Category: RKBA

Ohio Court says concealed carry is not a constitutional right.

Michael Bloomberg is a multibillionaire who hates the Second Amendment. He hates Open Carry most of all. And so it should come as no surprise that a writer for one of his companies (Bloomberg Law) opened his article by saying, “Ohio authorities can prohibit citizens from carrying concealed weapons if they’re able to openly carry guns, a state appeals court ruled Thursday.”

Of course, the judge said no such thing. I suspect that the Bloomberg writer did not read past the “Topics and Issues” description of the case.

The Ohio Court of Appeals held that there is no constitutionally protected right to concealed carry under the Second Amendment and that there is no constitutionally protected right to concealed carry under the State of Ohio Constitution.

The Court explained in paragraph 108 of the decision that the Ohio legislature had created a limited statutory right to concealed carry, and the creation of that state statutory right “to others cannot expand Hall’s constitutional right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, just as Ohio could not contract the scope of that [Open Carry] right by statute.”

The Ohio Court of Appeals addressed the Defendant’s three Constitutional challenges: the Fourth Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms under the United States and the State of Ohio Constitutions.

After the Defendant lost on his Fourth Amendment issue raised on appeal, the Second Amendment analysis began on page 10 and ended on page 45 of the 46-page opinion. The State of Ohio Supreme Court had already decided that, “[T]here is no constitutional right to bear concealed weapons” under the State Constitution, and so that issue raised by the Defendant was quickly disposed of.

What is impressive and unusual about this decision by the Ohio Court of Appeals decision in State of Ohio v. Desmond Hall is the depth and breadth of its analysis.

By contrast, the California Court of Appeals, in the case of People v. Miller (2023), likewise concluded that concealed carry is not protected by the Second Amendment, but did so in just eight paragraphs.

The moral of this story is that one should not rely on reporters, especially not when one can go directly to the source, which in this instance is the published opinion of the Ohio Court of Appeals, available for everyone to read for free.

Most people rely on others’ opinions when those opinions confirm their unfounded beliefs. They never make the effort to seek out the truth, even when the truth, as the judges see it, is one click away.

Don’t be like most people.

State of Ohio v. Desmond Hall 
People v. Miller, 94 Cal. App. 5th 935 (2023).

SCOTUS, Anti-Gun Lawfare, and the Importance of PLCAA

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is an important bit of legislation that makes it a lot harder for people to sue gun companies because of what third parties do with the products they make and/or sell. It’s ridiculous we need such a law because only the mentally disabled would blame a company for making a product, selling it lawfully, only for some completely different party to do something.

I often liken it to suing Toyota over drunk drivers, and that’s for good reason.

As things are now, though, that protection is starting to crumble a bit. It’s being challenged left and right, with such a challenge currently before the Supreme Court, even as some states try to create workarounds that will let the lawfare against the firearm industry resume.

John Commerford at the NRA-ILA has some thoughts on the subject.

As we approach the 20th anniversary of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s (PLCAA) passage coming up on Oct. 26, the law is imperiled by a new generation of anti-gun litigants seeking to exploit loopholes. In March, however, one such case—Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicano—landed before the U.S. Supreme Court, where it received a chilly reception from skeptical justices across the ideological spectrum.

Most observers believe the plaintiffs overplayed their hand, although the reasoning the justices use to resolve the case will determine whether the PLCAA continues to protect the law-abiding gun industry as intended.

The PLCAA is ultimately about how the industry that enables Americans’ Second Amendment rights is regulated. Is it by relatively fixed and ascertainable statutes enacted by democratically elected legislators? Or is it by unpredictable, shifting and innumerable standards of “reasonableness” imposed after the fact by unelected judges at the behest of firearm prohibitionists?

That latter option promotes lawfare, which has been characterized as death by a thousand cuts. Lawfare practitioners may not care if they win their cases, because even one who is innocent before the law can succumb to the legal process itself.

The biggest cut is the expense of litigation. The lengthier and more complex the proceedings, the more likely the defendant will be unable to sustain a defense.

Another is reputational harm from accusations of wrongdoing, no matter how baseless, particularly if the media and public officials amplify the plaintiff’s case.

Commerford goes on to detail how the lawfare activists are using justifiable exceptions within the PLCAA and exploiting them to try and bring back their zealous attack on the one industry most vital to the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun companies can and should be able to be sued for misconduct. If they make a faulty barrel and it explodes, for example, they should be held accountable. Or, if their gun discharges in your holster, you might want to talk to a lawyer, and you should have that avenue available.

But the gun grabbers are trying to use this by claiming the companies’ marketing is misconduct, that by appealing to their customer base, they’re somehow responsible for what other people do.

The kicker is that many of these efforts don’t even try to present evidence that the criminal party even saw the marketing. That doesn’t matter to these folks, and that’s downright disgusting to me.

Something for them to think about as they ‘weigh’: ACTA NON VERBA

Trump’s DOJ Weighs Gun Rights as a Focus for Civil Rights Division

The US Justice Department’s top civil rights official said the division is considering making gun rights a formal priority, in a significant shift from its traditional focus.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in an interview with Bloomberg that the department is reviewing whether certain state and local gun control measures infringe on citizens’ rights.
“The Second Amendment is one of the constitutional rights we are committed to defending,” Dhillon said. “We’re adding that to our analysis where states are violating constitutional rights.”
She declined to name specific jurisdictions under review but added, “I think it’s all pretty obvious where people’s rights are being violated.”
Cities including New York have maintained some of the nation’s strictest gun-permitting laws, despite a Supreme Court decision striking down the state’s “proper cause” requirement in 2022. That rule required gun permit applicants to show special justification for self-protection, which the court ruled unconstitutional.
The consideration of gun rights as a new priority for the Civil Rights Division is already reflected in an investigation launched in March. The government is looking into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed-carry permits. The US says the inquiry will examine whether the delays constitute a pattern of Second Amendment violations.
The Sheriff’s Department said in a statement in March that it is “committed” to processing the applications “in compliance with state and local laws to promote responsible gun ownership.”
Historically, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has prioritized voting rights enforcement, housing and employment discrimination cases and police oversight. Notable actions include consent decrees targeting major city police departments and enforcement of federal voting protections. Expanding the division’s mandate to cover gun rights would be a major change.
Since Dhillon took office this year, the Justice Department has made campus antisemitism, religious expression and banning transgender women in women’s sports central priorities, reflecting goals of President Donald Trump’s administration.

Well, this is ‘final’ so I think it can be appealed directly to SCOTUS.

Washington Supreme Court upholds ban on large ammo magazines

The Washington Supreme Court has upheld the state’s ban on high-capacity magazines, the latest in a two-year-long saga that has largely played out in Southwest Washington.

Lawmakers in 2022 banned the sale of ammo magazines holding more than 10 bullets in an effort to thwart deadly mass shootings. However, a gun store in Kelso allegedly continued to sell the magazines and picked up a civil lawsuit from the Washington State Attorney General in July 2023. The store owner — with help from the Pasco-based advocacy group The Silent Majority — sued, saying the law violated the U.S. Constitution.

A Cowlitz County Superior Court Judge later sided with the gun store and deemed the new law violated the Second Amendment.

Washington Supreme Court justices ruled 7-2 on Thursday that the new state law doesn’t violate Americans’ right to bear arms because “large capacity magazines are not ‘arms.’”

“The ability to purchase [large capacity magazines] is not necessary to the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense,” Justice Charles Johnson wrote in the majority opinion.

The decision also found that the legislation does not violate the state’s constitution.

Wally Wentz, the owner of Gator’s Custom Guns in Kelso, declined to comment Thursday.

Wentz’s attorneys at the Silent Majority Foundation said they plan to appeal to the U.S Supreme Court. Attorney Pete Serrano said they will pore over the justices’ legal analysis first.

Continue reading “”

Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar

2A “SENSITIVE PLACES” EXPLANATION. I wrote this to a Four Boxes Diner fan so I thought I would post it here too! This explains when government can ban guns in a specific location consistent with 2A based on US’s historical tradition of gun regulations. Let me know if this makes sense. The below is superior to the other theories folks have advanced elsewhere!

Mark’s Explanation:
In short, if a government does not provide comprehensive security with limited points of entry, metal detectors and armed guards, then it cannot be a constitutionally-acceptable government-mandated gun free zone. The only time the government can take away your fundamental 2A right to keep and bear arms in a specific location is when the government itself assumes the full responsibility for protecting you with armed defense; short of this, you have a right to protect yourself.

If you look at our Founding history, the three “sensitive places” mentioned in Bruen (polling places, legislative chambers and courthouses) all had armed guards. Sheriffs, sergeant at arms, and bailiffs.

Today, with the rise of small, concealable handguns (less of a problem at the founding where everyone carried unconcealable rifles/shotguns/long guns), to have comprehensive security, the gov’t must provide metal detectors and limited entry points in addition to armed guards. At the founding, you did not need metal detectors b/c the main weapons were big and not concealable. Today, with handguns being ubiquitous, you need the metal detectors for comprehensive security, which is what we see at airports, courthouses and Congress.

Note, the government does NOT have to provide comprehensive security at a location. However, if they want to ban guns in a location, then they MUST provide comprehensive security. No government-provided armed security means the government cannot deprive you of your 2A rights.

Finally, the practical benefit to the comprehensive security approach to the “sensitive places” question is it is an objective test: has the government ACTED to make a place “sensitive” or have they just paid lip service to the question by labeling a place as “sensitive” without treating it as such.

If the government has not provided the same level of security as is provided by the government to protect the judges in a courthouse, then it is not comprehensive security and, by extension, a gun ban would not be constitutional in that specific location.

Trump Administration Position on Machine Guns – Not 2A Protected
This Position Undermines Its Second Amendment Credibility

“Trump administration says machine guns aren’t protected by Second Amendment,” The Washington Times reports. “The Trump administration is taking heat from gun rights advocates after the Justice Department argued in court that machine guns fall outside the scope of firearms guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

The story quotes Assistant U.S. Attorney Jennifer Case, who, in arguing a brief in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to overturn a lower court ruling, asserted “Machine guns are not the kind of arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

District Judge Carlton Wayne Reeves of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi had properly ruled that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, codifying that text, history and tradition at the time the Constitution was ratified, defined the standards to be used in determining Founding Era intent.

Besides, the Second Amendment says “arms.” It doesn’t say “kinds of arms.” Continental Congress Delegate Tench Coxe’s views were reflective of what the understanding was at the time, when he wrote, “Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…. [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”

And for what purpose?
“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms,” Coxe declared.

Where’d you pull “kinds of weapons” out of, AUSA Case? She’s relying on the “in common use at the time” artificial construct that restricts “legal” ownership to what has not been banned by infringements, and limits gun uses to “self-defense.”

Continue reading “”

As I understand it, the Israelis have these strict gun laws because they’re afraid the number of their citizens, who are actual Arabs, would more easily be armed to aid and assist their terrorist minded brethren when an opportunity presented itself.

Israeli National Security Minister Wants US Gun Laws at Home

Israel is a country in a tough spot. They have people who don’t just want to defeat them militarily all around them, and some inside their own borders, but who want them eliminated from the planet. They’re openly calling for genocide, and that includes voices all across the world, including within our own country, for some idiotic reason.

Because of that, there are certain laws in place that try to make the nation a tough target for anyone to take on.

You might be able to beat Israel in a war, but they’re damned sure going to make you pay for it first. They kind of take that “Never Again” thing seriously, and for good reason.

But they still have a lot of gun control. That’s not exactly conducive to being as hard a target as possible. Now, an Israeli minister has taken a look at the American gun culture and figures that Israel should adopt similar laws to the United States.

Israel’s controversial National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir recently visited the U.S., where he met with Jewish groups, law enforcement officials and politicians, as well as facing several clashes with protesters.

The shouting critics, however, did not appear to bother Ben-Gvir, who was a right-wing activist in his youth….

Prior to his meeting with Mast, Ben-Gvir had the chance to visit his home state where he saw something that he wanted to take back with him to Israel: gun culture.

Ben-Gvir has long been an advocate for wider distribution of firearms in Israel, and while he was visiting the U.S., he took time to see how America handles guns. He had the opportunity to visit both a shooting range and a gun store, which he said was “fascinating.”

“I was surprised by the quantity and types of weapons available. Even I haven’t reached that level,” Ben-Gvir told Fox News Digital.

He spoke about how critics have accused him of arming militias, which he denies. When speaking with Fox News Digital, Ben-Gvir said that the weapons he distributed in Israel “saved many lives.”

“I believe we need to learn a from the Americans. One of the important lessons is their policy on weapons,” Ben-Gvir told Fox News Digital. “I’m not sure I would distribute arms to the same extent, but I definitely believe in expanding access because citizens have the right to defend themselves.”

Gun culture in Israel has changed since the Oct. 7 massacre. Before the attacks, Israel was strict about who was eligible to obtain a firearm. Pre-Oct. 7, firearm licenses were restricted to those who live and work in high-risk areas, licensed tour guides and those who served with Israeli police or IDF security forces, among a few other specified categories, according to an Israeli government website from 2019.

Frankly, they should “distribute arms to the same extent” as the US, in part because then October 7th might have gone very differently. As it was, some Hamas fighters were killed by armed civilians who made the terrorists pay for all the Israeli blood they wanted to spill.

Yet more guns in more hands might have actually changed everything, up to and including potentially preventing that particular atrocity.

Less than a month before that attack, Hamas lashed out at armed Israelis.

*cough* *cough

They knew what they had planned and hoped to have more Israelis disarmed as a result, thus potentially making their vicious attack all the worse.

While not every Israeli would own a gun, even if they could do so easily, imagine what it would be like for the neighbors of the gun nuts who had a lot of AR-15s or AK-47-style rifles. Hamas is coming, but the neighborhood gun nut has put a fighting rifle in the hand of every man, woman, and child on the block with enough ammunition to beat back an army.

Or even just a few rifles among close friends.

Anything is better than being a sitting duck when so many people want you purged from humanity.

Legal Adults, Limited Rights: The Second Amendment Fight for 18–20-Year-Olds

Over the last few weeks, I’ve noticed a trend that’s hard to ignore. New lawsuits are popping up. Legislatures are introducing bills. Some states are loosening restrictions. Others are cracking down. But they all revolve around the same issue: the Second Amendment rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults.

It struck me just how widespread and fast-moving this fight has become. In a single day, I saw headlines about a federal court striking down the handgun sales ban for young adults, while another state pushed a new law to raise the ammo purchase age to 21. The issue isn’t isolated—it’s everywhere.

In the United States, turning 18 makes you a legal adult. You can vote, serve on a jury, enter contracts, and enlist in the military. But in many states—and under some federal laws—you still can’t buy or carry a handgun. This paradox has sparked a legal and legislative battle stretching across the country, with courts divided, lawmakers digging in, and gun rights advocates pushing back hard against age-based restrictions.

A National Patchwork of Rights

While some states have recently expanded Second Amendment rights to include adults under 21, others have doubled down on restrictions. In 2025 alone, at least a dozen legislative or judicial actions have focused on the question: Do 18- to 20-year-olds have full Second Amendment rights?

In Iowa, lawmakers passed House File 924, lowering the age to carry a handgun from 21 to 18. Florida considered a similar rollback to age of purchase with House Bill 759, while Kentucky, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, and Nevada all saw legislative action aiming to either expand or restrict firearm access for this age group. Meanwhile, Colorado moved in the opposite direction, raising the age to purchase ammunition to 21 and restricting home delivery.

Major Lawsuits Reshaping the Debate

The fight isn’t just in statehouses—it’s in the courts.

In Worth v. Jacobson, the Eighth Circuit struck down Minnesota’s age-based carry restriction, ruling that 18–20-year-olds are indeed part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. This ruling directly conflicts with NRA v. Bondi, where the Eleventh Circuit upheld Florida’s ban on handgun purchases for those under 21. The NRA plans to petition the Supreme Court for review, but we’ve already seen SCOTUS pass on issuing any ruling on Worth v Jacobson so the conflict between these Circuit court decisions may exist for a long time.

In NRA v. Bondi Florida’s ban on firearm purchases by adults under 21 was upheld by the Eleventh Circuit Court.

In the Fifth Circuit, another milestone was reached when the court struck down the federal ban on handgun sales to 18–20-year-olds, declaring the law unconstitutional under the Bruen standard and citing a lack of historical tradition supporting the restriction.

Lara v. Paris: A Turning Point

One of the most significant rulings so far came from the Third Circuit in Lara v. Paris. The court held that 18–20-year-olds are “the people” under the Second Amendment and that the relevant historical benchmark is 1791, not 1868 as some courts had previously argued. This decision has already restarted previously paused litigation like Young v. Ott, which challenges Pennsylvania’s concealed carry age restriction.

The Road Ahead: SCOTUS Showdown?

With multiple federal circuits now in direct conflict and more states enacting laws both for and against under-21 gun rights, the U.S. Supreme Court may be forced to weigh in despite them already passing on the opportunity to do so. The question will be whether constitutional rights can be delayed based solely on age—even for adults legally recognized by every other standard.

Conclusion: A Defining Test for the Second Amendment

This unfolding legal battle isn’t just about guns. It’s about defining what it means to be a legal adult in America. The coming months and years will likely shape not only Second Amendment jurisprudence but also broader civil rights questions for young Americans caught in legal limbo. I find it utterly disgusting that our country has any question at all about allowing the same men and women we send to war to purchase guns and ammo here at home for their own personal protection. It is an absolute insult.

From it’s continued use, ‘Gun Industry Profits™’ is apparently the latest talking point the gun grabbers are using.

Gun Control Crowd Explodes After Trump Admin Pulls ATF Display

The Trump administration removed a memorial from the main atrium of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) for victims of gun violence that was put in place under the Biden administration.

As you can imagine, the move has tightened the jaws of folks on the anti-gunner left, which praised how the prior administration weaponized the agency against responsible gun owners. From The Washington Post:

Justice Department spokesman Chad Gilmartin said that the decision to remove the portraits was not political and that officials are considering different ways to honor victims.

“The ATF will continue to honor the memory of all victims of violent crime while at the same time preserving the rights of law-abiding Americans,” Gilmartin said, referring to the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

Former ATF director Steven Dettelbach — who was appointed by President Joe Biden — created the memorial at the agency’s Northeast Washington headquarters last April to remind employees of the human toll of gun violence. The display includes photos of police officers killed by gunfire, children slain in mass school shootings in Newtown, Connecticut, and Parkland, Florida, and other victims.

A nearby kiosk told the stories of each, and many of the victims’ families would visit the memorial.

“The ‘Faces of Gun Violence’ exhibit is a permanent reminder of what ATF comes to work to do every day — a reminder of why agents risk their lives and why everyone at ATF dedicates their careers to this mission: to honor the fallen and protect the living,” Dettelbech said at a ceremony unveiling the memorial last year. “This exhibit both honors and tells the stories of the victims of firearms violence. And it reminds us to keep front and center the lives, the stories, and the courage of those who have been impacted by firearms violence.”

The White House wants to slash the agency’s approximately $1.5 billion annual budget by about a third, or nearly $500 million, according to budget documents released Friday. The proposal appears to cut much of the regulatory arm of ATF while saying it would leave resources for gun tracing and investigating gun traffickers. But more modest cuts in the past have forced cuts to ATF law enforcement, and if the agency loses a third of its budget, it would probably lead to law enforcement reductions.

One gun control advocate whose deceased father was featured in the memorial criticized the move, saying, “The ATF used to be an agency dedicated to fighting for people. Now, it’s crystal clear that its mandate has become fighting on behalf of gun industry profits.”

Gilmartin said the decision to take down the memorial isn’t political. But I have no qualms with discussing the politics of this situation.

The Biden administration exploited these victims to make a political statement: The government must curtail gun ownership at all cost, or else there will be even more victims.

As someone who has lost a family member to gun violence, I understand how horrific it can be. Yet, California, where my cousin was murdered, has some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. Not a single one of these restrictions saved her life.

If gun control is such an effective policy, why are so many unarmed people dying at the hands of armed thugs who don’t obey these laws? These people promise that if we enact a few more restrictions, everyone will be safe. Then, they act surprised when criminals continue gunning people down in the streets in California and New York.

The only people the ATF protects are criminals who refuse to be disarmed. Instead of pushing “feel good” solutions like gun control, the nation would be better served if we stop making it difficult for responsible people to arm themselves while addressing the root causes of violent crime.

While Left Wants Ban on ‘Assault Weapons,’ They’re the Reason They Won’t Get One

Earlier this week, Democratic Senators Adam Schiff and Chris Murphy unveiled their new assault weapon ban bill. This is just the latest iteration of something they’ve pushed for regularly since the last assault weapon ban sunset in 2004.

Democratic Senator Tammy Duckworth, offering support on X, referred to these as being “designed for war.”

And I’m not going to debate her on it.

Nope.

But I am going to point out a few things that perhaps the left needs to keep in mind as we go forward.

They’re a big chunk of the reason that so many people have these so-called weapons of war. Popularity started back in the 1990s when the move to ban them first started. It continued as people bought ban-legal versions of these weapons and realized they were great. When the ban sunset, they were firmly entrenched as part of our American gun culture.

Continue reading “”

Minnesota Gun Owners Take Aim At Taxpayer-Funded Anti-Gun Activism.

Fed up with their tax dollars being wasted by a University of Minnesota program advocating for more restrictive gun control laws, a Minnesota pro-gun organization is asking both the federal Department of Justice and the Department of Education to investigate.

In a recent social media post, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus (MCGO) announced that the organization had sent a letter to the DOJ and DOE asking them to investigate the University of Minnesota Law School’s Gun Control Litigation Clinic.

The clinic is ostensibly in business to provide students with experience on cases related to so-called “gun violence,” more appropriately called criminal violence.

“The Gun Violence Prevention Clinic will offer students a unique experiential learning opportunity to work on litigation affecting a significant societal problem,” the organization’s website states. “The Clinic will litigate affirmative cases that will reduce injuries, deaths, and trauma caused by gun violence, challenge overreaching gun laws, and defend gun laws and regulations against legal challenges.”

MCGO says, however, that the clinic, which is led by a former litigator at extremely anti-gun Everytown Law,  is little more than a partnership with Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office and is operating as a political and legal arm of the Walz/Ellison Administration’s gun control strategy.

“Their activities are not good-faith exercises in legal education, public service, or even legal education,” the tweet stated. “Instead, they are engaged in taxpayer-funded litigation activism aimed at dismantling one of our nation’s core constitutional freedoms—the Second Amendment. There is no place for this at a public university.”

In the letter, MCGO provided more details about the clinic’s partnership with the state’s anti-gun administration.

Continue reading “”

Kostas Moros

Time for a thread on the amicus brief submitted by the United States (!!!) in Wolford v. Lopez. To my knowledge, it is the first-ever Supreme Court brief filed by the United States in full support of petitioners challenging a gun law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but someone correct me if I am wrong on that assertion. The amicus brief in Heller that the Bush administration did was more wishy-washy (i.e., yes 2A is an individual right but please remand because the analysis was wrong).
Great introduction that goes into the ramifications of the vampire rule. And as our amicus brief will cover, this was intentional. The vampire rule was created by antigun academics who openly stated the aim was to discourage carry.

Continue reading “”

First Circuit Rules in Favor of Massachusetts Assault Weapons and Magazine Ban

A federal appeals court determined Massachusetts’ ban on certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines aligns with historical firearm regulation and doesn’t violate the Second Amendment.

The First Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous decision by a three-judge panel, confirmed the denial of a preliminary injunction against Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the sale of so-called “assault weapons” such as the AR-15 and magazines that hold over ten rounds. The court found that its previous decision upholding a similar Rhode Island magazine ban also applied to Massachusetts’ restrictions on firearms.

Judge Gary Katzmann wrote in Capen v. Campbell, “A straightforward application of our prior holding in Ocean State Tactical supports the Commonwealth’s demonstration that the Massachusetts Ban’s AR-15 restriction ‘is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’” He added, “This means that Appellants have failed to demonstrate at this stage that the Ban is unconstitutional in all its applications.”

This decision follows a pattern of appellate courts upholding state-level bans on certain firearms and magazines since the Supreme Court’s landmark New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen ruling in 2022.

The Bruen decision changed the landscape for Second Amendment legal challenges by now requiring firearm regulations to abide by the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This new framework has opened new avenues for gun owners to challenge AWBs and magazine bans in solid blue states. That said, the courts have still placed obstacles for gun owners seeking to roll back unconstitutional gun control measures. 

Shortly after the Bruen ruling, U.S. District Judge Raymond Moore issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) against Superior, Colorado’s ordinance prohibiting AR-15s and magazines over 10 rounds. The court rejected the town’s argument that such weapons are “dangerous and unusual,” calling attention to their widespread lawful use and the lack of historical precedent for the implementation of such bans at the local level. Judge Moore alluded to Bruen’s emphasis on text and tradition, writing that the town’s public safety justification did not trump constitutional rights. While the TRO was limited to 14 days, the case marked the beginning of an early wave of judicial skepticism toward municipal AWBs through the use of the Bruen framework.

With respect to Oregon, Arnold v. Kotek, an Oregon state court permanently enjoined Measure 114, a 2024 ballot initiative that led to the ban of magazines holding over 10 rounds and the imposition of a permit-to-purchase system. Judge Robert Raschio ruled the law violated the Oregon Constitution’s right to bear arms, finding that high-capacity magazines have a valid use in the context of modern self-defense and that the state failed to demonstrate a historical tradition for such restrictions.

Though the Oregon Court of Appeals later reversed this decision, the case underscores how Bruen’s logic has continued to influence state-level challenges.

In Illinois’ case, in Barnett v. Raoul, U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn ruled last November that Illinois’ statewide ban on assault weapons and magazines holding over 10–15 rounds violated the Second Amendment. The court determined that AR-15-style rifles and similar firearms are commonly owned and used by citizens for legal purposes, including self-defense, and thus fall under Second Amendment protection.

Judge McGlynn stressed that the state failed to identify historical analogues for banning weapons widely used by law-abiding citizens, as dictated by Bruen. However, the decision was stayed for 30 days pending appeal, but the 7th Circuit later allowed the ban to remain in place temporarily while the appeals process goes on. 

Going back to Massachusetts, the state can continue enforcing its firearms and magazine restrictions. The plaintiffs may either appeal the decision or return to district court to argue the case on its merits. The legislation being challenged is the 2024 Act Modernizing Firearms Laws (Chapter 135/H.4885), which Gov. Maura Healey (D) signed last July.  The legislation replaced “assault weapon” with “assault-style firearm” and broadened definitions to include firearms with interchangeable parts or receivers compatible with prohibited models. Additionally, the bill mandated serialization and registration of all firearms, including privately manufactured “ghost guns,” within strict timelines, while also reinforcing the 10-round limit for detachable magazines and introducing new penalties for non-compliance.

With this decision in the books, Massachusetts maintains some of the nation’s toughest gun laws, pending any further appeals. While the post-Bruen era offers new opportunities for gun owners to resist gun grabs in blue states through litigation, these legal battles will be protracted and costly in nature. Restoring gun rights in the most hostile jurisdictions toward the right to self-defense will be no walk in the park.

Trump Calls For Big Cuts to ATF Budget, Citing Attacks on Second Amendment

President Donald Trump’s discretionary budget request for fiscal year 2026 has officially been released by the White House, and while he’s not proposing the ATF be totally defunded, he is demanding a major reduction in spending for the agency.

Under the budget proposal released today, the ATF would receive $468 million less than this year’s budget of roughly $1.62 billion, and the administration is citing the Biden administration’s weaponization of the agency as the rationale for the cuts.

 The Budget bolsters the Second Amendment by cutting funding for ATF offices that have criminalized law-abiding gun ownership through regulatory fiat.

The previous administration used the ATF to attack gun-owning Americans and undermine the Second Amendment by requiring near universal background checks; subjecting otherwise lawful gun owners to up to 10 years in prison for failing to register pistol braces that make it possible for disabled veterans to use firearms; the imposition of excessive restrictions on homemade firearms; and the revocation of Federal Firearms Licenses, which shut down small businesses across the Nation.

The Budget re-prioritizes resources toward illegal firearms traffickers fueling violent crime and crime gun tracing that State and local law enforcement need to track down dangerous criminals, such as MS-13 gang members.

With proposed cuts to the FBI and DEA as well, expect Democrats claim that it’s Trump who’s interested in defunding the police, and for gun control groups to raise hell in particular about the ATF’s budget, which they’ll portray as a gift to the firearms industry and its CEOs (Giffords, in particular, has been doing a lot of targeted messaging about gun company CEOs ever since the CEO of United Healthcare was assassinated on a New York street last December).

In fact, unnamed sources are already complaining to the press about what Trump’s proposed budget would mean. From Reuters:

Continue reading “”

hawaii firearms coalition

The U.S. Government Just Asked the Supreme Court to Strike Down Hawaii’s Gun-Carry Law

Here’s what you need to know:
In a high-profile Second Amendment case (Wolford v. Lopez), the U.S. Department of Justice filed a legal brief urging the Supreme Court to review—and reverse—the Ninth Circuit’s decision that upheld Hawaii’s controversial concealed carry restriction.

What’s the law?
Hawaii makes it a crime (punishable by up to 1 year in jail) for a licensed gun owner to carry a firearm on any private property open to the public (like gas stations, stores, or restaurants) unless the property owner gives express permission, such as posting a sign.

Why is the DOJ opposing it?
According to the DOJ’s brief:
•The law inverts centuries of legal tradition, where people could carry arms unless told otherwise.
•It functionally bans public carry—turning everyday errands into legal minefields for gun owners.
•It targets gun rights, not protects property rights—especially since it exempts police, government employees, and others.
•It conflicts with NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022), where the Supreme Court ruled states cannot impose burdens on the public’s right to carry without clear historical justification.
What’s at stake?
This case could shape the future of the Second Amendment. Since Bruen, 5 states (including CA, NY, and NJ) have passed similar laws—impacting over 75 million Americans. There’s also now a conflict between federal appeals courts, making Supreme Court review more likely.

Bottom line:
The DOJ—under the TRUMP administration—is siding with gun rights advocates here, warning that Hawaii’s law “effectively nullifies” the right to carry firearms for self-defense.

This is the way it’s been in Europe for quite a while. Major parts of a gun are serialized, and restricted. You can see this on Glocks and other European made guns where the serial number is on the frame, slide and barrel. Just like for ammo, if the tyrant demoncraps in California do happen to pass such a crap-for-brains law,  people who are interested enough will simply cross the state line to buy.

Beyond ‘Ghost Guns’: California Democrats Push Background Checks for Gun Barrels

California Democrats are pushing legislation to require background checks for gun barrel purchases, effectively taking the “ghost gun” regulatory push to its logical conclusion.

The bill, Senate Bill 704, is sponsored by state Sen. Jesse Arreguín (D).

SB 704 singles out firearm barrels among the many other parts of firearm, requiring a background check for any replacement barrel or aftermarket barrel upgrade purchase:

Commencing on July 1, 2026, this bill would, except as specified, prohibit the sale or transfer of a firearm barrel, as defined, unless the transaction is completed in person by a licensed firearms dealer. The bill would require the licensed firearms dealer to conduct a background check of the purchaser or transferee and to record specified information pertaining to the transaction, including the date of the sale or transfer.

Moreover, SB 704 specifically outlines how the costs of performing background checks for barrels must be handled, making clear that the legislation literally creates “a new crime,” albeit a misdemeanor, in the state California.

Gun rights proponents have long warned that the Democrats’ use of terminology like “ghost guns”–and the resulting regulation of said “guns”–would lead to background checks for aftermarket firearm parts. State Sen. Arreguín’s legislation is doing just that.

Additionally, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) warns that with a background check, SB 704 would end online barrel sales via the requirement for face-to-face transactions.

NAGR said, “We have warned that this was always the end goal. Target the secondary market — driving up the cost of repairing and maintaining firearms in an effort to win through attrition. The ultimate objective is a complete ban on online sales.”

Arkansas Moves to Bolster Gun Rights with New Constitutional Amendment—Here’s What It Means for You

LITTLE ROCK, AR — Arkansas has taken a major step toward expanding protections for gun owners, with lawmakers approving a constitutional amendment that strengthens the right to keep and bear arms across the state. Senate Joint Resolution 11 (SJR11), led by Sen. Justin Payton and Rep. Wade Duffield, has passed both legislative chambers and was officially approved by the Governor on April 22, 2025.

The next step? Voters will decide its fate in the upcoming November 2026 general election.

What SJR11 Actually Does

SJR11 is a proposed amendment to the Arkansas Constitution that aims to make the state’s gun rights language more clear, specific, and robust. While Arkansas already recognizes the right to bear arms, this amendment expands that protection by:

  • Clarifying lawful uses of firearms beyond “common defense” to also include lawful hunting, recreational use, and any other lawful purpose.
  • Specifically protecting ammunition, firearm accessories, and firearm components, ensuring they are part of the right to keep and bear arms.
  • Declaring gun rights as a “natural, fundamental, and individual right” that “shall not be infringed.”

If adopted by the public, this language would be written directly into Article 2, Section 5 of the Arkansas Constitution, becoming law effective January 1, 2027.

Why This Matters for Gun Owners

This amendment doesn’t create a new right—it reinforces and strengthens existing Second Amendment protections by making them harder to regulate or reinterpret at the state level. By clearly defining what’s protected—including ammo and accessories—it helps prevent future legislation from attempting to ban or restrict common tools used by law-abiding gun owners.

Additionally, by defining these rights as “fundamental” and “individual,” the amendment could potentially elevate the level of judicial scrutiny applied to any gun control measures challenged in court.

What’s Next?

The amendment now heads to the Arkansas ballot in November 2026, where voters will have the final say. If a majority of voters approve it, the amendment becomes part of the state constitution. Public education efforts and campaigning—both in support and opposition—are expected to ramp up as the election nears.

For now, Arkansas gun owners can view this as a significant win, with overwhelming legislative support (including dozens of co-sponsors across both chambers) and a clear path forward to enshrining more explicit Second Amendment protections in the state’s highest legal document.

This move highlights a growing trend in states seeking to proactively reinforce firearm rights at the state level, ensuring that courts and future lawmakers cannot easily dilute what many view as a core individual liberty.