Category: RKBA

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

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

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

The Constitutional Foundations

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

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

The Purpose of Registration in Each Context

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

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

Historical Risks of Gun Registration

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

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

The Role of Government Trust

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

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

Key Differences in Liberty Impact

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Supreme Court disagreed.

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Right to bear arms also a responsibility

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background: What This Means For You

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

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

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

The Court’s Recent Defeat: Antonyuk and Beyond

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

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

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

Why This Matters to Armed Americans

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

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

Last Words

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

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

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

America’s 2nd Amendment Is Allowable under Jewish Law

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

South Dakota Regents Finally Adopt Campus Carry Policy

When the fall semester kicks off at South Dakota’s public universities in less than a month, there’ll be at least one big change awaiting students and staff when they return to campus. Orientation materials will now include guidance on lawful carry, because for the first time, lawful gun owners who possess an enhanced carry permit or an out-of-state carry license recognized by South Dakota will be able to lawfully carry in many on-campus locations.

Earlier this year Gov. Larry Rhoden signed SB 100 into law, establishing a legal way for folks to bear arms on the state’s public colleges, universities and technical schools. Though the law took effect on July 1, the South Dakota Board of Regents didn’t get around to adopting its own campus carry policy in accordance with the statute until last week.

Pistols and ammunition must be stored in a locked case or safe when not being carried. The policy sets standards for schools to designate restricted spaces and rules for special events, establishes signage requirements, and addresses storage rules for dormitories. It also requires members of the public using campus facilities to adhere to the same regulations. “

The safety and well-being of our students and campus communities remains at the forefront, and we wanted to make sure that we were very thoughtful, very intentional, on the policy framework that we put together to do that to the best of our abilities,” [Regents Executive Director Nathan] Lukkes said.

Students who live on campus and want to carry will have to provide their own locking case or safe, which seems fair. The new law also allows for the lawful carry of stun guns, mace or pepper spray in addition to or instead of a firearm, with no enhanced carry license required for those items. That’s also a common sense provision, and it allows those who aren’t comfortable carrying a lethal weapon to choose a non-lethal way to protect themselves on campus.

Well, he’s nothing but a stooge, grandstanding again.

Murphy Tries to Re-Impose (and Hike) NFA Taxes After Congress Zeroed Them Out

We’ve been reporting on a rider inserted in the House Financial Services and General Government appropriations bill that would force Washington, D.C. to recognize valid concealed carry permits from all U.S. states and territories (as well as end the District’s “no guns allowed” policy for public transportation, but pro-gun Republicans aren’t the only ones trying to use the appropriations process to change gun laws.

Murphy’s trying to insert a rider into the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill with language to undo the NFA reform included in the OBBB and instead raise the transfer tax on NFA items from $200 to $4,709 for each transfer.

As Brady indicates, the nearly $5,000 that Murphy wants to impose essentially indexes the original $200 transfer tax imposed in 1934 to the rate of inflation over the past 90 years. Still, that’s much higher than what we’ve heard proposed from other anti-gun Democrats in Congress, who’ve talked about tripling the $200 tax once they have hte numbers to do so.

And therein lies the problem for Murphy. He can propose any kind of tax increase he wants, but he basically has zero chance of seeing his proposal included in the MCVARA appropriations bill (which has already passed the House). The Republican majority that voted to zero out transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “any other weapons” a couple of weeks ago isn’t going to turn around and vote in favor of dramatically hiking the taxes instead.

Murphy’s offered a couple of other amendments to the appropriations bill as well.

Amendment 2972 would require the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to issue a quarterly report on “the number of veterans who should have been reported to the national instant criminal background check system… if such reporting by the Secretary was permitted, and of those veterans, the number of suicides by firearm that occurred in the previous quarter”.

That amendment is a response to another rider that would extend the VA’s prohibition on submitting the names of those veterans who’ve had a fiduciary appointed to handle their affairs to NICS.

A temporary provision in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 and its extensions (including the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act of 2025) prohibited the VA from making these NICS reports without a judicial finding. That provision, though, is set to expire on September 30 unless Congress includes similar language in this year’s appropriations bill.

And Congress has included that language. Section 412 of the MCVARA bill states:

None of the funds made available by this Act may be used by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs under section 5502 of title 38, United States Code, in any case arising out of the administration by the Secretary of laws and benefits under such title, to report a person who is deemed mentally incapacitated, mentally incompetent, or to be experiencing an extended loss of consciousness as a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective under subsection (d)(4) or (g)(4) of section 922 of title 18, United States Code, without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others.

Murphy’s also offered an amendment that would simply strike that language from the appropriations bill so that veterans who’ve had a fiduciary appointed to help manage their financial affairs to be deemed a prohibited person without a judicial finding of dangerousness.

I doubt those amendments are going to fare any better than Murphy’s attempt to jack up NFA taxes by more than 2,000 percent, but gun owners should still be in contact with their Senators to encourage their opposition; both to these amendments and any others that would negatively impact our Second Amendment rights that might be introduced by anti-2A senators.

Missouri Sheriffs’ Constitutional Firearms Alliance

Dozens of Missouri Sheriffs have united to form the Missouri Sheriffs’ Constitutional Firearms Alliance (MSCFA), a group dedicated to safeguarding Second Amendment rights for law-abiding citizens while promoting gun safety throughout communities across the state.

Douglass County Sheriff and president of the MSCFA, Chris Degase, believes there is an agenda at the federal level to control and restrict access to firearms, a sentiment not unfamiliar to gun owners or any person paying attention, for that matter.

“This alliance brings together sheriffs from across our great state who are committed to protecting not just public safety, but constitutional liberty. We believe these two goals go hand in hand. In fact, public safety cannot truly exist where the rights of the people are ignored… With the Missouri Sheriffs Constitutional Firearms Alliance, we are not only standing up for your rights—we are standing in the gap between the federal government and you,” Sheriff DeGase said in a recent press conference.

I was fortunate enough to speak with the good Sheriff, getting to know him better and gaining an understanding of his perspective, particularly his approach to public safety while embracing liberty. In fact, Sheriff DeGase spoke candidly with me about balancing his duty to protect and serve the community without infringing on Constitutional rights, an agenda he takes pride in as an elected official who recognizes and respects the plain text of both his oath and the Second Amendment.

“As sheriffs, we are the only elected law enforcement officers in the nation, directly accountable to the people we serve. And with that responsibility comes an unwavering oath—to uphold and defend the Constitution, not just when it’s easy, but especially when it’s under pressure,” Sheriff DeGase continued.

Along these lines, Sheriff DeGase is not a fan of shutting down inter-agency communication and cooperation, understanding that such resources benefit the community. However, he also recognizes the very real threat to some of America’s foundational freedoms, a bedrock of principles in which he is unwilling to compromise.

waiting for the standard en banc request, where the rest of the 9th circus can express it’s normal idiocy on RKBA….

California ammunition background checks declared unconstitutional by US appeals court

July 24 (Reuters) – A divided federal appeals court on Thursday said California’s first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge’s permanent injunction against enforcing the law.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said the law “meaningfully constrains” people’s right to keep and bear arms.
She also said California failed to show the law was consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as required under a 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” Ikuta wrote.
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the law, was disappointed by the decision.
“Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,” a spokesperson said.

Continue reading “”

Pro Forma Kabuki Theater

Democrat Senator Pushes for $4,700 Tax Stamps

A leading anti-gun firebrand on Capitol Hill this week introduced a measure that would skyrocket the federal tax on NFA items, like suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who has signed on to just about every wandering gun ban and restriction that has come through Congress in the past two decades, on Tuesday suggested new tax rates on NFA items.

His proposed amendment to a Republican military spending bill would set the typical $200 making and transfer tax on most items to $4,709 and move the $5 tax on AOWs to $55.

“If we want to save lives in this country, we have to find a way, come hell or high water, to stop mass legalization of silencers in this country,” said Murphy in a press conference last month on the eve of potential NFA reform in the Republican reconciliation bill, H.R.1, better known as President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

While H.R.1 did not include “mass legalization” of suppressors (they have never been illegal, just taxed since 1934), it did drop the tax rate to $0, effective in January 2026.

National gun control groups quickly welcomed Murphy’s move, with Brady saying, “Thank you, Chris Murphy, for introducing this critical amendment to strike the provision in the big UGLY bill that removed taxes on deadly silencers & other uniquely lethal weapons, and instead adjust taxes to reflect inflation today.”

The likelihood of Murphy’s proposal sticking to the spending bill and making it into law is slim in the Republican-controlled Senate. Still, it signals one of the priorities that Dems will pursue when the polarity of Congress switches.

Fifth Circuit Issues Another Common Sense Decision on Guns

When it comes to deciding Second Amendment cases, there’s probably no appellate court more cognizant of the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms than the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges on the court have, among other things; ruled several ATF rules out of bounds, upheld the right of “unlawful” users of marijuana to possess firearms (so long as they’re not actively under the influence), and declared that adults under the age of 21 have a Second Amendment right to purchase handguns from firearm retailers.

Now the court has issued another common sense decision in favor of our right to keep and bear arms: police don’t have the authority to stop and search someone just because they were carrying a gun.

That ruling came from a three-judge panel in a case called U.S. v. Wilson. From the decision:

On March 16, 2022, federal agents stopped Damion Wilson pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). As he was approaching Wilson, Deputy U.S. Marshal Michael Atkins “noticed a bulge in [Wilson’s] waist area” that seemed like “a hard object.” ROA.252 (alteration in original).

Based on his training, Deputy Atkins believed the object was a concealed firearm. Atkins and other federal agents then ordered Wilson to stop and put his hands up. Wilson complied. The agents asked Wilson if he was armed, and he replied that he was. The agents ordered Wilson to drop the backpack he was wearing, to turn around, and to place his hands behind his back. The agents handcuffed him. While Wilson was being cuffed, Deputy Atkins asked him if he had a concealed weapons permit. Wilson admitted that he did not.

The agents took the gun—which was loaded with an extended magazine—from Wilson.Deputy Atkins told Wilson that he was not under arrest and that agents wanted to talk to him about Wilson’s friend—a federal fugitive named Malik Fernandez. Wilson denied having seen or spoken to Fernandez in six years. However, on Wilson’s public Instagram account, officers found a photo of Wilson and Fernandez together that had been posted approximately four months earlier.

Local police then arrested Wilson for carrying a firearm without a permit. Incident to that arrest, officers searched Wilson’s backpack and found marijuana. Officers then obtained a search warrant for Wilson’s apartment and found more marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and approximately$1,700.

Wilson ended up being charged by DOJ with several crimes, but he moved to suppress all physical evidence and statements stemming from his stop and arrest. While a district court judge rejected his argument, the Fifth Circuit found it more persuasive… though in the end their decision didn’t help his case. The key takeaway for gun owners, though, is this:

Undoubtedly, obtaining a driver’s license is more difficult than acquiring a concealed carry permit in a shall-issue State. Based solely on the observation that someone is driving a car, does an officer have reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed?

Obviously, no: “[S]topping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” without “articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered.” This was true even though driving, like carrying a firearm, is “subject to state regulation.”

… Put differently, officers cannot assume that citizens engaging in an activity subject to licensing are unlicensed. Without more facts, it is “[in]sufficiently probable that the observed conduct suggests unlawful activity.”

… If anything, the Constitution’s prohibition on presuming illegality should be stronger for gun owners than for car drivers. Unlike driving on public highways, which is a State-created and State-regulated privilege, “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

So regardless of how States’ permitting schemes are set up, keeping and bearing arms is preemptively lawful nationwide. We therefore refuse to “single out the Second Amendment for disfavor,” ), and we reject the district court’s categorical rule that presumes Louisiana gun owners are committing crimes.

The panel, though, concluded that Wilson’s stop was justified under Terry because there were other factors that created a “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot”; primarily his relationship with Fernandez, who was a federal fugitive allegedly involved in a shootout related to drug trafficking.

For those of us who don’t regularly pal around with drug traffickers or violent offenders, the Fifth Circuit’s decision offers real protection against unlawful searches just because we’re exercising our Second Amendment rights… at least in those states under the court’s jurisdiction. It’s unclear whether Wilson will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but even if he does the Court will most likely be able to respond without discussing the Second Amendment implications of the appellate court’s decision.

The Misogyny of the Anti-Gun Movement

A couple of days ago my colleague Tom Knighton wrote about some examples of misogyny in Second Amendment spaces, but the issue is perhaps even more pronounced among gun control advocates.

As Paige Pearson writes at the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s blog, many gun control groups have institutionalized their opposition to women exercising their Second Amendment rights… and they have become more vocal as more women are becoming gun owners.

The Smoking Gun is Everytown for Gun Safety’s media arm that describes itself as “the online resource committed to exposing the gun industry’s” role “in our gun violence epidemic.” Apparently that includes exposing the evils of marketing and advertising in a manner that attracts 50 percent of your possible customer base.

Enter Greg Lickenbrock, who spoke with three marketing and sociology professors from Oregon State University about their observations in advertising towards American women from firearm manufacturers and retailers.

“The fact that we now see women in these ads, and portraying different ‘characters,’ demonstrates the industry’s efforts to increase ownership among women,” Dr. Brett Burkhardt said.

“After a few years of experimenting with sexualized ads that didn’t correlate with increased sales to women, the industry now seems to have landed on an advertising idea that works: showing women as competent and serious gun owners,” added Dr. Michelle Barnhardt.

Dr. Aimee Dinnin Huff offered her thoughts as well. “There isn’t yet an established female American gun owner identity or image that consumers can latch onto. Many ads still rely on gendered assumptions rather than a nuanced understanding of the different types of relationships women have with firearms,” she said.

Dr. Burkhardt added another thought, stating, “These new and more common depictions of women and firearms are examples of how the industry is seeking to naturalize women’s gun ownership.”

Why shouldn’t gun ownership be considered natural for women? Or, to put it another way, why do anti-gunners want to denormalize half the population exercising a fundamental constitutional right?

To be fair, groups like Everytown are just as opposed to guys owning guns as they are with women exercising their 2A rights. But the anti-gunners can’t stand the fact that more women are choosing to purchase a firearm; whether for self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting, or just because it’s fun to spend time at the range. And they absolutely hate that the firearms industry has recognized that a growing number of women are making up their customer base.

Media still widely misrepresents American gun owners as old, white guys but recent trends in firearm purchasing couldn’t put this caricature to rest any better. Over the past five years, the surge of new first-time buyers has made the gun-owning community the most diverse population of gun owners ever. That’s a good thing – as the Second Amendment is for everyone. And that includes women.

Women are featured more prominently today in advertising because more women are buying firearms for any number of reasons – all good ones – and the industry is listening to them. Women’s nights at neighborhood shooting ranges, women-only firearm training classes and even friend groups choosing to go to the range together are all increasingly more popular activities as women choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights in any safe way they choose.

Marketing has changed over the last few decades to follow the customer. For Lickenbrock and others, that means seeing a lot more women with guns. And that’s a good thing.

I certainly think so, and if you’re reading this I’m relatively sure you’re in agreement with Pearson too. The gun control lobby, on the other hand, isn’t just going to clutch its collective pearls. They too will be targeting women with anti-gun messaging and campaigns designed to discourage them from keeping and bearing arms; portraying it as something that’s far too dangerous for ladies to engage in… and ignoring stories about women saving their own lives thanks to their decision to become a gun owner.

NC Senate will vote to override Stein’s vetoes on concealed guns, DEI and immigration next week

Republicans in the North Carolina Senate will vote to override Gov. Josh Stein’s vetoes next week, Senate leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) said Monday.

The governor, a Democrat, has issued seven vetoes on bills that originated in the Senate. Among them are one to allow permitless carry of handguns, two new immigration enforcement measures, two banning diversity, equity and inclusion practices in schools and a rollback of an emissions goal for Duke Energy.

Berger, in a news release, said Stein’s vetoes indicate “that he is out of touch with the people of North Carolina.”

“I look forward to leading Senate Republicans in overriding these harmful vetoes and putting North Carolina families first,” Berger said.

Veto overrides require approval from three-fifths of members in both chambers. Senate Republicans, who hold a 30-20 veto-proof supermajority, will meet that threshold if all members are present and voting.

The vote counting is more precarious in the House, where the GOP holds a 71-49 advantage. Speaker Destin Hall (R-Caldwell) has said the override motions can be called up at any time when the House is in session. But all Republicans, as well as one Democrat, will need to vote yes to confirm an override, if all members are present and voting.

Stein has also vetoed several prominent House bills. Those include a ban on DEI within state agencies and a bill that recognizes exclusively male and female sexes and restricts changes to birth certificates for transgender people. If the House overrides Stein’s vetoes on those bills, they will go to the Senate for final action.

Both chambers are set to come into session next week.

Special Taxes on Firearms are Unconstitutional.

1. The Tax Law That Now Finds Itself Without a Tax

In the recent discourse around the potential removal of suppressors and short barrel rifles from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and its tax and registration requirements, a point made repeatedly was that if the tax was repealed but the registration stayed, the latter would be illegal as it was only ever justified by the former.

This is indeed correct, as from its inception, the NFA was justified as a tax, with the registration being incidental to that tax and only existing ostensibly to ensure the tax was properly paid for each NFA item sold. Then-Attorney General Cummings was clear about this in his testimony to Congress during the debates over the bill in 1934:

Courts have consistently upheld the NFA, and its registration provision, on the grounds that it was a tax. Some who tried to challenge the law even argued that the tax was a pretext, with the real aim being to unconstitutionally restrict the arms included in the NFA. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in 1937, just a few years after the NFA was first enacted in Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 512-514 (1937):

“Petitioner. . .insists that the present levy is not a true tax, but a penalty imposed for the purpose of suppressing traffic in a certain noxious type of firearms, the local regulation of which is reserved to the states because not granted to the national government. . . But a tax is not any the less a tax because it has a regulatory effect. . . Here the annual tax of $200 is productive of some revenue. We are not free to speculate as to the motives which moved Congress to impose it, or as to the extent to which it may operate to restrict the activities taxed. As it is not attended by an offensive regulation, and since it operates as a tax, it is within the national taxing power.”
Ever since then, dozens of rulings have upheld the NFA on those same grounds. For example, in 2018 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “the NFA is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, as well as its authority to enact any laws “necessary and proper” to carry out that power.” United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170, 1179 (10th Cir. 2018).

Continue reading “”

DOJ Officially Publishes Proposed Rule on Firearm Rights Restoration

The Department of Justice has officially published its proposed rule re-establishing a process for those prohibited from possessing a firearm to regain their Second Amendment rights; a program that exists on paper but has been defunded by Congress for the past several decades.

The rule can be found here, and folks can comment on the proposal until mid-October. The DOJ estimates as many as 1 million people could apply for relief in the first year the rule is in place, at a cost of about $20 million. DOJ wants to offset that expense by charging a $20 application fee; a substantial savings compared to hiring an attorney and suing to have rights restored.

DOJ isn’t making a secret of the desire to cut down on the number of prohibited persons cases in the federal courts.

Since the Bruen decision, there have been many challenges to section 922(g)’s constitutionality under the Second Amendment, with a particularly large volume focusing on section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons. Some of those challenges are declaratory judgment actions brought by felons who have not themselves violated section 922(g)(1) and who maintain that their prior convictions for non-violent offenses do not indicate that they pose an ongoing danger to others. Some of these plaintiffs have had success in challenging section 922(g)(1), as courts have found that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to them. At the same time, some courts have expressly recognized that section 925(c) would alleviate any such constitutional concerns, absent the proviso prohibiting ATF from carrying it out.

As recognized by courts, a functional section 925(c) process would render much of this litigation unnecessary and ensure that individuals meeting the relevant criteria may possess firearms under federal law in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment, while still protecting public safety.

Even more broadly, the Supreme Court has been clear that the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is foundational. This rulemaking reflects the Department’s commitment to the Second Amendment as an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty and a policy decision that the Department must find a way to both advance public safety and ensure that the rights of the people enshrined in the Constitution are not infringed.

Even before the rule was formally published today, the Department of Justice has been arguing that section 925(c) precludes at least some legal challenges to 922(g)(1), including a case heard by the Third Circuit on Monday.

Continue reading “”