Category: RKBA

Appeals Court Backs Florida Medical Marijuana Patients in Gun Rights Battle

Atlanta, GA –  A federal appeals court has delivered a major win for medical marijuana patients and gun rights advocates, ruling that the federal government cannot automatically strip gun rights from Floridians who legally use cannabis for medical reasons.

The Ruling

On Wednesday, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the government’s argument that medical marijuana patients should be treated like drug addicts or dangerous individuals. Writing for the panel, Judge Elizabeth Branch stated:

“When viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, the allegations in the operative complaint do not lead to the inference that the plaintiffs are comparatively similar to either felons or dangerous individuals—the two historical analogues the Federal Government offers in its attempt to meet its burden”.

Branch emphasized that plaintiffs Vera Cooper and Nicole Hansell, who disclosed their medical marijuana use on federal gun purchase forms, “cannot fairly be labeled as dangerous people solely due to their medicinal marijuana use”.

The court concluded:

“Appellants cannot be considered relevantly similar to either felons or dangerous individuals based solely on their medical marijuana use. Accordingly, the Federal Government has failed, at the motion to dismiss stage, to establish that disarming Appellants is consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of firearm regulation”.

The ruling vacated a lower court dismissal and sent the case back for further proceedings.

Continue reading “”

Judge strikes down Minnesota’s binary trigger ban, suggests invalidating 2024 omnibus bill

A Ramsey County District Court judge on Monday struck down a 2024 law banning binary trigger devices — which double the rate of fire of semiautomatic firearms — as a violation of the state constitution’s rule requiring legislation to be about a single subject.

Although just the binary trigger ban was struck down, Judge Leonardo Castro used sweeping language about the DFL-controlled Legislature’s violation of the single-subject rule, clearing the way for potential litigation over a bevy of subjects included in the law, from Uber and Lyft driver wages to paid leave provisions.

The ruling didn’t strictly address the legality of binary triggers, but instead focused on the 1,400-page bill in which the binary trigger ban was included last year. In the final moments of the 2024 session, the DFL-controlled Legislature passed an “omnibus” bill — think: everything but the kitchen sink — that included 13 separate subjects, including minimum pay rates for Uber and Lyft drivers; alterations to the state’s paid leave program; and changes to make the child tax credit more user-friendly.

The Minnesota Constitution states “no law shall embrace more than one subject, which shall be expressed in its title.” The purpose is to prevent legislators from steamrolling provisions into big bills with little notice.

But bills running several hundred pages about a multitude of subjects are common, no matter which party controls the Legislature.

Castro said in his ruling that the Minnesota Supreme Court has considered dozens of cases challenging the state Constitution’s single-subject clause since 1857.

The case challenging the binary trigger ban was brought by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, arguing the 1,400-page omnibus bill in 2024 was unconstitutional.

Castro ruled that the bill included many provisions that had nothing to do with one another.

“The 2024 Omnibus Bill violates the Single Subject and Title Clause, because, at best, it contains many non-germane parts, and at worst, has no identifiable common theme,” Castro wrote.

Despite his sweeping language, Castro employed judicial restraint. He refrained from invalidating all the provisions in the 1,400-page bill and only struck down the binary trigger ban. He did so because Minnesota Supreme Court precedent states that courts should favor striking certain provisions rather than invalidating entire bills, he wrote.

“But make no mistake, during the late hours of May 19, 2024, lawmaking did not ‘occur within the framework of the Constitution,’” Castro concluded. “This Court respectfully suggests that if there has ever been a bill without common theme and where ‘all bounds of reason and restraint seem to have been abandoned,’ this is it; and if there has ever been time for the ‘draconian result of invalidating the entire law,’ that time is now.”

Supreme Court Being Asked to Hear Magazine Capacity Case

California’s magazine capacity limitation law from 2000 has been under fire for several years. In 2016, the law was supersized, completely banning magazines that hold over 10 rounds. Formerly petitioned to the Supreme Court of the United States, Duncan v. Bonta was granted, vacated, and remanded to the lower court in the wake of NYSRPA v. Bruen. The National Rifle Association-backed case has returned to SCOTUS and they’ve filed a petition for a writ of certiorari on August 15, 2025.

Named plaintiffs Virginia Duncan, Richard Lewis, Patrick Lovette, David Marguglio, and Christopher Waddell are joined by California Rifle and Pistol Association in this challenge. The petition was filed by the powerhouse firm Clement & Murphy, with Paul D. Clement and Erin E. Murphy listed as the counsels of record.

“Since 2000, California has prohibited the manufacture, import, sale, and transfer of ‘large-capacity magazines,’ defined by the state as ‘any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.’ In 2016, the state banned the possession of such magazines, and required any lawfully possessed magazine to be surrendered, permanently altered, or destroyed,” the National Rifle Association said in a release. “This lawsuit was filed before the possession ban took effect, alleging that it violates the Second Amendment and the Fifth Amendment’s Takings Clause.”

In the petition, Clement and Murphy laid out the history of the case, asserting that “it should have been easy to see that California’s ban on feeding devices that can accept more than ten rounds of ammunition violates the Second Amendment.”

For the district court, that was indeed easy to see. But the Ninth Circuit would have none of it. The court bypassed the ordinary panel-review process, reconvened an en banc panel that now consisted mostly of judges not in active service, granted “emergency” relief to the state over the dissent of most of the active judges on that panel, and ultimately held that California’s sweeping and confiscatory ban on some of the most common arms in America does not even implicate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin of the NRA weighed in on the filing. “Tens of millions of Americans lawfully own hundreds of millions of the magazines that California bans,” said Hamlin. “The Supreme Court should take this case to vindicate the rights of Californians and reaffirm that the Second Amendment prohibits the government from banning common arms.”

In the filing, they further argue that the 9th Circuit erred in their decisions. They state that the 9th’s decision can’t “be reconciled with this Court’s precedents or the constitutional traditions.” And, they observed that the circuit court professed “surface-level adherence to Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi” but “ultimately cast those decisions aside, pawning off interest-balancing as careful consideration of constitutional text and historical tradition.”

On behalf of the litigation arm of the Association — the NRA Institute for Legislative Action — Executive Director John Commerford said that: “After nearly a decade of litigation, two en banc decisions, and a prior remand from the Supreme Court, this case is more than ready for the Court’s review.” Commerford continued, “the people of California have endured long enough” and that “it’s time to restore their constitutional rights.”

The frenzy of post-Bruen grant, vacate, and remands that occurred in 2022 are coming home to roost. Snope v. Brown out of Maryland was one such GVRed case that was denied certiorari when represented to the High Court. Snope did not deal with magazine capacity restrictions, but rather so-called “assault weapons.”

The magazine question in Duncan, which affects Heller-protected handguns, could be the stepping stone SCOTUS uses to get back to the topic of semi-automatic rifle prohibitions.

A New Jersey case, also NRA backed — ANJRPC v. Platkin — was also in the batch of punted cases. Like Duncan, it concerns magazine capacity and is sitting at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a post-argument state. (ANJRPC has been consolidated with two semi-automatic rifle ban challenges and that might be an interesting twist in the prevailing days).

Will the High Court pick Duncan v. Bonta as the case to settle the debate on magazine capacity restrictions? Possibly. Or, is it more likely the justices wait out for an opinion from the Third Circuit on the New Jersey case in hopes that there’s a split? We’ll be watching the Supreme Court’s calendar when the session starts to see if Duncan makes the cut.

Not surprisingly, a bill has earlier been filed in the state legislature to increase the ration of gun buys to 3 a month.

Final Judgement from 9th Circuit Strikes Down California Gun Rationing Law

The most left-leaning federal appeals court in the nation on Thursday closed the coffin lid on California’s controversial “one-gun-per-month” law.

In June, a unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling and struck down the limit as not in line with the right to keep and bear arms. The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, challenged California’s 2019 ban on purchasing more than one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle inside a 30-day period.

The same court this week issued a mandate that the judgment takes effect as of Aug. 14. The state had until Aug. 6 to request a rehearing in the case, but did not file, effectively waving a white flag on defending the law. 

The case was filed by six individuals and supported by a variety of pro-gun groups, including the Firearms Policy Coalition, the San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The gun rights groups characterized the win this week as a historic precedent.

“Today’s mandate issued by the Ninth Circuit marks the first time the court has issued a final decision striking down a law for infringing on the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in an email to Guns.com. “Between Heller and Bruen, every case heard by a panel which concluded the law was contrary to the Second Amendment was reheard en banc by the court and ultimately upheld. This is a historic victory for Second Amendment rights in the Ninth Circuit and marks a measurable defeat for Governor Newsom and the legislature’s attempts to curtail the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms in California.”

: Moral Imperative: After Senate Vote, North Carolina House Needs to Override Governor’s Veto of Permitless Carry.

North Carolina gun owners are watching closely to see where their elected officials stand. Will they cave to gun control pressure or stand with law-abiding citizens exercising their rights?

In June, North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein vetoed SB 50, the legislation that would allow permitless concealed carry, or constitutional carry, of firearms by law-abiding North Carolinians. By the end of July, the Tarheel State Senate countered by overriding the governor’s original veto.

Needless to say, gun control activists and antigun groups aren’t happy about that development. They prefer infringing on Second Amendment rights and penalizing law-abiding Americans instead of holding criminals accountable for their actions when they break the law. Gun control advocates are putting pressure on N.C. state lawmakers as the bill heads back to the House at the end of August where, if the lower chamber also overrides Gov. Stein’s veto, Constitutional carry will become law.

Joining the Crowd

In North Carolina, opponents of SB 50 are crowing about public safety and the “potential for increased gun violence.” Gun control groups would prefer to leave responsible Americans defenseless and their continued shouts of “increased gun violence” ring hollow. After all, that was the playbook run after the landmark 2022 U.S. Supreme Court Bruen decision striking down New York’s subjective and overly burdensome “may issue” concealed carry permit requirements. Americans approved of the Bruen decision by a large margin. Still, several states reexamined gun control laws despite the fact that law-abiding gun owners weren’t the criminal nemesis gun control advocates predicted they would become overnight.

Now, North Carolina is at a crossroad. Lawmakers can trust those who overwhelmingly obey the law or cave to gun control pressure.

Supporters of SB 50 agree the bill protects individual liberties enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. If the House follows the Senate and overrides Gov. Stein’s veto, it would make North Carolina the 30th Constitutional carry state. Other states that have adopted such freedom include Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming.

The House veto override vote could come as early as August, but – given the close margin in the state’s lower chamber – is not a done deal.

‘Safety Precautions’ for Whom?

Like clockwork, the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety is now declaring that the North Carolina House overriding Gov. Stein’s veto of SB 50 would “eliminate the safety precautions that are currently in place,” and that in the last several years, criminal misuse of a firearm has increased. Notably, they make no mention of the bail reform policies and soft-on-criminal prosecutors in North Carolina cities that have contributed to the surge in criminal violence.

That’s unsurprising. Gun control advocates have never been bothered over taking away Constitutional freedoms from law-abiding Americans. They grasp onto the misguided belief that guns are the root of evil, not the craven hearts of those who have no respect for the law. They would uproot the rights of those who obey the law even as they ignore criminals illegally obtaining firearms for illicit purposes, and policies which put these same criminals back onto our streets.

Taking away Constitutional rights – and the natural right to self-defense – isn’t going to stop criminals. Only enforcing the law will do that. Recent history shows that law -abiding Americans from all walks of life choose to exercise their right to keep and bear arms over surrendering to fear of crime.

No Time for Facts

Gun ownership among law-abiding Americans has surged in the last five years, including through the addition of at least 26 million new first-time gun owners since 2020. While crime spiked nationwide in the early 2020s – including in North Carolina – these high marks have come down since a few years ago. Moreover, these declines have taken place at the same time that firearm ownership increased, and more states have adopted permitless carry freedoms.

In a recent podcast from The Reload, Jeff Asher of AH Datalytics spoke about how the murder rate is down overall, and how it will likely continue to drop through the end of the year.

“Murder peaked sometime at the end of 2022. In 2023, it had the largest one-year decline ever recorded,” Asher explained. “In 2024, it had the largest one-year decline ever recorded – likely – we don’t have the FBI’s 2024 numbers yet. And 2025 we’re seeing the largest one-year decline ever recorded. So, an even larger decline than what we saw last year in our sample.”

The Reload’s Stephen Gutowski added, “and one of the most under-covered stories out there is this crime trend of just huge decreases in murder, to the point where we’re getting it seems like we’re on track, right, to have the lowest murder rate, perhaps in recorded history.”

So, while gun control activists, antigun politicians and the media continue to portray “gun violence” as an interchangeable issue with lawful gun ownership, the actual trends belie their hyperbolic predictions. Lawful gun owners simply won’t become overnight criminals if North Carolina’s House overrides Gov. Stein’s SB 50 veto.

Here’s the real truth that’s been proven in 29 other states that already adopted Constitutional or permitless carry laws. If the North Carolina House votes to override Gov. Stein’s veto, it will mean North Carolinians will have more options to exercise their Second Amendment rights and protect their families, homes and businesses from criminals that blatantly and openly ignore the laws.

 

Second Amendment rights must apply to our military service members | PHIL WILLIAMS

Gun control laws continue to fail.

And where gun control laws make the least amount of sense are on U.S. military installations ― policy that must change.

The world turned its attention recently to an active shooter incident in Manhattan. A depraved individual drove to the heart of New York City, walked calmly into a downtown high rise, killed five people and took his own life. No one knows why a bad guy took up arms and committed heinous acts of terror.

Just weeks before the New York shooting, we saw the heroism of a former Marine named Derrick Perry in Michigan, who pulled his concealed-carry firearm and saved innocent bystanders from a knife-wielding madman who had just stabbed multiple people at random. A good guy who took up arms and stopped heinous acts of terror.

In reality, it is not guns that are bad. It is bad people with guns who are bad. Let’s keep in mind that both New York and Michigan have stringent gun control laws. Gun control did not stop the loss of life in Manhattan. Gun control laws did not stop the violence in Michigan.

More recently, another episode of gun violence erupted at the U.S. Army’s Fort Stewart, Georgia. Army Sgt. Quornelius Radford, using a personal weapon, opened fire on fellow soldiers, wounding five. He was stopped by other servicemembers who have since been decorated for their bravery.

But none of the responding soldiers could be called “good guys with guns.” Why? Because the U.S. military has the most draconian gun control laws in the nation.

Let that sink in.

Fort Stewart is home to the legendary 3rd Infantry Division, whose exploits include those of Audie Murphy. It’s the same Fort Stewart with two Armored Brigade Combat Teams, and its nearby sister installation Hunter Army Airfield, which houses the 1st Ranger Battalion. Soldiers who are trained as experts in the use of firearms, yet they cannot have their own firearms on post. Unless of course they are a bad guy who snuck it in with intent to do harm.

What about red state Alabama whose state motto resounds “We Dare Defend Our Rights?” All personal firearms on Alabama’s Redstone Arsenal must be registered or be subject to confiscation. Outside the gate, Alabama citizens may freely open carry a firearm, and concealed carry no longer requires a permit. But on Redstone Arsenal, where soldiers have far more firearms training than the average citizen, that freedom is curtailed. The same is true for Alabama’s Fort Rucker.

Consider the disparity in treatment here. Outside the gate, civilians freely exercise their Second Amendment right to bear arms. They do so with no prerequisite training or conditioning. There are no mandatory gun safety course. There are no annual weapons qualification requirements for civilians.

But on an Army installation, soldiers have all of the above: Basic training with firearms, advanced training, reflexive fire training, annual qualification and awards for marksmanship. And yet, they must face the complete curtailing of their Second Amendment rights.

In 2016, President Donald Trump called for the military gun control policies to be rescinded. Retired Army Gen. Mark Milley opposed the idea. Go figure.

Firearms are not scary. People are scary. Period.

Aside from noise and a general lack of familiarity, most people are more concerned about the manner in which firearms are used, maintained or handled, which are issues of purely HUMAN fault. Those are issues for which the U.S. military is more than qualified to address.

I bear the surgical scars from someone being lax with firearm safety. Despite getting shot by one of those evil firearms I was able to separate the causation from the instrument. It was not the shotgun that shot me in and of itself. Rather, it was the knuckleheaded laxity of the guy who shot me and who should have known better.

And soldiers? They know better than most.

Soldiers know how to handle firearms. Breach load, bolt action, magazine fed and pump. Holographic sights, iron sights, and no sights. Holstered, unholstered and slung. Long guns, sidearms and scatter shots. They are trained to carry them in combat. Trusted in every respect. Except when they are in garrison on the Army installations to which they are assigned.

“You don’t forfeit all of your rights when you enter the military,” Carpenter said. “Outside of a military situation, the service member has just as much Second Amendment right as anyone else.” Referencing the recent shooting at Fort Stewart, Carpenter also said, “All those rules aren’t going to prevent someone from doing what the guy did today,”

Guns are not scary. People are scary. GOOD people with guns are what often stands between potential victims and bad people with guns. And our U.S. servicemembers are among the best. We trust them with our lives and swear them to an oath before taking up arms. It is time that we looked them in the eye and told them that we trust them with their rights.

Let’s restore the Second Amendment for our military. They’ve earned it.

Phil Williams is a former state senator from District 10 (which includes Etowah County), retired Army colonel and combat veteran, and a practicing attorney. He previously served with the leadership of the Alabama Policy Institute in Birmingham. He currently hosts the conservative news/talk show Rightside Radio on multiple channels throughout north Alabama. The opinions expressed are his own.

Cornyn Called Out Over Short Memory on Gun Control

Members of Congress pop off on X, formerly Twitter, all the time. It’s one of the more important uses of the platform for them, but there’s a risk there.

See, you can chirp all you want, but people get to chirp back. You’re not really immune from criticism and it’s really kind of impossible to create a true echo chamber, even if that’s your desire. People will still say what they want to say and say it where you can see it, at least until you mute or block them or something.

That’s a lesson Sen. John Cornyn of Texas was reminded of on Wednesday evening.

After trying to get a dig in at his primary opponent, Texas AG Ken Paxton, he was asked a simple question based on the wording.

I mean, it wasn’t that long ago, so the smart move would have been to just ignore it.

Cornyn, however, isn’t that smart.

Seriously?

If that’s true, his mind is as gone as Biden’s.

Luckily, Texas Gun Rights was happy to remind him.

That’s right, Cornyn was the primary reason we got saddled with the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. He rallied enough Republican votes to break the filibuster, thus foisting gun control onto the American people, which came with a lot of issues that we’re still trying to deal with.

Cornyn was awfully proud of it at the time. He celebrated it. He bragged about his efforts.

It wasn’t until after that that he suddenly started trying to play damage control.

Now, he’s just trying to pretend it never happened. Of all the tactics for deflecting criticism for bad decisions, that’s certainly one of them.

I get that Cornyn doesn’t want to have to defend his Second Amendment record in Texas, of all places, and that’s one area where Paxton is going to eat his lunch and everyone knows it. It’s obvious that on this issue in particular, he’s going to lose.

But could he (or at least his social media team) have just ignored the comment? Absolutely. The smart move would have just pretended he didn’t see it. I’d imagine a senator’s X notifications get a lot of comments, so it’s easy to legitimately miss things. Pretending that’s what happened would have been cowardly, but still smart.

Or, he could have tried to defend it, or admitted that he screwed up royally. I’d have at least respected the latter, at least. I’d still want him gone because there’s no way I’d trust him not to screw up like that again, but I respect a lawmaker admitting they made an error, if for no other reason than it’s so rare. He didn’t do that, though.

Instead, he just played Biden…I mean, dumb (same thing, really).

Well, Cornyn might have a short memory–I don’t buy it, but let’s play like he’s being honest here–but the internet doesn’t. He did Biden’s bidding to help get the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act passed, was proud of the effort, and now he’s playing dumb because his constituents aren’t happy about it and he thinks so little of them that he thinks a denial like this will work.

Voter Registration vs. Gun Registration: Should We Register Both?

The debate over firearm registration often includes a familiar analogy: “We register to vote, so why not register to own a gun?”

At first glance, the comparison appears simple—both voting and keeping arms are rights protected by the Constitution. However, a closer look at the legal, historical, and functional differences between these rights reveals why the analogy is flawed.

The Constitutional Foundations

  • Multiple constitutional amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, 26th) protect voting, which is recognized as a cornerstone of representative democracy.
  • The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment, with the clear directive that it “shall not be infringed.”

While both rights are essential to liberty, the Second Amendment contains an unusually strong prohibition on government interference—language not mirrored in voting amendments. This distinction matters: it shows the framers saw the keeping of arms as a safeguard against government overreach, not just a civic process to be managed.

The Purpose of Registration in Each Context

  • Voter Registration exists to confirm eligibility: age, residency, citizenship, and prevention of fraud. It does not restrict the existence or possession of the right itself; it simply manages when and where it is exercised.
  • Gun Registration, by contrast, involves cataloging the private ownership of specific tools that can be physically seized. This creates a direct pathway to confiscation—something voting registration does not enable.

In practical terms, voter rolls are lists of people eligible to cast a ballot; they are not inventories of ballots stored in citizens’ homes. A firearm registry is an inventory—linking specific tools to specific individuals—making the potential for abuse much higher.

Historical Risks of Gun Registration

Throughout the 20th century, authoritarian regimes often began disarming citizens by first requiring registration. Historical examples from Germany, the Soviet Union, and other nations illustrate how such registries became tools for confiscation, leaving the population defenseless against state power.

Voter registration lists have never been used to prevent lawful citizens from casting ballots in a similar sweeping, physical manner. While voter suppression exists as a political problem, it is not comparable to the armed seizure of constitutionally protected property.

The Role of Government Trust

Supporters of gun registration argue it could help law enforcement assess risk before responding to dangerous calls. Opponents note that it requires a level of trust in government that the Second Amendment was specifically designed to limit.

Voting rights advocates may accept government control over voter rolls because the act of voting inherently depends on a centralized process—elections. Gun ownership, however, exists independent of the state and is meant, in part, to provide a counterbalance to it.

Key Differences in Liberty Impact

Aspect Voter Registration Gun Registration
Purpose Verify eligibility Track possession of physical property
Risk of Abuse Administrative errors, targeted suppression, corruption by non-citizens Enables confiscation, historically misused by authoritarian regimes
Dependency on the State Inherent—elections are state-run Independent—firearms are privately held
Constitutional Language Multiple amendments, no “shall not be infringed” Explicit “shall not be infringed” directive
Effect of Registry Removal Harder to confirm eligibility Removes pathway to confiscation

Conclusion

The analogy between voter registration and gun registration oversimplifies two fundamentally different systems. Voter registration is an administrative safeguard for a state-run process; gun registration is a list of private arms held by citizens—precisely the kind of record history shows can be turned against the people.

In a free society, protecting the right to vote matters greatly. But, protecting the right to keep and bear arms is what ensures all other rights—including voting—remain secure.

Lawsuit: The Regulation Of Untaxed Firearms Under Federal Law Is Unconstitutional

Several Second Amendment advocacy groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), have filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

President Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill erased the NFA’s $200 stamp tax on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, any firearm classified by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) as “other,” and suppressors starting Jan. 1, 2026. However, “the firearms are still required to be registered and are subject to” regulations designed to enforce the “now-extinct” tax, the lawsuit says. This “regulatory regime” no longer comports with Congress’ constitutional authority, plaintiffs claim. The lawsuit also argues that “the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment.”

The National Firearms Act’s registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid,” Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) executive director, said in a press release. “With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

The lawsuit, Brown v. ATF, was filed on August 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs are the NRA, the American Suppressor Association (ASA), SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two individual members of these organizations. They are suing both the ATF and the DOJ. The lawsuit asks the court to declare NFA regulations “relating to making, transferring, receiving, possessing, or otherwise using” the untaxed firearms and suppressors unlawful and to block anyone from enforcing the challenged portions of the law.

Continue reading “”

Minnesota Supreme Court rules it is legal to possess ‘ghost guns’ without serial numbers

The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in a split decision Wednesday that it is legal for Minnesotans to possess ghost guns without a serial number because current state law does not clearly restrict it.

Justice Paul Thissen’s majority opinion delves into the intersection between federal law around what firearms require a serial number and the Minnesota legal statute for felony possession of a firearm without a serial number.

It was not a unanimous opinion. Thissen was joined by Justices Anne McKeig, Gordon Moore and Sarah Hennesy. Chief Justice Natalie Hudson wrote the dissent, which was joined by Justice Karl Procaccini. Justice Theodora Gaïtas recused herself from participating in the case.

The case stemmed from a single vehicle car crash in Fridley in 2022. A Minnesota state trooper who arrived on the scene saw a gun magazine inside the car and the driver told the trooper he had a pistol.

The trooper found a black 9 mm Glock 19 without a serial number and identified it as a privately made firearm, which are commonly called ghost guns.

The driver was charged with possessing a firearm without a serial number and filed a motion to dismiss the charge. An Anoka County judge agreed, ruling that state law was “unconstitutionally vague.” The state appealed that ruling; the Court of Appeals reversed the decision and said Minnesota’s legal statute prohibiting possession of a firearm without a serial number “plainly applies to any firearm.”

The Supreme Court disagreed.

The opinion focuses on how Minnesota’s legal statute came to lean on federal law to interpret the phrase “serial number or other identification” and how, in the absence of clearer state laws, the court needs to use federal laws to consider whether the possession of a ghost gun without a serial number is a felony.

Continue reading “”

Sen. Murphy’s Crushing NFA Tax Proposal is Really a Preview

The firearm industry and gun owners just got a preview of what’s in store should antigun politicians again be able to force through punitive gun control measures.

It’s a daunting – if not egregious – example of just how much contempt some elected officials have for Second Amendment rights.
U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) slipped in a proposed amendment to a Defense spending bill that would skyrocket the National Firearms Act (NFA) tax to $4,709. That proposal comes just weeks after Congress reduced the tax to $0 from the previous $200 requirement that was in place since 1934.

Gun control advocates like Sen. Murphy don’t just recoil at the idea of lawful gun ownership. Politicians like him, bought and paid for by billionaire gun control benefactors, absolutely loathe the Second Amendment. And they’re willing to make gun owners pay the price. Literally.

Sen. Murphy slipped his proposed amendment into the U.S. House of Representatives spending bill for Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies. That bill, H.R. 3944, is being considered in the U.S. Senate. That’s where Sen. Murphy proposed Senate Amendment 2973, which states, “There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of $4,709 for each firearm transferred.” That’s specific to the tax allowed by the 1934 NFA, so it would apply to tax stamps for suppressors, short-barrel rifles, short-barrel shotguns and the $5 tax on “Any Other Weapon” would increase to $55 from the current $5 tax.

That’s a 4,709 percent increase from what gun owners are expecting to pay now, and a 2,254.5 percent increase from what gun owners were paying when the $200 tax was in effect. Sen. Murphy didn’t feel the need to punish gun owners for exercising their Second Amendment rights when they were paying the $200 tax. It’s only now that the tax is lifted is he reacting to his frustrations that he couldn’t prevent the changes in the One, Big Beautiful Bill.

More importantly, Sen. Murphy is revealing what he – and his antigun partners – will do if they are in a position to force through unfettered gun control policies. Sen. Murphy would punish law-abiding gun owners, and the firearm industry that serves them, with burdensome policies that would price out everyday Americans from lawful firearm ownership.

If Sen. Murphy were to get his way, Second Amendment rights would become a right in name only. It would “only” be for the elite few who could afford the punitive tax. It would be “only” for those the government deems are affluent enough to afford it and it would “only” be a right that would be accessible until the next time gun control elites raise the price and the bar once again.

States Already Doing It
Critics who scoff at this notion that government officials bent on denying Second Amendment rights would twist the law to make lawful firearm ownership unaffordable aren’t just in a squeeze attempting to explaining Sen. Murphy’s proposal to levy nearly $5,000 each and every time a law-abiding citizen wants to purchase a suppressor, short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun. Those critics know they can’t explain away the fact that there are antigun legislatures in the states that are already doing this.

Currently, California adds an 11 percent excise tax on firearms, firearm parts and ammunition. Colorado passed legislation to add a 6.5 percent excise tax on firearm and ammunition sales. Several other state legislatures – including Maryland, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York and Washington have proposed similar “sin taxes” on law-abiding citizens seeking to lawfully exercise their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms.

Firearm and ammunition manufacturers already pay a 11 and 10 percent federal excise tax on firearms and ammunition, which funds wildlife conservation, habitat restoration, public land access, construction of public recreational marksmanship ranges and hunter education in all 50 states. This “user-pays” system has generated over $29 billion, when adjusted for inflation, for conservation through the Pittman-Robertson excise tax since its inception in 1937. The industry asked Congress to have this excise tax used for conservation as wildlife populations at the time were struggling. The Pittman-Robertson excise tax enhances the exercise of the Second Amendment rights and enables passing on the American heritage of hunting and recreational sports shooting to the next generation.

In contrast, Sen. Murphy’s $1,000 tax, like one previously proposed by U.S. Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), is unconstitutional because they are transparently intended to suppress the exercise of a constitutional right. Imagine a $1,000 tax on purchasing a book that certain politicians don’t want you to read.

Reps. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) and Richard Hudson (R-N.C.), along with U.S. Sen. Jim Risch (R-Idaho), introduced federal legislation to keep antigun politicians from pricing lawful gun ownership out of reach for Americans through “sin taxes.” They introduced the NSSF-supported Unfair Gun Taxes Act as H.R. 2442 and S. 1169, respectively.

The bicameral legislation would prohibit states from implementing excise taxes on firearms and ammunition to fund gun control programs.

Pass HPA & SHORT Act
There’s yet another way Congress can prevent Sen. Murphy from running rampant over Second Amendment rights by jacking up taxes. Congress can take up and pass the Hearing Protect Action (HPA), introduced in the House of Representatives as H.R. 404 by Rep. Ben Cline (R-Va.) and in the Senate by Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) as S. 364 and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act as H.R. 2395 by Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.) and S. 1162 by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.). Those bills remain an NSSF priority.

HPA would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA) and make them accessible for purchase in the same manner as a firearm. That means no more tax stamp requirement (which is currently $0, but which couldn’t be raised to $4,709 by a future antigun Congress in a reconciliation package), fingerprint and photo submissions, redundant background checks, notification to the chief law enforcement officer and, importantly, no registration with the federal government. Suppressors would be available for purchase at retail with a simple Form 4473 and FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification the same way actual firearms are purchased and transferred. Suppressors would be on display right next to choke tubes.

The SHORT Act would do the same for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and “any other weapons” that are regulated by the NFA.

The hurdle remains high. It takes 60 votes to clear the filibuster in the Senate. Right now, only 53 senators could be counted on to protect Second Amendment rights. If Sen. Murphy is willing to punish law-abiding American gun owners with thousands of dollars in punitive taxes to put Second Amendment rights beyond their financial means, he assuredly would block HPA or SHORT Act in the Senate. That’s why gun owners must not risk their rights and #GUNVOTE in elections.

Right to bear arms also a responsibility

A violent attack in Traverse City, Michigan, would not have been prevented by any of the myriad proposals for more intrusive “gun control” — the attack, in which 11 people were viciously stabbed, was carried out with a folding knife.

Instead the first gun at the scene of the attack, which authorities are seeking to define as terrorism, was carried by a law-abiding citizen, who helped defuse the situation and coax the alleged perpetrator into surrendering.

The citizen, a retired Marine bearing arms in concordance with the Second Amendment rights we frequently defend in our editorials, acknowledged in an interview with the Detroit Free Press that the Second Amendment is as much a responsibility as a right.

“The only that separated me from the other gentlemen that had stepped in as well was what was I was carrying in my hands,” Derrick Perry said. “I think I would have ran out there or walked out there and helped either way. … It was just a moment of ‘I got a duty to protect.’”

We are not saying that everyone needs to bear this responsibility, or that everyone is well-suited to bear it. We recognize that a society that allows people to pursue their opportunities and exercise their liberties will depend on everybody taking on different responsibilities — the responsibilities they are best equipped to fulfill.

But we believe that the men, women and children of Traverse City should appreciate that Derrick Perry understands that he not only has a right to own and carry a firearm, but as someone willing to train and educate himself on the use of firearms, he has an opportunity to shoulder the responsibility of helping to keep his community safe.

While we are far from the scene of this crime in northern Michigan, we appreciate Perry’s willingness, as a retired Marine, to serve his country and his willingness, as displayed by his bravery that day, to continue to serve his fellow Americans by being prepared to defend their lives and liberties.

We hope people across our nation can learn both to respect the necessity of a sense of responsibility in each of us, and the necessity of respect for the freedoms and liberties that allow us to bear those responsibilities.

Supreme Court’s Failure: Path to Tyranny ~ & Why Armed Americans Must Care

The recent inaction by the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold the people’s right to keep and bear arms isn’t just disappointing—it invites tyranny. When the Court refuses to protect a right so explicitly anchored in the Constitution, it risks turning once‑free people into subjects. And as the founding generation understood, tyranny compels rebellion.

Background: What This Means For You

If you’re new to this issue: the Second Amendment guarantees a natural, individual right of self‑defense. Landmark cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that Americans have the right to own functional firearms, especially handguns, for lawful purposes in their homes.

Two years later McDonald v. Chicago made clear that this right applies at the state level as well.

Since then, lower courts have been left to navigate whether gun regulations are allowed under an “in‑common‑use” and historical tradition approach, not interest balancing. Yet, gun‑rights advocates have seen many victories blocked, and equally many restrictions upheld under vague standards.

The Court’s Recent Defeat: Antonyuk and Beyond

In its latest term, the Court chose not to review Antonyuk vs. James, a critical Second Amendment case from New York’s courts. That means the lower court’s decision—and the State’s restrictive Concealed Carry Improvement Act—remains in place.

Despite calls from Justices Thomas and Alito for clarity, the Court laid down no reasoning. That silence undermines not just precedent, but the credibility of the constitutional right itself.

Without Court guidance, states pushing severe carry limits and licensing regimes can continue to chip away at our right to armed self‑defense—state power overriding individual liberty, even where founding principles say otherwise.

Why This Matters to Armed Americans

Our in-depth article over at Arbalest, “The Failure Of The U.S. Supreme Court To Ensure The Sanctity Of The RKBA”, spells it out: the failure of the Court to act is not neutrality—it is bowing to tyranny. Masked under slogans like “strong gun laws reduce violence,” the real outcome is disarming law‑abiding citizens, while leaving government unchecked.

A citizenry that cannot defend itself is at the mercy of government power. If free people allow erosion of the right to bear arms, they lose the final safeguard against arbitrary state authority. The author warns: this is not philosophical—they mean actual disarmament, or worse.

Last Words

The failure of the high Court has weakened the natural law right. Its refusal to grant certiorari in key Second Amendment cases refuses to protect the sanctity of those rights. It allows anti‑gun states to continue trampling self‑defense protections under the guise of regulation. This is not legal evolution—it’s legal surrender.

If you’re ready to dig into the full arguments, precise citations, and rhetorical power of the original, I encourage you to visit our article and read it in full. It lays out, step‑by‑step, how judicial inaction signals tyranny—and why now is the time for armed citizens to pay attention.

Even if it wasn’t, RKBA is American Law.

America’s 2nd Amendment Is Allowable under Jewish Law

Before getting into the reason, it is important to read the wording of the 2nd Amendment, since much is said without taking the time to read the words nor understand the importance of commas.

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

The Amendment covers two distinct areas. First is defense of state through the use of militias. Second is defense of self and others through private ownership of arms. There is no comma between people and infringed, which makes it an individual right.

Every Amendment making up the Bill of Rights has direct reference to individual rights. There are seven that are specific to individuals, with the other three being in regard to individual rights and other groupings, such as state, militia, press, etc.

Is it permissible by God for Jews to own firearms for the purpose of defending themselves and others? Another way of asking is if God allows for American Jews to exercise their 2nd Amendment right to bear arms for the purpose of defense?

Defense of self and others is acceptable to God. Jews are supposed to minimize violence when possible, but not refrain. Shulchan Aruch, is the Codes of Jewish Law, which was written in 1563, is very clear about the subject. Defense of self and others is included within those Codes. Shulchan Aruch is not some ancient book that used to have importance, but the most widely consulted book on Jewish law to this day.

One Biblical example of God allowing defense of self and others can be found in the Book of Esther. Since many are familiar with the story, there is little need to go into great detail. King Xerxes had already ruled that the Jews were going to be slaughtered. Xerxes was unable to take a law back once written, so Esther came up with an idea, which he acted upon. The order was given that the Jews were required to fight back.

Continue reading “”