Category: RKBA

Imagine Thinking More Gun Control is the Answer to California’s Crime Problem.

Tragically, a murderer opened fire at a Fourth of July weekend block party in Compton, California earlier this month, killing 37-year-old Eric Washington and 19-year-old Meah Bordenave-Jenkins and wounding three others. The victims and their loved ones deserve justice. Police arrested one suspect, 54 year-old Antoine Jones, two weeks later and charged him with murder in Bordenave-Jenkins’ death. He deserves prosecution and punishment to the fullest extent of the law. The suspect in Washington’s death is still at large. 

California state Democratic Assemblymember Mike Gipson, however, quickly used this latest tragedy to call for…stronger state and federal gun control laws. He cited background checks, age restrictions and so-called “red flag” laws as “basics” that would reduce criminal violence.

The problem with Assemblyman Gipson’s demands, though, is that California already has all three. The state routes firearm transfers, including private-party transfers, through licensed firearm retailers. Law-abiding purchasers face a background check and mandatory 10-day waiting period. California generally prohibits firearm sales to anyone under 21 and has an expansive “gun violence restraining order” system.

Nothing publicly reported about the Compton attacks establishes that yet another restriction on lawful firearm purchases would have prevented them. Once again, California’s answer to criminals breaking the law is to suggest writing yet another law further burdening the Second Amendment rights of the people who aren’t breaking the laws in the first place.

Criminals Aren’t Waiting for Another Law

A person willing to wantonly fire into a crowd is not waiting for Sacramento to clarify the rules. Alleged murder, attempted murder, illegal firearm trafficking and criminal misuse are already serious crimes. Even in California.

New mandates on lawful firearm purchases only reach people who appear in person at a lawful firearm retailer, present identification, pay government fees, complete paperwork and submit to government background checks. They do not deter criminals who circumvent lawful commerce or unlawfully possess firearms despite being prohibited.

California should focus on prosecuting violent offenders, dismantling illegal trafficking networks and imposing meaningful consequences on those who illegally possess and misuse firearms. Instead, Sacramento wants to further burden lawful gun owners and firearm retailers while criminals remain unimpressed. After all, as NSSF has repeatedly pointed out, the overwhelming majority of criminals who commit their crimes using a firearm obtained that gun in an unlawful way. That includes theft, the black market or other illicit means.

Ban the Lawful Pistol, Ignore the Criminal Reality

One textbook example is Assembly Bill 1127, which took effect July 1. The law prohibits firearm retailers from selling certain popular semiautomatic pistols that California defines as “machinegun-convertible.” It targets pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that criminals can illegally alter by installing an already-illegal “machinegun conversion device,” or MCD.

As stated, those MCDs are already illegal. California law — not to mention federal law — already prohibits the import, manufacture, sale, possession and transportation of machineguns, with violations punishable as felonies. Installing the illegal device creates an illegal machinegun. NSSF reminds all lawful gun purchasers to stay on the “Right Side of Legal.”

California’s response was not limited to pursuing criminals who manufacture, traffic or install the MCDs. It banned retail sales of unaltered, commonly-owned pistols to law-abiding citizens. These firearms have been purchased, owned and relied on for years by numerous Californians, including law enforcement officers as well as law-abiding gun owners. Even former Vice President Kamala Harris admitted to owning this style of handgun.

The U.S. Department of Justice sued California the day AB 1127 took effect, challenging both the pistol prohibition and the state’s restrictive handgun roster, stating the law violated the Second Amendment.

“The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated in a press release. The lawsuit places California’s newest handgun restriction before a federal court, where it belongs.

Rights Buried in Ammunition Red Tape

California’s ammunition system follows the same model. Most buyers must undergo an eligibility check for every transaction. The standard background check costs $5 and depends on the buyer’s identifying information matching an entry in the state’s Automated Firearms System. A mismatch means rejection.

Those without a matching record may need an additional $19 basic check that can take several days. The California Department of Justice retains ammunition sales records and transfer information, and residents who buy ammunition outside of the state generally must route it through a licensed California vendor before taking possession.

California Waterfowl has documented hunters struggling with outdated addresses, mismatched records and delays. Some reportedly missed hunting seasons while attempting to correct state records. The system creates those obstacles for hunters, target shooters and lawful gun owners trying to comply, not criminals obtaining ammunition illegally.

Thankfully, the restrictions remain under constitutional challenge in Rhode v. Bonta. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in July of 2025 that the regime violated the Second Amendment. The court later granted an en banc rehearing and vacated that opinion. The full court heard arguments in March of 2026 and California continues enforcing the system while a decision is pending.

Even California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been caught in the web he helped create. A SIG SAUER pistol given to him by podcaster Shawn Ryan remained with a licensed firearm retailer months later. Taking possession would require California’s background checks, paperwork, Firearm Safety Certificate, waiting period and other conditions — a fitting demonstration of the barriers ordinary law-abiding Californians face.

The Second Amendment does not disappear before or after a criminal commits a terrible act. Nor does tragedy give lawmakers a blank check to further burden citizens who had nothing to do with the crime.

The Compton families deserve answers and accountability. They do not deserve to have their loss used to justify another restriction aimed at lawful firearm ownership, which will do nothing to make Californians safe.

The state should stop treating constitutional rights as a problem and start treating violent criminals as the problem. The DOJ’s lawsuit and the pending Rhode decision will test whether federal courts finally force California to recognize that distinction.

‘Gun Violence Prevention’= The New Gun Control Camouflage

It has been called “gun safety legislation,” “gun reform,” and “gun responsibility,” but it all boils down to the same thing: gun control.

And lately, the gun prohibition lobby and its allies in government from town councils to Congress have been using a new bit of grammatical camouflage to make the same old thing sound more reasonable.

The term is “gun violence prevention.” Wipe away all the fluff and you wind up with the same thing, simply repackaged.

In the aftermath of a pair of multiple shootings in Minneapolis, inforum.com ran this headline: “2 mass shootings in Minneapolis over the weekend fuel calls for gun violence prevention.” To its credit, the subhead acknowledged, “Calls for gun control continue in the wake of recent shootings ahead of the November election and on the heels of a failed legislative fight.”

Other news reports about gun control have not been so candid.

The National Urban League recently announced plans for Chicago by declaring, “Local Leaders Call for Designated Gun Violence Prevention Department in Chicago.”

The story explained, “Some community members and faith leaders believe creating a so-called Department of Gun Violence Prevention could help keep people safe in Chicago.” The Urban League asserted this new agency would “support community-based solutions and ensure the department exists regardless of who is in City Hall.”

One familiar name popped up: Father Michael Pfleger. For a man of the cloth, he’s been busy for many years stirring up trouble against local gun stores in Cook County.

Over in Michigan, gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson is saying, according to this video, calling “gun violence prevention (a) top priority in” that state’s race. Benson is currently Michigan’s secretary of state, and according to a profile at Wikipedia, she’s a member of the Democratic Party and is a former law school dean.

In upper New York, Spectrum reported over the weekend that “Law enforcement and community groups in the cities of Buffalo and Niagara Falls are receiving state funding after multiple Fourth of July weekend shootings.”

According to the headline, “Violence prevention funding awarded to Buffalo, Niagara Falls after Fourth of July weekend shootings.” The story explains, “The effort comes as part of the state’s Gun Involved Violence Elimination (GIVE) initiative, SNUG Street Outreach program and Project RISE (Respond, Invest, Sustain, Empower). Funding will be administered by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.”

Earlier this year, Ohio state Rep. Darnell T. Brewer, a Cleveland Democrat, quickly reacted to an incident in which a toddler suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound with an unsecured firearm. As a politician, Brewer’s response was to call for another law.

“Rep. Brewer Urges Calls for Immediate Action on Gun Violence Prevention Legislation After Another Ohio Child Shot,” read the headline of his news release.

Whatever anti-gunners prefer to call it, their efforts all amount to gun control. Call it by another name, it’s still the same thing.

Still Think That Interpretation of 2A As Individual Right Is New?

One of the most bizarre talking points among anti-gun zealots is that the Second Amendment preserves a collective right, that “the right of the people” really meant the states, even though the Constitution specifies states and numerous points. For these folks, the idea that the Second Amendment is an individual right was something that sprang up in the 20th Century, fully formed as if from the head of Zeus.

Kostas Moros has a really good thread debunking that claim with 19th-century sources on X.

However, Catherine Salgado, writing at our sister site, PJ Media, has a fantastic bit from the 18th century that is relevant.

America’s Founders firmly believed that the right to keep and bear arms was the right that safeguarded all others, and this belief is one we must recall in this 250th year of our nation’s existence.

On this date, July 23, 1793, Roger Sherman died. While many Americans have forgotten his name, he was the only one of the Founding Fathers to sign all four of the documents considered most key to the birth of the United States: the Continental Association from the First Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution.

Indeed, Sherman was on the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence. Having been present at so many of the most important moments of the Revolution and the establishment of our republic, Sherman understood how vital it was for ordinary citizens to be able to defend themselves.

Like many of his fellow leaders of the Revolutionary generation, Sherman expressed his strong conviction about the importance of what we now call the Second Amendment. In 1790, only a few years before his death, he made the following comment:

[I] conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular States, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.

Notice that while he is discussing the topic of militias, he makes it very clear that every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms separate from the right to serve in a militia. Democrats sometimes try to claim that the Founders meant gun rights to operate only in the context of militias, which is false.

Exactly. While Sherman was talking about militias, he specifies private citizens. He also notes that the states should be defended “by force of arms” when invaded, and I think that’s vitally important, too.

After all, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms means the militia, then why did Sherman—a man who was on the committee that wrote the Second Amendment, mind you—name both states and private citizens? The answer is because the right of the people is the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, which he should then use to “resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.”

In other words, he should defend himself from all threats, foreign and domestic, with his own arms, even if the domestic threat comes from his own government.

This is a man who, at the very least, was in the room when the Second Amendment was written. He was intimately involved in the discussions about which rights should be preserved and why. He knew what the thinking went behind the Second Amendment, and he knew damn good and well that it was always intended as an individual right, though one the state could draw from in time of war.

Understand that this concept that it was never an individual right until the 20th century is nothing but revisionist history. It’s an attempt to try and trick originalists into supporting gun control or a tool used to attack originalists for not supporting it. It has little to no basis in history. Sherman’s own words make that ridiculously clear.

In fact, it was the anti-gun “militia only” interpretation that was an artifact of the 20th century, and one that should be relegated to the dustbin of history immediately.

The Perennial Problem With ‘in Common Use’.

In his majority opinion in Heller, the late Justice Antonin Scalia encoded a concept of “in common use.” Basically, guns that are “in common use” for any lawful purpose cannot be banned or restricted to such a point that they’re unusable for those lawful purposes. Self-defense is the most cited lawful use, and some judges seem to think that’s the only one, but it’s not. It’s any lawful use.

And, to be fair, in the here and now, the phrase “in common use” is a useful shield.

However, there’s a perennial problem with the phrase, and that’s because the world of technology isn’t static.

I’ve repeatedly noted that I’m a science fiction nerd. While I also hold tradition important and think things of the past should be preserved, I also think that the world marches ever forward and that’s a very good thing. People tend to focus on communication or transportation as big advances coming down the line, but firearm technology will also continue onward. That includes some things that are, mostly, science fiction now but won’t be forever.

For example, I’m fascinated by rail guns. The idea of firing a projectile at ridiculous speeds using electromagnets is awesome, and the test firing of the Navy’s examples shows a round going so fast it ignited the air around it. While Uncle Sam seems to have abandoned its rail gun project, at least for now, hobbyists are still piddling with them.

Sooner or later, someone is going to come up with something, even if it’s not a rail gun, that will take weapons technology in an exciting new direction. It’ll probably be expensive to start with, and primarily for the military, but consumers will want their own versions, too.

The problem? Because it’s a new technology, it’s not in common use anywhere. It’s too new, too expensive, and too rare for many people to have one, and that’s the problem.

The weapons not “in common use” are, at least theoretically, free to be restricted as “dangerous and unusual” weapons. In fact, because they’re weapons, they’re going to be dangerous, and because the technology is fresh onto the market, they’ll be unusual.

Anti-gun lawmakers will leap onto this little fact and start passing laws banning this new technology. Don’t want to believe me? Well, look at “ghost guns.”

People were building their own firearms for years before anyone ever uttered a word about them. Most criminals got their guns via the black market, theft, or straw buys. The idea of making guns was too much work for them.

But the moment that a lawmaker decided it was a problem, the push to ban them started. 3D printing just sped up the push because now, people were making them, selling them, and using them. Numerous states started banning them…but between 2017 and 2023, despite tens of thousands of homicides by firearm, so-called ghost guns accounted for just 1,700. That’s an average of around 242 per year. It wasn’t a problem, but it was scary, so lawmakers demanded legislation.

Now, let’s think about something new, like, say, personal rail guns or something else that represents a significant leap in firearm technology. Because they’re new but scary, do you think the anti-gunners won’t try to make a thing about them? They’ll blast the airwaves about how these rail guns are too dangerous for civilian hands, and because they’re too new to be “in common use,” they might actually survive legal challenges that they shouldn’t survive.

That’s the problem.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t say anything about “in common use” because, in their minds, that wasn’t the basis for which rights are governed. It wasn’t about how many people had some new bit of technology; if that technology pertained to one of the rights enumerated in and protected by the Bill of Rights, then it shouldn’t be touched.

So yes, “in common use” represents a very real problem, and one that I hope the Supreme Court addresses very soon. I’d hate to see a force of tyranny somewhere down the road have firepower, particularly on an individual soldier basis, that the citizenry cannot match.

‘And do you have a permit for your AR, sir?’

by Lee Williams

It’s hard not to smile or even giggle a little bit when you see how badly President Donald Trump is scaring the country’s paid anti-gun community, especially when you combine the President’s efforts with those of the United States Supreme Court.

No one is feeling this pro-gun heat more than the youngsters working at the Trace, the propaganda arm of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control empire, who want the public to believe it’s an actual newsroom comprised of actual journalists—a fiction they’ll go to great lengths to maintain.

The Trace kids are extremely busy trying to stop this Second Amendment tidal wave that’s washing across the entire country. They realize that they’re losing, so they’re rabidly coming up with new ideas to counter our coming freedom—and some of their ideas are absolutely crazy.

Two Tracers just released this tome: “New Jersey Just Lost Its Assault Weapons Ban. Here’s Why That Matters for the Rest of the Country.”

The story’s last line is bedeviling. It’s not a quote or taken from any report. It’s completely attributable to the story’s two anti-gun authors:

“If the Supreme Court strikes down assault weapons bans nationwide next year, states could try other strategies, including putting semiautomatic rifles behind a permitting process,” they actually wrote.

Can you actually imagine that?

The highest court in the country says you can legally possess ARs in every state and U.S. Territory, but then some blue state suddenly requires you to obtain a state permit—regardless of the Supreme Court decision?

Do they think that might actually work?

It’s a Second Amendment right, right?

It would be like requiring state permits before allowing someone to read a book or scour the internet, which are rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

The Trace is redefining desperation.

I’m picturing five-gallon pails of Zoloft, Prozac and Xanax scattered throughout their newsroom, each with a “help yourself” label.

It actually gets even worse. They’ve actually run out of legitimate sources.

The two authors wrote this:

“It’s unclear whether rescinding the bans will cause an increase in gun violence — or mass shootings in particular. Assault weapons have been used in most of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history, and studies have found that assault weapons, combined with high-capacity magazines, may increase the death count in mass shootings,” the story claims.

The link takes you to another hilarious medical study, which falsely claimed that “state assault weapons bans are associated with fewer fatalities.” The study based its findings on one particular source: “Data were abstracted from the Gun Violence Archive, an independent online database of US gun violence incidents.”

We’ve nearly written volumes about the faulty data from the Gun Violence Archive—so much so that it’s hard not to laugh every time some academic clod uses it in their “research.” Suffice it to say, the GVA said there were 417 mass shootings in 2019. The FBI says there were 30, because it uses actual data and doesn’t make stuff up.

The two authors actually supported using the GVA’s faulty numbers.

“The Trace uses the Gun Violence Archive’s definition of mass shooting, which includes shootings resulting in four or more injuries or deaths, excluding the shooter,” they wrote.

Trace history

The Trace calls itself “The only newsroom dedicated to covering gun violence.” Its staff refer to themselves as journalists, rather than anti-gun activists who are paid by Bloomberg to write propaganda.

Since the Trace was founded about a decade ago, scores of newspapers, websites and other legacy media outlets have fallen victim to this ruse. What’s left of Gannett’s flagship newspaper, USA Today, has collaborated with the Trace multiple times, and has even allowed Trace activists to produce and edit content, which appeared in the newspaper under a joint byline.

“We have partnered with more than 170 national and local media organizations,” the Trace boasts on its website. “We’re always looking to start new partnerships.”

The Trace is nothing more than the propaganda arm of Everytown for Gun Safety, which is also funded by Bloomberg.

Both nonprofits share the same president, John Feinblatt. In fact, Feinblatt is also listed as the two nonprofits’ principal officer. Federal tax documents show that the Trace and Everytown also use the same phone number, 646-324-8250.

Both nonprofits were incorporated in Delaware, which is known for its stringent corporate privacy laws.

Takeaways

Now that New Jersey-compliant ARs are a thing of the past, and California-compliant ARs may soon follow, we should take a minute to relax, but only one minute, no more.

The Trace and its followers will certainly come up with more whacky ideas, but they live in states whose judges support whacky behavior, especially if it harms the Second Amendment.

We remain in a constant battle for our civil rights, and anything can still go wrong at any time, according to Murphy’s Law.

“I learned that Murphy is alive and well. He’s in every drawer, under every rock and on top of every hill.”

Col. Charlie Beckwith said that. He should certainly know.

Well, he’s 98 – 99% ‘there’.

The AR-15 and the Second Amendment

By David Deming

There is late news from the US Supreme Court. Last June 30, the Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidating challenges to gun bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois. After years of frustration and denials, the Supreme Court has finally agreed to review and decide if state and local bans on semi-automatic rifles, such as the AR-15, are constitutional.

Many of us can remember a time when the federal courts altogether ignored the Second Amendment and would not concede that it guaranteed any individual right whatsoever. That changed in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), when the Supreme Court unambiguously concluded that there is an individual right to “keep and bear arms,” and that this right is not established but protected by the Second Amendment. Subsequent cases have clarified and strengthened Second Amendment case law. In McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), the Court held that the Second Amendment restrains not only the federal government, but also state and local governments.

In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Court declared that the Second Amendment refers to all modern arms (including stun guns), not just weapons in existence in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Supreme Court ruled that under the Second Amendment there is a right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. In Bruen, the Supreme Court also did away with interest-balancing tests and established a history and tradition standard for evaluation of Second Amendment claims.

Under Bruen, any restriction on gun rights must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Because the US has almost no history of firearm regulation prior to the National Firearms Act of 1934, the unavoidable implication is that almost all gun control laws will eventually be found to be unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, inferior courts, including US District and Appeals Courts, have largely failed to follow Supreme Court guidance or precedent. In Bianchi v. Brown (2024), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Maryland’s ban on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles on the grounds that “they are military-style weapons designed for sustained combat operations that are ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense.” In Bevis v. Naperville (2023), the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals concluded that “assault weapons and high-capacity magazines” are not protected by the Second Amendment because they “are much more like machineguns and military-grade weaponry than they are like the many different types of firearms that are used for individual self-defense.”

This is utter nonsense. There is no objective definition of what is meant by “military style,” nor is the semi-automatic AR-15 even in use by any military force anywhere in the world. Armed forces use select-fire weapons capable of fully automatic operation. If this sort of reasoning had been applied during the late eighteenth century, citizens would not have been able to own either muskets or rifles and unable to fulfill their obligation of militia service. Furthermore, the Second Amendment is not limited to arms useful for “self-defense.” Indeed, a plausible reading of the militia clause implies that only military weapons are protected! And there are several circumstances in which the AR-15 and other semi-automatic rifles are ideally suited for self-defense. In 2017, a homeowner in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma, used an AR-15 to decisively stop three home invaders. The shooting was ruled a justifiable act of self-defense.

The fact that arms bans remain in effect in several states and municipalities tells us that the Supreme Court has yet to provide clear and unambiguous guidance on specifically what types of weapons fall under the umbrella of the Second Amendment. In Heller the court ruled that the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “in common use,” for lawful purposes, while precluding “dangerous and unusual weapons.” From this, inferior courts, as described above, have concocted the fiction that only weapons in common use for self-defense are protected, not those suitable for sporting activities or militia service. But Heller never concluded that the only weapons protected by the Second Amendment were those useful for self-defense.

In Caetano, Justice Alito emphasized that the phrase “dangerous and unusual” from the text of Heller is a conjunctive test. For an arms ban to be constitutional, a weapon must be both “dangerous” and “unusual,” not just “dangerous.” It should therefore be beyond cavil that any ban on AR-15s is unconstitutional. Not only are they in common use, the AR-15 is the single most popular centerfire rifle sold and possessed in the US. Approximately 20-30 million AR-15s are in civilian hands.

And what are we to make of the term “dangerous” in Heller’s proscription? All guns are obviously dangerous. Kitchen knives are dangerous. Common objects and tools of all types can be dangerous. Baseball bats (which we provide to small children without hesitation) and hammers can be used to murder. So can bricks, sticks, stones, and hands and feet. FBI Uniform Crime Report statistics indicate that every year more murders are committed by means of “hands, fists, and feet,” than rifles of all types, including AR-15s. For the term “dangerous” to have intelligible validity there must be context. “Dangerous” can only mean the danger inherent in a weapon of mass destruction such as a nuclear bomb or poison gas, not an ordinary firearm.

Sometimes I read the comment on social media that all gun laws are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. I disagree. Anyone who makes this assertion has not considered the consequences. If all gun laws are unconstitutional, the concomitant but absurd implication is that prisoners in jail will be allowed to have weapons. Even from the founding era of the US, it has been common practice to disarm violent felons and people with severe mental illnesses.

In these exceptional instances a person must be afforded due process of law before losing their rights. And I do not believe that the Second Amendment covers weapons of mass destruction that really are “dangerous” and would ordinarily never be owned by an individual. I have no problem with ordinary people possessing machine guns, mortars, hand grenades, or any small arm routinely issued to an infantryman, but individuals should not be in possession of nuclear weapons.

Eventually I do believe that the Supreme Court will rule the National Firearms Act of 1934 to be unconstitutional, and we will have the right again to own machine guns, as we did prior to 1986. The Supreme Court is not there yet, but overturning bans on AR-15s in common use is an important step on the path.

David Deming is a geophysicist and professor of arts and sciences at the University of Oklahoma.

Sorry, Gun-Grabbers, We’ve All Seen Where Those ‘Common Sense’ Proposals Lead.

khary penebaker tweet

Khary Penebaker describes himself in his X profile as a “Speaker. Advocate. Father. I build things and fight for what matters. Gun violence prevention is personal. Sneakerhead. Round Earther.”

Good to know. 

He also ran as a Democrat — very unsuccessfully against a well-established incumbent — for a congressional seat in Wisconsin back in 2016.

Now, after a string of spectacular defeats for the cause of civilian disarmament in America, he seems to have decided that the best strategy is to go back to gun control default settings first principles, trying to sell whoever will listen to him on just a few basic “common sense” ideas that will obviously save lives and of course everyone can get behind that. Because we all just want to be safe. Right?

What guys like Penebaker seem to forget is that this is 2026. Some of us out here live in states where the “common sense” types have been in full control for years. Decades even. That means we know that what he’s selling is a steaming load of bullshit.

California, for instance, has (and this is just off the top of my head):

1. Bans on most common handguns

2. Bans on common rifles unless they have stupid compliance “features” (and now they want to ban those too)

3. Concealed carry permit application fees as high as $2,000 in total expense…and that’s aside from the significant time investment involved including a police interview, a two-day training course, Livescan fingerprinting, gathering personal references, and sometimes even a psych exam in some counties

4. An 11% tax on sales of guns and ammo

5. A 10-day waiting period to buy a gun, even if you already own other guns

6. Bans on carry in many types of public places, even if you went through all the trouble to get an expensive, time-consuming carry permit

There are tons more restrictions, hurdles, and roadblocks the books. Those are just a few examples.

Maybe those on the gun control side, people like Penebaker, would be a lot more successful selling this stuff in 2026 if it were actually true that all they want is a few things like background checks, safe storage, and red flag laws. Maybe.

Byut that isn’t true. It never was. We’re not stupid. We know what’s down that road. We’ve seen what blue states have done and are still doing, even now. Time to re-think your strategy, Khary.

 

Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation.

 Crossing a State Line Shouldn’t Cost You Your Right to Self-Defense

Imagine a woman driving across state lines alone at night, fearful that her car might break down and leave her vulnerable. Or picture a truck driver hauling valuable cargo across the country. In states such as California, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Oregon – five of the ten states that refuse to recognize concealed handgun permits from other states – these travelers can find themselves defenseless. Nine states also either deny non-residents permits altogether or make them extremely difficult to obtain.

Last week, President Trump again called for passage of national concealed carry reciprocity. The legislation would allow anyone legally permitted to carry a concealed handgun in their home state to carry across state lines, much as Americans use their driver’s licenses nationwide. The legislation would affect millions of law-abiding Americans.

Much of the gun-control debate centers on hypothetical risks. With reciprocity, however, we don’t have to speculate. With 21.5 million concealed handgun permit holders in the United States, we already know how they behave. In addition, most Americans already benefit from reciprocity. The average state recognizes permits from 30 other states, allowing permit holders to travel legally with their firearms.

Last year, when House Judiciary Committee passed national reciprocity along party lines, Democrats also opposed legislation that would allow current and retired law enforcement officers with at least ten years of service to carry firearms in facilities open to the public – including schools – while traveling across the country. Given their fear that allowing experienced current or retired law enforcement officers to carry would endanger public safety, it comes as no surprise that they also oppose allowing civilians to carry across state lines.

Congressional opponents of reciprocity warned that permit holders would commit crimes but cited no evidence to support that claim. The facts point in the opposite direction. Concealed handgun permit holders are extraordinarily law-abiding. States revoke their permits for firearm-related violations at rates measured in thousandths – or even ten-thousandths – of one percent. Police officers rarely commit firearm crimes, yet permit holders lose their permits for firearm offenses at only about one-twelfth the rate that police are convicted of firearm related crimes.

“This legislation is a dramatic infringement on states’ rights,” claimed Emma Brown, executive director of the gun-control group Giffords, echoing a common criticism. Yet those same organizations routinely advocate federal gun-control laws that override state policy choices.

Opponents also claimed that national reciprocity would confuse travelers about which gun laws apply in each state and lead to more arrests. But reciprocity already exists across much of the country, and no evidence shows that out-of-state permit holders create such problems. Indeed, the same situation exists for drivers when they cross state lines: They are required to follow the driving regulations for the state they are in.

Critics also argue that permit standards vary from state to state. Yet no evidence shows that states with less restrictive permitting systems experience higher permit revocation rates.

Despite these fears, more than 86% of police chiefs and sheriffs support national reciprocity, and over 90% of rank-and-file officers support concealed carry laws. These officers see firsthand how concealed carry works in practice. They understand that police deter crime, but they also know they usually arrive after the crime has begun. Victims often must defend themselves first. Consistent with that experience, the overwhelming weight of academic research finds that allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns reduces crime.

With tens of millions of Americans legally carrying concealed handguns over many decades, if opponents could identify even dozens of cases in which out-of-state permit holders created serious problems, their concerns would deserve careful consideration. They cannot. Such cases remain exceedingly rare. Americans do not need to guess whether gun-control advocates’ concerns are justified.

Carrying a firearm provides the greatest benefit to those who face the largest physical disadvantages – women and the elderly – and to those who face the highest risk of violent crime, including many poor black residents of high-crime neighborhoods. Not surprisingly, these groups have accounted for the largest percentage growth in permit ownership over the past decade. Between 2015 and 2024, permits held by women grew 112% faster than those held by men, while permits held by black Americans grew 284% faster than those held by whites.

Real life is not the movies. Most women cannot overpower several larger, stronger men, no matter how well trained they are. Men also generally possess greater upper-body strength and speed.

A firearm changes that equation. It gives women a far more effective means of self-defense. If an attacker has already closed the distance enough to seize a woman’s firearm, she is already in grave danger regardless.

Peer-reviewed research finds that allowing concealed carry reduces murder rates for both men and women. The reduction for women, however, is roughly three to four times larger than the reduction for men.

The House will likely pass national reciprocity, but it faces a steeper challenge in the Senate. Breaking the expected Democratic filibuster will require 60 votes, meaning at least seven Democratic senators must cross party lines. Those senators need only examine their own states’ experience. Six states represented by 12 Democratic senators – Arizona, Georgia, Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, and Virginia – already recognize concealed handgun permits from every other state. None has seen a problem with reciprocity.

Police play an indispensable role in public safety. But around 700,000 officers cannot protect over 340 million Americans everywhere at once. Congress should ensure that law-abiding Americans do not lose their ability to defend themselves simply by crossing a state line.

John R. Lott Jr. is president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. 

 

New ATF Rule May Finally Stop NY and NJ From Harassing Law-Abiding Travelers With Guns.

Since Congress enacted the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, an American has enjoyed the right to travel with firearms “from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm,” provided he complies with the requirements of the relevant statue.

Well, at least he should have.

Some jurisdictions, mostly the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, have continued to cause trouble for well-meaning gun owners attempting to travel with their firearms.

On February 7, 2025, President Donald Trump signed “Executive Order 14206 – Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” which tasked the U.S. Attorney General to . . .

…examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

As part of that effort, on May 6, ATF posted a notice of proposed rulemaking “Clarifying Interstate Transportation of Firearms Under the Gun Control Act,” which reworks the federal regulation implementing 18 U.S.C. § 926A to better reflect Congress’s intent to provide broad protections to traveling gun owners.

The new regulation does this in part by making clear that activity incidental to travel is covered under FOPA’s protection. These include activities such as,

…staying in temporary lodging overnight, transiting between modes of transportation, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, or medical treatment, picking up or discharging passengers, moving a firearm at the beginning of a journey from a fixed address to a vehicle for transportation or at the end of a journey from a vehicle to a fixed address, and any other activity incidental to the original transportation.

Also to be covered under the rule is “presenting the firearm or ammunition for inspection when required by a common carrier, the Transportation Security Administration, or U.S. Customs and Border Protection.”

The rule also makes clear that transportation of ammunition, magazines, and other firearm components and accessories are covered under FOPA’s protection.

NRA’s comment supports the broad thrust of this rulemaking. It’s clear from the text of the rule that ATF has examined the problems that travelers through New York and New Jersey continue to experience and are seeking to alleviate them in line with Congress’ intent.

Continue reading “”

New Supreme Court Rulings Strengthen TJ Roberts’ Challenge to the NFA

A federal challenge involving longtime Texas Gun Rights ally TJ Roberts has gained new legal support from three recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions.

Texas Gun Rights previously reported that Roberts v. ATF is one of several lawsuits challenging the federal government’s continued registration of suppressors and short-barreled firearms after Congress reduced the related National Firearms Act taxes to zero.

The latest development is not a new lawsuit or a repetition of the original challenge. Instead, attorneys in Roberts v. ATF, Brown v. ATF, and Jensen v. ATF have filed supplemental notices explaining how three Supreme Court rulings issued in June strengthen their existing constitutional arguments.

Those decisions may make it considerably harder for the federal government to defend the registration system Congress left behind.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The Iranian people are living with the nightmare consequences of a system in which the murderous regime possesses all the arms and citizens possess only courage. America’s founders chose another path.

At 250 years, the United States must remain vigilant and committed to protecting our God-given, constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms that is indispensable to preserving every other freedom Americans hold dear.

How Important Are Gun Rights? Ask an Average Iranian Citizen These Days.

The U.S. Constitution recognizes that individual rights don’t come from government. Government exists to protect rights endowed by our Creator. Among them is the right to keep and bear arms for self defense, and other lawful purposes.

That distinction isn’t merely academic. Across the world, citizens live under control of governments that deny them the means to defend themselves, their families and their freedom. Iran offers a chilling reminder of what happens when tyrannical governments disarm citizens and wield firepower on their own people.

Speaking with reporters last week during a meeting with North Atlantic Treaty Organization Secretary General Mark Rutte at the NATO Summit in Ankara, Turkey, President Donald Trump addressed the situation and interactions with the Iranian regime.

“I deal with these guys and I say, ‘This is from a different school. They’re liars. They’re cheats. They’re sick people. They’ve hurt their people. They killed 54,000 people as of now that were protesting,’” President Trump said, according to a report in The Hill. “You know, when people say, ‘How come they haven’t taken over,’ they can’t take over because they’re dead. They killed them. Nobody’s going to take over. They [Iranian citizens] have no guns and the other side has machine guns and they’re killing them. The press doesn’t report it. But they’re bad people. They’re bad people and uh, frankly I don’t want to waste my time with them.”

The numbers of Iranian citizens murdered by Iran’s rulers are still being counted, but President Trump identified the central truth that courage alone cannot overcome a government willing to use overwhelming force against a defenseless population.

An Armed Citizenry Secured America’s Freedom

America’s founders understood that danger firsthand. British troops marched toward Lexington and Concord in April 1775 to seize arms, ammunition and military supplies held by American colonists. Armed militia members stood in their path. The resulting confrontation ignited the American Revolution.

The colonists ultimately recognized they could not preserve their liberties while remaining subjects of King George III. They united, declared independence and fought to establish a nation in which government answered to the people.

That understanding was later secured in and protected by the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Founders did not grant that pre-existing common law right. They expressly protected it from future government interference.

Continue reading “”

Gun Owners Have a Lot to Be Worried About With Cameras, AI, and Gun Rights

George Orwell’s 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual. It was based on the very real concern of a government becoming a totalitarian surveillance state where all the people did was observed, recorded, and scrutinized for any sign of WrongThink. It was a terrifying glimpse into Orwell’s fears should his own preferred ideology of socialism take hold and go too far, but it wasn’t just about socialism, either. It was what the state could do when no one stopped it.

And while we’ve often invoked the imagery of Big Brother to make a point about surveillance overreach, things are scarier now than ever before…and gun owners are especially concerned.

Manufacturers of AI software that uses surveillance cameras to search for guns say it makes people safer, but some gun rights activists told Cowboy State Daily they think that’s a brazen violation of Second Amendment and privacy rights.

Companies such as Volt for years has provided gun-detection software to schools, which the company claims helps stop school shootings.

The city of Hobbs, New Mexico, has outfitted about 70 video cameras with software from another company, ZeroEyes.

ZeroEyes claims that the software helps cameras quickly detect drawn firearms, which are then verified at company facilities by human observers, who can alert local authorities.

Gun-detecting AI software doesn’t require dedicated cameras, it can be applied to existing surveillance, traffic and web cameras.

What Difference Would It Make?

Firearms enthusiast Nic George of Sheridan told Cowboy State Daily that he understands the good intentions behind the software, but the broader implications of what gun surveillance might lead to are troubling.

“Right now, it might not be a problem. But what’s the next step?” he said.

As things stand, programs like ZeroEyes raise murky questions when it comes to gun rights, George said.

Now, this particular piece goes on to suggest one potential problem would be someone being charged with brandishing because they pulled their gun in a legitimate self-defense situation, but the camera doesn’t see the other person’s weapon. It’s a fair concern, but I have bigger worries.

Earlier this week, Cam wrote about some concerns regarding the controversial Flock cameras. Thanks to an add-on to the system, your neighborhood Flock cameras can potentially detect all of your electronic devices, such as cell phones, Bluetooth-enabled earbuds, smart watches, etc.

And yeah, the RFID tag on your gun that the dealer forgot to remove.

Still, even without that, these are still cameras. If a system like ZeroEyes can be installed on Flock cameras, imagine you go for a walk, only to have the cameras detect you and that you’re armed. They follow you as you walk around the block, stop to chat with the neighbors, pet the dog from down the street that always wags its tail at you, then circle back home.

Congratulations, you’ve just shown them that you do have a gun in your home, that you carry it, and they may well know every electronic device in your home, which the authorities could then use to spy on you.

I’m not saying that this will happen, mind you, only that I’m not seeing a lot of reasons why it can’t, and that worries me. The fact that AI gun detection software has a track record of not being able to tell the difference between a gun and a bag of chips doesn’t make me feel any better.

Maybe I’m being paranoid, but just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean people aren’t out to get you, and while I know that the ATF probably has a lot of ways to determine who has a gun and who doesn’t, that doesn’t mean I have to allow them to make it easier for them, state authorities, or the local cops.

The Urgent Case for Better Church Safety.

Sunday morning, July 5, 2026. St. John’s Lutheran Church in Effingham, Illinois, sat peaceful under a quiet sky. Volunteers had just begun to arrive to prepare for services. Just the ordinary rhythm of a house of worship going about its day. Then a man driving a stolen car slipped inside, asking for the pastor.

Church security didn’t blink. They noticed the out-of-state plates and saw the man approach. Safety team members made contact as he entered. The man asked for the pastor, but the safety volunteers sensed something was wrong. They called 911.

Police rolled in. There was a struggle. A gun was produced. One shot was fired. From the details it sounds like it might have been an attempted suicide. Either way, the intruder went down with life-threatening wounds. A few days later, he died of his injuries.

Thankfully no innocents were hit. No blood on the pews. No parents clawing through wreckage crying out for their kids. The pastor lived. Tragedy was averted, prevented by extraordinary vigilance.

Breathe easy? Not quite. Close your eyes and run the other reel.

Unlocked side doors. Nobody watching the parking lot or the doors. No radios calling out warnings.  Chaos explodes where hymns should rise. Gunfire shatters stained glass and the pastor and others go down. Children scream from the daycare area. Paramedics arrive to heartbreak. A community is gutted, forever asking, “Why didn’t we see it coming?”

That nightmare is one lazy policy choice away. Churches aren’t fortresses, they’re sanctuaries. Open doors, welcoming smiles, coffee and cookies. But evil doesn’t check the welcome sign. It walks right in.

FBI patterns show Sundays hosted the most active shooter incidents than any other day in 2022.  It shouldn’t surprise that Sundays reliably top the day for the most violent religious activity incidents pretty much every year. Barely half of Protestant churches have a real plan for such horrors.

Researching this, I initially found the number of churches with “church safety” as higher, but that’s because researchers counted the 21% of houses of worship with “No Firearms” policies as among those with safety programs. “Gun-Free Zone” signs have no preventative or survival value.

The rest? Hoping and praying. Winging it. That’s not faith. That’s playing Russian roulette with your flock.

Continue reading “”

Is China Also Meddling in Second Amendment Fight?

I do not hate any groups of people because of where they come from, what their ancestors did, or anything beyond their own actions as individuals, which might then land them in a group that I hate. People who hurt others, especially children, for example.

But I don’t blink about hating governments, and China has been a special case in my mind for years.

On Thursday night, President Donald Trump took to (most of) the airwaves to announce some disturbing evidence regarding China and its attempts to meddle in the 2020 election.

Considering Trump and his election integrity fight, I understand him bringing it up, though the American Left is looking at the same evidence we are and claiming it’s nonsense, as is the fact that American intelligence personnel downplayed the threat.

What I got out of that, though, beyond the obvious, was a reminder of how China isn’t just meddling in our elections. As a nation, I honestly believe they are trying to destabilize us entirely. It’s speculation on my part, to be sure, but let me put it out there for your consideration.

First, let’s talk about so-called Glock switches.

These devices have been around for decades, but were just some obscure toy that only a handful of people ever got to lay eyes on. Then, a few years ago, they started showing up on American streets. They were thrown on the back of Glocks and similar firearms, then used to spray rounds throughout our inner cities.

While these can be printed domestically, a large number of the devices recovered come from Chinese manufacturers. They’re then shipped into the United States, often with some ridiculous nomenclature that obscures what they really are, and then end up in the hands of some of the worst people in our communities.

Meanwhile, what is China doing? They’re using their own English-language media outlets to pretend that gun rights are a human rights violation. In light of these two facts, their concern rings extra hollow.

But it’s easy to dismiss Chinese media as propaganda because that’s what it is.

However, in his speech, President Trump also alleged that China intended to pay American “journalists” large sums of money to amp up the criticism against the president in their work. Yes, this is a violation of journalistic ethics, but how many will figure that they’re just being paid to say the same thing they always would?

To be clear, I’m not sure if any accepted the offers or if the offers were actually made. That information didn’t seem to make it into any of the coverage of the recently declassified documents.

Yet, if they would do it about elections, might they also pay journalists to ramp up the pressure for gun control? What about using a billionaire and his network of NGOs to fund anti-gun organizations?

After all, China does not benefit from a strong United States. It wants to be the dominant power in the world, and we stand in the way of that. Even if there’s never been any discussion of invading the American mainland, thus needing gun control to minimize the risk to Chinese troops, the gun control debate creates a kind of pressure point that can be exploited.

Especially if gun confiscation were to ever come to pass in a meaningful way.

At that point, the United States would explode into civil war. Our ability to project power abroad has to be drawn down while we deal with such massive destabilization domestically. China, naturally, would fill in the gap.

Look, I’m not saying this is happening. Again, this is speculation, but it’s not something I pulled out of the ether, either. There’s evidence they’ve tried this with our elections, for crying out loud. Influencing a political debate would be trivial by comparison.

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the need to preserve all the things that matter. Not just items or ideas, but skills and competencies. Above all of that, though, there’s a profound need to protect the United States and our basic civil liberties, for which the Second Amendment stands as the insurance policy for all the others.

China is a global threat, and nothing that the president said downplays that in the least. The question is, what else are they meddling with while no one is or was willing to pay attention?

Breaking: Third Circuit Says Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ and ‘Large Capacity’ Magazines Is Unconstitutional

In a long-awaited opinion, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals has released its en banc decision in a trio of cases challenging New Jersey’s ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines, holding that the ban violates the Second Amendment’s protections for the right to keep and bear arms.

Besides the majority opinion, there are five opinions concurring either in whole or in part, along with three dissenting opinions, so Second Amendment attorneys and amateur law nerds like myself will have a lot of reading to do this weekend. Here’s the most important part of the majority opinion as an appetizer.

Applying the framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, we agree with the District Court that New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR-15s violates the Second Amendment. However, because the record supports the same result for all semi-automatic rifles—not only Colt AR-15s—we will MODIFY the District Court’s order so that it deems the Assault Firearm Provisions unconstitutional with respect to the full class of semi-automatic rifles. We will AFFIRM that part of the order as modified.

The LCM Provisions also violate the Second Amendment, so we will REVERSE the District Court’s order with respect to those. Because the LCM Provisions violate the Second Amendment, we need not address the Takings Clause challenge.

While other circuit courts have upheld “assault weapon” bans by claiming they’re “dangerous and unusual” (or “unusually dangerous”), are not commonly-used for self-defense, and so close to machine guns that they’re not even protected by the Second Amendment, the Third Circuit rejected each and every one of those claims.

Continue reading “”

Government Throws in Towel on Defending Post Office Gun Ban

The U.S. Justice Department this week signaled it would no longer defend against a challenge to the federal ban on firearm possession, storage, and carry at U.S. Post Offices.

The government filed a motion with the U.S. Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of FPC v. Blanche, a gun rights group’s victory against the post office gun ban. A lower court in Oct. 2025 found the ban unconstitutional, citing that the first mail service in America was established in 1639, but the USPS waited until 1972 to specifically prohibit firearms on postal property.

Until this week, the government was still doggedly standing by the ban on appeal.

“The Trump DOJ spent far too long defending an immoral and unconstitutional ban that treated peaceable Americans like criminals,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in a statement. “Now, after losing on the merits and failing to gut the relief protecting our members, the government is finally waving the white flag. Good.”

For now, the victory in FPC v. Blanche protects members of the FPC and the Second Amendment Foundation, pending further challenges, rulings, and possible repeal of the ban by the USPS.

No Tax, No Excuse: NFA Suppressor and SBR Registry Gun Rights Next Target

New filings argue that three Supreme Court decisions have stripped away the government’s excuses for maintaining a zero-tax federal gun registry. The tax is gone. The registry remains.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have opened a coordinated, three-court attack on the National Firearms Act registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled firearms. Supplemental filings in Brown v. ATF, Jensen v ATF, and Roberts v. ATF argue that three recent Supreme Court decisions leave the federal government with neither a valid taxing-power excuse nor an easy escape from the Second Amendment.

The Jensen filing is part of the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF litigation in Texas, where Silencer Shop Foundation and allied plaintiffs are pursuing a parallel challenge to the NFA registry.

Congress Zeroed the NFA Tax but Kept the Registry

Congress reduced the NFA making and transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to zero in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Washington, however, kept the paperwork, fingerprints, registration, prior approval, and felony penalties.

That creates the question now confronting federal courts: If the registry existed to collect a tax, what constitutional authority supports it when Congress no longer collects that tax?

SAF says the Supreme Court’s decision in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety reinforces the answer: none. Congress cannot stretch the Necessary and Proper Clause into an independent police power, then impose a burdensome registration scheme on Americans who owe no tax.

The Jensen filing puts the point bluntly. Maintaining registration on untaxed citizens, plaintiffs argue, would permit Congress “to regulate in minute detail the activities of untaxed Americans.”

That should concern every gun owner. A federal agency should not be able to preserve a national weapons database merely because the database once accompanied a tax.

Supreme Court Rulings Strengthen the Second Amendment Challenge

The Second Amendment attack may be even more consequential. SAF argues that Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani require courts to apply the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test instead of inventing special exemptions for NFA regulations.

According to the filing, a suppressed firearm is a form of an arm, while a short-barreled rifle is “indisputably” a form of an arm. Once protected conduct is implicated, the government bears the burden of proving that its restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The filing also takes direct aim at the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Peterson, which treated NFA registration as comparable to a presumptively lawful shall-issue licensing system. The plaintiffs contend that Wolford “leaves no room for a carveout” from the required Second Amendment analysis and therefore abrogates Peterson on that point.

That licensing comparison was always strained. Licensing evaluates whether a person is legally disqualified. Registration creates a government record of particular weapons and their owners. As the Jensen filing explains, “Registration, by contrast, focuses on tracking firearms and who owns them.”

Three NFA Lawsuits Target the ATF Registry

In a press release, SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said: “When the Supreme Court rightly ruled in favor of Landor, Wolford, and Hemani, the precedent set had a direct impact on SAF’s ongoing NFA challenges.

With those rulings in hand, we are now able to better explain to the courts exactly why the remaining registration scheme left in the NFA lacks constitutional authority and is a direct violation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. We are hopeful these cases will move expeditiously and rightfully restore the full constitutional rights of gun owners across the nation.”

“There is no doubt the Supreme Court’s rulings this past term have direct bearing on our current challenges to the NFA’s remaining registration scheme,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“The relevant district courts should recognize the rulings for what they are – binding precedent that bolsters SAF’s arguments in these three cases.

The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the tax for suppressors and short-barreled firearms, and it’s now time to remove the registration burden so citizens can exercise their right to keep and bear arms without fear of being placed on some government list.”

The burden is now where Bruen put it: on the government. ATF must identify a historical analogue, not wave at modern licensing practices and demand judicial deference. The government now faces a problem it cannot solve with slogans about licensing or administrative convenience.

No tax means no taxing-power excuse. Protected arms mean the Second Amendment applies. And a government list of firearms and their owners is exactly what it looks like: registration.

Supreme Court Ducks the 1791 vs. 1868 Second Amendment Fight—Again

“The United States Supreme Court has now refused again to decide this big fight between when you interpret the Second Amendment, whether it’s the year of our Lord 1791 when it was written, or is it 1868 after the Civil War, with the adoption of the 14th Amendment,” constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner Mark W. Smith informed his followers Monday. “After the Civil War, there were three constitutional amendments that were adopted to basically expand the Bill of Rights … to all Americans, not just as applied against the federal government, preventing the federal government from stopping you from exercising these rights, but also making sure that states and local governments could no longer impact or infringe on your rights as well.”

The technical holdup is essentially one of emphasizing due process and ignoring privileges and immunities, which to a layperson seems a bit like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Legal precedents aside, there’s a more basic argument: The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified based on the understanding of the people and their representatives with debates based on arguments posited in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist essays. There has never been a magic crystal ball that allows decisions to be based on what will happen in the future.

And while it’s inarguable that the Fourteenth Amendment mandates “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” another basic question needs to be explored:

Would the Framers have thought it necessary?

“The Founders Intended for the Bill of Rights to Apply to the States,” Second Amendment writer Brian Puckett concluded back in 2001. “[I]f we set aside any Supreme Court decisions relating to that matter, we are left with the writings of the Founders and – most important of all – the actual legal document they produced, the Constitution and its first ten Articles of Amendment.”

“Who is this guy and what are his legal qualifications to make such an assertion?” seems a legitimate question only if one ignores the arguments he makes and the questions he raises, which then makes such a challenge ad hominem, that is, a logical fallacy. What has to be refuted and dismissed are his assertions, not the man, and he offers some that naysayers need to refute, if they can.

Proof of this understanding is contained in a passage from William Rawle. In his book View of the Constitution, published in 1829, Rawle wrote about the Second Amendment: “No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [emphasis added].

In other words, Rawle says that the Second Amendment may be used as a legal argument to quash an attempt by either Congress or a state legislature to disarm the people.

It cannot be any clearer that Rawle – a contemporary of the Founders and the man to whom George Washington offered an appointment as the first U.S. Attorney General – understood that the Second Amendment (and by extension the entire Bill of Rights) applied to the state governments as well as to the federal government. Keep in mind that View of the Constitution was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860.

Rawle’s was not the only voice.

“The man most involved in writing the Constitution, James Madison  [argued] for adding a national bill of rights by pointing out that some states have insufficient bills of rights,” Puckett added. “The logical implication is that this national bill of rights will correct the problem of states that have insufficient bills of rights. Therefore, he is acknowledging that the national bill of rights will apply to the states.”

There’s another historical/legal example – from the Supreme Court — that predates the Fourteenth Amendment that must also be considered, and that was in the Dredd Scott decision, which noted:

 “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished;

and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” [Emphasis added]

Stipulating that I’m not a lawyer versed in the intricacies of case law, just a citizen who somewhat knows how to read, I’ve seen those who are qualified admit stare decisis über alles may not be what the Founders intended, particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights. So don’t take this as a critique of  admittedly more formally educated Second Amendment scholars. I’m not trying to start a fight.

Consider it instead a hope that they’ll add the Rawle, Madison, and Scott examples to the arguments they’ll want the High Court to consider – or cogently explain to the rest of us why they’re irrelevant in determining Founding intent.

Talarico Pushes ‘Well Regulated’ Myth. Jonathan Turley Takes it to Woodshed

Back in my younger and more stupid days, I thought the whole “well regulated” thing in the Second Amendment might open it up to gun control. My government professor told me that plenty had tried, but to no avail. That’s a very good thing in my book, and as I got older, I understood why that was the case.

Democratic Senate Candidate James Talarico, however, never came to that understanding. He’s pushed that particular myth recently.

We haven’t had that discussion a thousand times since I asked that government professor about that in the last century.

Anyway, before I could see the comment and say anything, legal scholar Jonathan Turley got to it, and he took Talarico to the proverbial woodshed.

A virtual cottage industry has emerged among people finding James Talarico clips espousing everything from declaring his campaign meat-free to there being six genders to God being non-binary.

One recently uncovered video from a meet-and-greet, however, attracted my interest and deepened my concerns about Talarico. It shows Talarico explaining why sweeping gun control laws do not violate the Second Amendment. The reason, he declared, is that the Second Amendment expressly embraces gun controls by referring to the right as “well regulated.”

In the clip, Talarico mocks those opposing gun control measures and bans as not taking the time to actually read the Amendment:

“A lot of politicians like to talk about the Second Amendment. Very few have actually read the Second Amendment, because, if they did, they would know that the words ‘well regulated’ are right there in the text of the amendment itself.”

What he omits is the word following “well regulated”: “militia.”

It is hardly a long read, so here is the language:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The term “well regulated” was not a reference to regulation in the contemporary sense. It was used to mean orderly or well-maintained. Militias were considered the backbone of the American military, particularly by those who feared a standing army. Some militias were less capable than others in the Revolutionary War. A well-regulated militia meant state militias that were combat-ready.

The individual right to possess guns was viewed as central to maintaining such militias. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a “well regulated militia” was not a limitation but a justification for the individual right.

And, interestingly enough, they never seem to counter “well regulated,” as it stands in their interpretation, against “shall not be infringed.” If “well regulated” means gun control, then it cannot co-exist with the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is uninfringeable. They’re contradictory statements, after all.

The problem I had all those many moons ago, and that Talarico has now, is that he and so many others have failed to read beyond the introductory clause. “It says ‘well regulated’ right there, durhur!”

That alone should raise big red flags for anyone, unless they’re just cherry-picking the phrases that they can twist to justify what they want.

You see, unlike Talarico’s claims suggest, we have read the Second Amendment. We read all of it, not just the parts that serve as a justification for something we know from the Founding Fathers’ own words that they never had any interest in.

Unfortunately, this won’t be the last time we end up having this conversation, either, because gun control advocates like Talarico won’t be dissuaded from spouting disproven nonsense if they think it’ll give them an edge in the polls.