectors with no nexus to firearms regulation, imposes no temporal or frequency limitations, and places no restrictions on the manner of inspections,” the complaint says regarding the law, which takes effect on Jan. 1, 2027.
Today we announced the filing of a federal lawsuit against House Bill 26-1126. This bill allows government agents to walk into gun stores and obtain the records of law-abiding citizens without a warrant, probable cause, or even a stated reason.
CSSA warned @GovofCO that signing… pic.twitter.com/EiME6krMqH
— Colorado State Shooting Association (@CSSA1926) June 13, 2026
“The contrast with the federal firearms-inspection framework could not be starker,” the complaint continues. “Under 18 U.S.C. § 923(g), compliance inspections of federally licensed firearms dealers may be conducted only by the U.S. Attorney General’s designated agents (in practice, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives), only during business hours, and no more than once in any 12-month period, absent meeting narrow statutory exceptions.”
CSSA, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation, announced their lawsuit at a Friday event, noting the bill says gun dealers who do not cooperate face a misdemeanor charge.
“Criminals do not follow gun laws. They never have and never will,” CSSA Director of Operations Daniel Fenelson, who described himself as a “school shooting survivor,” said. “They steal firearms, obtain them on the black market and use other illegal means to obtain these weapons.”
“Not a single piece of gun control legislation passed through and by Bloomberg shill Tom Sullivan here in State Senate District 27 ever protected any Coloradans,” Fenelson continued.
Colorado is already being sued by the Second Amendment Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice over its ban on standard-capacity magazines holding more than 15 rounds. The DOJ also is challenging a ban on modern semiautomatic firearms imposed by the city of Denver.
Polis did not respond to a request for comment from the DCNF.
SAF Backing Former Virginia AG’s Challenge to State’s New ‘Assault Firearms’ Ban.
The Second Amendment Foundation has agreed to help support former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a challenge to the state’s newly passed “assault weapons” ban.
In May, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed into law a ban on so-called “assault firearms” declaring that “…any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.” The law further defines an “assault firearm” as a semiautomatic rifle chambered in any caliber besides .22 rimfire or one that contains a litany of common features. The law also bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition and goes into effect on July 1.
“Unlike other lawsuits filed challenging this ‘assault weapons’ ban, this case is unique in that plaintiffs are arguing they have the right to buy the banned arms to preserve their ability to function as the militia that is preserved under the Virginia constitution’s Militia Clause,” Cuccinelli said. “Most other cases are making Heller-like arguments, and we feel this case is a good vehicle to ensure this unconstitutional ban is looked at by the court from every angle.”
Virginia’s Militia Clause treats the militia as including any able-bodied person within a specified age range who is not already part of an organized militia. The newly passed assault weapons ban runs afoul of the Militia Clause because it prevents members of the militia from acquiring the arms necessary for their militia service.
“While SAF is already a named plaintiff in our own federal Second Amendment challenge McDonald v. Katz, we felt it important to support this unique lawsuit,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “When it comes to vindicating the rights of our members, we will pursue every viable legal option. We are thrilled to have been given the opportunity to support this state court challenge with Mr. Cuccinelli and think it complements our ongoing federal challenge very nicely.”
As noted in the compliant, “The General Assembly cannot…prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.” Joining SAF in Curtis v. Katz are Bob’s Gun Store, Mike Wood, Dustin Curtis and Daniel Hinkson. Cuccinelli is the attorney of record for the lawsuit. “We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again – Virginia lawmakers outright lied to their constituency when they said these new laws aren’t bans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we’ve seen in the news lately, numerous county prosecutors across Virginia have publicly stated they will not enforce this new ‘assault weapons’ ban. When the people who enforce the laws are refusing do so it should be a wakeup call for lawmakers that they passed an unconstitutional law.”
What a graphic example for “Carry Spare Ammo, People!”
Massachusetts Gun Laws Interfered With Armed Citizen’s Response to Mass Shooting
If Massachusetts gun laws worked as advertised, a convicted felon never would have been able to get his hands on a banned firearm and open fire on motorists driving down Cambridge’s busy Memorial Drive last month.
As we all saw, those laws failed to stop a prohibited person from accessing a prohibited firearm. They did, however, impede the armed citizen who helped put an end to the shooting alongside a Massachusetts state trooper.
How many times have we heard anti-gunners proclaim that “nobody needs 20 rounds to shoot a deer” or some such nonsense?
The reality is that when faced with a threat to human life, we need as many rounds as it takes to neutralize that threat. In Massachusetts, though, you get ten rounds per magazine at best.
Tyler Brown, the man accused of the shooting spree on Memorial Drive, allegedly fired about 60 rounds from the BCI Defense Model FF-15 he illegally possessed. The armed citizen who helped stop that shooting spree had just eight rounds for his Glock handgun.
“The witness is an experienced firearm ower with a license to carry, as he is an ex-Marine and used to be a firearm instructor,” the criminal complaint says.
The civilian said he saw a man with a long rifle, which he believeed looked like an AK-47, on foot in front of his vehicle. The civilian had a Glock 9mm pistol in a safe in the backseat of his vehicle, and retrieved it while covering himself. The former Marine said he fired all eight rounds from his gun and then moved to a tree for cover, telling other people to get back. he said he heard sirens, so he put his gun on the ground away from him.
The civilian said he heard two different calibers of gunfire going off, which he believed to be coming from a trooper and the suspect. He heard the shooter yelling something, but did not remember what is was, and he said the shooter eventually fell to the ground. Troopers rendered medical aid, and Brown was taken to Beth Israel Hospital.
As Swearer noted in a follow-up post on X, “once again the lesson is that while most incidents of armed self-defense don’t (strictly speaking) *require* the victim to fire more than 10 rounds, when the outliers occur, they are precisely the types of armed confrontations in which more than 10 rounds can make all the difference between life or death.”
Anti-gun activists can argue all they want that the “average” defensive gun use requires less than ten rounds, but they can’t guarantee that any of us will ever face an “average” situation where we need to use our firearm to protect ourselves or others. Most of us won’t ever pull the trigger of one of our guns in self-defense, but some of us will find ourselves in a situation where ten rounds simply isn’t enough.
That was the case in Cambridge, Massachusetts last month. Thankfully, the state trooper (who is exempt from the state’s ban on “large capacity” magazines) was able to return fire as well, and the two individuals shooting back at the assailant were able to stop his random attack. We can’t count on a cop rushing in to save the day, though… and in Massachusetts you can’t count on having a magazine large enough to help you survive an encounter with a violent predator who ignored the state’s restrictive gun laws and armed himself anyway.
“Stupid, Stupid, Stupid”: Justice Department Memo Further Tarnishes Record of Merrick Garland
Internal emails were uncovered recently that cast a new, negative light on Attorney General Merrick Garland’s record in targeting parents over school board controversies. The communications show that various Justice officials raised alarms over the effort pushed by Democratic allies and the National Association for School Boards. Career officials condemned the Biden Administration proposal by objecting that “If they do this, they might as well rename the damn thing the Anti-MAGA Task Force.”
As parents organized against COVID and woke policies being implemented by school boards, Democratic allies and the National Association for School Boards called upon the Biden Administration to crack down. Garland agreed and implemented a plan detailed in an October 2021 memo to treat these parents as engaged in potential “domestic terrorism.”
There was public outrage, but Garland defended the action, declaring “The obligation of the Justice Department is to protect the American people against violence and threats of violence and that particularly includes public officials.”
As the outcry grew, the Biden Administration was forced into a retreat and an apology:
“On behalf of NSBA, we regret and apologize for the letter. There was no justification for some of the language included in the letter. We should have had a better process in place to allow for consultation on a communication of this significance. We apologize also for the strain and stress this situation has caused you and your organizations.”
We now know that rank-and-file officials opposed the effort, but decided to go forward anyway. The Justice Department in October 2021 issued a memo to coordinate a response to what it described as an “increase in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against school board members, teachers and workers in our nation’s public schools” by parents.
Virginia Gun Ban Lawsuit Argues Banned Arms Are Militia Arms
While four Second Amendment-based cases challenging Virginia’s semiautomatic gun and magazine ban are on hold pending a decision by a three-judge panel on whether they should be consolidated, another case, taking a different approach, is still “scheduled to be argued next Wednesday, June 17th at 9am,” Counsel for Plaintiffs Kenneth T. Cuccinelli stated in a June 10 “Non-client specific case update” email.
The Curtis v. Katz complaint, filed in the Circuit Court of the County of Spotsylvania, asks for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against SB 749 / HB 217 because the “ban provisions of the Act violate the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia.”
That’s where the important difference from the other challenges comes in:
“Plaintiffs challenge these prohibitions solely under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. They do not rest their case on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor on the individual right to keep and bear arms also embodied in Article I, Section 13.
Their argument is simpler and more fundamental: the militia clause guarantees the existence of a “well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” That guarantee is self-executing.
It necessarily presupposes that the body of the people may acquire and possess the arms with which they must be trained. The General Assembly cannot, consistent with that guarantee, prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.”
Simply put, as noted in the Statement of Facts, “The weapons banned by the act are the arms of the citizen militia.”
Along with the update email came a welcome bonus.
“The Commonwealth Attorney Defendant in our case, Ryan Mehaffey, filed a blockbuster brief in our case arguing that WE should get our preliminary injunction,” Cuccinelli informed. “It’s a good piece of work and a very pleasant surprise. I’ve attached it for your reading pleasure (merged in the embed below).
While Mehaffey was named in the complaint because he is the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Spotsylvania County, it should be noted he is one of the brave Virginia prosecutors who has gone on record saying he will not enforce the ban. (While his brief is, indeed, “a good piece of work” his contention that “a sawed off shotgun is not protected because it does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” is historically arguable, as is what some of us might see as overreliance on limiting small arms to those that “are lawfully in common use today,” which suggests bans on machineguns and limiting developing technologies to the standing army would be consistent with Founding intent instead of potentially rendering the Second Amendment moot. That said, the brunt of Mehaffey’s brief is outstanding and educational.)
“I will let you all know if I hear anything about consolidation or our case schedule,” Cuccinelli advised his email recipients. “If you don’t hear from me, that means we’re still on the schedule above.”
The Problem with California’s Proposed Training Requirement for Gun Purchases
The first bit of advice any new gun owner is likely to receive is that they should go out and seek training on how to handle their firearm safely. It’s not about tactical excellence or anything like that; it’s about making sure they don’t hurt themselves or someone else because they didn’t know what they were doing with the weapon in their hands. That’s avoidable, and we absolutely should continue to tell people to get proper training.
But, as with most things involving firearms, there’s a difference between good advice and the government deciding to mandate something.
There’s a bill under consideration in California that would mandate training prior to gun purchases.
Buying a gun in California could soon require more than passing a written test.
State lawmakers are advancing a bill, Senate Bill 948, that would require firearm buyers to complete a four-hour safety training course, including live-fire exercises at a shooting range.
California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Before buying a firearm, gun owners must pass a written safety test to obtain a firearm safety certificate.
Luis Lopez, a new gun owner, said the proposed law would add another hurdle for people trying to legally purchase a firearm.
“There’s more fees. When you purchase ammo, every year it’s a little bit more, so I feel like they’re just making it a little bit more difficult,” Lopez said.
He said the four-hour training requirement feels unnecessary.
“Those four hours to take that is just a countermeasure, just to make it harder for people to own a gun,” Lopez said.
Supporters argue more training could help prevent accidents involving children and inexperienced gun owners. State Sen. Jesse Arreguin, who is spearheading the bill, said California has strong gun safety laws but does not currently require firearm training for buyers.
“We have some of the strongest firearm safety laws in California, but unlike other states, including Maryland and Hawaii, we don’t have any requirements on training,” Arreguin said.
It would also require gun owners moving into the state to undergo the training course, too.
Now, the original plan was an eight-hour course, which has now been reduced, but that’s not really germane in and of itself. No, what’s germane are the issues with any training mandate handed down by a governmental authority.
First, owning a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. In no other case is it considered acceptable to mandate training prior to people exercising a right protected in the Constitution. You don’t have to undergo training or testing to become a member of the press. The state does not get to mandate a particular training course in order to become a member of the clergy. You don’t have to take a class in California before you can register to vote or to hold a protest.
Nowhere else is a right limited to those who have completed a state-required course of instruction.
Plus, does anyone not see how this could be abused? Right now, the bill calls for a four-hour class. Originally, it required eight hours. That tells me that this is being discussed not as the amount of time needed to convey a particular set of information, but based on how much of an inconvenience they figure they can get away with.
Once the state has mandated training, it’s trivial to increase the length of time that training should take. Both four- and eight-hour classes are inconvenient enough, but it’s still something most people can manage. They might have to take a day off from work to attend the class, but there’s a way to make it work. No, you shouldn’t have to, but it’s still possible.
So then it becomes 16 hours, then 32 hours, then 40, then 80. Then they put a live fire qualification in, where you have to hit a particular score at a particular range, only to raise the score and move the range backward until you’re having to hit something stupidly high at a farther range than you’ll ever actually need, all so they can limit who can buy a gun.
They haven’t banned anything new, and your right to own a gun still exists in theory, but because it’s not realistic for you to meet the qualifications, it’s been essentially stripped in practice.
“But Hawaii and Maryland haven’t done that.”
No, they haven’t done it yet. They haven’t done it because they don’t think they could get away with it. The fact of the matter is that if there’s a training mandate on the books, and it’s acceptable to have it, then where would the line be drawn between an acceptable level of training and too much?
Plus, again, it’s not something we mandate for any other right protected by the Constitution, so why would it ever be acceptable here? Unless, of course, one wants to concede that the Second Amendment really is a second-class right.
Do that, though, and I’ll tell you to show your work that it was intended to be any such thing.
Many Police agencies have never liked the idea that people can and will -legally- take matters into their own hands
Des Moines Police Issue Bizarre Warning After Self-Defense Shooting
It’s not uncommon for police or sheriffs to issue a warning after a defensive gun use in their communities, but generally they’re admonishing criminals to be aware of the fact that armed citizens have the right to protect themselves.
In a twist, the Des Moines, Iowa police department is warning legal gun carriers after a shooting near a park in Des Moines, Iowa last month that’s been deemed to be a justifiable use of force on the part of an armed citizen.
In that incident, a group of individuals tried to rob a 22-year-old of his belongings, including a gun he was carrying. Little did they know that the armed citizen, who was sitting in his car when he was confronted by the group, had a backup gun on him, and the armed citizen shot and killed one of his attackers in self-defense.
Though the 22-year-old isn’t facing any charges, the Des Moines police appears to be using this as an excuse to chastise those of us who exercise our right to bear arms on a regular basis.
Law enforcement officials explained that self-defense shootings, which are more commonly associated with police officers, are increasingly being seen among civilians.
“There’s been several changes in gun laws here in Iowa over the years. And the one thing that we’ve seen, the byproduct of that is there’s more guns out there,” said DMPD Sgt. Paul Parizek.
Since 2021, Iowa has been a constitutional carry state, allowing any law-abiding adult to carry a handgun without a permit.
Police emphasized that self-defense with a firearm is only justified under strict criteria. Deadly force can only be used if there is a reasonable assumption that one’s life or wellbeing is in immediate danger.
“Somebody can’t drive by and flip you off, and you can’t shoot them. That’s not a response for that. You can’t say I was scared they were going to get out of their car. There has to be a threat,” Parizek said.
Based on Parizek’s comments, folks might be left with the impression that gun owners carrying under Iowa’s permitless carry law are causing all kinds of problems, but that isn’t the case. Last year the city saw ten homicides, which was a 33% decrease compared to 2024. So far this year police have investigated at least eleven homicides, but we know that one of those cases has been deemed a justifiable use of deadly force, and there may be others as well.
We’re also now five years in to Iowa’s experience as a permitless carry state, so if the city does end up seeing a spike in homicides this year I doubt that the law will have anything to do with it. Crime analyst Jeff Asher’s Real Time Crime Index shows other cities in permitless carry states are seeing big declines in murders; with Houston, Fort Worth, Memphis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Birmingham, Cincinnati, and Jacksonville all down by more than 20% so far this year.
If the Des Moines PD wants to remind folks about when it’s appropriate and legally okay to use lethal force, so be it. Still, it’s bizarre to use a legally justified use of deadly force as the reason to do so. It would be far more appropriate to use this incident to warn would-be robbers in the city that they’re putting their lives at risk by engaging in violent crimes, but for some reason I can’t fathom, the DMPD seems more concerned about lawful gun owners than armed robbers.
The Push by Democrats to Ban One of the Commonly Owned Handguns in the US
Gun control advocates are trying a new tactic. Instead of trying to ban all handguns, some Democrat states are trying to ban one of the most commonly owned handguns – Glocks, which they claim can be easily converted into machine guns.
This week, Maryland’s Democrat Governor Wes Moore and Connecticut’s Democrat Governor Ned Lamont joined California by signing into law a ban on the manufacture, sale, purchase, and transfer of guns with a cruciform trigger bar. A cruciform trigger bar is a vital internal component of semi-automatic pistols—most notably Glock and Glock-style firearms. Named after its cross-like shape, it connects the trigger to the firing mechanism and plays a crucial role in the firearm’s safety and discharge sequence.
Legislatures in Illinois and New York are among the states actively considering bills to ban these firearms.
Lawsuits by the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation were immediately filed against Maryland’s new law. In landmark rulings starting with the District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protects “bearable arms” that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The Court specifically contrasted these with “dangerous and unusual” weapons, stating that outright bans on common-use firearms (such as handguns) are unconstitutional.
New Jersey is now in a discovery process to subpoena Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) across the state for records involving Glock pistol sales to New Jersey residents.
Under a 1986 federal law, it is already illegal for ordinary civilians to manufacture or convert a firearm into a machine gun. Twenty-six states have similar laws. There is no evidence that law- abiding gun owners are converting their handguns, and even the advocates for these laws focus on only the threat from criminal gangs. Indeed, all 43 murders in the 20 U.S. attacks involving “Glock switches” that the Crime Prevention Research Center—which I head—has identified since the beginning of 2021 occurred during gang fights.
Over 65 percent of police departments in the U.S. issue or authorize Glock handguns for officers. In 2025, Glock had three of the six most popular semi-automatic handguns sold in the United States, with Sig having two of the top six.
These states argue that Glock knowingly designed and marketed pistols that criminals can easily convert into illegal machine guns using so-called “Glock switches.” They contend that Glock has known about the problem for years, ignored repeated warnings from law enforcement, and still refused to redesign its pistols to make those conversions more difficult.
Glock rejects the claim that its pistols are uniquely or unusually easy to convert. The company argues that its semiautomatic operating system does not differ fundamentally from those used in many other modern semiautomatic pistols. Glock pistols use a fairly conventional short- recoil, locked-breech design common throughout the handgun industry. Glock also maintains that criminals—not the manufacturer—bear responsibility for illegally modifying firearms with already-prohibited conversion devices.
Moreover, a Glock switch creates a firing mechanism fundamentally different from that of a true, fully automatic machine gun. A military-style machine gun uses an integrated fire-control system specifically engineered for automatic fire. By contrast, a Glock switch disrupts the pistol’s existing trigger-bar and reset mechanism. The device forces the trigger bar out of engagement and causes the pistol’s short-recoil action to cycle uncontrollably. Once the trigger is pulled, the firing continues until the gun exhausts its ammunition.
That crude method creates serious reliability and safety problems. Because the switch bypasses the pistol’s normal timing and reset functions, the firearm can discharge before the slide and chamber fully close and lock. As a result, the modification creates a real risk of catastrophic malfunction, including damage to the firearm and potentially serious injury to the shooter.
Common damage includes a destroyed or blown-open magazine, cracked or split receiver or upper, damaged or missing bolt, firing pin, extractor, ejector, operating springs, and stock.
Flying brass shards or case fragments can slice skin (hands, arms, face, cheek) or embed in tissue. Real incidents include a shooter’s thumb being sliced open “like a box cutter” with powder burns, or brass embedding in a shoulder, causing bleeding. Fragments can strike the face or eyes.
But others besides the shooter can also be harmed. “The problem about that is when you pull the trigger, you can’t stop it, the gun, the bullets are going to go and what we’re seeing is young people and adults can’t control their gun. … ” warned Richland County, South Carolina Sheriff Leon Lott. “You may hit a lot of innocent people, you may even hit people that’s on your team because you can’t control that gun.”
These laws don’t target criminals who are already breaking federal and state laws by illegally owning and using guns, let alone using illegal conversion devices; the laws are targeting millions of law-abiding Americans who own one of the country’s most common handguns. If courts allow states to ban Glocks because criminals can illegally modify them, no semiautomatic firearm will be safe from the same argument. The real solution is to prosecute the gangs and criminals using Glock switches—not to outlaw firearms that police and citizens have relied on safely for decades.
Arkansas Court Delivers Win for the Right to Bear Arms
Arkansas’s firearm preemption law prohibits localities and political subdivisions from enacting any measures dealing with the ownership, transfer, transportation, carrying, or possession of firearms, ammunition for firearms, or components of firearms. Despite that, the city of Little Rock has prohibited lawful carry in all city-owned buildings… at least until now.
Law professor Robert Steinbuch believed the policy was a violation of state law, and decided to do something about it back in 2022.
“We saw this sign up that said nobody is allowed in with firearms,” Steinbuch said. “Including, critically, those that have the enhanced concealed carry license.”
Steinbuch felt that violated state law. So he, along with another attorney, decided to sue.
“Chris Corbett went up to the city hall and said to the security guard, ‘I have an enhanced concealed carry license- may I come in with my firearm?” Steinbuch described. “And they said no.”
After that, the lawsuit began.
And then dragged on, to the point that Steinbuch and Corbett appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court in the hopes of getting a new judge assigned to the case; one who wouldn’t drag their feet in issuing a ruling.
Coincidentally or not, the judge did finally issue an opinion last Friday, and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
“He issued the order in which we won,” Steinbuch said. “So four years later, on a matter that could have been decided three-and-a-half years earlier, finally, we got a decision.”
Judge Fox’s office didn’t return our request for comment on Tuesday.
However, his ruling shows clear agreement with Steinbuch on two points—the city’s policy violates Arkansas code, and the city must stop enforcing it immediately.
Steinbuch said he hadn’t yet confirmed how the city plans to follow this ruling.
Officials have indicated they’ll appeal the decision instead of taking down the “no guns allowed” signage, but if the judge issued an injunction halting enforcement of the carry ban then the city will have to ask to have that order stayed while the litigation continues.
The state’s firearm preemption law arguably should be enough to strike down the city’s policy, but the law regarding enhanced concealed carry permits makes is abundantly clear that Little Rock doesn’t have the authority to ban lawful carry in all city-owned buildings… at least for those with an enhanced carry license. The Arkansas Department of Public Safety website helpfully notes the areas where those with an enhanced permit can legally bear arms.
A.C.A. § 5-73-122 – Carrying a firearm in publicly owned buildings or facilities.
Exempted licensees with an Enhanced CHCL from the prohibition on carry and possession of a firearm in publicly owned buildings, facilities, and on State Capitol grounds, so long as the location is not a:
▪ Courtroom;
▪ Administrative hearing conducted by a state agency;
▪ Public school (K-12), public pre-K, or public daycare facility;
▪ Facility operated by the AR Division of Correction or Division of Community Correction; or
▪ “Posted firearm-sensitive area” located at the Arkansas State Hospital, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, or a collegiate athletic event
Given that language, I share Steinbuch’s frustration with the slow-walking of the lawsuit. There’s no legitimate reason why this litigation should have been dragged out for four years when the statute explicitly states that carrying in publicly owned buildings is allowed with a very few exceptions.
Based on that, there’s also no way that Little Rock is going to prevail in its appeal. Instead of doing the right thing, though, it looks like city officials are going to try to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. The appellate court should swiftly rule in favor of the plaintiffs here, and the courts should also reject any attempt by Little Rock to keep its “gun-free zones” in place while they drag out their doomed defense of the carry ban.
Gun Rights Groups Rush to Court After Maryland Bans Glocks
The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have filed a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s newly signed Glock ban.
The filing comes in immediate response to Gov. Wes Moore signing the bill into law earlier today.
The National Rifle Association of America, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the SAF filed the lawsuit targeting Maryland Gov. Wes Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, and Acting Superintendent of the Maryland State Police Michael Jackson.
2026 Nra Fpc 2af v Moore Complaint by scott.mcclallen
Gov. Moore signed into law Senate Bill 334, which states a person “…may not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a machine-gun convertible pistol.” It further defines a “machine gun convertible pistol” as a firearm that contains a cruciform trigger bar.
The ban activates on Jan. 1, 2027, when it will turn many law-abiding citizens into criminals for owning a basic pistol. The Democrats claim that this will somehow protect state residents from criminals.