Category: RKBA

Morrisey signs three pro-Second Amendment measures into law

BERKELEY SPRINGS–Gov. Patrick Morrisey, on Friday, signed three bills into law to protect the Second Amendment rights of West Virginians.

Joined by state legislators and local supporters at Cacapon Resort State Park, Morrisey spoke to the freedoms sought and earned by West Virginians.

“We have an amazing state motto: ‘Mountaineers are always free,’” Morrisey said. “We should think about that every single day.”

He went on to say that those freedoms are given by God, not the government.

“It’s our job as legislators to safeguard those liberties at all costs,” he said.

In a move to enhance the state’s strong support of the Second Amendment and to battle against individuals on the far left who have and will continue to attempt to take away those gun rights, he signed House Bill 2067, House Bill 3342 and Senate Bill 270 into law.

“The far left has tried to take away our Second Amendment rights. We’ve learned about their schemes,” Morrisey said. “My goal is to stay one step ahead of the radical gun-grabbers and government elites,” he continued as he stepped forward to sign three bills that he said protect the rights of West Virginians.

HB 2067 ensures that firearm companies are not unfairly held liable for the actions of those who use their products.

“The far left has pushed to sue gun manufacturers for the actions of criminals,” Morrisey said. “That’s just wrong.”

HB 3342 prohibits banks that contract with the state from discriminating against a firearm entity or firearm trade association. Morrisey said that in West Virginia, big financial institutions will not be allowed to de-bank companies in the firearms business or the trade associations.

Finally, SB 270 prohibits the government from suspending gun rights during declared emergencies or disaster responses. While West Virginia did not face the issue during the pandemic, Morrisey said that it was only because practices were put in place at the time.

Continue reading “”

‘Law-Abiding’™ – *cough*
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
– Thomas Jefferson

The Constitutional Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

By Rep. Adrian Smith (NEB-3)

The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the American experiment in self-governance. From its founding, our nation has recognized how a free people must not be deprived of means of protection and self-defense. In 1791, the Founders enshrined the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, declaring the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

I have always strongly supported the Second Amendment because I recognize it speaks to the heart of our country. This right is more than a safeguard for sportsmen, hunters, and firearms collectors. Law-abiding Nebraskans and other Americans across our land own and utilize guns in order to deter crime and protect or defend themselves, their families, livestock, crops, and homes.

Congress has a responsibility to uphold the Second Amendment and apply its constitutional authority to our nation’s laws. For this reason, I am again a cosponsor of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would provide legal clarity for carrying concealed firearms when crossing state lines. In 2023, Nebraska passed constitutional carry legislation enabling individuals over 21 years old to carry concealed firearms without a permit, and many other states already practice reciprocity. In 2024, with my support, the House passed a version of this bill. However, it was not taken up by the Senate before the end of the 118th Congress.

I am also an original cosponsor of the Reining In Federal Licensing Enforcement (RIFLE) Act. Under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) zero tolerance policy of revoking licenses from dealers threatened the livelihood of Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) such as small and mid-sized gun stores for making minor clerical errors and typos on paperwork required by federal law.

I am encouraged to see how after President Trump took office, ATF’s zero tolerance policy was repealed administratively. Yet, the consequences of this overbearing policy have been serious. In 2024, the ATF recorded its third straight year of increased FFL license revocations and the greatest number of revocations in 20 years. The RIFLE Act would reinstate licenses suspended, revoked, or denied under Biden’s zero tolerance policy and enact permanent avenues for FFLs to appeal before the ATF moves to revoke a license.

Furthermore, I am a cosponsor of the No Retaining Every Gun in a System That Restricts Your (REGISTRY) Rights Act. Currently, FFLs which go out of business must provide all firearm transaction records to the ATF, which maintains these records in the Out-of-Business Records Imaging System (OBRIS) database. This bill would safeguard the privacy of American gun owners by requiring the ATF to destroy existing firearm transaction records and requiring FFLs to destroy existing transaction records should they go out of business.

Without privacy protections like the ones provided by this bill, creating such record keeping requirements leads down a path toward a mandatory gun registry, threatening law-abiding citizens with excessive scrutiny. The constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners must be respected. Standing the test of time, the Second Amendment has proven the wisdom of the Founders. Its critics are misguided, and I will never stop defending American liberties from abuses by the ATF or encroachment by overreaching restrictions.

The right to keep and bear arms is fundamental to the American experiment in self-governance. From its founding, our nation has recognized how a free people must not be deprived of means of protection and self-defense. In 1791, the Founders enshrined the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights, declaring the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed.”

I have always strongly supported the Second Amendment because I recognize it speaks to the heart of our country. This right is more than a safeguard for sportsmen, hunters, and firearms collectors. Law-abiding Nebraskans and other Americans across our land own and utilize guns in order to deter crime and protect or defend themselves, their families, livestock, crops, and homes.

Congress has a responsibility to uphold the Second Amendment and apply its constitutional authority to our nation’s laws. For this reason, I am again a cosponsor of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would provide legal clarity for carrying concealed firearms when crossing state lines. In 2023, Nebraska passed constitutional carry legislation enabling individuals over 21 years old to carry concealed firearms without a permit, and many other states already practice reciprocity. In 2024, with my support, the House passed a version of this bill. However, it was not taken up by the Senate before the end of the 118th Congress.

I am also an original cosponsor of the Reining In Federal Licensing Enforcement (RIFLE) Act. Under the Biden administration, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ (ATF’s) zero tolerance policy of revoking licenses from dealers threatened the livelihood of Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) such as small and mid-sized gun stores for making minor clerical errors and typos on paperwork required by federal law.

I am encouraged to see how after President Trump took office, ATF’s zero tolerance policy was repealed administratively. Yet, the consequences of this overbearing policy have been serious. In 2024, the ATF recorded its third straight year of increased FFL license revocations and the greatest number of revocations in 20 years. The RIFLE Act would reinstate licenses suspended, revoked, or denied under Biden’s zero tolerance policy and enact permanent avenues for FFLs to appeal before the ATF moves to revoke a license.

Furthermore, I am a cosponsor of the No Retaining Every Gun in a System That Restricts Your (REGISTRY) Rights Act. Currently, FFLs which go out of business must provide all firearm transaction records to the ATF, which maintains these records in the Out-of-Business Records Imaging System (OBRIS) database. This bill would safeguard the privacy of American gun owners by requiring the ATF to destroy existing firearm transaction records and requiring FFLs to destroy existing transaction records should they go out of business.

Without privacy protections like the ones provided by this bill, creating such record keeping requirements leads down a path toward a mandatory gun registry, threatening law-abiding citizens with excessive scrutiny. The constitutional rights of law-abiding gun owners must be respected. Standing the test of time, the Second Amendment has proven the wisdom of the Founders. Its critics are misguided, and I will never stop defending American liberties from abuses by the ATF or encroachment by overreaching restrictions.

Tennessee Bill Would Strengthen Protection For Firearm Industry In The Volunteer State

A measure that is on the move in the Tennessee Legislature would significantly strengthen legal protections for those in the firearm industry in The Volunteer State.

SB1360 has passed both chambers with overwhelming majorities and is headed for Gov. Bill Lee’s desk for his signature.

Of course, the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, passed in 2005, was designed to protect gunmakers and sellers from frivolous lawsuits targeting their legally made, lawfully sold products. But many states have also passed state protections, also, to further bolster that protection.

Tennessee passed its version of the PLCAA back in 2023. The new bill further fortifies that law by expanding legal protections to include private sellers, suppressor manufacturers and magazine producers; prohibiting Tennessee courts from recognizing or enforcing out-of-state or foreign court judgments that conflict with Tennessee’s pro-Second Amendment public policy; and penalizing bad-faith litigation by imposing triple damages on out-of-state plaintiffs and their attorneys who attempt to enforce hostile judgments in Tennessee courts.

The measure states: “In a qualified civil liability action brought against a dealer, manufacturer, or seller of a qualified product, the complaint must allege that the dealer, manufacturer, or seller of the qualified product directly caused the damages alleged. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the civil liability action is not barred by this section. If a court determines a civil liability action is barred by this section, then the court shall dismiss the civil liability action with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”

Continue reading “”

‘Gone Off The Rails’: Colorado Dems Stir Up Hornet’s Nest After Passing One Of America’s Most Extreme Anti-Gun Laws.

Colorado Republicans are pushing back against Democratic Gov. Jared Polis for signing one of the most extreme anti-gun laws in the country this month, accusing him of turning a constitutional right into a privilege bought with permits and fees.

The law, SB25-003, bans the sale, transfer and manufacture of most semiautomatic firearms unless prospective gun owners obey a range of new requirements, including training mandates, tests and sheriff-issued eligibility cards. Republicans, like state Rep. Ty Winter, say it’s a deliberate effort to choke off lawful gun ownership through bureaucracy and paperwork — a view increasingly shared by Second Amendment organizations now mobilizing to fight the law in court.

“This bill is putting a paywall in front of a God-given, unalienable right — and that’s the right to self-defense and the right to keep a free nation,” Winter, assistant minority leader in the Colorado House, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Gun rights aren’t a red or blue issue. Gun rights are an American issue. We forget what the Constitution is for — it’s not to go hunting. It’s not to go target shooting. It’s to keep a nation free. It’s to keep a government in check. And I think that’s the first thing our colleagues across the aisle don’t realize.”

Continue reading “”

U.S. First Circuit Court Of Appeals Rules Assault Weapon Ban Constitutional

The United States First Circuit Court of Appeals, on April 17, held that Massachusetts law banning the sale, transfer, or possession of an assault weapon is not unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, sending a clear message to Americans that the Boston-based kangaroo court is either illiterate, corrupt, or just unforgivably stupid.

I’ll be honest here, my ability to suffer foolishness kindly on this matter has permanently expired, so if you aren’t a fan of name-calling and my propensity for the abrasive truth, then this one may not be for you.

Massachusetts resident, Joseph Capen, brought the case, announcing his plan to purchase items restricted by the infringement for the lawful purpose of self-defense, but a three blind mice panel of subversive activist judges who wouldn’t know a natural right from ringworm performed just the right amount of mental gymnastics necessary to return with a ruling so heavily steeped in treason that I’m offended by their citizenship status alone, much less their seat on a bench.

Comrade Judge Gary Katzmann, whom I definitely wouldn’t let babysit my children, wrote for the three-traitor panel that the “court” needed to consider whether the law was “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” which would make it allowable under the Second Amendment.

To be fair, Katzmann and his cronies would have found it consistent with a bowl of cereal if doing so properly served his anti-American agenda, and that is about as plausible as the panel’s holding that the ban on AR-15s, the most common sporting rifle in America, does not unduly burden civilian self-defense.

The court was so disingenuous in its ruling that it claimed Capen and additional appellants failed to show any instance in which these models had ever been used for self-defense, an asinine finding that any search engine could refute in seconds with days and weeks of reading material.

Katzmann embarrassingly attempted to correlate a longstanding tradition of regulation with the outright banning of “specific weapons once it became clear that they posed a unique danger to public safety, including mass deaths and violent crime unrelated to self-defense.” However, no such longstanding tradition exists, with the mental gymnastics here contributing mostly to a sad perversion of the Bruen decision, for which the Supreme Court is likely to tuck tail and expose its lack of spine.

In fact, even machine guns are not banned outright. But Katzmann and his ilk of treasonous judicial activists never burden themselves with obstacles like honesty, integrity, or their oath to America and the Constitution. Why let any of that get in the way of the internal insurrectionist agenda?

Katzmann and his merry band of idiots also claimed the ruling was not inconsistent with Heller, noting that the Second Amendment right was not unlimited and did not pertain to weapons “designed for military use.”

While this take is genuinely not unique by any standard, it has also been debunked since, well, the beginning, as the Second Amendment clearly states in plain English, “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.” A “well-regulated militia,” by definition, refers to a body of citizens trained and equipped to serve in a military capacity, ensuring the security of a free state, the Founding principle behind the Second Amendment.

Here’s a note to Katzmann and all the activist judicial traitors out there. If I can disprove you that easily, your children should be embarrassed by your legacy. There is very little I find more disgraceful than the absolute irreverence for your oath and obligation to the American people while you work to weaken the United States of America and poison our founding values from the inside.

Throughout history, many theories have been propounded as to the black robes worn by judges. Some say they provide a symbol of the authority and power conferred by the state, while others suggest they foster uniformity and promote the concept that justice remains blind. Judges like Katzmann and his First Circuit cohorts, however, bring modern clarity to the garb, as it seems the real symbolism behind the black robe is the death and mourning of our Constitution.

Idaho Panhandle School Board Okays Armed Teachers

The St. Maries, Idaho School District, located in Benewah County at the confluence of the St. Joe and St. Maries rivers southeast of Coeur d’Alene Lake, has okayed teachers to carry guns on campus and in classrooms following a 4-0 vote to finalize the policy.

Under the policy described by the Spokane Spokesman-Review, in order for a staff member to be approved to carry on campus, he/she must have an Idaho enhanced concealed carry license, go through a background check and 40-hour firearms training course which includes de-escalation and threat assessment instruction, and they must be screened and interviewed by local law enforcement.

St. Maries is the largest city in Benewah County.

MyNorthwest noted that School Board Chairman Seth Stoke said none of the volunteer teachers or staff who are armed will be identified.

“They can assume that everybody is armed,” he said. “The whole idea is not knowing who is carrying.”

The plan is in reaction to a rise in school shootings over the past 25 years. MyNorthwest pointed to a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics, which said “there were 1,453 school shootings from the 1997–1998 school year to the 2021–2022 school year.

“The most recent five school years have had a substantially higher number of school shootings than the prior 20 years,” the group said.

Firearms carried by staff must be personally owned, and either carried or placed in a district-approved lock box at all times.

The Spokesman-Review noted another development in school security is also in the works. The school board approved a three-year agreement with Panacea NW Region Corporation, a school security consulting firm based in Hayden, which is north of Coeur d’Alene. Panacea NW will conduct emergency response training with school district staff and parents.

The Spokane newspaper said a majority of residents in the community support the armed teacher program, while school staff is “about evenly split.” Some staff reportedly support having an armed school resource officer with the Sheriff’s Department on campus instead. Such an officer was hired last month, the Spokesman-Review reported.

IA Governor Reynolds Inks Bill to Lower Carry Age to 18

Democrat anti-gunners are predicting bad times ahead in Iowa, where Gov. Kim Reynolds has signed legislation lowering the age for owning and carrying handguns to 18, but supporters of the measure, which takes effect July 1, say it’s time to recognize the rights of young adults.

According to the Des Moines Register, the legislation, known as House File 924, was supported by nearly all Republicans and opposed by nearly all Democrats.

KGAN News noted the bill “sparked strong opinions on both sides.”

The station quoted Democrat Rep. Lindsay James of Dubuque, stating, “I have always been a supporter of common-sense gun safety, and so I did not vote for that particular piece of legislation primarily because of my concerns around young people and increased violence on high school and college campuses.”

She was further quoted arguing, “We just saw a shooting at Florida State, and so there’s a lot of concern about 18-year-olds being able to conceal handguns and bring them into their schools.”

However, the FSU shooting involved a suspect who did not have a license to carry, and was using a firearm allegedly belonging to his stepmother.

On the other side, the Des Moines Register reported Rep. Steven Holt, a Denison Republican, stating, “I joined the Marines when I was 18, I graduated from boot camp when I was 18. I was carrying firearms in the military, ready to defend my country when I was 18, along with hundreds of thousands of other young men and women. So the idea that an 18-year-old, a 19-year-old, a 20-year-old, doesn’t have a right to own a firearm in protection of their families — which is really what the Second Amendment is about, right?”

As noted by the Des Moines newspaper, HB 924 “The bill follows several recent court decisions across the country, including in New Orleans, Virginia and Minnesota, that ruled against the federal law requiring Americans to be 21 to buy handguns.”

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms applauded Gov. Reynolds for signing the measure.

“This is a major victory for young adults in Iowa,” said CCRKBA Managing Director Andrew Gottlieb, “and it could have a future ripple effect which other states can follow. It recognizes that citizens in the 18-to-20-year age group should have full rights, since they can already enlist in the military, get married, start businesses, run for office, sign contracts, buy homes and vote. Why shouldn’t young adults be able to own and carry a sidearm for personal protection?”

Gov. Gianforte to Gunmakers Fleeing Colorado’s Firearm Ban: ‘Montana Is Open for Business’

Anticipating the rush of gunmakers fleeing Colorado after the state’s recent adoption of a semiautomatic firearm ban, Gov. Greg Gianforte (R) is letting the manufacturers know: “Montana is open for business.”

Breitbart News reported that Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed the semiautomatic firearm ban on April 10, 2025, and it takes effect in August 2026. In addition to banning America’s most popular rifle–the AR-15–Colorado’s ban also prohibits AK-47s, numerous semiautomatic shotguns, and even a number of pistols.

Gov. Gianforte released a video on April 23, 2025, describing Colorado’s new gun control as “one of the most restrictive gun bans ever adopted in the United States.”

He noted that the gun control bans not only the selling of numerous semiautomatic firearms, but also the manufacturing of the guns.

By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.

Gianforte noted, “This is on top of the liberal state’s existing ban on ‘high capacity’ magazines. That’s just crazy.”

He then pointed out, “Colorado is ranked in the top 10 states with the biggest gun industries. So, to all gun manufacturers in Colorado, my question is simple: Do you want to move back to America? Montana is open for business.”

A press release accompanying the video noted that Montana is a constitutional carry state which “[prohibits] the enforcement of any federal law, executive order, rule, or regulation that infringes upon ownership, possession, transfer, or use of any firearm, magazine, or firearm accessory.”

Gianforte summarized his message by saying, “In Montana, we embrace freedom and the free enterprise system. Come on home to America, right here in Montana.”

Missouri Lawmakers Resurrect Second Amendment Preservation Act

When Missouri lawmakers passed the “Second Amendment Protection Act” in 2021 and Republican Gov. Mike Parson signed it into law, anti-gun advocates immediately challenged the law in court. Ultimately, a circuit court deemed the law unconstitutional, and enforcement was blocked.

Now, a Missouri state senator and state representative have introduced similar measures that they believe will have the same effect and will pass court muster.

As a little background, the law, introduced and passed in response to several anticipated bills that would be overreach on Second Amendment freedoms during the early days of the Biden Administration, forbade police from enforcing federal gun laws that didn’t have an equivalent state law. Law enforcement agencies with officers who knowingly enforced federal gun laws without equivalent state laws faced a fine of $50,000 per violating officer.

At the time, Gov. Parson said the unique law “draws a line in the sand and demonstrates our commitment to reject any attempt by the federal government to circumvent the fundamental right Missourians have to keep and bear arms to protect themselves and their property.”

The Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Missouri in February 2022, arguing that the law obstructed cooperation between federal and state governments. A lower court ruled the bill unconstitutional, citing the Constitution’s supremacy clause that prioritizes federal law above state law.

On appeal, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the ruling. At the time, Chief Judge Steven Colloton wrote in the ruling: “A State cannot invalidate federal law to itself. Missouri does not seriously contest these bedrock principles of our constitutional structure.”

One of the new measures, Senate Bill 23 by Sen. Rick Brattin, would have much the same effect. But Sen. Brattin said it is written so it will pass court muster this time.

Sen. Brattin told the Senate Transportation, Infrastructure and Public Safety Committee that the new version is a “reshuffling” of the bill to put it in accordance with the parameters of the Eighth Circuit Court’s ruling. The new version presents updated language in the bill’s statement of purpose and removes explicit references to federal agencies, centering the bill instead on state and local offices.

“This isn’t coming and reinventing the wheel,” Sen. Brattin told the committee. “This is just clarifying and making it in line with what the Eighth Courts have done.”

Continue reading “”

Trump: ‘Gun Doesn’t Do the Shooting, People Do’ Infuriates Antis

President Donald Trump has slapped anti-gunners with the wet towel of common sense, and it is clear from their reaction that they don’t like it.

Responding to questions about the tragic double shooting at Florida State University, which left two people dead and six others injured, the president told reporters, “These things are terrible, but the gun doesn’t do the shooting — the people do.”

CBS News noted another Trump reaction, “As far as legislation is concerned, this has been going on for a long time. I have an obligation to protect the Second Amendment. I ran on the Second Amendment, among many other things, and I will always protect the Second Amendment.”

Does this mean Trump will henceforth be recognized as the champion of Second Amendment rights? Probably not, since someone, somewhere will undoubtedly complain about something. But it does put him several notches higher than many, if not most, of his predecessors.

Writing at MSNBC, Steve Benen, producer for the Rachel Maddow Show, argued, “I suppose there’s a degree of truth to that — guns don’t pull their own triggers — but it’s also true that killers don’t throw their bullets at their victims. Rather, they use weapons, and those weapons can be regulated by the state.”

This may be one of those, “Well, we’ll see about that” moments, now that Attorney General Pam Bondi has announced the creation of a “Second Amendment Task Force” which will “combine department-wide policy and litigation resources to advance President Trump’s pro-gun agenda and protect gun owners from overreach.”

In her now-famous memorandum to all DOJ employees two weeks ago, AG Bondi stated, “For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right. No more… President Trump has made protecting the Second Amendment rights a priority for this administration.”

That said, the president’s reaction to the FSU shooting, which was allegedly committed by Phoenix Ikner, stepson of a Leon County sheriff’s deputy, using one of her firearms. That gun was recovered at the scene, according to the Tallahassee Democrat. Ikner is now in custody, having been shot during the incident.

Trump’s comments on the shooting are not unlike something one might hear from any Second Amendment activist. The alleged shooter is the only person responsible for the crime, for which there is presently no known motive. From Trump’s perspective, there is no reason to penalize every Florida gun owner—or all gun owners in the nation—for the murderous act.

Continue reading “”

Democrats’ gun control/election integrity paradox

Does America’s future really depend upon background checks, draconian controls on buying guns and a national firearm registry?

Democrats seem to think so. Gun control, including measures that violate the constitutional right of Americans to keep and bear arms, is a central feature of their platform. In fact, Democrat-controlled jurisdictions, most recently Colorado, have imposed the harshest gun control measures in the nation.

However, one can argue that, unless voting is limited to identifiable, properly registered citizens in good standing, interests inimical to the American Republic can influence, even determine, federal and local election outcomes. Without secure elections, the future of the Republic is, indeed, at risk.

But, even though Democrats favor photo ID, background checks and waiting periods to purchase constitutionally-protected firearms, they reject the same and similar methods to ensure election integrity as “voter suppression.”

Continue reading “”

Germany Is Revoking Gun Rights from AfD Supporters—and It’s a Warning Shot for the West

In Germany, owning guns is a privilege that can be taken away—not for breaking the law, but for holding the wrong political opinion.

Members and supporters of the right-leaning Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party are now facing mass gun license revocations. The reason? The German government has labeled the AfD a “right-wing extremist” group—a political designation that suddenly makes its members “unreliable” under the country’s gun laws. And just like that, firearms must be surrendered or destroyed.

If that sounds outrageous, it should. But it’s not surprising.

Here in the U.S., we’ve already seen our own political establishment flirt with these kinds of tactics. Remember when New York’s then-Governor Andrew Cuomo said pro-gun conservatives “have no place” in his state? Or when San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors labeled the NRA a “domestic terrorist organization”? Label first. Punish later.

That’s the playbook being used in Germany right now. And it’s worth paying attention to.

Government Labels a Popular Opposition Party “Extremist”—Then Comes the Crackdown

In 2021, Germany’s domestic intelligence agency, the Bundesamt für Verfassungsschutz (BfV), designated the entire AfD as a “suspected threat to democracy.” That move allowed the government to surveil, wiretap, and investigate the party and its members.

It didn’t stop there.

Courts have now upheld revoking gun licenses from AfD members, based solely on their political affiliation. In one case, a couple in North Rhine-Westphalia lost legal ownership of over 200 firearms. They weren’t criminals. They weren’t accused of wrongdoing. They were just AfD members.

Another court in Thuringia blocked a blanket gun ban for all AfD members—but left the door wide open for revocations on a case-by-case basis.

In Saxony-Anhalt, officials are reviewing the gun licenses of 109 AfD members. As of last fall, 72 had already been targeted for revocation, with the rest under active review. The justification? Supporting a party the state now claims is “working against the constitutional order.”

And the courts are backing it up. According to a March 2024 ruling, former or current AfD supporters “lack the reliability” required to legally own firearms.

Why the AfD’s Platform Sounds Familiar to American Ears

You don’t have to support the AfD to see the dangerous precedent here. In fact, many of their stated positions would be right at home in American politics:

  • Support for limited government and individual liberty
  • Stronger penalties for violent crime
  • Calls for unbiased law enforcement and judicial independence
  • Opposition to political censorship
  • A demand for simple, fair taxes for middle- and low-income citizens

On gun rights, their platform is clear: “A liberal and constitutional state has to trust its citizens… The AfD opposes any form of restrictions of civil rights by tightening firearms legislation.”

Sound extreme to you? Or does that sound like something a lot of Americans already believe?

Continue reading “”

Worth v. Jacobson: FPC 2A Challenge to MN Carry Ban on 18-20 Year Old Adults

Summary: Federal Second Amendment constitutional challenge to Minnesota’s ban on the right to bear arms as to young adults.

Plaintiffs: Kristin Worth, Austin Dye, Axel Anderson, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Second Amendment Foundation, and Firearms Policy Coalition

Defendants: Minnesota Commissioner of Public Safety Bob Jacobson, Mille Lacs County Sheriff Don Lorge, Douglas County Sheriff Troy Wolbersen, and Washington County Sheriff Dan Starry

Litigation Counsel: Blair Nelson, David Thompson, Peter Patterson, and William Bergstrom

Docket: D. MN case no. 0:21-cv-01348, Eighth Circuit case no. 23-2248, Supreme Court case no. 24-782 | CourtListener Docket

Key Events & Filings:

Supreme Court
2025-4-21: Petition DENIED.
2025-3-26: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/17/2025.
2025-3-24: Reply Brief for the Petitioner
2025-3-10: Brief in Response
2025-1-17: Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

The Supreme Court has denied Minnesota’s cert petition in our lawsuit challenging the state’s age-based carry ban, which means our win will stay in place:

Image

Kostas Moros:
At this point, the weirdest result would be a denial/dissent. Why did it take 11+ relists? Why hold OST in its interlocutory posture just for a dissent in Snope? Doesnt mean it wont happen though.

Gov. Kim Reynolds signs law lowering Iowa age to own a handgun to 18

Iowans will be allowed to own and carry handguns as soon as they turn 18 under a law Gov. Kim Reynolds has signed that lowers the minimum age.

House File 924 changes the age requirement to possess pistols and revolvers from 21 years old to 18 years old. The law, which goes into effect July 1, was one of a dozen bills the governor signed into law April 18.

The Iowa Senate voted 33-14 on April 7 to pass and send the bill to Reynolds’ desk. Every Republican except Sens. Charlie McClintock, R-Alburnett, and Ken Rozenboom, R-Pella, voted for the bill. All Democrats but Sens. Tony Bisignano, D-Des Moines, and Bill Dotzler, D-Waterloo, opposed the bill.

“I joined the Marines when I was 18, I graduated from boot camp when I was 18. I was carrying firearms in the military, ready to defend my country when I was 18, along with hundreds of thousands of other young men and women,” Holt said. “So the idea that an 18-year-old, a 19-year-old, a 20-year-old, doesn’t have a right to own a firearm in protection of their families — which is really what the Second Amendment is about, right?”

Iowans who are 18 years old or older can already purchase long guns, such as a shotgun or rifle, under Iowa law.

Democratic lawmakers said they are concerned that lowering the minimum age to possess a handgun could lead to higher rates of firearm injuries, which are the leading cause of death among children and teenagers.

“Lowering the age to purchase handguns won’t save any lives,” Sen. Art Staed, D-Cedar Rapids, said. “It will cost lives. Let’s keep this common sense safeguard in Iowa in place. Let’s keep the age at 21.”

The bill follows several recent court decisions across the country, including in New Orleans, Virginia and Minnesota, that ruled against the federal law requiring Americans to be 21 to buy handguns. The rulings have served as a test of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision that expanded the Second Amendment.

While Iowans aged 18 to 20 are allowed to own and carry handguns under the law, it doesn’t allow those under 21 years old to be issued a permit to acquire handguns or use a nonprofessional permit to carry weapons to buy a gun from a federally licensed firearms dealer.

It became optional for Iowans 21 years old and older to acquire or carry a handgun openly or concealed without buying a permit under a law Reynolds signed in 2021.

The bill also changes the penalties in Iowa law for someone making a handgun available to someone under 18 years old:

  • It is a serious misdemeanor if someone 18 years or older sells, loans, gives or makes a pistol, revolver or ammunition available to someone younger than 18 years old.
  • A parent or guardian who is 18 or older could allow a child under 18 to possess a handgun under direct supervision or while they are receiving lessons from an instructor.
  • The bill says a parent, guardian or spouse is liable for damages that result from giving their child 14 years old or younger a pistol, revolver or ammunition.

CCRKBA CELEBRATES 250TH ANNIVERSARY OF LEXINGTON, CONCORD: 2A BIRTHDAY

BELLEVUE, WA – This Saturday, April 19, 2025 marks the 250th anniversary of the Battles of Lexington and Concord, the date which could easily be recognized as the birthday of the Second Amendment, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms calls on all freedom-loving Americans to join in the celebration.

“April 19th marks that day in history when the government of the era sent troops to seize the arms of Americans, and our ancestors replied with a decisive ‘No’,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “While the Declaration of Independence didn’t happen for another 15 months, the Revolutionary War actually began at Lexington Commons and the Concord North Bridge in the Spring of 1775, and it can honestly be said Americans have been fighting hard and shedding blood ever since to defend not just their natural right to be free from tyranny, but to protect and perpetuate what was and remains the uniquely American concept of freedom and liberty.

“The events of that April morning didn’t just show the British that our forefathers had drawn the proverbial line in the sand,” Gottlieb continued. “The two battles solidified the importance of our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms, and we honor the wisdom of our Founders to make it the cornerstone of our Bill of Rights.

“The Second Amendment,” he observed, “isn’t enshrined in our Constitution just so people can hunt ducks and deer. The right protected by the Second Amendment guarantees that Americans can defend themselves, their families and their homes from oppressive tyranny, and from crime and brutality. The Amendment doesn’t give us anything. Instead, it protects the fundamental rights we are born with from government infringement.

“The Founders knew what they were doing,” Gottlieb said. “They gave us a Republic, and the means to keep and protect it. They provided guarantees for our freedoms of speech, religion, the press and our privacy. We cannot be compelled to testify against ourselves, nor can we be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment, or deprived of legal representation. The right to keep and bear arms is our insurance policy that all of these other rights will not be trampled, nor turned into government-regulated privileges.

“The Second Amendment is part of our heritage,” he added. “Today it is sad there are so many willing to erase it, while at the same time it is gratifying there are so many more willing to protect it. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is going to make sure we keep it that way.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump Rules Out Gun Control After Shooting at Florida State

If Kamala Harris were president today, the White House would have already put out a statement demanding a ban on “assault weapons”, regardless of the fact that Leon County Sheriff Walter McNeil says the perpetrator of the shooting on the campus of Florida State got at least one of his guns from his mom, a sheriff’s deputy.

Donald Trump, on the other hand, made it abundantly clear on Thursday afternoon that the fault lies with the person who pulled the trigger, not the inanimate object he used.

Asked about shooting, Trump said “it’s a shame,” adding that he knew the school and the area “very well.”

But Trump suggested that he would not be advocating for any new gun legislation, saying, “the gun doesn’t do the shooting, the people do.”

Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump called himself a “big advocate” of the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms.

“I have an obligation to protect the Second Amendment,” he said.

I appreciate Trump’s sentiment, and he’s absolutely right that the gun doesn’t do the shooting, the person pulling the trigger does. The gun control lobby, however, is going to have a field day with his comment about an obligation to protect the Second Amendment, which they’ll twist to claim Trump doesn’t think he has an obligation to protect us, including our sons and daughters attending class on a college campus.

The sad truth is that today’s shooting is a tragic and painful reminder that gun control laws don’t stop those who are committed to the idea of killing as many innocent people as possible.

Florida bans concealed carry on college campuses, and open carry everywhere in the state. The killer didn’t care.

Florida bans the sale of firearms to adults under the age of 21. The killer didn’t care.

Florida has a three day waiting period on firearm transfers for most adults over the age of 21. The killer didn’t care.

The killer cared as much about Florida’s gun laws as he did the lives he took on Thursday afternoon. They served as no impediment to playing out his murderous fantasies, and most importantly, they offered no protection to his victims or those in the nearby vicinity who, by luck, chance, or God’s grace, weren’t harmed in his cowardly killing spree.

Would an armed citizen have been around to stop the killer’s attack if Florida allowed campus carry? Maybe, maybe not. But the odds of intervening before more lives were lost and more people were hurt would at least have been much higher if students, staff, and visitors who can lawfully carry off campus had the same ability to do so once they set foot on the university’s grounds.

The Second Amendment isn’t a guarantee that a good person with a gun will be there when you need it any more than it’s a magic solution to all our social ills. But at its core, the right to keep and bear arms is supposed to give us a fighting chance at survival; whether against a tyrannical government or the petty tyranny of a mentally disturbed or downright evil individual who’s decided the most important impact they can make in life is destroying someone else’s.

Protecting the Second Amendment doesn’t mean we’re not interested in protecting our kids, our neighbors, our communities, or ourselves. It just means that we fundamentally disagree that the pathway to safety must include the destruction, degradation, or deprivation of a fundamental civil right.

Bills Protecting Veteran Second Amendment Rights Hit The House And Senate

A pair of companion bills currently making rounds in the House and Senate seek to protect the Second Amendment rights of veterans by preventing Veterans Affairs (VA) from reporting names to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as a routine part of benefit-related actions. According to the authors of the bills, the NICS system uses those reports to strip veterans of their right to purchase and possess firearms without the same due process afforded to American citizens who did not serve in the military because the process doesn’t include a court finding that the veteran is a danger to themselves or others.

Republican Representative Mike Bost from Illinois, the bill’s sponsor, and House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs chairman, spoke about H.R. 1041, which has over 50 Republican co-sponsors, at a February 25 hearing.

“This bill is not about guns on demand… It’s about giving veterans the same due process as every other American,” said Bost.

The issue stems from a VA-appointed fiduciary program intended to assist veterans in managing their benefits and finances. Bost says that such an appointment has nothing to do with a veteran’s propensity to be a danger to the public and should not affect their NICS background checks in such a way that deprives them of their Second Amendment rights, which some veterans say discourages or prevents them from seeking mental health care.

Continue reading “”

First Circuit Upholds Massachusetts ‘Assault Weapon,’ Magazine Bans

he Bay State’s ban on the sale of certain semi-automatic firearms and ammunition magazines does not run afoul of the Second Amendment, a federal appeals court ruled Thursday.

A three-judge panel for the First Circuit Court of Appeals unanimously upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction against Massachusetts’ ban on the sale of “assault weapons,” such as the popular AR-15, and ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds. It determined that the logic of a prior ruling upholding Rhode Island’s ban on certain magazines applied to the weapons banned by Massachusetts law.

“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,’” Judge Gary Katzmann wrote in Capen v. Campbell. “This means that Appellants have failed to demonstrate at this stage that the Ban is unconstitutional in all its applications.”

The ruling extends the unbeaten streak for states defending hardware bans at the federal appellate level ever since the Supreme Court handed down its New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision in 2022. It will undoubtedly add to the growing sense of frustration among gun-rights advocates who believe Supreme Court precedent forecloses sales bans on common semi-automatic firearms and the magazines that come standard with them.

The National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), the plaintiff in this case, did not respond to a request for comment. The group sued over Massachusetts’ bans in 2022, shortly after the High Court handed down the Bruen decision. They were first upheld by US District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV in December 2023 after Saylor ruled that the banned items fit within the country’s historical tradition of regulating “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

Between that ruling and Thursday’s update on appeal, the First Circuit issued a separate opinion upholding Rhode Island’s nearly identical ban on ammunition magazines in March of 2024.

“The justification for the law is a public safety concern comparable to the concerns justifying the historical regulation of gunpowder storage and of weapons like sawed-off shotguns, Bowie knives, M-16s and the like,” Judge William Kayatta wrote in Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. “The analogical ‘how’ and ‘why’ inquiry that Bruen calls for therefore strongly points in the direction of finding that Rhode Island’s LCM ban does not violate the Second Amendment.”

Continue reading “”