Category: RKBA

Virginia Governor Gets Bad News on Background Check Bill

Since the Virginia General Assembly approved a revised version of the bill last week, there’s been a whole lot of confusion about Virginia’s HB 1525, which raises the age to purchase handguns from 18 to 21 and requires the Virginia State Police to resume conducting background checks on private sales. Governor Abigail Spanberger’s amended version contained language that declared the act an emergency, which would allow it to take effect immediately, but the legislature did not approve the changes with a 4/5ths vote, which is supposedly what’s required in order for that “emergency” provision to be adopted.

The Virginia legislative website lists the effective date for HB 1525 as July 1, but the Virginia State Police put out a notice on Tuesday that declared the law is already in effect. That was the good news for Spanberger.

The bad news? The VSP won’t be resuming background checks on private sales of firearms anytime soon… at least not without a court order.

Gun Owners of America and VCDL had threatened to seek contempt charges against the head of the VSP if they abided by Spanberger’s edict, and it looks like the VSP didn’t see that as an idle threat.

Keep in mind that there are three parts to HB 1525; a ban on those under 18 from possessing handguns and “assault firearms” except under limited circumstances, the ban on handgun and “assault firearm” sales to adults under the age of 21, and the edict to the VSP to start enforcing the enjoined universal background check law. The only portion of the law that the state police say will not be enforced is the section of law regarding background checks on private sales of firearms, and as far as the agency is concerned it’s now against the law for a 20-year-old to purchase an AR-15 in Virginia, even through a private sale.

Of course, as of July 1 it will be illegal for any adult over the age of 21 to purchase an AR-15 too. The sale ban wasn’t the primary motivation for HB 1525. It was the restoration of the state’s universal background check law, and the VSP just said that isn’t happening until a judge tells the agency it can resume enforcement.

So what will that take? The case cited by VSP has concluded, with then-Attorney General Jason Miyares declining to appeal the decision. Current AG Jay Jones attempted to intervene before he took office, but the Virginia Court of Appeals shut down that effort fairly quickly.

According to Virginia law:

Any court wherein an injunction has been awarded may at any time when such injunction is in force dissolve the same after reasonable notice to the adverse party, or to his attorney of record, in which notice shall be set forth the grounds upon which such dissolution will be asked, unless such grounds be set forth in an answer previously filed in the case by the party giving such notice.

Note the word “may” there. It sounds to me like Jones can ask the Lynchburg circuit judge to lift the injunction, but Judge F. Patrick Yeatts is under no obligation to abide by that request. It’s unclear whether the plaintiffs would be allowed to reply to that request or whether Yeatts could ask for additional briefings or even hold another round of oral arguments, but in any case the decision is left to the court that granted (or upheld) an injunction. This particular statute doesn’t even say that Yeatts’ decision could be appealed, though that might be covered in another part of Virginia’s statutes.

As I predicted last week, the issue of Virginia’s universal background check law is almost certainly headed back to the courts. I have no idea what the ultimate outcome will be, but at least in the short term Spanberger’s attempt to get around this court order has officially failed.

MOTION FILED IN THIRD SAF-SUPPORTED NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT LAWSUIT

BELLEVUE, Wash. — April 27, 2026 — Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment in Roberts v. ATF, one of the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) three supported lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration requirements for short-barreled firearms and silencers.

Until President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the NFA established a $200 tax and registration regime on certain classes of firearms including silencers and short-barreled rifles, purportedly drawing from Congressional authority to levy taxes. After the One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the $200 tax on those arms, SAF and its partners filed three lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements, because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing power is no longer justifiable.

“As we’ve stated in each of our three National Firearms Act challenges, Congress lacks the authority to continue requiring the registration of protected arms under the NFA,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The Court has everything they need to put this case to bed and end this infringement on the rights of Americans nationwide.”

SAF itself is a named plaintiff in the NFA lawsuit Brown v. ATF and is now backing two additional challenges – Jensen v. ATF and this case, Roberts v. ATF. Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the named plaintiffs in Roberts are Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Center for Human Liberty, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Buckeye Firearms Association, Meridian Ordnance and two private citizens.

“We have the best opportunity in almost a century to end the registration scheme for silencers and short-barreled rifles under the NFA,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is seizing this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity by supporting three separate cases challenging the unconstitutional law, and we’re optimistic this Second Amendment infringement will finally be lifted.”

BLUF
Nowhere in Bruen does the Supreme Court suggest that the only purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the individual right of self-defense. That’s a ludicrous argument, given both the text and history of the amendment and how the right to keep and bear arms has been exercised since 1791.

Gun Control Advocates: About Those Hunting Rifles We Said Were Okay…

Fifty years ago, the gun control lobby’s position was that handguns should (and could) be banned without violating the Second Amendment, but they had no interest in going after “sporting” arms. Even today it’s not uncommon for anti-gun politicians to argue that nobody “needs” a particular firearm to hunt deer or turkey, which insinuates that they believe those guns are okay to possess, at least in limited circumstances.

In court, however, the gun control lobby is making a very different argument.

The brief filed by Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; Harris County, Texas; Everytown for Gun Safety; Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in support of the BATFE does indeed claim that the Second Amendment only protects those arms that are in common use for self-defense; essentially reversing decades of public statements and policies promoted by the anti-gunners.

Bruen establishes that the “common use” question under the Second Amendment is whether an arm is lawfully “‘in common use’ today for self-defense.” Applying that standard requires consideration of a weapon’s actual use and objective design and features, which establish the uses for which it is suited. Weapons that are commonly used in and suitable for lawful self-defense fall within the scope of the Second Amendment right, but those that are “most useful in military service,” or “ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” do not. That limitation follows sensibly from the “‘common use for self-defense’ rationale for the private right to bear arms.”

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess afirearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” That language clearly indicates that self-defense is not the only lawful purposes for keeping and bearing arms, as the gun control advocates (and several federal courts) have asserted.

In their recent amicus brief, the gun control groups and their allies in local government claim that this is a foregone conclusion, which is why “Bruen itself, in analyzing step one, asked specifically whether handguns were ‘in common use’ today for self-defense.’”

That’s too cute by half. The reason why the Supreme Court noted that handguns were in common use today for self-defense is because the case dealt with the licensing of carrying handguns for self-defense. Two of the individual plaintiffs in the case were actually granted New York permits “that allowed them to carry handguns only for purposes of hunting and target shooting,” but they wanted unrestricted licenses that, in the language of the New York statute, would “allow them to carry concealed handguns ‘for personal protection and all lawful purposes.’”

Nowhere in Bruen does the Supreme Court suggest that the only purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the individual right of self-defense. That’s a ludicrous argument, given both the text and history of the amendment and how the right to keep and bear arms has been exercised since 1791. But the next time an anti-gunner tells you that no one needs an AR-15 for deer hunting, ask them if they really believe that a bolt-action rifle is protected by the Second Amendment. They might tell you yes, but Everytown, Brady, and Giffords would beg to disagree.

Acting AG Todd Blanche Rejects ‘More Restrictive’ Gun Laws as Response to WHCD Attack

Acting AG Todd Blanche Rejects ‘More Restrictive’ Gun Laws as Response to WHCD Attack
During a Sunday morning appearance on CBS News’ Face the Nation, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche made clear the push for “more restrictive” gun laws is the wrong response to the White House Correspondents’ Dinner (WHCD) attack.

Host Margaret Brennan noted that alleged WHCD attacker traveled from California to Washington, DC via a train and asked if there are plans to change “security protocols” to “match on trains what you are expected to go through when you fly, when you do have to declare a weapon”?

Blanche responded, “This isn’t about… changing the law and making the laws more restrictive around possession of firearms. It appears he purchased these firearms the past couple of years. We don’t know how those firearms ended up in his possession in D.C. We can make some assumptions based upon what I just said about he got to D.C., but I don’t think the narrative here is about changing laws or making our laws more restrictive.”

Brennan said, “If you try to fly you do have to have your firearms declared in some way, you don’t when you get on a train.”

Consider this: Amtrak’s weapons policy statement is actually more stringent than that of an airline. It not only requires checked firearms to be placed in a “locked hard-sided container…” but also mandates that the passenger alert Amtrak of the intent to check guns 24 hours before departure.

karol markowicz with SBR

How I became a gun person

It was Shani Louk’s mangled body that was keeping me from sleeping. She had been beautiful and bright, a real person, having a good time on a warm night. Then she was dead, her body mistreated, the girl gone. She could have been me. I used to dance all night at festivals under the stars too. She could be my daughter, in a few years, heading to a field to hear the music.

Or it was the Bibas family. I also have redheaded children. That could be me clutching my ginger boys, distraught, afraid, missing.

The days and months after October 7th caused sleeplessness like I had not experienced before. Wide eyed, middle of the night, a stress knot in my chest, a tightness I had never known.

When the panic of the first few days subsided, my sleeplessness took on a new pattern. It wasn’t fear or despair anymore. It was anger. “How could they have been so defenseless,” I’d ask myself in the dark, sick with the knowledge that our family would have been just as helpless as any family that day. They were me, I was them.

Inbar Lieberman was a name I’d come to repeat to myself. Inbar was 25 years old on October 7th and head of security at Nir-Am, a kibbutz near the Gaza border. On that day, Lieberman heard explosions nearby and ran to unlock the armory. Her quick thinking, but also specifically her weaponry, saved her kibbutz. Nir-Am suffered no losses that day.

I had long been a supporter of the Second Amendment but it had been entirely theoretical. I was born in the Soviet Union, came to the United States as a small child and embraced everything it meant to be American. You should absolutely have the right to own a gun. We are a free country of free men. The only way to maintain that freedom, as history has shown so often, is to be armed. I fully believed this. But growing up in Brooklyn meant I didn’t know anyone who actually exercised this right. If something happened, you were meant to call for help and hope for the best.

Unfortunately, I had the opportunity to test this call for help. In the last five years, my public image has increased and I have received several threats. I had gone to the police in Brooklyn for one explicit death threat, texted to my phone, but was told there wasn’t much they could do. I had walked into the police precinct ready to spend some time there, give a statement, help with clues. I was outside five minutes later. They didn’t even take down my information. No one was coming to save me.

When our family moved to Florida three years ago, I planned to get more serious about shooting and eventual gun ownership. But we got comfortable in Florida quickly. We felt secure and safe. My husband and I meant to go learn to shoot but never quite got around to it. Everything was so peaceful, it was hard to motivate towards owning guns. October 7th was the reminder: Peace ends quickly.

I knew Jews were changing on guns even before the 7th, I had written about it. But I myself had not changed yet. I had shot a gun only once before, four years prior, on my friend Will Cain’s property in Texas. He had shown me how to hold his shotgun correctly, that it wasn’t a bazooka to rest on top of my shoulder. It was fun but I had seen it as an outdoorsy activity like fishing or golfing. Thinking about shooting as a mechanism for saving our lives is a different sensation.

By October 13th, we were at the gun range. A girl walked out of the shooting area with a huge Star of David necklace and a Chanel bag. My people had gotten the message loud and clear.

In my Florida conservative media world, it was easy to get a better understanding of guns. Buck Sexton and his brother Mason took me to an outdoor course to practice with a variety of weapons. John Cardillo took us gun shopping for the first time and introduced us to the owner of an excellent gun store. Our “gun guy,” Manny, is mild mannered and an extremely polite gentleman. He could be your accountant but he sells the finest weaponry and shoots machine guns with a smile on the weekends. His calm and patient demeanor was helpful when we tried to figure out what we needed. He understands that we are afraid. He has seen a serious uptick in Jewish customers since the 7th.

Manny’s explanations are rational. He isn’t a loose cannon. He told us if you have the option to get away from a confrontation, that is always best. If you can not, you must be ready. He is blunt. He says things like “your handgun is there to get you to your real gun.” We internalized all of his advice. We have guns now, plural.

Once you become a gun owner, so many wrong ideas around guns come into clear focus. “Gun free zones” were always kind of funny, a bad guy will obviously ignore a sign as quickly as he will any number of laws, but they become absurd when you know the only time you’re going to know a good guy is carrying in a gun-free zone is when you’re thanking him. Or the idea that some guns should be illegal. None of the data on banning certain guns makes sense. Most gun deaths happen with handguns and over half of those are suicides. No one is taking my AR-15 because they want to “do something” about guns. And anyway, that gun was lost in a boating accident.

The gun owners we know take training very seriously and so do we. A gun is not a purchase you make and then stick in a drawer for a rainy day. Much like driving a car, learning how to shoot a gun takes practice and requires muscle memory. Unlike driving, a regular activity you do on good days and bad days, if the day ever comes that you will need to use your gun, it will likely be the worst, most stressful day of your life. The idea behind training is to get to a point where your muscle memory will take over, in chaos and fear, and you will know exactly what to do should it ever be required.

The more you train the less the whole thing feels like a joke. It stops being “tee-hee, I own a gun” and becomes a far more practical thing that you just do. How will you carry it? What feels comfortable? This gun or that gun.

“I thought you felt safe in Florida. Why have guns?” a visiting friend from Israel asked us. We do feel safe in Florida, especially as we watch the eruptions of Jew hatred in our old city. But the idea that New York City could become a hotbed of Jew-hatred was once far-fetched too. It’s exactly the “it could never happen here” feeling that has lulled so many Jews before me into complacency. We have not just been killed by our enemies in places like Israel. We’ve been killed by friends and neighbors, in Spain, in Poland and so on. Our guns say: not us, not this time.

There is no reason for a Jew not to be armed in 2024. So much of Jewish culture revolves around being the helper. We expect people to help those in trouble. We count on armed people to step in. When the call comes “someone should do something!” we don’t plan to wait around. That someone will be us.

“We aren’t ‘gun-people,’” some people say. There’s some pride in it. Who, me? Oh no, I don’t own guns, I’m not that kind of person. But unsaid is that the not-a-gun-person expects someone else with a gun to come and protect them at just the right moment. They count on police, security, military to come and help in a real crisis. The not-a-gun-person can never step up and stop a violent attack on someone, they can never protect others, can never be the hero themselves. They can save themselves, maybe, but they’ll never be the one that everyone turns to at a time of emergency. There’s something intrinsically anti-Jewish about this. We have an obligation to each other but the anti-gun Jew can’t meet it. That should be a source of shame not pride. You’re not just a not-a-gun-person. You’re a can’t-help person.

What I want is for my kids to say something else. Yes, we are gun people, actually. I want my kids to grow up shooting, to be good at it, to be comfortable with it, to know their role is not to wait for someone else. We’ll also deter. We send the most peace-bringing message of all: We own guns, we train with guns, we have an arsenal, you do not want it with us. We will help others, we will be the people that step in.

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Secures Legal Vic­to­ry to Pro­tect Gun Own­ers from Fed­er­al Over­reach by Block­ing Biden-Era Gun Sale Rule

Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a landmark legal victory for gun owners, preserving an injunction that prevented enforcement of a Biden Administration Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) rule that unlawfully sought to violate Americans’ constitutional right to privately buy and sell firearms.

For decades, Congress has deliberately protected the ability of law-abiding Americans to engage in private firearm sales. In doing so, Congress narrowly defined who qualifies as a “dealer” to prevent federal agencies from overreaching into private, non-commercial transactions. The Biden-era rule attempted to upend that framework by broadly expanding the definition and threatened to subject hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners to presumptions of criminal liability for engaging in constitutionally protected conduct.

This unlawful rule exceeded the authority granted to the ATF by Congress and represented a direct violation of the Second Amendment.

In May 2024, Attorney General Paxton led a multistate coalition to sue the ATF over the unlawful regulation. Attorney General Paxton obtained a temporary restraining order followed by an injunction against the rule that prevents enforcement in all states party to the lawsuit. The injunction identified that the ATF rule likely violated federal law by “requiring that firearms owners prove innocence rather than the government prove guilt” which could “trigger civil or criminal penalties for conduct deemed lawful just yesterday.”

Now, the Trump Administration has moved to dismiss its appeal of the preliminary injunction, ensuring that gun owners will continue to be protected.

“The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of American freedom, and I will never allow it to be undermined by unlawful federal overreach,” said Attorney General Paxton. “This Biden-era rule was a blatant attempt to violate our Constitution and criminalize law abiding Americans for engaging in lawful private firearm sales. I am proud to have led this coalition to stop it, and I fully support the Trump Administration’s decision to abandon this appeal and restore the rule of law for gun owners across the country.”

To read the order, click here.

Tennessee lawmakers pass bill allowing use of deadly force to protect property

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (WSMV) – Tennessee lawmakers passed a bill allowing the use of deadly force to protect property in certain situations.

The House voted to approve the measure on April 23, after the Senate passed SB1847 on April 21.

If signed into law by Governor Bill Lee, property owners will be allowed to use deadly force to prevent someone from attempted or actual trespass, arson, damage to property, including damage to livestock, burglary, theft, robbery, or aggravated cruelty to animals.

“At its core, it asks a simple question: ‘Do we trust law-abiding citizens or do we side with the criminals that prey upon them?’” Because right now, under current law, if someone is breaking into your property, if they’re stealing from you, if they’re destroying what you’ve worked your entire life to build, you’re expected to wait. You’re expected to hesitate. You’re expected to second-guess and take a calculated look at defending what’s yours. HB 1802 simply says, ‘If someone is destroying your property, that you can use lethal force to protect it,’” said Rep. Kip Capley (R-Summertown), who sponsored the bill.

Opponents of the bill argue that it opens a dangerous door.

“The reason we were taught you don’t kill people over property is because they’re not putting at risk an innocent human life. What this legislation seems to be doing is lowering that threshold significantly and substantially, and the department is going to have to re-teach in future classes of people who go get their permit, or their lifetime permits, like my wife and I have done, is that you can now kill people over property. And I don’t think that is right,” said Rep. Justin Pearson (D-Memphis).

The measure does not allow the use of deadly force against someone who is facing away from the property owner.

The law goes into effect July 1, 2026, if the governor signs off on it.

Dylan Sprouse ‘Tackles’ Trespasser and ‘Holds Him at Gunpoint’ After Wife Barbara Palvin Spotted ‘Creepy Guy’ at $2 Million Property

Actor Dylan Sprouse reportedly tackled an intruder and held him at gunpoint after the man allegedly broke into the $2 million Hollywood Hills property the “Suite Life” star shares with wife Barbara Palvin.

Law enforcement officials received a call from “Victoria’s Secret” model Palvin, 32, at around 12:30 a.m. on April 17, according to the Los Angeles Times, which reports that the fashion star told authorities she had seen a “creepy guy” outside of their Los Angeles home.

Palvin is understood to have reported the incident as a potential robbery.

Although the police have released little information about the circumstances of the arrest, unnamed sources told TMZ that Sprouse, 33, had tackled the trespasser and then held him at gunpoint until the police arrived and took him into custody.

The unnamed suspect is not thought to have entered the couple’s home.

Police told the outlet that the suspect was taken into custody and there were no injuries.

Neither Sprouse nor Palvin has publicly commented on the invasion, which, according to TMZ, is not the first time someone has tried to gain access to the couple’s home.

Law enforcement sources told the outlet that “the situation was more like trespassing than a full-blown attempted burglary.” However, no further details about any potential charges have been shared.

Continue reading “”

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

What Wyoming’s Failure Says About Second Amendment Nationally

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Pirro turned out to be a two faced liar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Most Important Lesson of the Iran War Is to Buy Guns and Ammo

It’s remarkable how the real world always illustrates the Founders’ wisdom, graphically and undeniably. Take the current situation in Iran. It’s a country with a great history, full of intelligent people run by a bunch of backward, semi-human savages with a ridiculous apocalyptic theology that is so brutal it killed 30,000 or so of its own people a few months ago just to stay in power.

And now it’s still in power, at least over its own people, despite the United States and Israel righteously devastating its conventional military capabilities. You can sync its navy, shoot down its Air Force, and smash its missiles; the power on the ground requires contending power on the ground. Our glorious alliance with Israel – suck on that podcast dorks – cannot kill every goat molester with an AK-47 and a conviction that the more he murders, the more virgins he gets.

That job belongs to the people of Iran, and unfortunately, they don’t have the tools to do it. They are disarmed, and therefore, they are serfs, not citizens, much like the English and Australians. In Iran, the answer to the problem of securing freedom and justice is the same as it is here in America and everywhere else:

Guns.

Guns are freedom. Guns are liberty. Guns are the last bulwark – a real one, not one that enjoys watching the pool boy cavort with his wife – of freedom. Of course, it’s not actually guns that secure freedom. It’s violence. Some dumb people will tell you violence never solves anything.

The only people who can tell you violence never solves anything are people for whom the problem of violence has been solved by other people who know what the hell they’re talking about and who use violence to solve the problem of violence.

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

 

Continue reading “”

By the rude bridge that arched the flood,
Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled,
Here once the embattled farmers stood,
And fired the shot heard round the world.
− Ralph Waldo Emerson, ” Concord Hymn “

On this day, the British colonial government attempted to confiscate the firearms of the citizens of two backwater farming communities in Massachusetts.

The response was the “shot heard round the world” at the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The British officer in command of the field in Lexington and Concord, Major John Pitcairn, would be killed within two months at the Battle of Breed’s Hill (also called Bunker Hill). Felled by a shot fired by a freed slave, Peter Salem.

Exemplifying James Burgh’s earlier observation: “The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave.” Although the English Constitution of 1689 enumerated the Rights of Englishmen to keep and bear arms, practical history has shown that we only have the Rights that we are willing to fight, and if necessary, kill for.

It is the character of the individual that society produces, not the tools that those individuals employ. It is also the character of the individuals in government who either seek to empower the individual to self defense, or seek to operantly condition society to be defenseless against aggression, that matters.

We can be a nation of Minutemen, rising to the occasion to aid our fellow man in defense, or we can be a nation of sheep, always in need of protection by government programs to provide a “sense” of safety, while providing a reality of servitude.

“Both Oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the People and therefore deprive them of their Arms” -Aristotle

Machine Guns in “Common Use”: A realistic strategy

I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that the United States Supreme Court is not going to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear machine guns. The justices made this clear in Garland v. Cargil (2024).

In the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) oral argument, the attorney representing the District of Columbia correctly argued that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment. It was Justice Scalia who pushed back. In the view of the late justice, only arms that are in “common use” are arms protected by the Second Amendment.

The good news is that there is a strategy to bypass the 1986 de facto Federal ban on civilians acquiring machine guns, which would result in their becoming “in common use.”1

But we won’t be able to rely on the courts. We will have to come up with a political solution that will withstand the inevitable legal challenges.

In February, Senate Bill 1071 was filed in West Virginia. Reportedly, “A West Virginia lobbyist working for WVCDL threatened to kill the bill over the weekend in a verbal exchange in front of multiple lawmakers. The lobbyist threatened to kill the bill in other states as well, including Kentucky.” In any event, the bill died.

There were two problems with the bill. The first problem was that the bill relied exclusively on 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(2)(A), a Federal law that exempts “a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof…”

That argument failed recently in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Kittson. You can read the decision as well as Judge Van Dyke’s dissent below.

U.S. v. Kittson 23-4132
433KB ∙ PDF file

Download

The second problem is that West Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A Circuit that has long vied with the 9th and 2nd Circuits for being the most anti-gun circuit.

The correct strategy is to rely on the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, independent of service in a militia. All of the Second Amendment cert petitions granted since then have likewise been cases unrelated to the Militia Clause.

Instead of using the state to transfer machine guns to basically anyone via a Federal statute, one the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has already held only applies to “government personnel,”2 simply make the transfers to members of the state militia or similar state organization, and do it first in a Circuit, such as the Fifth Circuit, where any legal challenge would face an uphill battle.

The Texas State Guard is such an organization. Unlike the National Guard, members of the Texas State Guard report only to the governor.

Members of the Texas State Guard (TXSG) are required to attend monthly drill weekends, four days of Annual Training, and emergency State Active Duty deployments when ordered.

That is an important element to defending against any legal challenge. A state that simply said every able-bodied adult who is a citizen of the state of Texas and who is between such and such an age is a member of the State militia would be hard pressed to defend its passing out or selling machine guns to the general public.

Were it up to me, machine guns would be as easy to purchase as firing reproductions of Revolutionary War muskets. But it is not up to me.

Around half of the states are “Red States,” with a combined population of about 150 million. If you want machine guns to become “in common use,” then you will have to organize and start lobbying the Red State legislatures to revitalize their state militias, and in those states like Texas, utilize the existing infrastructure.

An Alternative Strategy Recently Appeared

Speaking of Texas, a Federal lawsuit was filed on March 10th in the Northern District of Texas that claims 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) “is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs because it exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers…” The case is Temple Gun Club, Inc. v. Bondi.

Given the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in McNutt v. Department of Justice et al., which held that the ban on the home distillation of alcohol is unconstitutional, if I were the Plaintiffs in Temple Gun Club, I would file an amended complaint.

Kostas Moros –
While I ridicule the antigunners a lot, I don’t think I was ever more disgusted than when I saw how upset they were when Elisjsha Dicken stopped a mass shooting. They could barely hide their rage.
They would have preferred he wasn’t there to stop the killer, because of how that example hurts their narratives. They would have preferred more people murdered, so they could use that to push gun bans.
Everytown being angry about this HK ad, showing totally lawful self-defense and defense of others, is in that same vein.
The ad is actually extremely healthy in its message, saying that its subject could only stop a mass shooting because he chose a good gun (their gun of course, it is still an ad), got training, and stored it responsibly in a safe at home. It even shows him not shooting it very well at first, but continuing to train until he got better. And it’s an ad for a small handgun, not a scary “assault weapon.”
It’s literally the least controversial modern gun ad I’ve seen. So what the hell is Everytown’s problem? Oh right, they want to ban all guns, so NO gun advertising is ever acceptable.
By the way, ads like this do a very good thing. They send a message to would-be mass shooters that they might get smoked quickly, and their fame-seeking may thus end in humiliation. That’s a deterrent to mass shootings. So it’s a shame more people don’t see them given gun ads don’t play on TV and such.

Two More 2A Cases Make Their Supreme Court Conference Debut Tomorrow Today

Earlier today I covered why one Supreme Court-watcher is optimistic about the justices taking up bans on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines next term, but those aren’t the only 2A issues that will be discussed in tomorrow’s conference. There are two cases making their first appearance in the justice’s closed door meeting that could be granted cert (or denied) as early as next Monday, and both are worth taking up… and talking about.

The first case is U.S. v. Peterson; a challenge to the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on suppressors. Specifically, the attorneys for plaintiff George Peterson are asking SCOTUS to address two questions: First, whether the National Firearms Act’s taxation-and-registration scheme for covered firearms can be justified as a licensing law, and whether the National Firearms Act’s taxation-and-registration scheme violates the Second Amendment with respect to firearm suppressors.

The Trump administration waived its right to reply to the cert petition, and it’s not a great sign for the plaintiffs that not a single justice asked the DOJ to reply anyway. To date, though, Trump’s DOJ has argued that, while suppressors may be protected “arms” under the Second Amendment, the $200 tax (which has now been zeroed out by the One Beautiful Bill Act) and registration requirement (which is still in place) represent “modest” burdens on our right to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs have made strong arguments about why that is not the case, but they weren’t able to prevail in the fairly conservative and 2A-friendly Fifth Circuit, which treated the taxation-and-registration scheme as akin to a shall-issue-licensing law. I’ll be thrilled if I’m wrong, but my hunch is that the justices aren’t ready to wade into the thorny questions posed by the plaintiffs here. If SCOTUS grants cert to a case dealing with bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines the odds of a cert grant in Peterson would improve, but I can’t see SCOTUS addressing the constitutionality of the NFA and its treatment of suppressors before it takes up gun and magazine bans… at least not with an outcome that gun owners will appreciate.

The other Second Amendment case making its first Friday appearance in conference is Gardner v. Maryland, which poses three questions to the Court:

1. Does Maryland’s prohibition on carrying a handgun without a state permit, as applied to an interstate traveler with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit who displayed a loaded firearm in self-defense against an assailant’s vehicular assault and physical advance, violate the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen… by lacking a historical tradition of disarming law-abiding citizens in such circumstances?

2. Did the Maryland courts’ reliance on a video showing the assailant’s calm demeanor upon police arrival, without his testimony or other witnesses to corroborate the incident, while disregarding Petitioner’s evidence of the assailant’s PIT maneuver, vehicular coercion, and physical advance, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by denying Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to present a self-defense claim?

3. Does Maryland’s refusal to recognize Petitioner’s valid Virginia concealed carry permit for interstate travel violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1, or the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 926A), despite the firearm being loaded and Pennsylvania’s non-recognition of the permit at the time of the incident?

Continue reading “”

Bearing arms: Shifting views among gun owners on a foundational right

Reporter Patrik Jonsson has been writing about guns for 15 years. As the Monitor’s beat reporter in the American Southeast, Patrik has covered gun violence and gun rights; coffee shops banning firearms and stand-your-ground-law advocates using them; mass shootings and the National Rifle Association, and whether the gun itself has become a “sacred object” in America.

In this week’s magazine, he writes about a new twist in what has become one of this country’s most emotional, and debated, issues: a growing liberal embrace not just of guns themselves, but of an approach to the Second Amendment long associated with the conservative right.

“I’ve covered so many angles on the Second Amendment,” Patrik told me. “I’ve done stories about liberal gun owners, I did a story about women gun owners, I did a story about the complications of being a Black gun owner.” But Patrik started noticing something new after the killing of Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse fatally shot by federal agents in Minnesota earlier this year.

Why We Wrote This

The Monitor’s longtime Georgia bureau chief, Patrik Jonsson, noticed a shift in thought among gun owners: a mistrust of government on the political left.

During the COVID-19 pandemic and a wave of Black Lives Matter protests, Patrik explains, a growing number and diversity of Americans started turning to firearms in hopes of defending themselves from criminals. This, according to scholars, was an expansion of what is sometimes called “Gun Culture 2.0” – a perception of guns as being primarily for self-protection rather than for hunting or military use.

(Previously, those on the left were more likely to identify with gun control advocates, who point to research showing that firearms in the home increase the risk of violence there.)

After Minnesota, though, Patrik found a growing, cross-partisan belief that guns are necessary not just to protect oneself from criminals, but also from the government.

Mr. Pretti had been carrying a licensed handgun – a fact used by some government officials to at first justify his shooting and later raised by citizens across the political spectrum worried about federal overreach.

“What happened after Alex Pretti … was this simmering sense on the left that, ‘Maybe the folks on the right were correct? What if the state falls into the wrong hands?’” Patrik told me.

“if the state falls into the wrong hands” he says

Judge Alex Kozinski –
The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed – where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

He started to look for data, he says, and found early indications that thought might be shifting.

“This is at the heart of the story – this rethinking of the Second Amendment on the left and what that means,” Patrik says.