Category: Goobermint

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 “”

Virginia gun bills take aim at the Constitution

As a Virginia resident and a longtime advocate for the Second Amendment, I’ve spent decades covering the gun debate from every angle. I’ve spoken with lawmakers, law enforcement officers, gun owners and crime victims. And I can tell you this: What happened in Richmond this legislative session was both unnecessary and unconstitutional.

Virginia is the home of James Madison, who boasted that, unlike the monarchs of Europe who were “afraid to trust the people with arms,” the United States recognized the inherent right of the people to keep and bear them. It’s through that lens that we should look at our current situation.

Politicians in Richmond have advanced one of the most sweeping gun control packages our commonwealth has seen in years. Clearly, they don’t understand what the words “keep and bear” in our Second Amendment actually mean. Those words mean “it’s ours, and you can’t take it.” Supporters claim these bills are necessary to make our communities safer. But recent feedback from actual Virginians tells a very different story.

According to a new survey of Virginia voters, 90% say the criminal is responsible for violent crime. A firearm being used in the commission of a crime is only a tool for the havoc they cause, whether it’s a hammer or a handgun. That distinction is crucial.

Public safety starts with prosecuting violent crimes and putting offenders in prison. Dreaming up new restrictions on law-abiding citizens who already follow the rules should play no part in it and is against every principle of American freedom.

In fact, 63% of Virginians say tougher sentencing and better enforcement of existing laws is the most effective way to reduce crime. Only 16% believe adding new gun regulations will make the biggest difference. That’s not close, and we shouldn’t tolerate these infringements from a moral standpoint or a constitutional one. We already have the necessary gun laws on the books; what we should do is actually enforce them.

Just look at Senate Bill 749, which now awaits Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s signature to become law. The bill would impose a broad and unconstitutional ban on a number of commonly owned guns under the politically loaded and vague label of “assault firearms” — a phrase that is completely meaningless. The result is that Virginians would no longer be able to purchase or transfer some of the most popular firearms in the country, and that’s just the first step towards prohibiting their possession too. Reclassifying and banning widely owned firearms based on arbitrary criteria does not disarm criminals. It penalizes peaceable citizens who have complied with every regulation already on the books. And voters know it.

Sixty percent of Virginians oppose an “assault weapons” ban. Strong majorities oppose gun-related taxes which disproportionately impact regular families. Pricing a constitutional right out of reach for working adults isn’t justice, and it’s not about public safety. It’s political retribution for exercising a right too many Democratic lawmakers find objectionable.

Pakistan says a new round of peace talks with Afghanistan is underway in China after deadly fighting Pakistan says a new round of peace talks with Afghanistan is underway in China after deadly fighting

There are also efforts underway to undermine federal law which protects lawful businesses such as family-owned gun ranges and firearm manufacturers. This is not what we want, and it’s not who we are. The right to self-defense is not a fringe idea. It’s a mainstream value deeply rooted in our constitutional tradition.

Public safety and constitutional liberty are not mutually exclusive. In fact, they go hand in hand. Violent crime is plunging across the country and commonwealth, while the number of guns in the hands of lawful owners is at an all-time high. Spanberger should veto these bills and work to keep Virginia safe and free instead of fruitlessly searching for security at the expense of our fundamental civil rights.

Cam Edwards of Farmville has covered the Second Amendment for 20 years as a broadcast and online journalist, and serves on the board of directors for the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

 

NSSF Calls Out Real Threat to Public Safety, and It’s Not Guns

To hear the urban elite tell it, the problem in our country is that there are just too many guns. We need to curtail that, to discourage people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, and make it so that only certain, approved parties have firearms lawfully.

It’s funny how they keep saying it despite the fact that we’ve got more gun ownership than ever before, more people carrying guns than ever before, and violent crime is down over the last few years. Weird.

Yet it is an unfortunate fact that horrible things do keep happening. There are bad people out there who want to hurt others.

And yeah, something needs to be done about them. As the NSSF’s Larry Keane recently pointed out, though, the problem isn’t lawful gun owners. It’s the people who refuse to prosecute those who provide guns unlawfully.

Continue reading “”

Petrolino Sues New Jersey State Police for Violating 1st and 2nd Amendments.

For decades the New Jersey State Police have maintained a “good ol’ boy” culture, according to one man who is trying to bring sunlight into the darkened corridors of police power. “I have a tremendous amount of respect for police, but they are not more special than you or me,” said New Jersey resident and SNW contributor, John Petrolino.  

Petrolino is a U.S. Merchant Marine Officer, author, board member of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, husband and father of a nine-year-old son.  

John Petrolino
New Jersey resident John Petrolino (Photo: John Petrolino)

Problems first began when Petrolino attempted to obtain a New Jersey carry permit. The four-month process cost him hundreds of dollars for the permit itself plus training and background-check fees and must be renewed every two years. “I have both First and Second Amendment permits,” he said Monday. “Don’t forget they make journalists get a New Jersey press card, too.” 

Petrolino became curious about the Second Amendment rights New Jersey residents have compared to those of retired state police officers, so he sent a series of three public records request to the state’s Attorney General and to the New Jersey State Police.  In one of his requests, he asked for the number of state carry permits obtained by retired police officers. 

His goal was simple. 

“I wanted to compare how retired police officers were treated versus civilians,” he said. “Are retired police officers having the same trends that civilians get? Is there the same potential bias in their denials? Is there favoritism?” 

The New Jersey State Police first asked for an extension, but then denied his request, claiming it was overly broad and that he asked for information that wasn’t an actual record. 

Petrolino emailed the state police records bureau, stating he did not understand why they were denying such a simple request. “They said they can’t make firearm information public,” he said. “Our next course of action was to sue the state.” 

Petrolino and his attorney filed a lawsuit in February. His first court date is next month. 

“The public deserves to know if there is some sort of perceived bias or preferential treatment going on here,” he said. “It needs to be exposed and talked about. It’s strictly a Sunshine issue. The New Jersey State Police have denied every single public records request I’ve made. Even the New Jersey AG’s Office has fulfilled my records requests, whereas the state police have never once returned a single one.”

Petrolino, a Second Amendment journalist, has made public records requests in other states, which have complied with his requests. “But for some reason, the New Jersey State Police do not want to give any records to the public,” he said. 

Regardless of the outcome, Petrolino said he has no plans to ever leave New Jersey and move to a free state.  “Someone has got to be here to fight or shut the lights off when it’s over,” he said. 

Cleared in Self-Defense, Charged for Carrying: Michigan Case Shows Why ‘Sensitive Places’ Fail

A licensed concealed carry holder in Michigan is now facing punishment not because prosecutors say he committed a crime in his defensive gun use, but because the state says he was armed in the wrong place when he needed that gun the most. That is exactly why so-called “sensitive places” laws remain one of the most dangerous and constitutionally suspect fronts in the post-Bruen Second Amendment fight.

According to Fox 2 Detroit’s reporting, Genesee County prosecutors determined that 23-year-old Christopher Gill acted in lawful self-defense after being attacked inside a restroom at Ballenger Fieldhouse on the campus of Mott Community College during a day of basketball games. Prosecutors say Gill was confronted by a group, restrained, and punched several times. During the assault, Gill managed to reach into his hoodie pocket, where he had a handgun, and fired one shot through the hoodie, striking Malik Zamir Henderson. Prosecutor David Leyton ruled the shooting was lawful self-defense.

Henderson was charged with gang membership, assault with intent to rob while unarmed, and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. Gill, by contrast, was not charged over the shooting itself. Instead, he was charged with carrying a concealed handgun in a sports arena, a Michigan law lists a “sports arena or stadium” among the places where a concealed pistol license holder may not carry concealed. For a first offense, Michigan law provides for a civil infraction, a fine of up to $500, and a six-month license suspension; state guidance also says the pistol is subject to immediate seizure if carried concealed in a prohibited area.

That split outcome should get the attention of every gun owner in America. The government’s position here is effectively this: yes, you were lawfully defending yourself against a violent assault, but you still should not have been armed when the attack happened because the legislature had already declared that location a “sensitive place.” That insane theory collapses the moment it meets real life. The danger to Gill did not disappear because he was inside an athletic facility. The criminal assault did not stop because the law supposedly made the venue special.

Continue reading “”

When a ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control Measure Depends on the Fantasy of Competent Government.

In a stunning admission, a Los Angeles County Superior Court has revealed that it failed to report hundreds of thousands of criminal case outcomes to the California Department of Justice—including roughly 147,000 felony convictions.

Let that sink in.

For four decades, criminal records simply weren’t entered into the background check system.

  • No alerts
  • No safeguards
  • No accountability

Just a broken government system quietly failing while politicians demanded…more gun control.

A System That Only Works If Everything Goes Right

Here’s the part they don’t want to talk about…the entire background check system depends on perfect data entry, flawless coordination, and bureaucratic competence at every level of government. And as this case proves—that’s a fantasy.

Because when records aren’t reported:

  • Felons slip through the cracks
  • Background checks return incomplete or inaccurate results
  • And the system politicians claim “keeps us safe” simply doesn’t work

Even federal officials admit the system only functions if it receives “complete, accurate, and timely information” from thousands of agencies nationwide. Clearly, that’s not happening.

The History They Don’t Want You to Know

The federal background check system—known as NICS—was created by the Brady Act in 1993 and went live in 1998.

Since then:

  • Hundreds of millions of background checks have been run.
  • Millions of Americans have been delayed or denied.
  • Tthe system still relies on error-prone government databases.

In fact:

  • Only about 1% of transactions are denied.
  • Many denials are later overturned on appeal.
  • Tens of thousands of justified denials occur each year, but only a tiny fraction are ever prosecuted.

So let’s be clear…this system overwhelmingly burdens law-abiding citizens while failing to consistently stop criminals.

The Real Purpose: A Backdoor Gun Registry

Continue reading “”

How SBRs and SBSs Got Trapped in the NFA’s 1934 Gun Control Scheme

The story of how short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) ended up regulated under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 is one of the clearest examples of unnecessary federal overreach, bureaucratic accident, and enduring infringement on Second Amendment rights. What began as a panicked response to 1930s gangster violence morphed into a permanent regulatory trap that punishes law-abiding Americans for owning common, useful firearms, configurations that have legitimate sporting, defensive, and historical purposes, while doing virtually nothing to stop actual crime.

In the early 1930s, America was gripped by sensational headlines about organized crime: the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre, Bonnie and Clyde’s exploits, and Al Capone’s Thompson submachine guns. Politicians and the media hyped “gangster weapons,” with sawed-off shotguns singled out as tools of the underworld. Attorney General Homer Cummings and the Justice Department pushed for federal action, but they knew an outright ban on firearms would likely violate the Second Amendment. Instead, they cleverly used Congress’s taxing power to create a de facto prohibition through heavy fees, registration, and paperwork.

The initial bill, H.R. 9066, was far broader than the bill that passed. It targeted machine guns, silencers, short-barreled shotguns and rifles (under 18 inches), handguns, pistols, and revolvers.

The $200 transfer tax (equivalent to roughly $4,800–$5,000 today) was designed to be prohibitive, pricing ordinary citizens out while supposedly tracking criminals. To close an obvious loophole, drafters added short-barreled rifles and shotguns: if handguns were taxed and registered, a criminal (or citizen) could simply buy a cheap rifle or shotgun and saw it down to handgun-like concealability, bypassing the rules entirely.

Continue reading “”

Trump’s ‘wishy-washy’ is him shooting off his mouth “NOO YAWK” style with the first thing that pops into his head. No, I don’t trust him, but he’s 10,000 times better than any demoncrap would be.

Trump’s Wishy-Washy Support of Second Amendment Drawing Mainstream Media Attention

President Donald Trump has, without a doubt, done more for gun rights than any prior administration, at least within my lifetime. Even the great Ronald Reagan managed to take us a step backward with the 1986 machine gun ban, so Trump has that going for him.

The problem, as I’ve already hinted at, is that the bar was so low, an amoeba couldn’t limbo under it even with the help of a shovel.

It didn’t really take all that much.

Which is why I can acknowledge where he stands in gun rights history and still have a problem with the wishy-washy nature of how the Department of Justice looks at gun rights.

The problem is that now, it’s not just us noticing. NBC News is seeing it, too.

WASHINGTON — Soon after President Donald Trump took office last year, he issued an executive order proclaiming his steadfast support for the right to bear arms, but a year later, gun rights advocates say the administration has failed to live up to his promises.

Even as the administration has challenged some state firearms laws, it is also defending long-standing federal gun restrictions in court, including one being considered by the Supreme Court on Monday. That case concerns whether users of illegal drugs can be barred from possessing guns.

Gun rights advocates who are challenging those laws say they are frustrated to see the Trump administration defending the restrictions.

“The Trump administration has been very good on gun rights issues that are coming up in the states. The same isn’t true at the federal level,” said Cody Wisniewski, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation.

While the federal government generally has a duty to defend federal law, there have historically been exceptions when the Justice Department concludes a particular measure is unconstitutional.

Wisniewski expressed some bafflement at the government’s strategy, adding: “I haven’t received an explanation.”

Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs at Gun Owners of America, similarly praised Trump for taking some actions to further gun rights, but criticized the Justice Department for a “very mixed record on the Second Amendment” overall.

Honestly, Johnston is putting it mildly, to say the least.

While I applaud every step the DOJ has taken to address state and local infringements on the right to keep and bear arms, they seem unwilling to look at any federal measure with a critical eye. In fact, every federal law has gotten a vigorous defense from the DOJ, regardless of how stupid it might be.

The latest is defending the law prohibiting marijuana users from owning guns.

The DOJ could go out today and shut down all the dispensaries throughout the country. They could end the idea of legalized marijuana usage on any level, at least outside of the medical field–the Department of Health and Human Services plays a role in where a drug is scheduled, after all–and put all of this to rest.

They haven’t and they won’t.

But they’ll allow it to be used openly for recreational purposes in several states and do nothing but defend the law prohibiting the right of those who do so to even own a firearm.

That’s the inconsistency that bothers me.

What’s more, though, is that while NBC News isn’t particularly trustworthy–it’s just part of the mainstream media, after all–the fact that they’ve seen this and are amplifying it means that some of those who like the Second Amendment but aren’t the die-hard pro-2A advocates are going to see how lukewarm the Trump administration really is on our gun rights.

Is this an artifact of Pam Bondi being in charge? She defended Florida’s post-Parkland gun control laws, after all, and we all know she didn’t have to.

So yeah, this could be a Bondi issue.

However, she still works for Trump. If he tells her to stop, she’ll either stop or be looking for work.

He hasn’t.

President Harry Truman had a plaque on his desk that said, “The buck stops here.”

That applies to any president. The buck stops in the Oval Office, which means even if Trump isn’t completely in favor of what Bondi is doing, he’s still ultimately responsible.

With the midterms coming up, Republicans need every vote they can get. Rallying Second Amendment supporters by actually accomplishing something is the best option.

But NBC News figures that’s not going to happen, which is why I think they’re running this. Since they didn’t have to make all that much up, so much the better.

Minnesota Dems Push Bill Allowing Law Enforcement to Enter Homes to Check Gun Storage

Minnesota Democrats are pushing to allow law enforcement to enter homes to check compliance with semiautomatic gun storage requirements.

On February 20, 2026, Breitbart News reported that Democrats in the Minnesota House were pushing a ban on the ownership or transfer of AR-15s and numerous other semiautomatic rifles.

The legislation, HF 3433, bans the mere possession of a Colt AR-15 and at least 25 other specific semiautomatic rifles and pistols. It then goes beyond those specific guns to ban “any firearm that is another model made by the same manufacturer as one of the firearms listed…and has the same action design as one of the listed firearms, and is a redesigned, renamed, or renumbered version of one of the firearms listed.”

If passed and signed into law, HF 3433 would take effect January 1, 2027. It contains a grandfather clause allowing the current owner of what will be a prohibited firearm to obtain a “certificate of ownership” from law enforcement in order to keep the gun.

However, anyone keeping a prohibited gun must “safely and securely store the device pursuant to the regulations adopted by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension.” And to be sure the gun is stored as mandated, owners of prohibited guns must “agree to allow the appropriate law enforcement agency to inspect the storage of the device to ensure compliance[.]”

BLUF
Draconian restrictions on the right to armed self-defense in public don’t make peaceable and law-abiding citizens safer. They just render them far less capable of defending themselves and others.

Look at the Defensive Gun Uses that Hawaii Wants to Criminalize.

Late last month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, a case challenging a newly imposed Hawaii law that presumptively bans concealed carry permit holders from any private property open to the public (like gas stations and shopping malls) unless they first get express permission from the owner. Combined with other restrictions, the law has the practical effect of making lawful public carry virtually impossible in Hawaii.

Fortunately, the nation’s highest court appears likely to strike down the new restriction. But there’s still so much work left for the court to do when it comes to protecting the right to keep and bear arms—including, specifically, against infringements by the Hawaiian government. Even without the express permission requirement hanging over their heads, Hawaiian concealed carry permit holders will still be prohibited from exercising their rights in an absurdly long list of “sensitive places.”

These include, among other locations:

  • Any bar or restaurant that serves alcohol, regardless of whether the permit holder imbibes;

  • Any “stadium, movie theater, or concert hall”;

  • Any place at which any sporting event of any level of competition is being held;

  • Any beach, playground, or park, including “any state park, state monument, county park, tennis court, golf course, swimming pool, or other recreation area or facility under control, maintenance, and management of the State or a county”;

  • Any parking area adjacent to the prohibited locations above.

Constitutionally, it’s abhorrent. As a matter of public policy, it’s laughable – and dangerous.

Continue reading “”

All The Laws That Failed In Canadian School Shooting

It’s never a great morning when I wake up and see there’s been a mass public shooting anywhere in the world. I don’t like seeing them, and not just because they bring up some rather painful memories.

But when it happens in an anti-gun country, I have to take a moment and think about the laws that are in place in that country as well, because these are all things that someone here either has demanded as a way to stop mass shootings, or will if they get half a chance.

For example, Bondi Beach.

Yet on Wednesday, we got another example when we found out about the shooting in Canada that killed nine innocent people.

Canada has a lot of gun control on the books right now, so let’s take a look at the laws that are in place that completely and totally failed.

Canada’s strict gun laws include a ban on assault-style firearms and a national freeze on the sale, purchase and transfer of handguns.

The Canadian government has banned more than 2,500 makes and models of assault-style firearms in recent years.

Former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced an immediate ban of more than 1,500 models on May 1, 2020, two weeks after a gunman killed 22 people in Nova Scotia. The ban included two weapons used by that gunman as well as the AR-15 and other weapons that have been used in a number of mass shootings in the United States. “Canadians need more than thoughts and prayers,” he said at the time….

The national freeze on the sale and purchase of handguns took effect in October 2022. It does not apply to those who already were authorized to carry handguns and those involved in shooting sports covered by the International Olympic Committee or International Paralympic Committee.

Additionally, Canada has a licensing requirement for all gun owners that includes “enhanced” background checks, as well as character witnesses who are interviewed by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

And yes, the killer reportedly had a gun license at one time, and clearly still had some degree of access to guns, despite a long history of mental illness long before he decided he was trans. None of those managed to stop his access to guns despite all of the laws on the books that we’re told prevent mass murders in the Great White North.

So what gives?

Maybe–and just hear me out here, because I’m going to get a little radical–the problem isn’t access to guns, but that some people are broken internally enough that they should be getting treatment. Maybe they should be dealt with as individuals, including determining whether they should be walking around, rather than treating every gun owner as a potential mass killer.

Because 2026 isn’t even two full months old yet, and we already have two prime examples of how gun control doesn’t prevent mass killings.

Yes, they’re rarer in Canada and Australia than in the United States, but they were rarer before the gun control laws were put in place, too. They don’t seem to do anything to make things better.

They just put the blame on law-abiding folks who have done nothing wrong.

And make no mistake, just like in Australia, I expect the Canadian government to double down.