…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.
Category: Goobermint
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.
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.