Category: RKBA

It’s still not enough

White House Repeals Unscientific HHS Advisory On Gun Violence.

Democrats and anti-Second Amendment stooges are up in arms about your right to bear them once again, as the Trump administration has repealed former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s anti-gun tract, Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America, from the official Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website. The move is part of an avalanche of actions building up in response to the President’s February 7 Executive Order, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” claiming to seek the identification and elimination of ongoing infringements upon American gun rights. With weaponization of the federal bureaucracy against law-abiding gun owners being a staple of the former Biden-Harris administration, it is hopeful to see a refocusing of those efforts onto the actual criminals themselves under President Trump.

“Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and as he again made clear during his recent speech at the Department of Justice, President Trump is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order,” the White House responded to the Guardian’s question about the removal of webpages.

The NRA predicted under heavy scrutiny that the appointment of Murthy as U.S. surgeon general during the second Obama-Biden administration would lead to further politicizing of his anti-gun agenda, a position Murthy lied about under oath to Senators at his first confirmation hearing, saying he would not use his platform as a bully pulpit for gun control, and would instead focus on the obesity epidemic. During his initial term as surgeon general, Murthy’s failure to effectively address that epidemic led to his being reappointed by the Biden administration, where failing upwards is practically in the job description.

With a reinvigorated sense of tenure and those promises under oath in his rearview mirror, the good doctor did what he did best, pretending to have special insight into the causes of firearm-related crime, much like his calls for gun control when he headed the advocacy group Doctors for America. In July 2024, he published his 40-page manifesto, Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America, even promoting it through media appearances like the perjurous little rock star he is.

“[T]he advisory has nothing to do with treating gunshot wounds, dealing with potential lead exposure from handling firearms or ammunition, hearing loss from exposure to muzzle reports, or any other medical issue pertaining to guns. Instead, it is simply a taxpayer-funded tract that promotes the same tired slate of oppressive gun control laws that Murthy’s fellow firearm prohibitionists have wanted for decades. It also seeks to provide cover for the disastrous crime-control failures of Murthy’s Democrat party by insisting that firearm assaults and homicides are akin to a disease or contagion rather than crimes committed by predators (most with lengthy records) who too often act with impunity,” according to analysis of the document by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

Of course, the tired effort of anti-Second Amendment groups and grifters has done nothing to reduce firearm-related deaths in the United States, but that has never really been the goal in the first place. Any literate person can pick up a book on the history of governments disarming citizens to find a clear pattern of subjugation and worse following the successful confiscation of the means to defend liberty.

The revocation of this anti-Second Amendment propaganda masquerading as science is part of a series of actions that have taken place in the last week by the Trump administration and the Department of Justice that will hopefully move necessary pieces into place, further defending and more tangibly restoring American gun rights. Yes, I will remain skeptical and cautiously optimistic until something happens that feels less punitive towards the previous administration and more substantive to my life as someone who owns and purchases guns. In the meantime, I will drink from the cup of leftist tears as the meltdowns continue and pray that I’ve been wrong about America’s tipping point and our ability to restore the founding values that made this country great in the first place.

What Happens if DOJ Stops Defending Silencer Regs?

Now that Attorney General Pam Bondi has signaled the Justice Department is re-evaluating its stance that silencers aren’t “firearms” protected by the Second Amendment, what happens if the DOJ reverses course and suddenly declines to defend their inclusion in the National Firearms Act?

We wouldn’t suddenly see suppressors available for sale with a simple NICS check, unfortunately. That would require changing the NFA itself, which in turn would require congressional approval. The House may very well give its approval to the SHUSH Act, but it’s gonna be tough to get 60 senators on board with the change. So what impact would a DOJ reversal have in practical terms?

The NFA has been a flashpoint for advocates, who say that silencers are not frequently used in crime and believe that the silencers and other weapons regulated under the law, including machine guns and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, are protected by the Second Amendment. A decision by the Justice Department not to defend the law may, however, make it harder for gun rights groups to challenge the law at the Supreme Court.

“If Trump administration decides not to prosecute people under for illegal silencer possession while in office, that’s a good short-term win, that’s what a lot of gun rights activists will want,” said Stephen Gutowski, a gun safety instructor and founder of The Reload.

However, Gutowski added that if Democrats regain the White House in four years, “They can just reverse the policies and go back and start prosecuting people again, because the law was never found unconstitutional or invalid.”

If the Trump administration just decides not to enforce the NFA regulations surrounding suppressors, I don’t think that would actually be much of a win for gun owners, though it might provide some short term benefit for suppressor buyers and the companies that make them. What would stop the next Democratic administration from zealously prosecuting those companies or anyone who purchased/possesses a suppressor not registered or taxed under the NFA?

The best option may be for the Trump administration to decline to defend the current statute and not raising any objections to anti-gun AGs intervening as defendants in ongoing litigation. Then the full weight of the DOJ could be directed to side with the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, while allowing the cases to continue to make their way to SCOTUS.

Gun safety groups, for their part, say that silencers put people at risk by make a mass shooting harder to hear and contend that because silencers reduce the recoil when a gun is fired, it could make it easier for a gunman with a semiautomatic to shoot with fewer interruptions.

“Silencers in the wrong hands create serious public safety risks,” Everytown for Gun Safety writes on their website. “The loud and distinctive noise that a gun makes is one of its most important safety features: when people hear it, they realize they may need to run, hide, or protect others.”

The group also raises concerns that removing silencers from the NFA would allow them to be purchased without a background check.

Frankly, if suppressors aren’t “firearms” as the DOJ (and at least one federal court contends), then they arguably shouldn’t be included in the National Firearms Act as a restricted firearm. And yes, their removal from the NFA could allow their purchase without a background check, but if they’re merely an accessory then so what? What other firearm accessory requires a background check of any kind, much less a detailed check and an extra $200 tax?

Of course, whether there are five justices on the Supreme Court at the moment who are ready to remove suppressors from the NFA is very much an open question, especially after Wednesday’s 7-2 decision upholding the ATF’s rule treating unfinished frames and receivers as completed firearms. The bottom line is even if the Trump administration is on board with the idea, deregulating suppressors is going to be a challenge, whether it’s through the legislative or judicial branches.

Chavez v. Bonta. California’s 18-20 year old ban on buying semiauto centerfire rifles is upheld

This is ‘merely’ in the District Court; as it were, Act 1 in the play. The Firearms Policy Center will almost undoubtedly appeal and from the 9th Circus historical record we know how that will ultimately turn out, so in a few years, we may see it appealed to SCOTUS.

The judge cites that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the restriction on retail sales, meaningfully constrained the 18-20 year old Californians’ right to acquire firearms. The judge says that there are other routes e.g. private sales, gifts etc. BUT, this is ‘interest balancing‘, which SCOTUS has ruled is unconstitutional and repeated that several times.

Youngkin Vetos Gun Bills

Gov. Glenn Youngkin isn’t the most outspoken of governors. He just quietly does what he does in Virginia, even with a hostile legislature that seems determined to make the Old Dominion State one of the most anti-gun in the nation.

In fact, they sent a pile of gun control bills to him, which would be bad news for Virginia residents like our dear, old Cam Edwards.

But, well, it seems that he wasn’t interested in playing along.

Northern Virginia legislators are decrying Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s recent veto of a bill to keep firearms from the homes of domestic abusers.

Youngkin vetoed 157 bills on Monday (March 24), including Sen. Barbara Favola’s (D-40) Senate Bill 744 and Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker’s House Bill 1960 — identical pieces of legislation that amend existing Virginia law by removing firearms from the hands of convicted domestic abusers.

“Guns and domestic violence are a lethal combination and these deaths are preventable,” Bennett-Parker said in a statement. “These bills were a common-sense fix to ensure that illegal guns stay out of the hands of convicted domestic abusers. I’m incredibly frustrated that the Governor vetoed our ability to protect women who are dying at the hands of their abusers through better enforcement of our existing laws. The Governor has made Virginia less safe for women and families.”

Youngkin has vetoed the measure for the second year in a row, and Bennett-Parker and Favola’s statements mirror their reactions to last year’s veto.

They should get used to disappointment.

However, this wasn’t the only anti-gun bill in and amongst those 157 items. Neary two dozen more got the veto treatment, according to a press release from the NRA:

Yesterday, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin reaffirmed his support for the rights of law-abiding gun owners by vetoing two dozen bills that would have trampled on the Second Amendment freedoms of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Similar to last session, Governor Youngkin disposed of egregious legislation that would have emboldened criminals and left peaceable Virginians defenseless.

“On behalf of Virginia’s NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, I want to thank Governor Youngkin for standing strong in his support for the Second Amendment by vetoing the litany of gun control bills pushed through the General Assembly this year,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “For the second year in a row, gun control activists tried to enact dozens of radical, California-style laws that would have severely restricted the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in the Commonwealth. The NRA applauds Governor Youngkin for upholding his promise to protect our Constitutional freedoms.”

The bills vetoed by Governor Youngkin came from the long wish list of radical gun control activists. This included attempts to restrict the Constitutional rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults, dramatically expand gun-free zones that would have left law-abiding Virginians defenseless and enact a mandatory waiting period to take possession of a legally purchased firearm. In addition, the vetoed legislation would have banned a wide range of commonly owned firearms used by Virginians to hunt, compete and for self-defense.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that Virginia has off-year elections. In fact, they go to the polls this fall to elect a new governor and vote on the legislature, among other offices. Youngkin can’t run for re-election because Virginia has a law where governors can’t serve consecutive terms.

And based on the 2024 election, where Kamala Harris took the state by over five points, it doesn’t look like a red wave is likely this year.

But much of the anti-gun lean in the state comes from Northern Virginia, where many federal bureaucracy employees live. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know what DOGE is doing to the bureaucracy.

That might have some kind of impact on the election outcome, as many now unemployed federal workers may be relocating to less expensive communities throughout the nation.

Or, at a minimum, someplace where they can get a job.

However, gun rights proponents in the state should probably not count on that and mobilize now, back candidate who will support their gun rights, and do everything the can to mitigate the impact anti-gun groups will have on the upcoming election.

The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule.

During the Biden ‘administration’ ATF ruled that “80%” receivers were to be treated and regulated just like they were fully finished guns.

The were sued and it went all the way to SCOTUS.

Justices Alito and Thomas were the only ones to dissent. All the others agreed. Regard the fate of future decisions accordingly.

 

Why Lawrence VanDyke’s Video Dissent in Duncan is a Real Problem For Anti-Gun Judges

Courts do have a lot of rules for introducing evidence and arguments. The net effect of all of those rules is simple: they tend to entrench the things that the court wants to believe. If your argument benefits from the court’s biases, the rules of evidence will help you. If you’re working against the court’s biases, the rules of evidence can be fatal to your case.

VanDyke is in a unique position here. As a judge rather than a party to the case, he can do pretty much whatever he wants. And he’s using that power to say the majority is using the rule against judges bringing outside facts to cover up their real goal: preventing judges from bringing outside logic. They don’t like standard-capacity magazines. And that’s a personal opinion that people are free to have. But under Bruen, the only way a court could uphold a ban on those magazines is if they prevent people like VanDyke from pointing out the holes not in their facts, but in their basic logic.

Lay people don’t read court rulings, let alone dissents. But video is a much more effective medium, and VanDyke’s video is all over social media right now. That’s a problem for the majority’s logic, but it’s good for logic in general.

— Open Source Defense in Judges on gun knowledge: “That’s for me not to know and for you not to find out”

SCOTUS Still Silent on Semi-Auto, Magazine Bans as More 2A Cases Head Its Way

Another Monday has rolled around with the Supreme Court taking no action whatsoever on two cases that have been heard in conference on an almost weekly basis since last December.

Monday mornings are starting to feel a little like Groundhog Day when it comes to Snope and Ocean State Tactical, and I have no idea what’s going on with either of these cases. Both were heard in conference for first time back in December, so even if there’s going to be a denial with a written dissent the justices who are penning their displeasure with the decision not to grant cert have had plenty of time to formalize their objections. The same is true when it comes to a per curium opinion that would find either or both of the challenged laws to be a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

It’s possible that the justices are still wrestling with the issue of whether or not to accept one or both of these cases, but that strikes me as pretty unlikely as well. The Court has had months to consider granting cert, and while other Second Amendment challenges like Heller and Bruen went through multiple conferences before cert was granted, neither of those cases were kept in limbo nearly as long as Snope and Ocean State Tactical have been.

Meanwhile, there are several other cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms that are slated to be heard in conference for the first time in the coming days and weeks. This Thursday the justices should take up Antonyuk v. James in their weekly conference. That’s the case that deals with one of the post-Bruen restrictions that New York put in place in defiance of what the Supreme Court had to say about the right to bear arms; the “good moral character” requirement for a concealed carry license that is essentially serves as a replacement for the subjective “justifiable need” gun owners had to demonstrate under the may-issue permitting regime the Court ruled unconstitutional.

The justices are also expected to debate a case called Price v. U.S. this week that deals with whether or not possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number constitutes Second Amendment-protected conduct. That case has yet to be fully briefed and decided on the merits, however, and I suspect that the justices will turn it aside, at least for now.

There are three other cases slated for conference in April as well:

  • Wade v. University of Michigan, which addresses “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments allow a criminal ordinance that prohibits mere possession of firearms on an entire poorly-delineated university campus, except by permission of a single government official with unfettered discretion, which is granted onlyfor “extraordinary circumstances.”
  • Jacobson v. Worth, which seeks to answer “Does Minnesota’s statute limiting permits for public carry of pistols to those 21 and older comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment?
  • B & L Productions v. Newsom, a challenge to California’s ban on “sales” of firearms and ammunition on any state-owned property.

The odds of the Court granting cert to every one of these cases is slim. In fact, at this point the odds of the Court taking any of them feels pretty small. I’m still holding out hope for Snope, but at this point it’s anyone’s guess as to what the justices will do with Maryland’s semi-auto ban… other than once again considering the Snope case (and Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha) at this Thursday’s conference.

Latest Anti-Gun Talking Points Seem to Have Dropped, And They’re Shockingly Stupid

Every so often, you’ll see a lot of different accounts suddenly start making identical or nearly identical posts, raising the same points that often aren’t even that impressive. This is usually a case of someone sending them to certain political influencers and then repeating them verbatim. No thought went into this on the part of the influencer, of course, but someone out there thought it was a zinger.

Over the weekend, a new one dropped, apparently, and it’s all that you could have hoped for.

And, of course, there are indications that Tristan here wasn’t the only one who got the memo.

It’s possible this whole thing is just some kind of organic growth, to be sure, but it doesn’t really matter where it originated. It’s ridiculous.

The firebombing and shooting up of Tesla dealerships are domestic terrorism, which involves political motivations, so those are inherently going to be treated differently while being investigated.

But let’s think about how we’re “protecting” Teslas.

Teslas have something called “sentry mode” that monitors the vehicle’s surroundings are records if someone approaches. That’s how we have so many videos of Teslas being keyed or otherwise vandalized.

A lot of this vandalism is probably not even investigated because it’s such a petty crime. If an identity comes up, the cops might go and ask a few questions, but this is probably not very high up on their list of priorities, particularly in cities with high crime. Frankly, I get it.

Now, let’s think about what we do with our school children.

I don’t know about Tristan or Jo, but I personally want every teacher so inclined to have a gun to help protect those kids. I want school resource officers in every school as well, just to help protect those school children.

If someone hurts a school child, they’re hunted by every law enforcement agency with relevant jurisdiction–and the others would love to hunt that party but generally can’t unless the suspect crosses into their jurisdiction.

But let’s go back to protecting schools for a moment, though. Note where I stand on that protection. Many of you agree with either part or all of what I laid out.

Do you know who doesn’t?

That’s right, people like Tristan and Jo, that’s who.

When the subject of armed teachers–hell, even the subject of metal detectors at the door–people like those two lose their minds. They fight such things tooth and nail, screaming about how it creates the wrong environment and how everything will be awful. They rage against school resource officers, screaming about the “school to prison pipeline” and oppose those left and right as well.

Pretty much everything that might actually protect school kids gets shut down by the same people.

And then they have the nerve to push this kind of talking point? It’s insulting, infuriating, and absolutely idiotic.

We know what they want. They’re trying to leverage this into justifying gun control. They think this is a dunk on gun rights.

And it’s even dumber than the talking point on its own because of that.

Ninth Circuit Upholds California Mag Ban, But Not Without Epic Dissent From Trump-Appointed Judge

Thursday’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines wasn’t exactly unexpected, but the video dissent from Judge Lawrence Van Dyke was a curveball that I doubt anyone saw coming.

An en banc panel had previously ruled the state’s magazine ban in line with the Second Amendment, but SCOTUS vacated that decision and remanded the case back to the appellate court after Bruen in 2022. In turn, the Ninth Circuit sent the case back down to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who’d previously declared the ban unconstitutional. Benitez reached the same conclusion the second time around, and just like before an en banc panel has now overruled the West Coast “saint” of the Second Amendment.

“First, the Founders protected the right to keep and bear ‘Arms,’ not a right to keep and bear ‘Arms and Accoutrements,’ a common expression at the time of the Founding,” the opinion said. “Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”

The judges wrote that even if large-capacity magazines were covered by the Second Amendment, “California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”

Under the Ninth Circuit’s argument, virtually all detachable magazines, regardless of their capacity, would fall beyond the Second Amendment’s protections because they’re “accoutrements” and not arms. The Court tried to get around that absurdity with its argument about a national tradition of prohibiting “especially dangerous uses of weapons”; establishing a whole new test that flies in the face of existing Supreme Court precedent. Going back to Heller the Court has held that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are, prima facie, protected by the right to keep and bear arms. Magazines that can hold more than ten rounds aren’t just common, they’re ubiquitous, and they are possessed and used by far more lawful gun owners than violent criminals or mass shooters.

Three judges appointed during President Donald Trump’s first term authored dissenting opinions. Judge Ryan Nelson wrote that his colleagues flouted the standard set by the Bruen ruling and in so doing “(butchered) the Second Amendment and (gave) a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court.”

Judge Lawrence VanDyke included in his dissent a video of himself operating firearms in his chambers. Seven of the eight judges who were part of the majority opinion joined in an opinion calling the video “wildly improper,” both because the video introduced facts that were not part of the record and because VanDyke appeared to be attempting to offer expert testimony.

It may be wildly improper in the eyes of VanDyke’s gun-controlling colleagues, but frankly I’d like to see more of this. Most folks aren’t going to read through more than 100 pages of legal arguments, but they’d be much more inclined to watch an 18-minute video on YouTube.

Continue reading “”

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 

March 19, 2025 

Washington, D.C. – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). This action follows more than three decades of Congressional funding restrictions that have rendered ATF unable to process individual applications. 

The rule removes outdated regulations and is part of a broader review of firearm-related policies under Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). Upon the interim final rule’s expected publication tomorrow, the DOJ will begin allowing individuals who are not “dangerous to public safety” to use the statute and petition to have their gun rights restored. 

Key Points of the Rule Change: 

  • Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from using funds to process gun rights restoration applications, making the statute obsolete. 
  • ATF will no longer handle individual firearm disability relief applications under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). DOJ will instead carry out the statute and process petitions for gun rights restoration. 
  • The DOJ rule goes into effect immediately upon publication and will simultaneously accept public comments on the rule before issuing a final version. 

Gun Owners of America remains committed to monitoring this process and ensuring that any future policies respect the constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens. 

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“For decades, law-abiding Americans who have had their gun rights unfairly restricted have been left in legal limbo—creating an unconstitutional de facto lifetime gun ban. This bureaucratic failure has denied thousands of individuals their lawful opportunity to restore their rights. The DOJ’s decision to finally withdraw ATF’s authority in this matter is an encouraging sign that this administration is serious about protecting the Second Amendment for all Americans.” 

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement: 

“Since its enactment in 1992, Gun Owners of America has fought against the ‘Schumer Amendment’ which defunded the federal gun rights restoration statute. GOA and thousands of would-be gun owners are grateful to President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for once again allowing gun owners to petition to have their gun rights restored by the Department of Justice. We hope to see many more infringements repealed as the federal government carries out President Trump’s executive order Protecting Second Amendment Rights.” 

A great Second Amendment victory in the 9th CCA, for now.
21-16756 Todd Yukutake, et al v. Anne E. Lopez, et al

On Friday, March 14, 2025, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Hawaii laws violate the Second Amendment. Invalidating the two laws, in and of themselves, although a victory, was not a great victory.

The most important thing is how the laws were invalidated.

Charles Nichols’ Substack is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Unless the three-judge panel decision is vacated and the decision subsequently overruled by an en banc panel of the 9th CCA (or the US Supreme Court), the three-judge panel decision will be binding on all subsequent three-judge panels deciding Second Amendment cases.

The two laws invalidated were 1) a permit to purchase a handgun that expired 30 days after it was issued and 2) a requirement that newly purchased firearms be brought to a police station to verify that the paperwork to purchase the firearm matched the firearm.

Two of the three judges on the panel facially invalidated the two laws.

Why is this of great importance? Because in 2022, the United States Supreme Court held in US v. Rahimi that a Second Amendment facial challenge fails if there are any constitutional applications of the law (seemingly, a single application is all it takes for a facial challenge to fail).

Continue reading “”

SAF FILES RESPONSE BRIEF WITH SCOTUS IN MINNESOTA CARRY CASE

BELLEVUE, Wash. — March 10, 2025 — Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a case challenging the State of Minnesota’s prohibition on licensed concealed carry by young adults ages 18-20 have filed a response brief with the U.S. Supreme Court encouraging the justices to “grant plenary review and set the case for argument.”

The case is known as Jacobson v. Worth, originally filed in June 2021 as Worth v. Harrington. SAF is joined by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, Kristin Worth, for whom the case is named, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson. While all three have turned 21, the Eighth Circuit Court granted a motion to supplement the record and allow another individual, Joe Knudsen, to carry the complaint. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

SAF won this case at trial and at the appeals court level. Minnesota is appealing the ruling.

“Today’s filing is unique in that we are agreeing with Minnesota’s request in asking the Supreme Court to hear our case to resolve a dispute between the circuits,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The lower courts are not unanimous in their approach to the Second Amendment rights of 18-20-year-olds. It is important that the Court weigh in to confirm that 18-20-year-olds are part of ‘the People’ and the Second Amendment applies in full to those individuals. The ban Minnesota seeks to uphold eviscerates the right of those adults to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense. This is patently unconstitutional and while we prevailed at the court of appeals, the Supreme Court needs to ensure all the lower courts reach the proper result. By taking this case, they can do just that.”

“A clear majority of federal courts have already protected the Second Amendment rights of young adults,” added SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we note in our brief, we are not aware of any evidence of colonial or Founding-era laws restricting 18-to-20-year-olds from their right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, history is full of evidence that people in this age group were not prevented from keeping or carrying their own arms.”

What do they want, sponge balls for bullets? These purported scientists are morons with crap-for-brains to think they can sell this.

Gun Control Researchers Should Realize: It’s the Criminal, Not the Bullet’s ‘Case Fatality Rate’

Instead of advocating for prosecutors to get tough on criminals who break the law, keeping them behind bars longer rather than being released with a slap on the wrist, researchers have been keeping themselves busy in a flurry of “research” to tell us what we already know. Firearms are deadly. That is, after all, why law-abiding citizens use firearms for self-defense.

That is why gun rights advocates, Second Amendment supporters and self-defense proponents take firearm education and training so seriously. With great privilege (exercising Second Amendment rights) comes great responsibility.

Several researchers teamed up to publish a recent article in the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) titled, “Bullets as Pathogen—The Need for Public Health and Policy Approaches.” The results were not at all earth-shattering – that larger bullets cause more damage than smaller ones – but policy recommendations resulting from the “research” could be far-reaching, if impractical.

“It is past time to address the ultimate cause of injury and death, the bullet, and consider bullet-specific regulations to decrease the burden of firearm injuries in the U.S.,” the authors proclaimed.

Bullets Aren’t Bacteria

Gun control activists in university research departments are increasingly partnering with health care professionals in order to push an agenda of strict gun control as if they’re trying to solve a public health emergency. The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health immediately comes to mind. That institution, funded by staunch gun control activist and hypocrite Micheal Bloomberg – who also bankrolls Everytown for Gun Safety and its propaganda “news” outlet The Trace – just released a report including five policy recommendations and promoted the idea that gun ownership would be better treated as a privilege and not as a right guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution for all law-abiding citizens.

The researchers behind the new JAMA article are pushing more of the same.

“Through examination of the devastating damage of bullets to individuals and society and application of public health principles akin to communicable diseases, we can prevent further injuries, disability and unnecessary loss of life,” the authors wrote.

Continue reading “”

Court upholds Florida gun law that bars people under 21 from buying rifles
Friday’s ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision and outlined the history of the nation’s gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment.

Saying the restriction is “consistent with our historical tradition of firearm regulation,” a federal appeals court on Friday upheld the constitutionality of a Florida law that raised the minimum age to purchase rifles and other long guns from 18 to 21. [really? What ‘historical tradition?]

The 8-4 ruling by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals came after seven years of legal wrangling in the National Rifle Association’s challenge to a 2018 law passed after a mass shooting at Parkland’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School that killed 17 students and faculty members.

Nikolas Cruz, who was 19 at the time, used a semiautomatic rifle to gun down the victims at his former school. The NRA filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the gun-age restriction shortly after the law passed.

Friday’s ruling by the full Atlanta-based appeals court upheld a three-judge panel’s decision and outlined the history of the nation’s gun laws, from its founding to recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions setting guidelines for determining how to apply the Second Amendment. While the law barred people under 21 from buying rifles and long guns, they still can receive them, for example, as gifts from family members.

“From this history emerges a straightforward conclusion: the Florida law is consistent with our regulatory tradition in why and how it burdens the right of minors to keep and bear arms,” Chief Judge William Pryor wrote. “Because minors have yet to reach the age of reason, the Florida law prohibits them from purchasing firearms, yet it allows them to receive firearms from their parents or another responsible adult.”

Judges Adalberto Jordan, Robin Rosenbaum, Jill Pryor, Kevin Newsom, Britt Grant, Nancy Abudu and Charles Wilson joined the majority opinion. Judge Andrew Brasher wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Judges Elizabeth Branch, Barbara Lagoa and Robert Luck.

Should firearms background check system be abolished?

To some people, firearm background checks are accepted and considered a way to prevent bad guys from getting guns. They’re completely wrong, and here’s why.

The background check system, otherwise known as the “government hijacking of a God-given right and selling it back to you as a government-issued privilege,” is unconstitutional and dangerous to law-abiding citizens.

As we inch our way toward state-to-state reciprocity with constitutional carry in our major cities, we recognize that many states not only require a government-issued permission slip to carry a gun but also make it almost impossible to obtain that permit. Even if you can make it through the rat maze of training, fees, background checks, storage requirements, magazine capacity limitations, and a list of other constitution-violating requirements, most of society is off limits to you and your firearm because many state gun laws have deemed public and even private places, gun free zones.

The idea of undergoing and passing background checks as a prerequisite to exercising the 2nd Amendment should have never been a thought even in the darkest corners of the most communist minds of the most radical left-wing ideologues, not only because it violates the rights of American citizens, but also because it puts undeserving Americans in legal jeopardy and in physical danger.

According to the Government Accountability Office, in 2017, the NICS background check system denied 112,090 people the right to purchase a firearm. Of those 112,090 denials, only 12,710 were investigated. We have to ask ourselves: If over 112,000 people were denied but only 12,710 Investigations took place, wouldn’t that be clear evidence that the system is failing and falsely denying good people their right to keep and bear?

It gets worse. That same year, and from that group of 112,090 denials, there were only 12 prosecutions for the crime of attempting to purchase a firearm. Now the anti-gun crowd says, “See, we stopped 12 mass shootings!” Well, there are problems with that argument.

First of all, do we have no regard for the 112,078 people who were caught up in the poorly run background check system? What happens to those people? Well, the anti-gun crowd couldn’t care less about the people who are falsely denied their 2nd Amendment rights. As well as being falsely labeled a criminal and refused the ability to purchase a gun, good folks who are denied must also jump through hoops, make appeals, and wait.

Then, they have to wait some more because we know how efficient government agencies operate. By some estimates, approximately 80% of the NICS denials are never even appealed, often because the person denied is unable to navigate the appeals process or is unable to afford a lawyer to help them. In the meantime, good people are rendered unarmed and helpless by an unconstitutional process that should never have existed in the first place.

What about the 12 prosecutions in 2017? Were they mass murderers? And if they were, why weren’t they in jail? The background check system is created under the guise of stopping violent criminals from purchasing firearms, but if a person has done something so heinous that they lose their rights, wouldn’t that crime be enough to keep them in jail? And if not, why not? Why are they able to walk among us? It would seem the problem has less to do with guns and more to do with a criminal justice system that works to keep a violent element on our streets. The background check system, however, has been much more effective at preventing law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms than criminals, and we can see that by simply looking at the numbers.

Now, you might remember the anti-gun crowd cheering in the media that the number of firearm purchase denials reached the highest number yet in the year 2021. That year, there were approximately 300,000 background check denials. This was great news to the gun grabbers because all they really care about is disarming their political opposition, but did the percentage of false denials change?

With a huge increase in firearm purchases after the left-wing riots of 2020, the FBI claims that its denial rate is 99.8% accurate. Mysteriously, the Government Accountability Office has still not posted their findings for 2022, but you’re supposed to believe that the FBI went from a .01% success rate to a 99.8% success rate, and you are now safe from false denials. John Lott from the Crime Prevention Research Center has claimed that the exact opposite is true, and approximately 99% of firearm purchase denials are false positives, meaning good people are being denied their rights for no reason.

After watching the NICS system deny thousands of good people over the years, you’re supposed to believe that now, magically, the firearm background check system is functioning as it should. Well, we’re not buying it for a minute. We know the system is falsely denying good people their right to own firearms, and the system needs to be abolished.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t say, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed… as long as you go through a background check system designed by people who don’t want you to have a gun.”

 

BLUF
Heroic citizens stopping bad guys would be just as interesting to watch as police stopping crimes, but permit holders are rarely portrayed that way on television. This reluctance to show normal good guys with guns endangers public safety by fostering a false perception that armed civilians are more of a threat than a solution.

If we truly care about public safety, we should acknowledge the proven role that responsible gun owners play in stopping violent attacks — rather than avoiding the truth for the sake of an anti-gun agenda.

Study: Concealed Carriers Do A Better Job Of Stopping Active Shooters Than Police

You’d never know it from watching television, but civilians stop more active shooters than police and do so with fewer mistakes, according to new research from the Crime Prevention Research Center, where I serve as president. In non-gun-free zones, where civilians are legally able to carry guns, concealed carry permit holders stopped 51.5 percent of active shootings, compared to 44.6 percent stopped by police, CPRC found in a deep dive into active shooter scenarios between 2014 and 2023.

Not only do permit holders succeed in stopping active shooters at a higher rate, but law enforcement officers face significantly greater risks when intervening. Our research found police were nearly six times more likely to be killed and 17 percent more likely to be wounded than armed civilians.

Those numbers paint a fuller picture than the FBI’s crime statistics, which fail to include many of the defensive gun uses my organization has cataloged. But the problem with the FBI’s crime statistics isn’t just the errors in their reported data — they also fail to address useful questions, like how concealed handgun permit holders compare to law enforcement. Kash Patel and Dan Bongino face a major challenge in reforming how the data is collected and reported at the FBI.

What We Found

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS is going to have to do something about this and slap these silly lower courts down, or things aren’t going to be pretty

Seventh Circuit Panel: SBRs Aren’t ‘Arms’ Protected by the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms. That should mean any weapon used for offensive or defensive acts. The reason was very clear. It was intended for us to be able to maintain a militia that could defend this nation from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

But the Seventh Circuit has decided that short-barreled rifles, or SBRs, aren’t arms covered by the amendment.

(I had to use a screenshot that I linked since X is having issues with the embed codes)

Now, this is a problem for a lot of reasons.

First, let’s talk a bit about the Miller decision. Yes, it’s a Supreme Court decision that lower courts have had to contend with for ages now. However, Miller dealt with a sawed-off shotgun. The Court in that decision said that such a weapon had no militia use, thus it wasn’t covered by the Second Amendment. That was wrong, of course, because that ruling was issued in 1934, so after shotguns had been used so effectively in World War I that the Germans tried to get using them considered a war crime.

Further, Miller himself was dead, so there wasn’t really another side arguing one way or the other in that case.

Still, when you look at Bruen, it doesn’t say anything about how you can just decide something isn’t an arm simply because you don’t think it’s useful for warfare.

Of course, then there’s the fact that if SBRs aren’t useful for warfare as a tool of the militia, then why is the standard issue weapon for the United States Army technically an SBR? The M4 has a barrel length of 14.5 inches, which is an inch and a half shorter than what is necessary for a rifle to not be considered an SBR. If SBRs aren’t useful for militia use, then why is it issued to every one of our combat troops and was used in pretty much every firefight out troops saw in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Now, let’s talk about the “step two in our Bruen” thing that’s cut off.

We turn to step two in our Bruen analysis in the interest of completeness. As discussed below, even if short-barreled rifles were “arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment, historical tradition likely supports regulating them.

The court goes on to argue that Rahimi permits similar but more modern laws can be considered.

Rahimi, 602 U.S. at 692. When the historical laws “address[ed] particular problems” there is a good chance “contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions for similar reasons” are also permissible. Id. The laws do not need to “precisely match”—the contemporary one must only “comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment….” Id.

Now, I’m not an attorney, but this sure looks like the Rahimi decision seems to suggest that contemporary laws can be applied when the historical laws addressed either that problem or similar ones. In other words, if the Founding Fathers were trying to address drunk people carrying guns, as they did, a more contemporary law seeking to address a similar problem would apply.

Instead, the Seventh Circuit judges just decided to accept contemporary laws as good enough simply because they don’t like the idea of SBRs.

That’s not even getting into the possibility that these judges’ nominations might not even be valid since everything Biden signed looks to have been the result of an autopen and we can’t be sure Biden even knew what was happening in the first place.