The Department of Justice has officially published its proposed rule re-establishing a process for those prohibited from possessing a firearm to regain their Second Amendment rights; a program that exists on paper but has been defunded by Congress for the past several decades.
The rule can be found here, and folks can comment on the proposal until mid-October. The DOJ estimates as many as 1 million people could apply for relief in the first year the rule is in place, at a cost of about $20 million. DOJ wants to offset that expense by charging a $20 application fee; a substantial savings compared to hiring an attorney and suing to have rights restored.
DOJ isn’t making a secret of the desire to cut down on the number of prohibited persons cases in the federal courts.
Since the Bruen decision, there have been many challenges to section 922(g)’s constitutionality under the Second Amendment, with a particularly large volume focusing on section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons. Some of those challenges are declaratory judgment actions brought by felons who have not themselves violated section 922(g)(1) and who maintain that their prior convictions for non-violent offenses do not indicate that they pose an ongoing danger to others. Some of these plaintiffs have had success in challenging section 922(g)(1), as courts have found that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to them. At the same time, some courts have expressly recognized that section 925(c) would alleviate any such constitutional concerns, absent the proviso prohibiting ATF from carrying it out.
As recognized by courts, a functional section 925(c) process would render much of this litigation unnecessary and ensure that individuals meeting the relevant criteria may possess firearms under federal law in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment, while still protecting public safety.
Even more broadly, the Supreme Court has been clear that the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is foundational. This rulemaking reflects the Department’s commitment to the Second Amendment as an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty and a policy decision that the Department must find a way to both advance public safety and ensure that the rights of the people enshrined in the Constitution are not infringed.
Even before the rule was formally published today, the Department of Justice has been arguing that section 925(c) precludes at least some legal challenges to 922(g)(1), including a case heard by the Third Circuit on Monday.
WASHINGTON − After the Supreme Court in 2022 made it harder to restrict who can arm themselves in public, some states took a different approach.
Five Democrat-led, mostly densely populous states passed laws that prohibit bringing a handgun onto someone else’s property without that person’s express consent.
Now the Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to declare that such rules in Hawaii, California, New York, Maryland and New Jersey violate the Constitution.
“The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in explaining why the Department of Justice wants the high court to weigh in.
That’s not the only example of how the change in administrations is affecting litigation over gun regulations.
NEW: The DoD just withdrew the nomination of Admiral Michael Donnelly for vice admiral and commander of the 7th Fleet after discovering he permitted drag shows on board the USS Ronald Reagan – DailyWire pic.twitter.com/OSQnkdVMVK
People have been singing about it since 1980, but yesterday’s bombing raids on Iranian nuclear facilities were the first bombing attack since the 1979 hostage seizure.
Despite numerous calls for action against the Islamic Republic, Operation Midnight Hammer was the first U.S. military action against important Iranian assets on Iranian territory. The bombs fell less than 24 hours ago, but here are a few preliminary takes.
Competence. The most striking thing about the attacks was the extreme competence displayed by the Air Force, the Defense Department under Secretary Pete Hegseth, the various intelligence assets involved, the State Department, and the entire administration. There were no leaks. (How did they avoid leaks? Basically, they didn’t tell any Democrats what was coming. Take note.)
Not only were there no leaks, but President Trump and the diplomatic apparatus kept the Iranians in the dark, giving the impression of waffling in the White House even as things were being lined up. They received unintentional help in this from Sen. Charles Schumer, who had been for some time pushing the “TACO” acronym — Trump Always Chickens Out — in the service of a storyline that Trump was all bluster and no follow-through. The Iranians, apparently dumb enough to believe Democrats and the mainstream news media (but I repeat myself) were snookered.
New Diplomacy: In dealing with the Iranians in the 1980s, Donald Regan told President Reagan that America had been repeatedly “snookered” by a bunch of “rug merchants.” The Iranians were in fact very good at leading Americans down the garden path, invoking (often imaginary) splits between “hard-line” and “moderate” Islamists in their government as excuses for delay and backtracking.
We’ll see if moderation follows. (I doubt it, as I think the “irrational regime hypothesis” applies heavily to Iran. See below.) But one thing that follows is that threats and deadlines from the Trump administration, unlike those from the Obama and Biden administrations, will be taken seriously in the future. Obama’s “red line” was bluster; Trump’s was not. He gave the Iranians a deadline and when they failed to comply, he destroyed their nuclear capability.
For a couple of decades after World War II, U.S. diplomacy was backed by the belief that words would be backed by force. After a while, our foreign policy elite began to see diplomacy as a substitute for force, not an adjunct to it. As soon as that happened, diplomacy lost most of its power. “Jaw jaw” as Churchill said, may be better than “war war,” but the jawing mostly works because war is the alternative. If the alternative is just more jawing, not so much.
Unsurprisingly the author of “The Art of the Deal” knew this.
The Humiliation of the Foreign Policy Establishment
We’ve had “Middle East experts” for years. Their track record, as the above suggests, has been poor. Our universities have departments of “Middle East Studies,” who have mostly pumped out poorly informed activists, and horrible takes by risible faculty members. Their existence has revolved around the Arab-Israeli conflict, which is in the process of disappearing as the Arab nations have all reached accommodations with Israel, and as the Palestinians suffer humiliating defeat, and the loss of their last major patron, Iran, which will be in no position to help them financially or militarily any time soon, if ever.
Well, an establishment that is organized around a problem is unlikely to go about actually solving that problem: What will its high-paid people, in prestigious jobs, do if that happens?
As it turns out, the solutions were always pretty simple, it just took someone from outside the field to find them. Trump brought Arabs and Israelis together under the Abraham Accords in his first term; now he’s bringing Iran to heel in his second. In both cases it took a willingness to be hard-nosed, and to say and do things that were anathema before because they would have interfered with big donations from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, etc.
Keep It Simple, Stupid. And that’s a bigger lesson regarding the Trump approach. Our establishment at some level wants things to be complicated and intractable. Solving problems makes them go away, which is unfortunate. We were told before that addressing illegal immigration across the borders required legislation from Congress that would be complicated and require the greasing of lots of interests. Instead Trump just enforced the law, and illegal border crossing basically stopped. We were told that government spending was impossible to control and DOGE showed us otherwise. Obama told us we couldn’t drill our way out of oil shortages. Turned out Sarah Palin was right and “drill baby, drill” did just that — not so coincidentally also strengthening our hand in bringing about the Abraham Accords, etc. Iran’s nuclear program, we were told, was just something we’d have to live with, only it turned out it was something the Iranians could die with.
Our Political Class is Full of Traitors, Liars, and Fools. Okay, this isn’t really news. I’ve been pointing out for over two decades that the “anti-war” movement isn’t so much antiwar as just on the other side. But the speed with which mobs waving Hamas flags turned into mobs waving Mexican flags and then into mobs waving Iranian flags — al with support from pretty much the same gang of pundits and politicians — has been truly striking. Ed Morrissey points out Democrats’ “breathtaking hypocrisy” on War Powers, and of course, it would be more breathtaking if it were any sort of surprise.
Democrats thought it was fine when Obama did it because Lightbringer.
Whatever, Chardonnay Lady. Anyway, no need to take these people seriously on this, and nobody does. Even Ilhan Omar is being corrected by an Imam:
Behave yourself, indeed. Well, I’m not naive enough to expect that will happen. But I do think the Democrats attacking this action are once again on the 20% end of an 80/20 issue.Iran, as I mentioned above, seems to be an example of the “irrational regime hypothesis,” in which the actions needed to achieve internal power in a regime are at odds with the actions needed to succeed in the outside world. (World War II Japan is a classic example.) But it looks as if the Democratic Party today is another such irrational regime, in which the actions needed to move up the ladder with internal activists and donors are counterproductive in the larger world.It generally takes a big shock to overcome this dynamic once it’s in place. Hiroshima and Nagasaki did it for the Japanese. The Israeli/American air campaign may do it for Iran. I have no idea what might turn around the Democratic Party.
It’s going to take more than losing another election, though.
Donald Trump has said he wants to see his One Big Beautiful Bill hit the Resolute desk in the Oval Office by July 4th, and though it remains to be seen whether Republicans in the House and Senate will be able to meet that deadline, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has set an aggressive schedule in the upper chamber, with a goal of having the full Senate cast its first procedural vote on the bill by the middle of next week.
For gun owners, the biggest question is whether the language removing the tax and registration requirement on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “any other weapons” will survive the Senate parliamentarian’s scrutiny of the bill. Politico reports the Byrd bath, as it’s colloquially known, will begin in earnest this weekend.
Senate rule-keeper Elizabeth MacDonough is scrubbing the final draft of the megabill in a “big beautiful” Byrd bath. Her rulings on which provisions will fly under the filibuster-skirting budget reconciliation process are expected to roll in through the middle of next week, when Thune wants to schedule the first procedural vote related to the package.
Republicans are bracing for an answer to one consequential question they punted on earlier this year: whether they can use an accounting maneuver known as “current policy baseline” to make it appear that extending Trump’s 2017 tax cuts would cost nothing.
Senate Finance Republicans and Democrats will make a joint presentation to MacDonough this weekend about which provisions to keep or scrap. And there’s no shortage of GOP priorities under Byrd scrutiny — from tax cuts on certain gun silencers to a plan to raise taxes on foreign companies known as the “revenge tax.”
Other outstanding issues before the parliamentarian: whether Commerce has to tweak language to prohibit states from regulating AI over the next decade; whether Judiciary can block judges’ ability to issue preliminary injunctions; and whether Agriculture can use the megabill to pay for pieces of the stalled farm bill.
Punchbowl News reports that Democrats are planning on challenging about 60 provisions in the text offered by the Senate Finance Committee, and the language that would remove the taxation and registration requirements for most NFA items is among their their targets. Supporters of the language have expressed confidence that the measures will survive the Byrd Bath, with Rep. Andrew Clyde of Georgia telling Fox News that the “taxation and registration of firearms under the draconian NFA are inseparably linked,” and therefore should easily fit within the reconciliation guidelines.
Over at The Reload, Stephen Gutowski isn’t quite as confident. Gutowski notes that while the Senate language is more expansive than what was approved by the House, which only dealt with suppressors, it’s likely more “vulnerable to an adverse ruling from the parliamentarian” because the language from the Finance Committee doesn’t separate the elimination of the tax requirement from the provisions delisting the NFA items.
On Friday morning, Politico reported that MacDonough has given the thumbs down to several pieces of the Senate Banking Committee’s OBBB language, including measures meant to “zero out funding for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, slash some Federal Reserve employees’ pay, cut Treasury’s Office of Financial Research and dissolve the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board.” Hopefully that’s not a sign of things to come when the parliamentarian takes her red pen to the Finance Committee’s language this weekend.
In his piece, Gutowski also brings up a long-term issue with using reconciliation to remove items from the NFA. If the parliamentarian gives the green light to changing the NFA through a budget bill, there would be nothing to stop Democrats from using the same maneuver to put items onto the NFA list of restricted items, and even jack up the taxes beyond the $200 currently required. Imagine a budget bill that raises the NFA tax to $400, $600, or even $1,000, while also placing AR-15s and other semi-automatic long guns on the list of restricted firearms.
I don’t think that is reason enough for Republicans to back down and voluntarily strip these provisions from the OBBB, but it’s something to keep in mind, and it’s another reason why the various lawsuits challenging aspects of the NFA are still incredibly important. There aren’t enough votes in the Senate to fully repeal or even modify the NFA in a standalone bill, but if we can weaken the NFA through litigation it will be far more difficult, if not impossible, for Democrats to use future budget bills to raise NFA taxes or add to the list of restricted arms. If MacDonough rules the NFA language out of order, we won’t have to worry as much about Democrats using reconciliation to impose new gun controls, but the ongoing litigation will become an even more important tool for Second Amendment advocates to use against the NFA going forward.
Southwest Missouri politician Billy Long has been confirmed to lead the IRS.
The U.S. Senate confirmed Long as the commissioner in a 53-44 vote Thursday, June 12, according to reporting from Politico. This concludes a lengthy process that began in December when President Donald Trump announced Long as his top pick for the role.
Who is Billy Long?
Long is a Springfield native. He owned his own auctioneer business from 1979 to 2011, according to his Congressional biography. Long has also worked as a real estate broker and radio host. As of July 2023, Long has been a Realtor with Murney Associates, according to the Missouri Real Estate Commission.
He has been a longtime supporter of Trump, often emphasizing that he supported the president-elect before others in the Republican Party.
Long served as a representative in Congress from 2011 to 2023. There, he sponsored a total of 46 bills, 13 of which were about health care. He also sponsored a bill that was “expressing the sense of the House of Representatives” that Congress should not pass legislation that would tax or confiscate personal savings accounts.
CARSON CITY, Nev. (KOLO) – Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo has vetoed a bill that would have prevented people under the age of 21 from owning semiautomatic shotguns and rifles.
The law would have stipulated that any person found in possession of such guns despite being under 21 would be guilty of a gross misdemeanor for a first offense.
For any second or second or subsequent offense, the offender would have been guilty of a category B felony.
Assembly Bill 245 was sponsored by Assembly Floor Leader Sandra Jauregui, who released this statement following the veto of the bill:
“It is disheartening that Governor Lombard chose to put politics above public safety by vetoing AB245. Raising the minimum age to purchase assault weapons is a straightforward, commonsense step to protect our communities and save lives. Time and again, we’ve seen the tragic consequences when individuals obtain assault-style weapons as soon as they turn 18. Despite today’s veto, my priority will continue to be putting forth policies that help end gun violence.”
Lombardo did not give a reason for the veto of the bill.
The latest SCOTUS order shows the justices are taking a more nuanced approach to district court injunctions of Trump Administration policies than its critics, left or right.
Today, over a lone noted dissent, the Supreme Court stayed a district court injunction barring the Department of Homeland Security from terminating Temporary Protected Status for Venezuelans in the United States. The unsigned order in Noem v. National TPS Alliance noted that Justice Jackson would not have granted the stay.
The order was not an unqualified victory for the Trump Administration, as it does not extent–and expressly does not prejudice–challenges to the Administration’s withdrawal of other benefits or status designations for TPS beneficiaries. Those questions will be litigated separately.
The Court’s action was likely driven by the justices’ conclusion that the federal government is likely to prevail on the merits, as the decision whether to confer, maintain, or terminate TPS is largely discretionary. Indeed, it is not even clear TPS decisions are subject to judicial review (as the Administration argued in its stay application).
The Court’s order also highlights that, even within the constraints of the emergency docket, the justices are considering each application for relief on its own terms, and will police district court overreach where such overreach is clear. So while a majority of justices will not allow the Trump Administration to summarily deport individuals under the Alien Enemies Act without providing for adequate process, it is will also prevent individual district court judges from enjoining policy decisions that are clearly within the discretion of the administration.
This approach may not satisfy partisans, or those who presume the Trump Administration is entitled to prevail (or should be stymied) on every question (often without acknowledging, let alone understanding, the legal questions at hand), but it suggests the justices are endeavoring to pay attention to what the law actually allows or requires.
oday, in accordance with President Trump’s Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights, as well as the Attorney General’s Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force, the Department of Justice announced the settlement of litigation between the federal government and Rare Breed Triggers.
“This Department of Justice believes that the 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “And we are glad to end a needless cycle of litigation with a settlement that will enhance public safety.”
In June 2024, in Cargill v. Garland, the Supreme Court held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a rule classifying a bump stock as a “machinegun.” In July 2024, the Northern District of Texas applied Cargill v. Garland to a device called a “forced-reset trigger” (FRT) and concluded that FRTs also cannot be classified as a “machinegun.”
The Department’s agreement with Rare Breed Triggers avoids the need for continued appeals in United States v. Rare Breed Triggers and continued litigation in other, related cases concerning the same issue. The settlement includes agreed-upon conditions that significantly advance public safety with respect to FRTs, including that Rare Breed will not develop or design FRTs for use in any pistol and will enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety. Rare Breed also agrees to promote the safe and responsible use of its products.
The cases that will be resolved under the settlement agreement are:
NAGR v. Garland, 23-cv-830-O (N.D. Tex.), on appeal 24-10707 (5th Cir.).
United States v. Rare Breed Triggers LLC, No. 23-cv-369 (E.D.N.Y), on appeal 23-7276 (2d Cir.).
United States v. Miscellaneous Firearms and Related Parts and Equipment Listed in Exhibit A, 23-cv-17 (D. Utah).
The Trump administration has slashed regulations concerning standards over the width of shower heads, bans on a swath of gas stoves, as well as other regulations for standards ruling over other household appliances that were imposed by the Department of Energy. This also comes as EPA head Lee Zeldin is taking aim at start-stop technology in cars, or the system that automatically turns off a car when it is stopped at a light to save gas.
According to the Washington Free Beacon, the Energy Department took sweeping actions on Monday to slash dozens of regulations for household appliances from dishwashers to dryers that were issued under former President Joe Biden. The regulations included restricted sales on certain types of gas stoves, faucets, shower heads, and microwaves.
“It should not be the government’s place to decide what kind of appliances you or your restaurants or your businesses can buy,” Energy Secretary Chris Wright commented about the regulations. “Everybody wants clean air and wants to lower their energy costs and run their factories good as they can. The big hand of government doesn’t actually help that process at all.”
“We will look for every way we can to protect freedom of the American worker and pursue President Trump’s agenda, get rid of the nonsense, bring back common sense, make life more affordable, and opportunities greater,” Wright added.
Alleging a pattern of “gross and substantial waste, fraud and abuse, as well as potentially criminal false certification of government records and whistleblower retaliation” involving two senior officials at the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Senators Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst want Attorney General Pamela Bondi to take “immediate corrective action.”
In a letter to Bondi, Acting ATF Director Daniel Driscoll and Assistant Attorney General Jolene Ann Lauria, who heads the Justice Department’s Administration Justice Management Division, Grassley and Ernst assert their previous efforts during the Biden administration went essentially unanswered.
“The Biden administration’s ATF illegally lined employees’ pockets with tens-of-millions of taxpayer dollars,” Grassley said in a joint statement. “These Washington bureaucrats must answer for their misconduct, and if heads don’t roll, nothing will change. Without the continued persistence of brave whistleblowers, ATF’s illegal scheme would’ve likely continued. As always, sunshine is the best disinfectant. Attorney General Pam Bondi should take strong action to hold these Biden-era pencil pushers accountable and end the fraudulent waste at ATF.”
Named in their letter and statement are ATF Senior Executive Lisa Boykin and Justice Management Division (JMD) Acting Deputy Director of Human Resources (HR) Ralph Bittelari.
According to their May 9 letter to Bondi, both GOP senators recall their request for the ATF Internal Affairs Division (IAD) report and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Human Capital Management Evaluation (HCME) audit report, following allegations about ATF’s “illegal scheme to misclassify human resources (HR) and other administrative positions as law enforcement, which was substantiated by the Office of Special Counsel.”
In our previous letters, we requested the agencies provide us with the ATF Internal Affairs Division (IAD) report and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Human Capital Management Evaluation (HCME) audit report.
“The IAD report was completed on January 5, 2024,” the Grassley-Ernst letter notes, “and it highlights considerable evidence of gross waste, fraud, and abuse; substantial misconduct and mismanagement; abuse of power; and potential criminal misconduct…”
The ATF has been under intense criticism for many years, especially for activities during the past four years under the Biden administration’s “zero tolerance” policy against firearms retailers. Even small paperwork errors were targeted, critics have asserted. It was part of the Biden administration’s alleged “weaponization” of federal agencies against gun dealers and gun owners.
As evidence of how bad feelings on Capitol Hill have been running against the ATF, in January Republican Colorado Congresswoman Lauren Boebert and Congressman Eric Burlison of Missouri, introduced H.R. 129, known as the “Abolish the ATF Act.” The legislation is co-sponsored by Reps. Andy Biggs (AZ-05), Mike Collins (GA-10), Bob Onder (MO-03), Andy Ogles (TN-05), Mary Miller (IL-15), Keith Self (TX-03), and Paul Gosar (AZ-09). It was assigned to the House Judiciary Committee.
Grassley and Ernst asked Bondi for a response by May 23 to include “the strategy the Justice Department will take in addressing the issues raised in this letter, as well as answers to our January 30, 2024 and September 23, 2024 letters.”
The legislation is HB 809. The NRA-ILA noted HB 809 not only bans red flag laws but also prohibits cities and/or municipalities from “accepting any grants that would aid in the adoption or enforcement of [a red flag law].”
Gianforte posted to X after signing the bill:
Gianforte has been laser focused on protecting and enlarging Montana’s pro-2A climate.
On April 23, 2025, Breitbart News reported he responded to Colorado’s new semiautomatic ban by noting that it not only prevents the purchase of said firearms but the manufacture of them, too. He anticipated, as a result, that semiautomatic gun makers will flee Colorado and he urged them to make Montana their new home.
Gianforte said, “Colorado is ranked in the top 10 states with the biggest gun industries. So, to all gun manufacturers in Colorado, my question is simple: Do you want to move back to America? Montana is open for business.”
A press release issued with Gianforte’s statement point out Montana is a constitutional carry state which “[prohibits] the enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that infringes upon ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, magazine, or firearm accessory.”
You Can NOT make this up!
Stunned Tater Tillis of North Carolina blocked Trumps original nominee as the D.C. Federal Prosecutor. This is ‘in your face’ hardball politics.
President Donald Trump’s discretionary budget request for fiscal year 2026 has officially been released by the White House, and while he’s not proposing the ATF be totally defunded, he is demanding a major reduction in spending for the agency.
Under the budget proposal released today, the ATF would receive $468 million less than this year’s budget of roughly $1.62 billion, and the administration is citing the Biden administration’s weaponization of the agency as the rationale for the cuts.
The Budget bolsters the Second Amendment by cutting funding for ATF offices that have criminalized law-abiding gun ownership through regulatory fiat.
The previous administration used the ATF to attack gun-owning Americans and undermine the Second Amendment by requiring near universal background checks; subjecting otherwise lawful gun owners to up to 10 years in prison for failing to register pistol braces that make it possible for disabled veterans to use firearms; the imposition of excessive restrictions on homemade firearms; and the revocation of Federal Firearms Licenses, which shut down small businesses across the Nation.
The Budget re-prioritizes resources toward illegal firearms traffickers fueling violent crime and crime gun tracing that State and local law enforcement need to track down dangerous criminals, such as MS-13 gang members.
With proposed cuts to the FBI and DEA as well, expect Democrats claim that it’s Trump who’s interested in defunding the police, and for gun control groups to raise hell in particular about the ATF’s budget, which they’ll portray as a gift to the firearms industry and its CEOs (Giffords, in particular, has been doing a lot of targeted messaging about gun company CEOs ever since the CEO of United Healthcare was assassinated on a New York street last December).
In fact, unnamed sources are already complaining to the press about what Trump’s proposed budget would mean. From Reuters:
The U.S. Government Just Asked the Supreme Court to Strike Down Hawaii’s Gun-Carry Law
Here’s what you need to know:
In a high-profile Second Amendment case (Wolford v. Lopez), the U.S. Department of Justice filed a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to review—and reverse—the Ninth Circuit’s decision that upheld Hawaii’s controversial concealed carry restriction.
What’s the law?
Hawaii makes it a crime (punishable by up to 1 year in jail) for a licensed gun owner to carry a firearm on any private property open to the public (like gas stations, stores, or restaurants) unless the property owner gives express permission, such as posting a sign.
Why is the DOJ opposing it?
According to the DOJ’s brief:
•The law inverts centuries of legal tradition, where people could carry arms unless told otherwise.
•It functionally bans public carry—turning everyday errands into legal minefields for gun owners.
•It targets gun rights, not protects property rights—especially since it exempts police, government employees, and others.
•It conflicts with NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), where the Supreme Court ruled states cannot impose burdens on the public’s right to carry without clear historical justification.
What’s at stake?
This case could shape the future of the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, 5 states (including CA, NY, and NJ) have passed similar laws—impacting over 75 million Americans. There’s also now a conflict between federal appeals courts, making Supreme Court review more likely.
Bottom line:
The DOJ—under the TRUMP administration—is siding with gun rights advocates here, warning that Hawaii’s law “effectively nullifies” the right to carry firearms for self-defense.
LITTLE ROCK, AR — Arkansas has taken a major step toward expanding protections for gun owners, with lawmakers approving a constitutional amendment that strengthens the right to keep and bear arms across the state. Senate Joint Resolution 11 (SJR11), led by Sen. Justin Payton and Rep. Wade Duffield, has passed both legislative chambers and was officially approved by the Governor on April 22, 2025.
The next step? Voters will decide its fate in the upcoming November 2026 general election.
What SJR11 Actually Does
SJR11 is a proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that aims to make the state’s gun rights language more clear, specific, and robust. While Arkansas already recognizes the right to bear arms, this amendment expands that protection by:
Clarifying lawful uses of firearms beyond “common defense” to also include lawful hunting, recreational use, and any other lawful purpose.
Specifically protecting ammunition, firearm accessories, and firearm components, ensuring they are part of the right to keep and bear arms.
Declaring gun rights as a “natural, fundamental, and individual right” that “shall not be infringed.”
If adopted by the public, this language would be written directly into Article 2, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution, becoming law effective January 1, 2027.
Why This Matters for Gun Owners
This amendment doesn’t create a new right—it reinforces and strengthens existing Second Amendment protections by making them harder to regulate or reinterpret at the state level. By clearly defining what’s protected—including ammo and accessories—it helps prevent future legislation from attempting to ban or restrict common tools used by law-abiding gun owners.
Additionally, by defining these rights as “fundamental” and “individual,” the amendment could potentially elevate the level of judicial scrutiny applied to any gun control measures challenged in court.
What’s Next?
The amendment now heads to the Arkansas ballot in November 2026, where voters will have the final say. If a majority of voters approve it, the amendment becomes part of the state constitution. Public education efforts and campaigning—both in support and opposition—are expected to ramp up as the election nears.
For now, Arkansas gun owners can view this as a significant win, with overwhelming legislative support (including dozens of co-sponsors across both chambers) and a clear path forward to enshrining more explicit Second Amendment protections in the state’s highest legal document.
This move highlights a growing trend in states seeking to proactively reinforce firearm rights at the state level, ensuring that courts and future lawmakers cannot easily dilute what many view as a core individual liberty.
