Category: RKBA

If it was never clear you, by now it should be that government, as a whole and no matter the fundamentals of how and why it was formed (cf. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights), has always been really hesitant to give free and unfettered access to the implements that make it so much easier for the unwashed masses to do away with a tyrant goobermint that sees them as mere peons.

Federal Judge Says Gun Law Unconstitutional, But Allows Feds to Largely Keep Enforcing It

Five years ago, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on handgun sales to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In late 2022, U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays dismissed the complaint, ruling that young adults have no Second Amendment right to purchase the most common firearm for self-defense, but that decision was overturned by a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in January of this year.

Since then, the plaintiffs and the DOJ have been arguing over the scope of the relief that should be granted, given that the appellate court found the law in question is unconstitutional. That alone should have favored a judgment from Summerhays that covered as many 18-to-20-year-olds as possible. Instead, on Tuesday, Summerhays rendered a judgment that leaves the unconstitutional law in place for almost everyone.

In a press release, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the “practical effect of this order is almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and didn’t impact the Second Amendment rights of thousands of individuals.”

“What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13. And even then, they’re only covered if SAF discloses their membership to the government under duress. We’re currently examining our options in relation to the relief granted and will vigorously defend our members’ right to free association and privacy of such.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition is similarly incensed, stating in a release:

Rather than uphold the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court regurgitated the Trump Administration’s self-serving demand to wipe away the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the government’s unconstitutional ban and continue denying millions of peaceable adults their right to keep and bear arms.

To be clear: FPC has never provided a list of its members to the government—and never will.

Our legal team is already taking action to urgently address this appalling order. We will commence appellate proceedings as necessary to protect our members and effectuate the Fifth Circuit’s decision in our favor. Further updates will be provided as the case proceeds.

The descriptions of Summerhays’ judgment aren’t hyperbolic. Here’s the text of the order so you can see for yourself.

The Court enters declaratory judgment, as described in paragraph 3 below, with respect to (a) Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin, and (b) individuals and federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, or Louisiana Shooting Association at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020.

The Court hereby declares that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and their attendant regulations, are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its Director, the Attorney General of the United States, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert with them and who have actual notice of this Judgment are hereby enjoined, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (i.e., Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), from enforcing the provisions referenced in paragraph 3, to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

Within twenty-one (21) days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs identified at paragraph 2(b) shall provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.

Summerhays’ order basically parrots the judgment proposed by the DOJ, which is another problem. President Donald Trump’s executive action to protect the Second Amendment states, in part, that:

… the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
     (b)  In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:
…
(v)    The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;

The judgment proposed by the DOJ (and accepted by Summerhays) is completely contrary to Trump’s order for the DOJ to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Donald Trump wasn’t in office when oral arguments in Reese v. ATF took place before the Fifth Circuit last fall, and had only been in office for ten days when the Fifth Circuit overturned Summerhays’s original decision and declared the ban on handgun sales unconstitutional.

Trump issued his executive order on protecting the Second Amendment in early February, and DOJ decided not long after that it would not appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. That was in accordance with the president’s order, but at some point between February and July, when the DOJ submitted its proposed judgment to the court, the agency adopted a position that runs counter to Trump’s executive action.

What makes this even more frustrating is that the proposed judgment was written, at least in part, by attorneys within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which has been taking historic actions to protect the right to keep and bear arms. In just the past couple of months the division has weighed in against “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans and sued the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed carry permits. It’s bizarre, then, to see the DOJ take the position that, even though this law is unconstitutional, it can continue to enforce it against virtually everyone except the named plaintiffs in Reese.

We’ll be talking more about this case with FPC”s Brandon Combs on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, and I encourage you to tune in and check out what he has to say. Thankfully, this isn’t the only case dealing with young adults and their 2A rights in the legal pipeline, and the Supreme Court has the opportunity to grant cert to similar challenges coming out of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits later this fall. There’s a clear split in the appellate courts on the issue, and hopefully SCOTUS will soon provide young adults the relief denied to them by Summerhays.

I love it when activist judge with a political agenda get slapped by SCOTUS and have to publicly reverse themselves.

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Blaming Gun Company for Mass Shooting

A Brady-backed lawsuit against Century Arms blaming a Romanian gun company and a U.S. firearms distributor for the 2019 mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California has finally been dismissed by a federal judge, almost a year after he ruled the case could move forward.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions refused to dismiss the suit in late 2024, arguing that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act didn’t shield Romarm S.A. and Century Arms because the plaintiffs had “plausibly pled an aiding and abetting theory that satisfied the predicate exception to PLCAA’s liability bar.”

The predicate exception, according to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Smith & Wesson v. Mexcio, requires that defendants “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms, and the violation “was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”

The plaintiffs in the case stemming from the Garlic Festival shooting had argued that Romarm and Century Arms had aided and abetted the shooter’s illegal gun possession in California by selling the WASR-10 that was used in the attack in states where the arm is perfectly legal to own.

Sessions originally accepted that claim under the dubious reasoning that the defendants “knew that California-based criminals were buying guns in Nevada with the illegal intent of transporting them into California,” yet “flooded the Nevada market with guns and employed marketing and pricing strategies with the intent of encouraging or facilitating such transport, not merely with indifference that such transport occurs,” which in turn “aided the commission of illegal gun possession in California.”

But in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, the Supreme Court stated that any aiding-and-abetting claims that aren’t based on a specific violation of state or federal law “must be backed by plausible allegations of pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance.” After that decision was handed down Romarm and Century Arms asked Sessions to reconsider his decision, and now the judge has reversed himself and dismissed the case.

The issue for reconsideration, in light of Smith and Wesson, is that none of those findings are particular to the specific incident in this case. The shooter was a Nevada resident at the time of purchase, so his purchase was presumptively legal. Plaintiffs have not alleged with any specificity that Defendants advertised or marketed their products in any way that encouraged the shooter to take his legally purchased firearm across the border to California where it would be illegally possessed.

The oversupply argument similarly fails, as applied to the shooter, because he was a Nevada resident. No matter how many surplus guns were distributed in Nevada beyond what the Nevada market could bear, the fact that the Plaintiff was a part of the Nevada market who was not engaged in some sort of broader trafficking scheme is a flaw in that reasoning.

Put another way, the firearm at the center of this case was not part of an excess supply allegedly flooded into Nevada with the goal of attracting California residents for the simple reason that the shooter was a Nevada resident. So, while Defendants’ act in manufacturing the firearm and marketing it in Nevada may have aided the commission of some illegal gun possession in California, it does not follow, on the facts pled, that they aided the shooter’s illegal gun possession in California “beyond providing the good on the open market.”

It seems to me that Sessions could and should have dismissed the case even before SCOTUS handed down its unanimous decision throwing out Mexico’s lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and other U.S. gunmakers, but the fact that he allowed the case to move forward under such specious claims just demonstrates the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision that helped lay out the scope of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s protections.

Sessions, a Clinton appointee who’s served on the bench since 1995, still argued in dismissing the case that “it may well be true” that “Defendants’ acts aided the commission of illegal gun possession in California” in other instances, but the plaintiffs haven’t plausibly proved that to be the case here. That statement was completely superfluous and unnecessary, and appears to telegraph Session’s willingness to punish companies in the firearms industry for the third-party actions of criminals whenever possible. 

In this case, thankfully, Sessions couldn’t get around the plain language of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. If it weren’t for that unanimous decision penned by Justice Elena Kagan, though, Brady’s junk lawsuit would still be an ongoing threat to the lawful commerce in arms.

The Supreme Court has grated certiorari and will consider overturning a Hawaii law that imposes strict regulations on where people can carry guns.

The Trump administration had urged the justices to take the case, arguing the law violates the court’s 2022 ruling that found people have a right to carry firearms in public under the Second Amendment.

The Hawaii law bans guns on private property unless the owner has specifically allowed them.

24-1046 WOLFORD, JASON, ET AL. V. LOPEZ, ATT’Y GEN. OF HI

Wolford v. Lopez

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.

Original Intent: What the Founders Had to Say About Guns
The very idea of American freedom hinges on the right to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution took effect March 4, 1789 – and the Bill of Rights a while later on December 15, 1791. Among other freedoms, this included the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. But now it’s 2025, more than 230 years removed from that great work of America’s Founding Fathers. So where do our gun rights stand – and what would those men think if they could see us today?

The Birth of Gun Control Meant Death to Liberty

In 1934 – more than 140 years after the Bill of Rights and nearly a century after the last remaining Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836 – the nation’s first successful gun control bill became law. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, and he led a trifecta in the Swamp that included a supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. The gun control that they passed regulated, for the first time, various types of firearms differently. Even with the majorities necessary to bulldoze the minority opposition, they knew an outright ban wouldn’t fly. So, instead, they passed a bill technically regulating the sale and taxation of certain types of arms – and, in practice, pricing out most Americans from owning them.

Three decades later, Democrats once again held both houses of Congress and the presidency. And, once again, they capitalized on a series of crises to justify further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. With the Gun Control Act of 1968, we got the establishment of prohibited persons – entire groups of people who would be stripped of the right to be armed. Guns could no longer be bought and sold commercially without going through a federally licensed dealer, in person.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the background check as a way to weed out prohibited persons. This was followed quickly by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which made certain semi-automatic firearms illegal for anyone, though it expired in 2004. Democrats have been trying ever since to pass another ban – this time, without a sunset clause.

Every gun control law passed in this nation’s history – and the time between them seems to shrink with each one – brings us farther from the Founders’ vision of liberty. Yes, in the last few years, Supreme Court rulings, executive actions, and the spread of the constitutional carry movement through the states all seemed to push back on this slow march to disarmament. But freedom today doesn’t mean what it did to the Founders. They envisioned something quite different, and nothing paints a better picture of that vision than their own words.

Continue reading “”

I wish the Trump administration would be more consistent in pro-RKBA moves like this.

DOJ Sues LA Sheriff Over Gun Permit Delays, Says 2A Violation Scope ‘Staggering’

The Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging deliberate foot-dragging by the department in processing applications for California concealed carry licenses.

If this is the first high-profile move fulfilling the mission of the DOJ’s “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force” announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi in April, it’s a major offensive. The nine-page federal complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, does not mince words.

“The scope of this constitutional violation is staggering,” the complaint says. “Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two—a mere 0.05% approval rate that cannot be explained by legitimate disqualifying factors alone. This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.”

The complaint, submitted by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Acting U.S. Attorney Bilal A. Essayli for the Central District of California and other DOJ officials in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, declares, “The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.”

Named as defendants are the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna, in his official capacity. The department did not immediately offer a response.

Continue reading “”

Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional
A federal court ruled that prohibitions on carrying firearms in post offices are unconstitutional. This ruling comes out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On September 30, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor delivered an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC is joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and two citizens —  Gavin Pate and George Mandry —  in challenging the federal law.

O’Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” There’s nothing in the order limiting it to Texas and applies to all members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The complaint was originally filed in June 2024 and the named defendant was then-Attorney General Garland. “So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a ‘sensitive place,’ it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue,’” the complaint said.

This order in Texas comes at the heels of the Department of Justice dropping a bid for an appeal in a criminal matter involving carriage on U.S. Postal Service property. U.S. v. Ayala in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involved defendant Ayala’s possession of a firearm on postal grounds. District Court Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that: “The United States fails to meet its burden of pointing to a historical tradition of firearms regulation justifying Ayala’s indictment under § 930(a).”

In Ayala, the Department of Justice dismissed their motion for an appeal in August. That move allowed Judge Mizelle’s order to stand.

“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a statement. “As we’ve stated throughout this case, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans all over the country should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and the exercise of their fundamental rights. Today’s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.”

The order applies to “ordinary post offices,” and explains, “Because Plaintiffs have agreed to limit their relief to ordinary post offices not located in restricted areas like military bases or where the Government provides armed security, the Court likewise limits its remedies to ordinary post offices.”

“This is a huge win for SAF and its members,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There is no historical analogue to justify a ban on carrying a firearm on postal property, and we are pleased the court rightly saw through this thinly veiled attempt at preventing citizens from fully exercising their constitutional rights.”

Named plaintiff FPC observed in their statement that “Judge O’Connor explained, ‘it is hard to envision that the Founders would countenance banning firearms in the post office — particularly because they did not do so themselves. Thus, the Government has not carried its burden’ to justify its ban on carry in and around post offices. The Court thus held that the prohibition is ‘unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms’ inside a post office or on post office property.”

Speaking on behalf of FPC, Foundation President Brandon Combs noted that governments can’t ban weapons in “unsecured public spaces.” He further stated that governments also can’t “invent new so-called ‘gun-free zones’ whenever they please.”

“For too long, peaceable people have been threatened with prosecution simply for carrying weapons for self-defense while mailing a package or buying stamps,” Combs said. “That ends here.”

The victory in FPC v. Bondi is another step towards fully repatriating the people with a whole Second Amendment. Rather than turn into contortions of Cirque du Soleil proportions to find an analogue, the federal court found the government failed to meet the appropriate burden of proof — because there isn’t one.

Considering the Department of Justice’s recent withdrawal in the Ayala criminal possession case, it’s not likely they’ll seek an appeal in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you never know. We’ll be keeping up with this case and will be reporting back with any future findings.

Something to be aware of for those of us who do carry.

Overturn of Montana Man’s Conviction Illustrates Issue With Gun-Free School Zones

The Bruen decision left the door open on “sensitive places” that can be gun-free zones. Places like courthouses, for example.

For a lot of people, schools should definitely be on that list. I’m not so sure, but I can accept that some people disagree with me. They have a right to be wrong, after all, especially since we know that the gun-free zone thing doesn’t seem to keep bad people from carrying them onto the campus anyway.

But a case in Montana, where a man’s conviction was just overturned, highlights one major issue with gun-free school zones.

See, the issue isn’t just the schools, but a perimeter around the schools, and that’s what got him arrested.

A man who was convicted in federal court of firearms violations after menacing neighbors and an elementary school in Billings by carrying guns and patrolling the neighborhood has had his conviction overturned in a split decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a ruling earlier this week, the panel of three appellate judges said that Gabriel Metcalf’s conviction should be overturned because he offered a plausible interpretation and understanding of federal gun law, even while acknowledging that federal district court judge Susan Watters had a more straightforward and traditional definition of the law.

The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a former Montana Solicitor General, noted that Metcalf appears to be the only person to test whether Montana’s open carry gun law complied with the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. In his appeal, Metcalf also raised concerns that his conviction also violated his Second Amendment rights, but the appellate court stopped short of deciding that issue, ruling instead that Metcalf’s interpretation of the law was plausible, and therefore he could not have known he was violating federal law.

Judge Mary M. Schroeder issued a dissenting opinion in the case, saying that VanDyke and Judge John B. Owens had reached their conclusion “by means of a tortured application” of judicial principles, even while acknowledging that Watters had the better and more traditional interpretation of state and federal law.

At the heart of the issue, at least in the case itself, is that Montana’s permitless carry law basically says that everyone who isn’t expressly forbidden from carrying a gun is considered licensed, and the federal law says people with licenses can carry in the buffer area around a school. The Biden administration argued that no, the licensing had to be explicit–something the law doesn’t seem to actually state, for the record–and so he was in violation of federal law.

Metcalf’s defense is that he literally had no reason to believe any such thing, which is fair.

However, a bigger issue is the existence of this area outside of the school grounds themselves.

See, the federal law doesn’t account for permitless carry as most states have it, nor does it account for things like reciprocity. You have to be licensed in that state in order to just walk past a school on the sidewalk, which is a problem.

This is something most people are going to be unaware of when traveling, for one thing, just as they’re not going to be aware of where all the schools in a given city might be. Just following Google Maps could land you a felony charge, simply because Google didn’t know you needed to be so many feet away from a school because you’re lawfully carrying a firearm.

It’s ridiculous.

If we’re going to insist that schools should be gun-free zones for law-abiding adults, can’t we at least agree that if someone intends anything malicious, stretching that zone out however many feet or isn’t going to actually stop them any better than the sign on the door will? Can’t we also agree that it’s ridiculous that people otherwise obeying the law, going about their day, might end up with a felony charge because they set foot outside of their house with a gun on their person, simply because they live in a constitutional carry state and live too close to a school?

Of course we can’t, because some people are so vehemently hoplophobic that they can’t accept anyone with a gun not being evil.

DOJ Issues “Relief From Disabilities” Proposal

On July 22, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a proposed rule to revive a statutory process for the restoration of Second Amendment rights lost under federal law as a result of convictions or other disqualifying circumstances. NRA-ILA will be submitting its own comments on the proposal, and we urge our members to do so as well. Thoughtful, pro-gun comments will ensure the best outcome for this critical program.

NRA often emphasizes that it represents peaceable, law-abiding gun owners. Yet the Second Amendment is a restraint on government; it is not a prize the government bestows only on whom it chooses. There are limits to the restrictions the government can place on gun ownership, even when (as is almost always the case) it claims to be acting in the interest of “public safety” or “keeping guns out of the wrong hands.” Rights restoration is an important corrective measure when the government’s “public safety” efforts overshoot the mark.

Continue reading “”

Appeal Brief Filed in Knife Rights’ Second Amendment Federal Switchblade Act Lawsuit

Knife Rights and its fellow appellants have filed their Appeal Brief in our Federal Second Amendment lawsuit against the Federal Switchblade Act.

Download the Opening Brief

Download the Full Excerpts (159MB)

The essence of the case is that the Supreme Court has made clear that the “Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms…” Further, in Heller, the Supreme Court stated the Second Amendment protects weapons that are “‘in common use at the time’ for lawful purposes like self-defense” and that weapons “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes” are within the scope of the Second Amendment.

Despite this, the Federal Switchblade Act broadly restricts, or outright bans in over one-third of the U.S., a huge category of such bearable arms that are in common use, in direct violation of the Second Amendment.

The District Court ignored its commands from the Supreme Court with another absurd stretch to avoid ruling in favor of the Second Amendment.We are asking the Appeals Court to reverse this ridiculous decision.

We also hope that with the Department of Justice’s recent amicus briefs in the 7th and 3rd Circuits opposing bans on AR-style rifles (“assault weapons”) and magazines-more-than-10 round capacity as “flagrantly violat[ing] the Second Amendment,” that they will revisit their irrational opposition in our case and stipulate, like in these others, that switchblades are commonly possessed arms under the Second Amendment and that the Federal Switchblade Act (excepting the import ban) also flagrantly violates the Second Amendment.

Knife Rights’ Attorney John Dillon said, “this is a very strong appeal from a district court decision that has no legitimate legal support. There is no question that switchblades are “arms” under every conceivable definition of the term. Because the FSA clearly prohibits the manufacture, transportation, and purchase of these arms in all interstate commerce, as well as possession of switchblades on all federal lands and Indian Country, Heller and Bruen demand that the government bear the burden of justifying the FSA’s prohibitions. The government has entirely failed to meet this burden, and we will prove that on appeal.”

Since 2010 Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 58 bills & court decisions repealing knife bans & protecting knife owners in 36 states and over 200 cities and towns! Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™.

The Correct Argument for the Second Amendment

Taking a person’s quote out of context is unfair and disingenuous. Doing so when that person is not present to defend themselves is truly heinous and cowardly. Such has been the case in the weeks following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.

Of all the misrepresentations and outright lies surrounding Charlie Kirk, his beliefs and actions, perhaps the most insidious is the one used to justify his murder. His quote circulating on social media goes as follows: “It’s worth it to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment.” The deliberately fallacious logic of the Left then concludes that by Kirk’s own words, he deserves to be one of those unfortunate casualties. They leave out, of course, the part where Kirk stresses that while the Second Amendment allows us to protect many of our God-given rights, this decision comes with an imperative to reduce gun violence.

Rather than waste time justifying the value of Charlie Kirk’s human life to the soulless who do not care to hear it, it is both in better service to the memory of Charlie Kirk and more edifying to focus on just why a full gun ban should not exist in the United States of America.

There are two common answers conservatives give in defense of the Second Amendment, and both are not only insufficient but fundamentally incorrect. The first and most useless is hunting. While in simple terms, the right to hunt animals is self-evident, guns for the sole purpose of hunting would logically exclude the necessity of semi-automatic weapons and AR-15s. As Joe Biden was wont to say, deer do not run around in Kevlar vests. Furthermore, the benefits of hunting are persuasively dismissed by a side that ostensibly argues for human lives. For the average American influenced by media narrative, it is unjustifiable to allow school shootings in order to allow middle-aged men wearing camouflage to shoot deer.

The second is self-defense. This argument holds up considerably better, though it is still lacking. There exist evil actors, some with guns. The best way to counteract this unfortunate reality is by having good actors with guns, both for deterrence and defending against such actors. Taking away Second Amendment protections leaves good-faith actors susceptible to attack, and leaves the likelihood that bad actors will procure firearms illegally. The argument against this, however, is that an effective repeal of the Second Amendment and large-scale gun confiscation would produce a world with no guns for evil actors, eliminating the need for self-defense from gun violence. From a procedural perspective, a full gun confiscation is unfeasible and would not yield the utopian society the Left desires. While these are valid arguments, they are questions of practical application rather than objective principles.

The argument that Charlie Kirk makes, and the argument made by the Founding Fathers, is in fact the correct one. Americans have the right to bear arms because we have the right to possess a physical check against a tyrannical government. In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, the Founding Fathers were careful to create a constitution that would prevent their new government from devolving into the tyranny they had escaped under the British. An armed citizenry is a blunt solution to this problem. The Swiss resistance model, for example, inspired the American Revolution and the Second Amendment. It allowed the Swiss people to fend off time and again both foreign and domestic tyranny. Consent of the governed does not mean anything at all if the citizens do not have an alternative option. Without the right to firearms, consent of the governed is a vacuous phrase meant to cleverly enslave the population using the delusion of freedom.

Unfortunately, this is a far more uncomfortable argument. The modern American does not like the idea of rising up to fight a tyrannical power. While the Constitution is one of the great written works in the history of the world, it rests on values and assumptions greater than the document itself. One of these values has been lost by the American spirit, namely, a willingness to die for something. The founders, though differing in theological details, held a deep respect for eternity and the final end. Only with that worldview is it at all reasonable to throw away an earthly life for another person, an ideal, or simply God Himself. The modern American has lost this.

This does not mean that every American should be thirstily awaiting civil war. It is simply a reminder that love for America means a respect for its founding principles. Respect here means more than tacit agreement to these principles — it requires a willingness to defend them. If this sentiment were commonly held among Americans, the right to bear arms would not be a rigorous debate but an assumed fundamental bedrock of our country. When Charlie Kirk acknowledged the risk of gun violence, he did so because he understood this fact. Charlie Kirk’s message and legacy are greater than himself. The fact that his enemies are so intent on distorting his words is a sign that we should listen more carefully to them.

Be Not Afraid: Fear, Guns, and Gun Policy

here’s something about fear that makes people do very different things, even if their fear is over the same source. It’s why some people stick their heads in the sand while others prepare for disasters. It’s why some people try to change the world and others just dig in and try to survive in it.

And let’s be real here, the subject of fear is a big part of the gun debate, whether we like it or not.

That’s especially true when people let their fears dictate what policies they back, especially when they’re trying to decide what anyone is allowed to do.

This came up because of an op-ed at an independent student publication at Auburn University. I don’t particularly like picking on college students, but sometimes, they offer up tidbits of what others are thinking, and their arguments need to be addressed. This particular op-ed seems to talk a lot about gun control, of course, but there’s a reason I’m talking about fear.

It’s because the author started it.

The heavy emotions I felt receiving my high school diploma this past May came in distinctly differing ways.
I felt a deep sense of accomplishment for myself and my closest friends. I felt as though a suffocating weight was lifted off of my chest, opening a portal for unlimited success. I felt as though I would never return to Huntsville and live the same simple and carefree life. I would never roam the halls of the high school or put my keeper gloves on for soccer practice.   

It was this breakneck speed of time passing that pried my fingers from holding on. An era of childhood was closing in front of my eyes, and I didn’t know how to react to it. As I took in the occasion, feeling gracious for the memories and sentimental for the time I would never get back, for a brief moment, I thought to myself, “I survived.” I survived a part of life that many children and young adults don’t each year.

Now, let’s understand that school shootings are rare. While the current hotness for anti-gunners is that firearms are the leading cause of death in children, it still should be noted that child deaths aren’t super common, either.

In other words, if you’re born in this country, you’ve got a really, really great chance of reaching adulthood. So long as you stay in school, you’ll graduate. There’s really no reason to fear that you won’t survive beyond the media hype trying to convince people that they won’t.

Yet, what I find funny is that this person, who claims they were so relieved to survive to graduate, then had the gall to write this:

What are pro-gun activists so scared about as they leave their house that forces them to conceal carry a life-ending weapon? What does it say about our nation that people feel such a strong need to always protect themselves? Why are people so willing to look past all of this tragedy for their own convenience of owning a gun? Why are we time and time again allowing unstable citizens and children access to buy these guns or access them without stricter security measures?  

American gun violence in schools blows every other first-world nation out of the water in terms of how often they occur and the amount of deaths that result.  

American non-gun violence blows every other first-world nation out of the water in terms of how often it occurs, especially when compared to those nations’ total rates.

And the vast majority of that violence is carried out by people who cannot lawfully access guns, but do so anyway.

I find it funny, though, that the author has decided to question our courage by opting to carry a gun when he was relieved just to survive high school, when there wasn’t really a great chance he wouldn’t.

The truth is that most of us aren’t really afraid. We have concerns that bad things can happen, but we believe that it’s better to be prepared for the unlikely than to simply trust probability to protect us.

Look, I’ve had people in my sights twice. Once because I was afraid for my own life, and once for the life of another. I’m glad I didn’t have to pull the trigger either time. I’m already outside of the probability range for most people, so you’ll excuse me if I go about my day with a gun on me out of concern that the laws of probability aren’t finished screwing with me. I’m not afraid most of the time. The gun is for when there’s a reason to be afraid.

Yet let’s understand that while the author makes a thing about asking what we’re afraid of, his entire approach to the issue of guns is governed my his own fears. He cites fatal shooting statistics around college campuses after lamenting K-12 school shootings, and I get the concern. Colleges are prime targets for bad people, but not because there aren’t enough gun laws. It’s because college campuses are gun-free zones.

Fear governed the creation of gun-free zones. Fear expanded them onto college campuses. Fear governs the calls for gun control throughout the nation, all while anti-gunners ask us what we’re afraid of.

When I’m carrying, the answer is, “Nothing.”

It’s a lot easier to be not afraid when you have the means to meet the threat. It’s a lot easier to have no fear when you’re prepared for whatever dangers you might encounter.

Sure, fear will pop up then, but that’s a different matter. Everyone else is just as afraid. I’m just in a position to do something about it.

I’m not counting on a law that will be ignored to protect me.

NRA files brief in challenge to federal suppressor registration mandate

The National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association, and Independence Institute filed an amicus brief Sept. 17, urging the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to grant rehearing en banc (in full court) in a challenge to the National Firearms Act’s registration requirement for suppressors.

George Peterson was indicted for possessing an unregistered suppressor under 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871, and alleges that the NFA’s prohibition on unregistered suppressors violates the Second Amendment.

Here in Ohio: House bill would let certain officials carry concealed firearms in government facilities
On Aug. 27, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit upheld the prohibition. The court reasoned that registration requirements are the equivalent of licensing schemes, and because the U.S. Supreme Court has indicated that shall-issue carry licensing schemes can be constitutional, registration requirements for individual arms are also constitutional. The court declined to apply the test for Second Amendment challenges set forth in the NRA’s landmark Supreme Court victory, NYSRPA v. Bruen.

Our brief urges the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case en banc because the panel decision contradicts Supreme Court case law and sets a troubling precedent. The brief warns that by upholding the registration requirement for suppressors while assuming they are protected arms, the decision implies that the government may require the registration of all arms — and without needing to satisfy the Supreme Court’s test for Second Amendment challenges. The brief then provides various examples throughout history, including from England, Germany, France, Australia, and New York City, to prove that registration often leads to confiscation, and confiscation often leads to tyranny. A regulation with such serious constitutional implications, our brief concludes, must be subject to the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test.

The brief was filed in United States v. Peterson.

DOJ Takes Troubling Position in Second Amendment Case

The case Reese v. ATF challenges the prohibition on 18-to-20-year-olds from purchasing handguns. Victorious at the Fifth Circuit, they’re now working towards a final judgment at the district court level, but the Department of Justice has taken a position that’s not sitting well with Second Amendment advocates.

After the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered an opinion on Reese v. ATF, the case was remanded for final judgment to the District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The circuit court concluded that “the Second Amendment includes eighteen-to-twenty-year-old individuals among ‘the people’ whose right to keep and bear arms is protected.” The plaintiffs filed an important brief on Friday in support of their proposed judgment.

The government ended up exhausting their timeline to appeal the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. When remanded back to district court, both the plaintiffs and the government filed proposed judgments because “a good faith attempt to reach agreement with Government” failed.

The plaintiffs are proposing the government be enjoined from enforcing prohibitions on the sale of handguns to all eighteen-to-twenty-year-old members. The government is requesting that the law be enjoined only “with respect to the identified and verified persons described” in the proposed judgment. In short, the government essentially wants the order to apply only to the individual plaintiffs, not every member of the associations who are part of the lawsuit, which include the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Louisiana Shooting Association.

“The laws challenged in this case prevent 18-to-20-year-old adult Americans from acquiring handguns or handgun ammunition in the ordinary commercial market. The Fifth Circuit has held that those laws and their supporting regulations are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the filing states. “And now the Government has taken the position that even so, Plaintiffs should be entitled only to illusory relief and the Government should be free to continue to enforce these unconstitutional restrictions against Plaintiffs’ affected members as though they never brought and won this suit.”

The 19-page brief goes on to explain why the final judgment should not give deference to the government by delivering what would amount to an as-applied opinion. Given the amount of time it takes to bring such cases to completion, many plaintiffs are mooted out by coming of age before there are any final judgments—something the government incorporated in their proposed order.

“What’s at stake now is the scope of the injunction–meaning, which young adults will be able to exercise their rights,” said Second Amendment Foundation’s Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “Although it chose not to appeal the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, it is now the ATF’s position that the scope of relief should be so narrow as to cover literally no one. That position is contrary to well-settled law. SAF sued on behalf of its members, and the relief SAF won in the Fifth Circuit flows to those very members. All SAF members should be covered by this injunction.”

“SAF’s victory in this case rightly applies to all of our members, and that is precisely what this brief makes clear,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The government cannot continue to trounce on the Second Amendment rights of young adults by trying to avoid the practical effectiveness of an injunction mandated by a federal circuit court.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition had some harsh words for the Department of Justice. FPC said the government’s brief was full of “brazen arguments” and that “the DOJ is working to push all effective, cause-driven organizations … out of court altogether, and force people to pursue their rights through slow, complex, and expensive class-action lawsuits.” FPC alleges that these moves are all part of a new government ploy.

“The DOJ’s cynical scheme to undermine associational standing and relief for our members is nothing but an attempt to put constitutional accountability out of the reach of ordinary Americans,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs said in a statement. “The federal government, having lost on the merits, is now trying to rig the process. But we will not be deterred. While the government has placed FPC and our members in its crosshairs, we are proud to expose and oppose this dangerous strategy as we pursue a world of maximal liberty for all peaceable people.”

We’re allegedly living at a time when the most pro-Second Amendment administration is in power. The government yielding by allowing the clock to run out on appealing to the High Court certainly was a win, but not if in the next breath they’re saying that the relief the plaintiffs are seeking should be grossly limited. The Fifth Circuit was clear when it said that 18-to-20-year-olds are part of “the people,” there should be no further argument—yet here we are.

Florida bill would allow armed volunteers to protect churches, synagogues, mosques
Sen. Don Gaetz said he ‘hoped (the bill) would never have been necessary.’

It’s rare when Sen. Don Gaetz says he filed a bill that he “hoped would never have been necessary.”

“But pastors in my area came to me with the request that I help them,” said Gaetz, R-Niceville, of Senate Bill 52.

The bill he spoke of, entitled “Security Services at Places of Worship,” would provide an exemption from licensure requirements for certain volunteers who provide armed security for places of worship.

“I hope the bill will help in assisting churches who feel like they have to protect themselves and their parishioners,” Gaetz said.

Here’s why: A string of recent shootings across the country and a major Florida court ruling on gun rights have reignited the national debate over firearms.

Recently in late August, two children were killed and and 17 people, including 14 children, were wounded after a shooter opened fire at a Catholic church in Minneapolis.

And last week, on the same day conservative activist Charlie Kirk was killed at an event at a Utah university, two teenagers were wounded after a 16-year-old student fired shots inside his Colorado high school. He later killed himself as authorities confronted him outside.

In Florida, the state’s 1st District Court of Appeal declared unconstitutional  a state law that bans the open carrying of firearms. A three-judge panel said the ban was incompatible with the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

According to the Gun Violence Archive, as of Sept. 18, there have been 305 mass shootings in 2025.

Gaetz’s bill will allow volunteers who meet certain requirements to provide security for places of worship if the security plan is approved by the local sheriff’s office; the volunteer has a valid Florida concealed carry permit and does not receive compensation for the security work; and if they pass a level 2 background check.

A level 2 background check is a state and federal-level fingerprint-based check, according to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.

The bill language says “place of worship” but also includes the words “church, mosque, or synagogue.”

“I was approached by Protestant ministers,” Gaetz said, adding that he has not spoken to Roman Catholic clergy, imams or rabbis.

But “I took the liberty of defining a house of worship in a way that would include all denominations,” he explained.

Antisemitic incidents in the United States have increased in the past couple of years, according to the Anti-Defamation League. In 2024, these incidents rose for the fourth consecutive year, reaching 9,354 total incidents, the highest level ever recorded in 45 years of record keeping.

There will be a companion bill in the Florida House, Gaetz said, and he expects it to be filed in the coming days. The 2026 legislative session convenes Jan. 13, and committee weeks begin Oct. 6.

If passed, the measure will take effect on July 1, 2026.

I’ll append a quote:
“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 re-election 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”
-Senior Chief Judge of the 9th Circuit, Alex Kozinski

Charlie Kirk was Right About the Second Amendment, Remember His Words

When Charlie Kirk was asked about the Second Amendment in April 2023, just days after the Nashville school shooting, he didn’t give a watered-down, politically safe answer. He spoke plainly, and what he said is now being ripped out of context in the wake of his assassination.

Gun-control activists, the media, and opportunistic politicians are seizing on fragments of his response, painting Kirk as an “extremist” who glorified gun deaths. But if you look at the full exchange, a different picture emerges—one of honesty, clarity, and a willingness to say what most politicians are too cowardly to admit.

Americans Prefer Communities With Guns
Gun bans aren’t gaining traction.

With so many laws on the books regulating gun ownership and enforcing myriad gun control measures, it’s more than a bit surprising that Americans prefer law-abiding citizens be allowed to have firearms in their neighborhoods. This includes those who identify as Democrats. A new survey conducted by Napolitan News Service reveals 53% of voters “prefer to live in a community where people are allowed to own guns, while 38% say they would prefer to live where guns are outlawed.” This includes 76% of those who self-identify as Republican and 63% of Democrats.

By an almost 2-1 margin, men say they want to live in an area where their friends and neighbors are allowed to own guns. Women, however, appear to have mixed feelings, with 44% saying they prefer to have firearms outlawed. Forty-three percent of women want to live in a location where guns are allowed.

When asked about gun violence and so-called “mass shootings,” 56% of those polled would rather have the laws already on the books enforced over passing new legislation. Concerning matters of race, it’s clear that blacks and Hispanics are more concerned about “mass shootings.” Only 3% of whites said it was “very likely” that a close family member might be killed in a random shooting, but 11% of blacks and 9% of Hispanics felt more personally threatened.

Sending Thoughts and Prayers

After the recent killing of innocent schoolchildren in Minnesota, controversy erupted over the frequently used phrase “sending thoughts and prayers” to the families of those tragically killed. This poll reveals that only 26% of voters were bothered by this phraseology; 71% said those comments were not offensive.

Perhaps less shocking is that 77% of elites, that is, people with a postgraduate education who make more than $150,000 annually and live in highly populated urban areas, “favor banning private ownership of guns.”

Twenty-two states currently have constitutional carry laws. These gun-friendly states follow the Second Amendment more closely by permitting citizens to have the legal right to both open and concealed carry without having to get a license. These locations tend to be more rural, while urban areas – where much of the gun violence occurs – are more likely to restrict gun ownership.

The most gun-friendly states in the United States include Alaska, Montana, Wyoming, and Arizona, with Idaho, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Missouri coming in the second tier.

Guns in the Hands of Law-Abiding Citizens

Recently, it was revealed that FBI statistics “massively undercounted defensive gun use for years,” according to Liberty Nation News. Author Graham Noble zeroed in on a report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) that showed “massive errors” in FBI data during Joe Biden’s administration. “If your agenda is to turn public opinion against gun ownership and spread the fear of gun violence, the last thing you want is people knowing guns can be, and often are, used to deter or prevent crime,” Noble astutely noted.

Conveniently leaving out the many times guns were used to stop crime in order to advance a political agenda is diabolical. The CPRC counted 561 active shootings in which 202 armed civilian interventions were reported. But the FBI recorded only 374 “active” shootings in which 14 armed civilians intervened. A spread that wide cannot be attributed to a simple error.

The fact is that more people surveyed feel safer in communities where law-abiding citizens have their firearms at the ready. And it shows that, instinctively, Americans know that guns in the hands of a good guy are the best defense during an active crime involving handguns.

Grassroots Legislative Update—September 15, 2025

By Tanya Metaksa

What’s New—Trump Administration DOJ: The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to vacate a prior conviction for possession of a “large-capacity magazine,” arguing the DC ban violates the Second Amendment; State Legislatures: California: Three bills moving towards final passage; Illinois: Gov. J.B. Pritzker signs SB8; North Carolina: The veto override vote of SB50 is scheduled for the House floor on Sept. 22.

Trump Administration DOJ

The Trump administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a motion in the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to vacate a prior conviction for possession of a “large-capacity magazine,” arguing the DC ban violates the Second Amendment. Jeanine Pirro, United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, submitted this motion, which requests that the conviction of Tyrie Benson under DC’s large-capacity magazine ban (DC Code 7-2506.01) be overturned. The motion openly states the DOJ now considers the law unconstitutional and will no longer prosecute violations of the statute.

Case Background

Tyrie Benson was charged in November 2022 with several offenses, including carrying an unlicensed pistol, possessing a large-capacity ammunition feeding device, unlawful possession of a firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. After a bench trial before Judge Lynn Liebovitz in April 2023, Benson was convicted on all counts. Benson appealed, arguing that the large-capacity magazine ban violated his Second Amendment rights. Initially, the Biden administration opposed this argument and defended the conviction, but the case remained undecided.

DOJ’s Motion and Rationale

The Trump DOJ’s reversal is articulated in the motion, which states that a complete ban on large-capacity magazines cannot survive constitutional scrutiny in light of Second Amendment protections. The government asserts that such magazines are fundamental to armed self-defense and, by extension, qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment. The motion further notes that bans analogous to those struck down in District of Columbia v. Heller—which prohibited entire categories of firearms—are similarly unconstitutional if they target items in common use. The DOJ acknowledges that tens of millions of such magazines exist in the United States, making it impossible for the government to prove they are “dangerous and unusual,” the test set forth in Heller for regulating arms.

Legal and Policy Implications

This shift by the DOJ is an indication that the Trump administration is “cleaning up” anti-Second Amendment policies, likely signaling a new approach in other cases, including those pending before federal appellate courts. The government’s stance means it will not prosecute anyone under the DC large-capacity magazine law moving forward. Mark W. Smith suggests this precedent could influence the outcome of similar cases nationwide, such as those in the Seventh Circuit or potentially at the Supreme Court should certiorari be granted.

State Legislature

The following states are still in SESSION:

California, Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin

California: On Sept. 9:  AB 1078 passed the Senate concurring with the Assembly amendments with all Republicans voting NO: AB 1127, amended in the Senate and awaiting third reading: and AB 1263, passed in the Senate and ordered to the Assembly.

Illinois: Earlier this month, Governor JB Pritzker signed SB8 into law, which mandates new mandatory firearm storage requirements for all gun owners. The legislation requires individuals to securely store all firearms in their homes, vehicles, buildings, or other structures. Previously, firearms were required to be stored to prevent children under the age of 14 from accessing them. SB8 raises this threshold to 18 and adds that prohibited persons and individuals deemed “at risk” must be prohibited from accessing any firearms.

Critics argue that this legislation unfairly punishes responsible gun owners by imposing broad and burdensome storage mandates. They point out that SB8 does little to address criminal misuse of firearms. Furthermore, law-abiding citizens face civil fines of up to $10,000 simply for how they store their personal property within their homes or vehicles.

North Carolina: The veto override vote of SB50 is scheduled for the House floor on Sept. 22.

No, It Wasn’t Ironic That Second Amendment Advocate Charlie Kirk Was Shot
All liberty involves tradeoffs. So does repressing liberty.

Inevitably, in the wake of the assassination of Charlie Kirk, some observers looked at the problem of a radicalized young man who drove hundreds of miles to plan and carry out the murder of somebody whose political views he abhorred and concluded that the problem is the tool used by the assassin. A few of those observers even gloat that Kirk was shot after defending the right to keep and bear arms when he discussed the tradeoffs inherent in balancing the benefits and dangers of liberty.

Much political discourse was already stupid, but too many people want to make it even stupider.

After Kirk’s assassination, amidst widespread mourning over his death as well as despicable celebrations of the conservative activist’s murder, came a spate of malicious chuckling over the nature of the crime. Charlie Kirk, you see, was shot with a rifle, and he’d once called shooting deaths the price of keeping the Second Amendment. How ironic!

Except that’s really not what Kirk said.

I had a lot of disagreements with Kirk, but this wasn’t one. His comment about the Second Amendment and deaths was part of a larger discussion about the dangers inherent in liberty. He emphasized that you can’t have the good parts of being free without also suffering the negative consequences.

Asked at an April 5, 2023, Turning Point USA event about the Second Amendment, Kirk answered:

“The Second Amendment is not about hunting. I love hunting. The Second Amendment is not even about personal defense. That is important. The Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government….Now, we must also be real. We must be honest with the population. Having an armed citizenry comes with a price, and that is part of liberty. Driving comes with a price—50,000, 50,000, 50,000 people die on the road every year. That’s a price. You get rid of driving, you’d have 50,000 less auto fatalities. But we have decided that the benefit of driving—speed, accessibility, mobility, having products, services—is worth the cost of 50,000 people dying on the road.”

“You will never live in a society when you have an armed citizenry and you won’t have a single gun death. That is nonsense. It’s drivel. But I am—I think it’s worth it. I think it’s worth to have a cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights. That is a prudent deal,” he added.

Kirk might also have mentioned that free speech is also dangerous. Unfettered speech is important to the function of a free and open society. But protecting speech risks the popularization of vicious, totalitarian ideas like those of Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler. It runs the danger of the radicalization of lost souls who encounter bad ideas, embrace them, engrave “Hey fascist! Catch!” lyrics from the antifascist song “Bella Ciao” and gaming memes on rifle cartridges, and then murder their political opponents.

Undoubtedly, the same people would have found that equally ironic.

And Kirk’s larger point is true across the board. Any freedom that allows us to live to our fullest, any restriction on state intervention into our lives, can be abused by the worst among us. Evil people are shielded by Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable search and seizure, as are good people. We give up such protections at our peril in hopes of rooting out evil.

What peril? Kirk touched on this in his 2023 talk when he said, “the Second Amendment is there, God forbid, so that you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government” and noted that “governments tend to get tyrannical.”

Yes, freedom can be abused by bad people. But if we can’t trust everybody to use freedom wisely, why would we trust people in government to wisely administer a more restrictive regime by which they get to disarm the public, censor speech, invade homes at will, and more? Those who seek coercive power over others by working in government are at least as prone to abuse their position as is anybody else.

There are tradeoffs not just in liberty, but in restricting liberty. Given that we have a natural right to be free, and that Kirk was correct to say that all governments tend towards tyranny, we’re better off trusting in more freedom, rather than less. That’s a recognition that there are no risk-free options.

The Call for Gun Control Gets Even Dumber

But the focus on Kirk’s death by gunshot gets even stupider. The conservative activist was reportedly killed with a single round from a Mauser Model 98 .30-06 caliber bolt-action rifle. The Mauser 98 was originally designed in the 19th century for military use but has long since been largely supplanted in that role by semi-automatic and then select-fire weapons, most using less-powerful cartridges (yes, the most common cartridges used in AR- and AK-type weapons are generally less-powerful than other cartridges used for hunting).

But the old design remains ideal for hunting large game animals. It is accurate if properly zeroed, has a longer effective range than many modern military weapons, and cartridges such as the .30-06 are likely to cleanly drop an animal with a single shot. That’s why many of the old rifles were adapted, sometimes with modifications, for hunting. Modern bolt-action hunting rifles used for stalking deer, boar, elk, and the like are variations on designs that go back to the Mauser 98 and similar rifles.

That is, the hunting rifle allegedly used to murder Charlie Kirk is an example of the only type of firearm gun control advocates say they don’t want to ban or restrict. No major law advocated in recent years, such as magazine capacity limits or bans on semi-automatic weapons, would have affected it.

Blame Culture?

Some observers are upset that the left—the radical fringe of it, anyway—is blamed for Kirk’s murder when Tyler Robinson’s family is conservative, Mormon, culturally traditional, and comfortable with firearms. But the Robinson family didn’t shoot Charlie Kirk. Tyler Robinson committed this crime after he adopted views very different from those of his family, embraced the use of violence against political foes, and inscribed antifascist slogans on his ammunition before taking a fatal shot.

If we’re going to delve into culture wars, we could mention the unfortunate use of speech in the social media cesspool. That’s where Robinson was seemingly radicalized, where people celebrated Kirk’s death, and where a few even called for more targets. But that’s part of the tradeoffs of liberty.

If we’re all to be free, and we should be, some will use freedom in repulsive ways. We should punish those who push action to criminal extremes. But all liberty can be misused. And not only are the risks of liberty worth the dangers, they’re also far less perilous than granting governments enhanced powers that they’ll inevitably abuse.

TPTB in Florida state that the state will not appeal, so as I have been told, on the 25th, the ruling will become permanent case law.

Florida Court Strikes Down Open Carry Ban

Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals struck down the state’s 37-year-old open carry ban Wednesday, declaring the prohibition unconstitutional and delivering a significant victory for gun rights advocates.

The three-judge panel ruled unanimously that Florida’s 1987 law violates the Second Amendment, overturning decades of precedent that made the state one of only four nationwide to ban open carry.

“No historical tradition supports Florida’s open carry ban,” Judge Stephanie Ray wrote in the 20-page opinion. “To the contrary, history confirms that the right to bear arms in public necessarily includes the right to do so openly.”

The decision stems from Stanley Victor McDaniels’ July 4, 2022, arrest in downtown Pensacola, where the Republican activist openly carried a loaded handgun while waving a copy of the U.S. Constitution, according to the court document. Police arrested McDaniels despite his concealed carry permit, leading to his conviction. A violation of the 1987 law was previously a second-degree misdemeanor.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier praised the ruling.

“This is a big win for the Second Amendment rights of Floridians,” Uthmeier said in a post.

“As we’ve all witnessed over the last few days, our God-given right to self-defense is indispensable,” he continued.

Representative Byron Donalds, a Republican gubernatorial contender, echoed support on social media: “Shall not be infringed, means shall not be infringed!”

Former Florida State Rep. Anthony Sabatini criticized Republican lawmakers who previously blocked open carry legislation, calling them “fake Republicans” for failing to repeal the ban through legislative action.

The ruling overturns McDaniels’ conviction and establishes statewide precedent.