Goobermint – MILESFORTIS

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.

Continue reading “”

The Right They Keep Trying to Qualify

The Second Amendment is the most litigated right in the Constitution right now. That’s not because the doctrine is unclear. It’s because several states have decided the Supreme Court’s rulings are inconvenient and have organized their legislative calendars around working past them.

Three decisions settled the questions that mattered. Heller (2008) established an individual right to keep and bear arms. McDonald (2010) applied it to the states. Bruen (2022) replaced the interest-balancing framework lower courts had used to uphold almost every gun restriction with a historical-tradition test: regulations must be consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and the government bears the burden of proving they are. Those are the holdings. California, New York, and Illinois have spent the years since treating them as starting points for the next workaround.

I’m a Marine Corps OCS graduate with 30 years in institutional investment management. My son graduated from West Point and flies Army aircraft. My brother retired from Army Special Forces as a Green Beret. I’m also a Life Member of the NRA. My family has carried firearms professionally in service to this country. That’s the credential here.

Before Bruen, lower courts evaluated gun restrictions through a two-step interest-balancing test. At step two, courts routinely deferred to the government’s stated public safety interest, and most restrictions survived. Bruen eliminated that deference. Justice Thomas’s 6-3 majority required governments to identify historical analogues to their modern restrictions, regulations from the founding era or Reconstruction period that are relevantly similar in purpose and burden.

The state response wasn’t compliance. California passed new restrictions on carry in expanded ‘sensitive places,’ effectively rebuilding a near-total carry prohibition through categories Bruen had acknowledged as legitimate but hadn’t quantified. New York passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act days after Bruen was decided, adding dozens of sensitive places and a ‘good moral character’ requirement that functioned as the old discretionary system under a new name. Illinois added similar restrictions. Each law was designed to produce litigation, not to comply.

United States v. Rahimi (2024) gave the states some judicial support. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for an 8-1 majority that Bruen required only a “relevantly similar” historical regulation, not a historical twin. That’s a real qualification that gives regulators more room. It didn’t restore the pre-Bruen deference. The government still has to find historical analogues. Several of the state restrictions enacted after Bruen are still being litigated, and the outcomes aren’t certain.

One gap the Court’s decisions left is the patchwork problem, and it’s one Congress can close directly. A law-abiding gun owner with a valid concealed-carry permit from her home state may find that permit legally worthless the moment she crosses into a state that doesn’t recognize it. The constitutional right doesn’t change at the border. The state’s willingness to honor it does.

The National Constitutional Carry Act (H.R. 645) requires states to recognize valid carry permits issued by other states. The model is driver’s license reciprocity: every state recognizes every other state’s license to drive. No state demands re-licensure when a visitor crosses the border. No constitutional principle places the Second Amendment below the right to drive in the hierarchy of rights that interstate travelers can exercise. H.R. 645 applies the same common sense to a constitutional right that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court three times.

Polling on this question is consistent: support for carry reciprocity routinely exceeds 70% in surveys that cross party lines. The people most burdened by the current patchwork are law-abiding gun owners who travel, precisely the population least likely to be a public safety concern. The argument for H.R. 645 doesn’t require a particular view on gun policy. It requires only recognizing that a constitutional right the Court has repeatedly upheld deserves the same cross-state recognition we give to a driver’s license. We don’t make visitors from other states pass a new driving test. We shouldn’t make them surrender a constitutional right at the border either.

The Founders wrote the Second Amendment for citizens. My brother was a weapons Sergeant in Army Special Forces. My son carries one now as an Army aviator. Both of them took an oath to defend a Constitution that includes the rights they exercised as their profession. The civilian version of that right doesn’t need a cultural argument. Three Supreme Court decisions have supplied the constitutional one.

It’s worth stating clearly: the population most affected by the current patchwork isn’t the population any legislator is actually worried about. Permit holders went through background checks, paid fees, completed whatever training their state required, and carry legally because they’ve done everything asked of them. That population doesn’t become dangerous at a state line, and it wasn’t dangerous before it crossed one. The argument for H.R. 645 doesn’t require defending anyone’s right to break the law. It requires only that Congress treats a constitutionally protected right with the same cross-state respect we give to a driver’s license.

The question is whether the states that disagree with those decisions will eventually accept the answer, or whether they’ll spend the next decade generating litigation designed to look like compliance while achieving the same practical result as defiance.

FPC WIN: Second Circuit Strikes Down New York Public Handgun Carry Ban

What: The Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Christian v. James lawsuit that New York’s ban on firearms at all publicly accessible private property without the express consent of the owner (also known as the “vampire rule”) violates the Second Amendment. The court however also facially upheld the state’s ban on carry in public parks.

Who: FPC is joined in this case by FPC member Brett Christian and the Second Amendment Foundation. The plaintiffs are represented by David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom of Cooper and Kirk, PLLC, along with Nicolas J. Rotsko of Fluet.

When: The Court’s opinion was issued on May 18.2026. The case will now be sent back to the district court, which will issue a final order in this case.

Where: The opinion was issued by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which is based in New York City and covers Connecticut, New York, and Vermont.

New Jersey’s Demand for Gun Store Sales Records is an Unconstitutional Attack on Gun Owner Privacy

The Attorney General of New Jersey has sent subpoenas to gun dealers in the state demanding production of customer records regarding sales of Glock pistols to New Jersey residents for the last ten years. The subpoenas are in connection to its lawsuit against Glock, Inc. under the state’s public nuisance law.

(NOTE: The claims in the state’s frivolous lawfare against Glock are not relevant to this particular article. But for context, the state is claiming the over 40-year-old design of the gun is too easy to illegally convert into a machine gun. Other states have filed similar lawsuits, and some like California have now banned the sale of Glocks, which are the most popular handguns in the country. These efforts are a way to coverup the failures of leadership in antigun states.) It is not immediately clear why New Jersey needs these records, given the state already maintains a de facto registry for handguns through its pistol permitting system. It could be that the Attorney General wants to make these records public, as under New Jersey law and in a small nod towards respecting privacy, firearm registration records are exempt from public disclosure under the state’s laws.

Regardless of the reasoning for the subpoenas, they are an unconstitutional attack on gun owner privacy. This article takes a brief look at this emerging issue in Second Amendment law to show why New Jersey’s actions are unconstitutional. It is adapted from prior amicus briefing the Second Amendment foundation has done on this issue.

Privacy in Firearms Ownership Has Always Been a Fundamental Component of the Second Amendment Right

Continue reading “”

NSSF Funds Lawsuit Against Virginia for Unconstitutional Firearm Bans

WASHINGTON, D.C. — NSSF^®, The Firearm Industry Trade Association, is funding a lawsuit filed today against the Commonwealth of Virginia for violating both the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution. Virginia’s expansive new law, HB 217 / SB 749, bans the sale and transfer of firearms that are expressly protected for private ownership by both the federal and state constitutions.

“Governor Abigail Spanberger, and the Virginia General Assembly, are grossly violating rights held by the citizens of the Commonwealth. The constitutions of the United States and the Commonwealth of Virginia expressly prohibit the government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms,” said Lawrence G. Keane, NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel. “Further, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized that firearms in common use are protected from radical gun control. Denying law-abiding citizens the ability to protect themselves with the firearms of their choosing does nothing to make Virginia safer. The only thing this unconstitutional law does is surrender the freedoms that the Founding Fathers, including Virginians George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison — who authored the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment — so wisely fought for and sought to protect to ensure freedom from tyranny.”

The NSSF-funded complaint, filed by Erick Black, Britton Condon, Clark’s Gun Shop, Inc., Optimus Arms, LLC and Hexmag USA, LLC, in Virginia’s Circuit Court of Fauquier County, details that HB 217 / SB 749 criminalizes not just the sale or transfer of commonly-owned Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) and standard capacity magazines, but also commonly owned handguns and shotguns Virginians regularly use for self-defense and hunting. The overly broad definitions of what is wrongfully defined as an “assault firearm” disenfranchise Virginians of their right to keep and bear arms, which are protected by the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment and Article I of the Virginia Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision held that firearms in common use are protected by the Second Amendment. That holding precludes bans on the legal sale of MSRs, which number over 32 million in circulation. Likewise, there are a conservatively estimated nearly 1 billion detachable magazines in private possession and hundreds of millions with a capacity exceeding 15 rounds. Many commonly owned pistols are equipped with 17-round magazines, which HB 217 / SB 749 now criminalizes. The law’s expansive definition of “assault firearm” wraps in many commonly owned semiautomatic shotguns and handguns, which will be unlawful to purchase or bear in Virginia.

Virginia’s HB 217 / SB 749 fails the Supreme Court’s Bruen “history and tradition” test, as there were no analogous laws banning the lawful acquisition or bearing of firearms at the Nation’s founding. In fact, it is well documented that rifles with a capacity greater than 15 rounds were available and possessed by Americans when the Second Amendment was adopted in 1791.

Additionally, because HB 217 / SB 749 bans rifles, pistols and shotguns commonly used for hunting, it violates Article XI, Section 4 of the Virginia Constitution.

Letter to the Editor in Connecticut Asks Question No One Seems Interested in Answering

Connecticut passed its Glock ban, which doesn’t just impact Glocks. They did it, as per usual, in the name of public safety, all while failing to ignore the facts that criminals aren’t supposed to have guns in the first place and that the full-auto switches are illegal to buy, own, or possess without very specific licenses that most people will never have.

They passed it just the same.

In Connecticut, though, one letter to the editor took issue with a bit of hate thrown at a state lawmaker because of a simple question that no one seems interested in answering.

I was disappointed to see criticism of Representative Mitch Bolinsky for voting against Connecticut’s proposed Glock ban. Whether someone supports or opposes gun control generally, this particular proposal deserves honest scrutiny.

Connecticut already has a 10-round magazine limit. Supporters of the bill argue the ban improves public safety because certain pistols could theoretically be converted to automatic fire with illegal aftermarket devices. But those conversion devices are already illegal under federal law, and automatic weapons themselves are already heavily prohibited.

The practical question is simple: how much additional safety is actually gained?

With a 10-round limit already in place, the difference in discharging 10 rounds between rapid semiautomatic fire and illegal automatic fire is often only a fraction of a second. Even supporters of the bill acknowledge the focus is largely on the possibility of illegal modification, not on the firearm’s normal lawful operation. Given Brandon Moore’s background as a West Point graduate, Army officer, combat veteran, and Apache pilot, one would expect an understanding of the technical distinction between lawful semiautomatic firearms and illegally converted automatic weapons, which makes the practical effectiveness of this proposal a fair subject for public debate.

Like it or not, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states that the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” People may disagree on how that should be interpreted, but constitutional rights are not supposed to be selectively respected only when politically convenient.

The practical question itself is an interesting one, because while we can all make the constitutional arguments in our sleep, most likely, the reality is that many people don’t really seem to understand that “shall not be infringed” means that our rights shall not be infringed at all. So, you need to frame commentary based on where people are, mentally, rather than rely purely on the (completely valid) constitutional arguments.

And here, the letter writer asks a simple question that it seems people are offended by it even being asked.

If Connecticut’s laws work as they are, then how much additional safety would be obtained by banning an entire category of handguns that might be illegally modified with a device that’s already illegal to buy, sell, or own?

If the magazine limits work, does the gun taking a half-second longer to empty a magazine actually matter in any appreciable way?

No? Then why ban the guns at all?

If you argue that the magazine ban isn’t respected by criminals, then I have to ask why you think they won’t get striker-fired handguns to modify just as easily?

Seriously, these bans are probably the most ridiculous bits of gun control I’ve ever seen, especially when Glock has actually tried to modify their design. Some people are just really good at finding ways around stuff like that.

Ruger Moves Corporate HQ from CT to Gun-Friendly North Carolina

Reports indicate that Ruger has shifted its headquarters from the state where it was founded to one more closely aligned with the Second Amendment.

Famously founded in 1949 in a small red barn in Southport, Connecticut, by William B. Ruger and Alexander McCormick Sturm, the now publicly traded firearms giant has moved its headquarters to Mayodan, North Carolina. The move, which was official in January, was confirmed by the Hartford Business Journal this week.

Ruger has long had a footprint in the Tar Heel State, with Bill Ruger attending the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, in the 1930s before he went to work for the U.S. arsenal at Springfield Armory in World War II. The company announced its 191,000 sq. ft. manufacturing plant at Mayodan in 2013. Since then, Ruger has added a 224,000 sq. ft. distribution center next to the plant, making Mayodan the largest of its operational hubs. When the company acquired Marlin Firearms in 2020, it moved the assets and assembly line from Huntsville, Alabama, to Mayodan.

Other Ruger plants include Newport, New Hampshire; Prescott, Arizona; Earth City, Missouri; and Hebron, Kentucky.

When it comes to gun rights, North Carolina doesn’t have permitless carry – although it has been approved in past legislative sessions – but the state does have a robust “shall-issue” concealed carry scheme with over 900,000 permits in circulation in 2025. Importantly, North Carolina does not have mandatory gun lock laws, a ban on “assault weapons,” or “red flag” gun seizure laws, all of which Connecticut residents suffer.

The Connecticut legislature is nearing a ban on Glock-style firearms this year, which would include the new and popular Ruger RXM. Connecticut has a state ban on binary triggers and bump stocks.

Further, Connecticut has a gun industry liability law that is somewhat at odds with the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, allowing controversial “predicate exception” lawsuits against gun industry members when it comes to the sale or marketing of firearms.

In terms of NFA items such as suppressors, machine guns, and short-barreled firearms, North Carolina had more than 252,000 registered in 2024, one of the highest totals in the country and nearly three times the number in Connecticut (93,297).

Although North Carolina has had a Democratic governor since 2017, he has been balanced by a majority-Republican legislature that has no sign of turning blue in the near future. Of North Carolina’s 14 members of Congress, 10 are from the GOP, as are both of its current U.S. Senators, Tom Tillis and Ted Budd. By comparison, all of Connecticut’s lawmakers on Capitol Hill in Washington are Dems, including some very rabid anti-gun champions such as Senators Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal.

Ruger isn’t the only gun company to leave Connecticut in recent years for more 2A climes, as Stag Arms moved to Cheyenne, Wyoming, while PTR Industries shifted to South Carolina. Mossberg, whose headquarters are in North Haven, Connecticut, makes most of its guns at a facility in Eagle Pass, Texas.

SAF FILES LAWSUIT CHALLENGING NEWLY PASSED ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN IN VIRGINIA

BELLEVUE, Wash. — May 14, 2026 — Following closely on the heels of Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signing new gun control legislation into law, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a lawsuit challenging the commonwealth’s new bans on “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines.

Gov. 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 such as a collapsing stock, pistol grip, threaded barrel or more. The law also bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition. The new laws go into effect on July 1.

“It’s wild that lawmakers who each take an oath to uphold the Constitution insist on passing bills purposefully designed to gut it,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The firearms and magazines banned in this law aren’t bizarre and unusual outliers, they’re among the most commonly owned guns and magazines in the country. They’re owned in the tens of millions by peaceable Americans who use them overwhelmingly lawfully. Virginia has now joined the minority of radical states to ban these constitutionally protected firearms, and in so doing, joined the club of states we’re suing over it.”

As noted in the complaint, “The firearms that Virginia bans as ‘assault firearms’ are, in all respects, ordinary semiautomatic firearms. To the extent they are different from other semiautomatic firearms, their distinguishing features make them safer and easier to use. Regardless of any new category of arms created by state lawmakers, they cannot be banned because they are not dangerous and unusual.” SAF is joined in McDonald v. Katz by the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens.

“Virginia lawmakers lied to their constituents and to themselves when they said these laws weren’t bans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A new sales and transfer ban is a ban that’s just one generation removed. On July 1, anyone turning 18 in Virginia will find out that the rights enjoyed by their predecessors don’t apply to them. These bans are an afront to the Constitution and an insult to the intelligence of Virginians who were fed lies and misrepresentations by their elected officials. We’re excited to fast track this case to the Supreme Court.”

New Jersey may have slipped up while defending its ammo ban

Attorneys for the state of New Jersey may have made a significant error while trying to fend off a Second Amendment challenge to the state’s ban on civilian possession of hollow-point ammunition in most circumstances.

The state prohibited civilians from carrying the rounds, which are almost universally used by law enforcement, in public as part of a 1978 overhaul of its criminal code, the only state to maintain such a restriction. In a lawsuit filed in February 2025 by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and other pro-Second Amendment organizations on behalf of Heidi Bergmann-Schoch in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, the groups sought to have that prohibition thrown out as a violation of the Second Amendment.

“New Jersey must show a broad and enduring historical tradition, circa 1791, denying Americans’ right to carry a firearm, loaded with ammunition used by all other Americans in other states, outside the home for self-defense,” the initial complaint said. “Because New Jersey cannot make such a showing, the challenged restrictions violate the Second Amendment.”

“By invoking the international law of war and the practices of the U.S. military, Defendants hoist themselves with their own petard,” a reply brief filed Thursday adds. “Defendants’ sources prove that HPBs do not cause ‘unnecessary suffering,’ nor are they restricted for use in warfare. Rather, HPBs were originally developed for hunting, and are widely used by military and police units, and tens of millions of American citizens – nationwide.”

Hollow-point ammunition has been widely used by law enforcement and civilians for personal protection and other lawful purposes for decades. In a 1994 video interview, Massad Ayoob, a police officer who was an expert witness in the use of lethal force in self-defense, explained why hollow-point rounds were preferred for personal protection.

“I think the history both of military battle and police gunfight shows us that hard ball round that is, jacketed round nose, for jacketed round nose round, the nine-millimeter is justly infamous as an impotent man stopper and the .45 [ACP] is justly famous as, eh, being a pretty good man stopper,” Ayoob said in the interview, going on to note that both rounds tended to “perforate” – that is to exit the body of the target and potentially harm bystanders.

Continue reading “”

Massachusetts Gun Laws No Match for Repeat, Violent Felon Who Targeted Boston-Area Drivers

It’s not easy to own a gun in Massachusetts, at least not legally. If you don’t mind breaking the law, though, it’s absurdly simple: steal a gun, buy a gun on the black market, have someone else buy a gun for you, or build your own, to name a few options.

Authorities still haven’t said how 46-year-old Tyler Brown got ahold of the gun he used to randomly fire at motorists on Cambridge’s busy Memorial Drive on Monday afternoon, but he did in clear violation of Massachusetts gun laws… and was aided by one of the state’s soft-on-crime judges.

Five years ago, Brown copped a plea deal after he engaged in a similar random shooting spree, firing more than a dozen rounds at responding officers. Brown was already on probation for a 2014 assault and batter with a dangerous weapon charge, and ended up pleading guilty to a number of charges for the 2020 shooting; including armed assault with intent to murder.

Despite his violent past and present, a judge sentenced Brown to just five-to-six years in prison. That’s about half the time prosecutors were asking for.

One of the officers involved in that 2020 attack wrote in a victim impact statement saying: “I am a firm believer that when Mr. Tyler Brown gets out, he will hurt, or worse, kill someone,” the officer said. “Probation apparently means nothing to Mr. Tyler Brown, nor does the value of life.”

Brown was still on probation when he opened fire at motorists on Monday, leading drivers to ditch their vehicles as they ran to find cover.

Gunman Tyler Brown allegedly fired 50 to 60 rounds indiscriminately from an assault-style rifle as he erratically walked down Memorial Drive in Cambridge around 1:20 p.m., Middlesex County District Attorney Marian Ryan said during a press conference.

At 1:06 p.m., Cambridge police received a 911 call from Boston police, who said an individual acting erratically and in possession of a rifle was in Cambridge, Ryan said.

Massachusetts State Police and Cambridge police arrived as Brown was actively firing down the road at stopped cars, authorities said.

According to Ryan, a Massachusetts State Police trooper was the first law enforcement officer to respond, and he was aided by an armed citizen; a yet-to-be-identified Marine who the D.A. says was licensed to carry a gun. The pair engaged Brown, who had already shot two people by that point, and were able to stop his attack with multiple shots of their own.

That’s right. None of the state’s draconian gun laws prevented this crime, but an armed citizen was able to stop it thanks to the fact that they were exercising their right to carry.

This should be a wakeup call to Massachusetts residents, if not the Democrat lawmakers who have complete control over the state legislature. Voters were promised that the state’s recent overhaul of its gun laws (which include brand new restrictions on “assault weapons,” new training mandates for would-be gun owners, and a host of restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms) would prevent incidents like this from ever taking place. Instead, we saw just how impotent those laws are when it comes to violent offenders… and the importance of being able to shoot back when a murderous madman is intent on gunning down innocent victims.

BLUF
The fact that self-defense matters less to some so-called Republicans than people’s rights is an extreme problem, and if it’s like that in Wyoming, where else do you think it’ll be like that?

What Wyoming’s Failure Says About Second Amendment Nationally

If you tell an anti-gunner that they see the Second Amendment as a second-class right, they’ll likely scoff at you. They’ll say that no right is absolute and that wanting a few restrictions isn’t the same thing as thinking it’s a second-class right.

Never mind that they would never tolerate the level of intrusions we see in the Second Amendment exist in the First. Want to require special licenses before starting a blog or Substack? You’re a monster! Want to require a permit before buying a gun? GENIUS!

So yeah, they see it that way, even if they won’t admit it.

But the truth is that Wyoming, a pro-gun state, actually sees it the same way to some degree, and that’s clear with their refusal to pass a recent bill that would be good for gun owners and all those who are forced to act in self-defense.

Continue reading “”

Pirro turned out to be a two faced liar

After Pirro’s Urging, D.C. Court of Appeals Grants Review of Decision Striking Down Magazine Ban

The D.C. Court of Appeals will re-litigate the District’s ban on magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, after a three-judge panel on the court ruled the ban unconstitutional.

A number of anti-gun attorneys general around the country submitted amicus briefs in support of the D.C. government’s request for a re-hearing, but the U.S. Attorney for D.C. raised some eyebrows when she too asked the court to grant the en banc request, even though her office hasn’t prosecuted violations of the magazine ban for more than six months.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s motion suggested that some capacity on magazine size might be constitutional, but Pirro was more concerned about the panel’s decision and its impact on D.C.’s gun registration law and ammunition restrictions. The panel threw out Tyree Benson’s charges for possessing a “large capacity” magazine, but also held that Benson could not have legally registered his handgun with the District because it was equipped with an illegal magazine, and tossed those charges as well.

The judge, however, gave D.C. a roadmap on how to enforce those statutes while keeping the magazine ban on ice, and the Metropolitan Police Department has taken those steps in order to keep enforcing the registration requirements. Pirro’s concerns were essentially moot by the time she asked the appellate court for an en banc review, but many Second Amendment advocates (including myself) were also critical of Pirro’s support for the gun registration and ammo restrictions to begin with.

Technically, the D.C Court of Appeals decision didn’t create a circuit court split because its a court of local jurisdiction, with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals serving as the federal appellate court for D.C. Still, the Benson case generated nationwide interest, and if the court had allowed the matter to rest with the panel’s decision intact, Benson would be cited in virtually every magazine ban case going forward.

The decision to take Benson en banc doesn’t guarantee that the full Court of Appeals will reverse the panel’s decision, but the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of reversal. Presumably, the court wouldn’t have granted the request unless the votes to reverse were already there.

As Moros says, now we’ll have to wait for the Third Circuit’s decision in ANJRPC v. Platkin to be released. That opinion, which could come out at any time, is expected to say New Jersey’s ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines violates the Second Amendment, which would create a legitimate circuit court split.

To be fair to Pirro, the D.C. Court of Appeals was probably already leaning towards granting the District’s en banc request even before she asked them to do so. Once she made it clear that she supported the District’s request, though, an en banc review was virtually guaranteed. At the very least it was an unforced error on the part of the U.S. Attorney, but given Pirro’s past statements and support for gun control laws (including bans on so-called assault weapons), it’s easy to understand why so many 2A supporters see her request as an outright betrayal of the DOJ’s professed support for and defense of the Second Amendment.

Gun Rights Group Files Brief To Rebut DOJ’s Misleading Arguments In NFA Challenge

Arguments by the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice for continuing the registration portion of the National Firearms Act (NFA) now that the tax has been eliminated have drawn the ire of a major gun-rights group.

Congress killed the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs) when it passed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill last summer. Gun-rights groups immediately filed a handful of lawsuits challenging the remainder of the NFA, and the DOJ is unexpectedly fighting those lawsuits, despite the administration’s promise to battle anti-Second Amendment laws.

In one of the cases, Brown v. ATF, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) recently filed a supplemental reply brief countering the federal government’s arguments in support of the NFA.

“This reply brief gave us the perfect opportunity to rebut the government’s arguments in support of the NFA,” Bill Sack, SAF director of legal operations, said in a news release announcing the filing. “We were encouraged the court requested targeted supplemental briefing that addressed key elements of the proper Second Amendment analysis. In our principle brief, we laid out in detail why the answer to every question posed supported our position. And now with this reply brief, we have driven home the point and dismantled each of the government’s arguments to the contrary.”

Continue reading “”

I figured the demoncrap would

Gov. Beshear vetoes bill seeking to lower age for concealed carry permit

FRANKFORT, Ky. —
A bill that would have lowered the age to obtain a concealed carry permit in Kentucky has been vetoed by Gov. Andy Beshear.

Beshear announced Thursday he vetoed House Bill 312.

The bill sought to lower the age to get a concealed carry permit from 21 to 18.

He vetoed it alongside House Bill 78, which sought to “establish liability protections for manufacturers and sellers of firearms against specified legal actions arising from criminal or unlawful use of firearms or ammunition.”

“Three years ago, a senseless act of gun violence took the life of my friend Tommy and four others. Tonight, at an event honoring Tommy and his impact, I vetoed House Bills 78 and 312,” Beshear wrote in a post on X. “While I believe in the second amendment, these pieces of legislation would allow minors under the age of 21 to carry concealed deadly weapons and protect firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability for gun violence. We must take steps to protect our people and allow them to seek justice for deadly acts like those families have suffered from. Vetoing these bills was the right thing to do.”

While Beshear vetoed the two bills, lawmakers can override them once they reconvene on April 14-15.

‘Gun Free’ Zones Herd Citizens Into Physical and Legal Danger.

Never mind the homelessness, drug use, and routine violence … according to Empire State politicians, New York City’s transit system is a “sensitive place.” As such, law-abiding gun owners are not allowed to carry a firearm for self-defense on trains or buses or in subway or train stations – lest they impose some semblance of order on the anarchic scene.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down New York’s discretionary carry licensing regime and made clear that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry outside the home for self-defense. In their opinion, the Court acknowledged that carry may be barred at some “sensitive places,” citing “schools and government buildings,” specifically, “legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses.”

Of course, whether banning firearms in these locations is sound policy is another matter. It’s NRA-ILA’s position that government can demonstrate a location is in fact a “sensitive place” by providing weapons screening at all ingress points and armed security to protect those inside.

Needless to say, none of the Court’s enumerated “places” was akin to public transit. And only a delinquent government, like New York’s, allows a city’s subway system to deteriorate into a place for vagrants to domicile and soil with human excrement, while citizens just trying to reach their destinations fear for their health and safety.

Despite the Court’s command, in the wake of the Bruen case an intransigent New York set about prohibiting firearms in all manner of what the state dubiously defined as “sensitive locations.”

Continue reading “”