Category: RKBA

Kentucky Legislature Overrides Governor’s Vetoes on Two Pro-Second Amendment Bills

Key Takeaways

  • Kentucky General Assembly overrode Governor Beshear’s vetoes on two pro-Second Amendment bills, restoring liability protections and enabling concealed carry for adults aged 18-20.
  • House Bill 78, the PLCAA Clarification Act, protects the firearms industry from civil lawsuits linked to criminal misuse of their products.
  • House Bill 312 allows provisional concealed carry licenses for adults between 18 and 20, who can later apply for standard licenses.
  • Supporters argue that the veto overrides affirm constitutional rights and combat unjust age discrimination in carrying firearms.
  • The legislation signals to anti-rights advocates the need to stop blaming the firearms industry for crimes.

FRANKFORT, KY — The Kentucky General Assembly voted to override Governor Andy Beshear’s vetoes of two pro-Second Amendment bills this week, restoring liability protections for the firearms industry and opening a path for law-abiding adults between the ages of 18 and 20 to carry concealed.

The two bills — House Bill 78 and House Bill 312 — had each passed with wide legislative support before the Democratic governor sent them back. Kentucky lawmakers returned to Frankfort and voted to override both.

HB 78: Protecting the Firearms Industry from Frivolous Lawsuits

House Bill 78, known as the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms (PLCAA) Clarification Act of 2026, establishes legal protections for firearm and ammunition manufacturers, distributors, and retailers against civil lawsuits arising from the criminal or unlawful misuse of their products. The bill builds on protections already provided by the federal PLCAA, which some courts have failed to apply as Congress intended.

Kentucky’s House of Representatives voted 80 to 19 to override the veto. The Senate voted 31 to 6.

State-level PLCAA measures have become increasingly necessary. A number of antigun states have enacted laws designed to circumvent the federal PLCAA and allow the very sort of frivolous lawsuits the federal law bars. The NSSF has described this coordinated effort as a wave of lawfare aimed at financially crippling the firearms industry.

NSSF Senior Vice President and General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane addressed the governor’s reasoning directly. “Governor Beshear acknowledged when he vetoed this bill that this legislation would prevent frivolous and harassing lawsuits for violence committed by criminals,” Keane said. He added that Beshear chose to side with gun control special interest groups that want to use the courts to accomplish what they cannot accomplish through legislation.

Keane put the issue plainly. “Members of the firearm industry are no more responsible for the actions of criminals than Kentucky’s bourbon distillers are responsible for drunk driving deaths,” he said.

HB 312: Concealed Carry Licenses for Adults Ages 18 to 20

House Bill 312 authorizes the Kentucky State Police to issue provisional concealed carry licenses to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. Those who receive a provisional license can later apply for a standard license through their county sheriff or through the KSP online system. The bill passed both chambers before Gov. Beshear vetoed it.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb said the governor was practicing age discrimination by denying full rights of citizenship to young adults who can serve in the military, start businesses, get married, and run for office.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) had called on the legislature to act after the veto. “We are both delighted and proud of the Kentucky legislators who returned to Frankfort for these important votes,” Gottlieb said.

What This Means

Gottlieb said the Kentucky override should be seen as a signal to anti-rights advocates to stop blaming an entire lawful industry for the country’s violent crime problem and to stop restricting the rights of an entire age class.

The Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right. It does not begin at age 21, and it does not end because a criminal misused a product. Kentucky’s legislature affirmed both of those principles this week. The firearms industry can do business without being punished for crimes it did not commit, and law-abiding young adults in Kentucky can now pursue their right to carry for personal protection.

VA Ground Zero on Guns: DOJ Legal Action Threat

By Dave Workman

Editor-in-Chief

In office only four months, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger has found herself in the middle of a gun rights battleground, and the fault lies squarely in her lap and with her Democrat colleagues in the legislature for passing a slew of gun control bills, including one which brought a promise of federal legal action: Senate Bill 749.

Spanberger faces a deadline of 11:59 p.m. tonight—one minute before Midnight—to either sign or veto the bill. A third option, as noted by WVEC News, would let the bills become law without her signature.

In a sharply-worded letter to Spanberger, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon at the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which includes the newly-created Second Amendment section, Spanberger was warned the DOJ “will commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans’ individual right to bear arms.” The letter specifically mentioned SB 749, which would “unconstitutionally” restrict the manufacture, purchase or sale of AR-15 rifles “and other semi-automatic firearms in common use.”

This was no idle threat. Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division has already taken legal action against the Virgin Island police and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over delays in approving gun permit applications.

Continue reading “”

Two Researchers Suggest ‘New Firearms Tax Design’ To Combat ‘Gun Violence’

By Dave Workman

Writing at ProMarket, two researchers have declared it’s time for “alternative tax regimes to replace” federal excise taxes on handguns and long guns—which generate revenues to fund federal wildlife restoration programs—and doubling the taxes to “produce meaningful gains to society through a reduction in violence.”

Liberty Park Press reached out to authors Luis Armona and Adam Rosenberg, but did not recieve replies.

However, the National Shooting Sports Foundation noted that one year ago, an Op-Ed published on the NSSF website took Armona and Rosenberg to task for also pushing a gun tax proposal, leading off with this blistering observation: “Leave it to the ‘scholars’ at Harvard Kennedy School to come up with a scheme that combines the arrogance of the ‘intellectual elite,’ increasing taxes, administering gun confiscation plans and – again – purposefully conflating “public health” policies for crime control for the latest pie-in-the-sky gun control plan.”

This was back on April 4, 2025. Writer Salam Fatohi observed about their alternative tax scheme, “They just need to tax the snot out of them.”

In their new article, Armona and Rosenberg acknowledge “we know surprisingly little about how these markets operate, including how consumers make choices between the thousands of firearms available to them, how much they value these weapons, and how suppliers set prices or react to taxes. Without this information, it is impossible to know whether a tax of, say, 50%, 10%, or 0% is the “right level” to raise federal funds and reduce gun-related crimes, or what the effects of these taxes would be.”

Nowhere do they explain how y would mitigate the loss of federal aid funds for wildlife to the states, which have amounted to hundreds of millions of dollars since the Pittman-Robertson fund was enacted in 1937. Under this dedicated fund program, which is strongly supported by industry and sportsmen’s organizations, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service provides annual apportionments to the states for wildlife-related programs, which include range development and hunter education.

While the researchers push the argument that violent crime is a public health issue, NSSF’s Fatohi noted last year, “…crime isn’t a public health crisis, as much as gun control advocates want to profess it is. Crime is a law enforcement issue. There is no prescription that prevents people who have no respect for life or law to make them not want to harm their victims. There’s no pill to cure that ill-minded intent.”

He reminded readers that “Criminals, typically, don’t legally buy guns. That means they wouldn’t pay the tax. The Department of Justice (DOJ) Bureau of Justice Statistics own reports show that 90 percent of criminals convicted of crimes involving a firearm admit they obtained those firearms through illicit means. In other words, those criminals stole those firearms or bought them on the black market.”

Mark Oliva, managing director of Public Affairs for NSSF, called this new tax suggestion “a non-starter.”

He says the proposal pushes the premise “that law-abiding gun owners must subsidize (and pay an illegal poll tax) for the crimes committed by criminals.”

“I’m not aware of a tax on library cards to combat illiteracy,” Oliva said via email. “Or a tax on voting to combat election interference. The ‘right tax’ comment tells you everything. Criminals aren’t paying the tax when they illegally obtain guns. That would be forced on you and I.”

Whether the idea is a non-starter or may gain some traction, it underscores how wide the gap between common sense and nonsense, critics would argue. The gap is growing wider, and at stake is a funding mechanism which has served the nation’s wildlife programs for generations.

DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills

 

For years, gun owners have watched blue-state politicians pass one unconstitutional restriction after another while the federal government mostly stood on the sidelines. That may be changing.

In a April 10, 2026, letter to Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon put the Commonwealth on formal notice: if Virginia enacts a slate of anti-gun bills now sitting on the governor’s desk, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is prepared to sue.

That is the federal government warning a state executive, in writing, that certain proposed gun-control measures appear to violate the Second Amendment and will trigger litigation if signed into law.

The biggest target named in the letter is SB 749, which DOJ says would force Virginia law enforcement agencies to participate in “a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.”

Continue reading “”

Interesting point of view.

The Virginia Democrats’ gun legislation is reactionary, not progressive

The United States is an empire, with the most powerful military in the world. It’s also one of only two nations in the world with the right to bear arms enshrined in its founding legal documents, the other being Guatemala. The Second Amendment is considered by many to be the amendment that safeguards all other rights.

Nevertheless, many people have seen the Second Amendment as harmful due to the presence of powerful firearms, such as semi-automatics, in the hands of U.S. civilians. They point to tragedies, especially mass shootings, as justification for regulating firearms.

They see the “well-regulated militia” statement as a caveat that limits what firearms we can possess, claiming that “weapons of war” shouldn’t be in the hands of civilians. They see those who believe in these so-called weapons of war being in the hands of civilians as inherently taking a normatively right-wing standpoint.

For the sake of testing this argument, we can acknowledge that the right to bear arms shouldn’t be infringed only within the context of where there’s a well-regulated militia in the context of the necessity of the security of a free state. In that case, we must also understand what follows if we investigate the premise that the state itself has refused to self-regulate. When the state refuses to self-regulate, we can come to the conclusion that the civilian populace being armed to counter the unregulated militia becomes, in a sense, the regulation of the unregulated militia.

To those who call themselves progressive and also call themselves pro-gun control or pro-gun ban, I ask you to consider your thought process. Is the U.S. government a well-regulated militia when it’s enabling Israel’s genocide in Gaza? Is it a well-regulated militia when it’s engaging in wars to further the longstanding goals of American imperialism that benefit the richest and most powerful, such as in the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the current war in Iran? Is the U.S. government a well-regulated militia when it violates Americans’ constitutional rights, prioritizes corporate interests and targets people based on race?

To me, the answer is no, in all of these cases. Nevertheless, gun-control advocates seem to believe that the government and military is more entitled than the civilian populace, which does not engage in these acts. The irony, to me, is that many within the gun-control advocacy sphere also happen to oppose at least one or more of the aforementioned operations. I join them in opposition to these actions, but I find their belief in disarming the populace to be self-defeating.

Continue reading “”

Maine: Federal Appeals Court Upholds 3-Day Waiting Period Law For Firearm Purchases

A federal appeals court has ruled that Maine’s law requiring a three-day waiting period between firearm purchases and taking possession of a gun to be constitutional.

On April 3, a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st Circuit Court of Appeals reversed last year’s decision by Maine’s chief federal judge that blocked enforcement of the law on Second Amendment grounds. In a nutshell, the circuit court ruled that the law is a “burden on, but not an infringement of, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

In what seems to be strained logic, the court ruled that the law regulates conduct before a person keeps and bears arms, thus not infringing upon actually keeping and bearing arms.

“We agree with the Attorney General’s view that laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of firearms do not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s ‘plain text,’” the court wrote in the case Beckwith v. Frey. “The Amendment’s plain text guarantees an individual’s ability to keep and bear arms, which means to have a carry guns. The Act does not address this conduct. Rather, the Act imposes a limitation in some circumstances on when a person can acquire a firearm after the person purchased it. The act thus regulates conduct that occurs before a person keeps or carries a gun.”

Of course, anti-gun supporters of the law cheered the court’s ruling as a major step for so-called “gun safety.” Continue reading “”

There Are No ‘Moderate’ Democrats When it Comes to Gun Rights.

Virginia’s Gov. Abigail Spanberger is determined to make her mark in the Old Dominion. She campaigned for office as a moderate Democrat, but Virginians are learning quickly that they’ve been hoodwinked. The reaction is astounding.

A recent poll conducted by George Mason University and The Washington Post found that Gov. Spanberger earned the highest disapproval rating from Virginians of any governor since 1994. Forty-six percent of Virginians disapprove of Gov. Spanberger’s job performance, just three months into the job. To put that into perspective, Gov. Spanberger won by 15 points in her race against former Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears. Her performance is also a glaring contrast to former Virginia Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s 53-39 job approval rating at the same point in his administration, according to Fox News.

Chief among those headwinds are two issues that the firearm industry is tracking very closely. First, Gov. Spanberger is expected to sign into law SB 749, which would unconstitutionally ban the purchase of Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), or the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles — the most common rifle in America — as well as semiautomatic shotguns used for hunting and home defense and many pistols and standard capacity magazines. Gov. Spanberger is also considering a bill, HB21, that would attempt to circumvent the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) to allow frivolous lawsuits against firearm industry members for the criminal misuse of firearms by remote third parties.

Add to that, Gov. Spanberger is backing a referendum effort to gerrymander the Congressional districts in Virginia that would bring a new hyper-partisan Virginia congressional delegation to Congress. If successful, it would change Virginia’s 11 Congressional districts that are currently comprised of six Democrats and five Republicans to 10 Democrats and just one Republican.

Continue reading “”

The who, what, and where of gun control

A Second Opinion is a recurring series by Haley Proctor on the Second Amendment and constitutional litigation.

My previous column examined what it means for a gun control measure to fit within “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This month I want to focus on how the court has analyzed gun regulations that limit (1) who may possess a firearm, (2) what arms people may own or carry, and (3) where they may take them.

Who may keep and bear arms?

As of writing, the court’s latest word on the Second Amendment concerns the “who” of gun control: may the government permissibly restrict the ability of certain types of people to keep and bear arms? The court provided important guidance on that question in the 2024 case of United States v. Rahimi, but significant questions remain open.

The Second Amendment secures to “the people” the right “to keep and bear Arms.” In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held that “the people” refers “to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.” This means that the “plain text” contains no limitation on the right that would permit the government to deprive some category of persons of firearms without meeting its burden to show that the deprivation is consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The court has occasionally used the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” to describe “the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right.” Some have inferred that this phrase limits the category of people who may assert a Second Amendment right. The court’s decision in Rahimi made clear that this reading was mistaken. If the government wishes to limit the ability of any “member[ ] of the political community” to keep or bear arms – even those who break the law or might be thought to be irresponsible – it must point to a historical tradition that justifies doing so.

Rahimi recognized a historical tradition that “allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,” “temporarily.”  And it identified one group of individuals who the government may disarm consistent with that tradition: individuals presently under a restraining order issued upon a finding that the recipient poses “a credible threat to the physical safety” of another.

This term, the court has taken up the “who” question once more. The case of United States v. Hemani requires it to decide whether the same tradition permits the government to disarm individuals who unlawfully use drugs. Several additional “who” questions are in the offing.

First, despite Heller’s holding that the “people” includes “all members of the political community,” and despite the fact that 18-to-20 year-olds are undoubtedly part of the political community (and many shoulder the responsibility to bear arms for that community), some courts have continued to hold that they are not part of the “people” who enjoy a right to keep and bear arms. These courts have therefore rejected challenges to laws restricting adults’ ability to purchase or carry firearms until they reach the age of 21. There is a circuit split on this question, and the  court has been holding several petitions since November. It could be that the court plans to grant, vacate, and remand these cases in light of Hemani, but given that they focus on the meaning of “people” and a different aspect of the historical regulatory tradition, it’s doubtful that Hemani will supply much guidance.

Continue reading “”

Gun rights are women’s rights

In 1991, Suzanna Gratia Hupp was having lunch in a crowded cafeteria and had to watch as a gunman executed victims one by one, including her own parents. She reached for her purse to grab her revolver, only to realize it was sitting outside in her car — she’d left it behind to obey Texas gun laws. In her testimony, she later wrote, “The only thing the gun laws did that day was prevent good people from protecting themselves.” If Hupp had been armed, she might have been able to stop George Hennard, who murdered twenty-three people.

In cases like Suzanna’s, it’s easy to see how a gun could be necessary to defend against an armed assailant. However, living in Claremont, California, we rarely think about needing a gun on college campuses. Locked dorms, campus security and tight-knit communities make us feel safe. But that safety won’t extend beyond graduation. Outside the shelter of a college campus, Hupp needed protection and didn’t have it. While anyone could have been in her position, her experience highlights the necessity of access to and training with a firearm. When Hennard opened fire, a defensive gun could have drastically changed the situation. Without one, Suzanna could do nothing but try to escape.

While anyone may need a gun to protect themselves after undergraduate life, women are especially in need of such protection because of our physical weakness when compared to men. Men are, on average, physically stronger than women. Biological differences in muscle mass, bone density and testosterone levels consistently result in greater strength among men. Research shows that even untrained men are stronger than athletically trained women. As a wrestler and judoka, I’ve had a lot of experience with these differences. While I’ve had wrestling wins against boys, almost every male in my same weight class has been stronger than me.

Competing against men in wrestling and judo is difficult, but the stakes are much higher in the real world, where there aren’t any rules to the game.

Gun rights are women’s rights because they provide a means for women to defend themselves in a world of physical inequality. I might be able to throw a man in judo while under strict guidelines, but out on the street, there’s no gi to grip, and he may have a punch that I can’t defend against.

Women need access to guns to even the playing field when faced with physically stronger assailants. Consider the 57-year-old woman living in Cape Girardeau, Missouri, who was raped by Ronnie Preyer in October 2008. When this registered sex offender came back five days later to assault her a second time, she used a 12-gauge shotgun to kill him in self-defense. Take Melinda Herman, a Georgian wife and mother who protected her nine-year-old twins while her husband was at work, when Paul Slater, a thirty-two-year-old with an extensive criminal history, broke into her house with a crowbar. She shot him, saving her life and the lives of her children. Similarly, in Richmond, California, eighty-four-year-old Gustava Harvey fired a .38 caliber revolver when an intruder kicked down her door; the gunfire alone caused him to flee.

A gun neutralizes physical strength differences — what matters is not size, but the ability to act. There are numerous accounts of women of all ages protecting themselves, their children and their homes through the use of guns. Without a gun, these stories could have ended very differently. Without a weapon, women are forced to rely on physical strength they do not have; with a gun, they gain the immediate and equal capacity to defend themselves.

Many advocates for gun control believe that more guns inherently increase crime, suggesting that increasing gun ownership among women would be associated with more overall crime. However, there is little evidence to suggest that this would be the case. Women are significantly less likely than men to commit violent crimes overall. Men commit roughly 75-80 percent of violent crime and about 88-90 percent of homicides.

Furthermore, the “guns cause crime” view ignores evidence that firearms are also used defensively, often preventing crimes before they escalate. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported that defensive use of guns is at least as common as offensive use by criminals, and an estimated 500,000 to more than 3 million defensive gun uses occur annually. Defensive gun use, whether through firing or simply brandishing, can deter attackers and stop violence in real time — exactly the way women are most likely to use guns.

Gun control advocates also often argue that if no one had guns, violence during crime would decrease and women would be safer. However, this ignores the reality that certain types of violent crime can worsen in countries with strict gun control. Burglars in the United States are far less likely to target occupied homes than burglars in the United Kingdom.

Research suggests that this is largely due to fear of encountering an armed resident. In the United States, only 13 percent of burglaries occur when people are home, while in England and Wales, this number is 59 percent. Removing guns does not remove violence, and even in countries where guns are strictly regulated, women remain disproportionately victims of physical and sexual violence. Removing guns eliminates one of the few tools women have to effectively resist violence.

Ultimately, guns provide women with a practical and immediate means of self-defense against physically stronger male attackers. The defensive use of firearms can deter crime, interrupt attacks and reduce the likelihood of victimization. Women are statistically less likely to commit violence and are well-positioned to use firearms responsibly for protection.

With 52 percent of women in the United States being single and 56.8 percent of women working in the labor force, women are exercising their independence in an age of increased equality. Thus, being able to protect oneself through self-defense is a condition for equality. As many women at the 7Cs prepare for their careers in the outside world, they must consider how to protect their homes and livelihoods from threats. As Andrea Dworkin wrote, “women have the right to fight back.” I am a woman, and I neither want to be victimized by men or subordinate myself to men for protection. Feminism must include the right to self-defense, and that means supporting women’s access to firearms.

Grace Rutherford PO ’28 believes in the right to protect herself from imminent danger.

Armed, Trained & Responsible: The Forgotten Half Of American Gun Culture

It’s not enough to merely own guns, you need to know how to use them, and how to use them responsibly.
American gun culture is often reduced to a debate over rights. Who has them, who shouldn’t and where may the government draw lines … if anywhere? But, historically, rights were only half the equation. The other half was responsibility.

Early Americans were not merely expected to own firearms. They were expected to know how to use them, maintain them and exercise judgment in their use. Gun ownership was active not passive. Competence was assumed. That tradition deserves revival.

Continue reading “”

Hysteria Reigns Following Hegseth’s Announcement

When I was in the Navy, I lived on base but, like most service members, my social life was off base. At Portsmouth Naval Hospital, at least when I was stationed there, going out the main gate led to a plethora of options. Straight ahead took you toward the bulk of the city. Turning left took you to an old part of the town with historic buildings and one really great pub, among other things. Hang a right, though, and you’d best have your next of kin on standby.

I didn’t have a gun back then, and I kind of wish I did, but with living on base, it wasn’t really much of an option. There were ways to own one, but to carry it anywhere? Forget it.

Later, I worked at Marine Corps Logistics Base Albany as a contractor. I had to drive through some sketchy areas, but carrying a gun to and from work wasn’t an option. I just had to pray that I wouldn’t be one of those unfortunate souls whose luck ran out. Thankfully, I wasn’t, but it was dumb that I had no other options.

Now, things have changed following Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s announcement on Thursday that bases were no longer gun-free zones.

Unsurprisingly, though, some people are having absolute hysterics about it.

“Troops can now request to carry their own personal firearms on base for personal protection, without having to explain why they need to protect themselves on base,” wrote Reuters chief national security correspondent Phil Stewart.

“If someone is not safe on a military base with armed guards, fences, walls, a personal police force, everyone who comes on base has their id checked, needs a sponsor if non military then we are truly screwed as a country,” wrote California congressional candidate Eric Garcia.

“Hegseth is telling us here that God gave us our legal rights as Americans including gun rights,” wrote USC Center on Communication Leadership and Policy senior fellow Barbara Starr. “He might be interested in some of the military concerns about the relationship between having personal weapons on base and suicide rates.”

“Obsessed with every culture war issue while an actual war is stalled out overseas and his boss just gave a complete belly-flop of a speech on it,” wrote The Atlantic staff writer and former Naval War College professor Tom Nichols.

I swear, it seems Nichols gets more insufferable as the days go by.

Continue reading “”

I figured the demoncrap would

Gov. Beshear vetoes bill seeking to lower age for concealed carry permit

FRANKFORT, Ky. —
A bill that would have lowered the age to obtain a concealed carry permit in Kentucky has been vetoed by Gov. Andy Beshear.

Beshear announced Thursday he vetoed House Bill 312.

The bill sought to lower the age to get a concealed carry permit from 21 to 18.

He vetoed it alongside House Bill 78, which sought to “establish liability protections for manufacturers and sellers of firearms against specified legal actions arising from criminal or unlawful use of firearms or ammunition.”

“Three years ago, a senseless act of gun violence took the life of my friend Tommy and four others. Tonight, at an event honoring Tommy and his impact, I vetoed House Bills 78 and 312,” Beshear wrote in a post on X. “While I believe in the second amendment, these pieces of legislation would allow minors under the age of 21 to carry concealed deadly weapons and protect firearm manufacturers and sellers from liability for gun violence. We must take steps to protect our people and allow them to seek justice for deadly acts like those families have suffered from. Vetoing these bills was the right thing to do.”

While Beshear vetoed the two bills, lawmakers can override them once they reconvene on April 14-15.

An Interview with The AK Guy, GOP Candidate for U.S. House, Brandon Herrera

By Lee Williams

SAF Investigative Journalism Project

Special to Liberty Park Press

Brandon Herrera, the GOP’s official candidate for Texas’ 23rd Congressional District, may know more about guns and gun rights than any member of Congress.

Herrera, who’s known as “The AK Guy,” has millions of followers on X, YouTube, and Instagram, who tune him in regularly for two reasons: He knows what he’s talking about and he’s entertaining as hell.

Perhaps President Donald J. Trump said it best in his recent endorsement:

“Today I am endorsing America First Patriot, Brandon Herrera, who is running to represent the wonderful people of Texas’ 23rd Congressional District. Brandon is strongly supported by many Highly Respected MAGA Warriors in Texas, and Republicans in the U.S. House. As your next Congressman, he will work tirelessly to advance our MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN Agenda. Brandon will fight hard to Grow the Economy, Cut Taxes and Regulations, Advance MADE IN THE U.S.A., Unleash American Energy DOMINANCE, Safeguard our Elections, Champion School Choice, Keep our Border SECURE, Stop Migrant Crime, Support our Brave Military, Veterans, and Law Enforcement, and Protect our always under siege Second Amendment. Brandon Herrera has my Complete and Total Endorsement to be the next Representative from Texas’ 23rd Congressional District — HE WILL NEVER LET YOU DOWN,” President Trump posted on social media.

Recently, Herrera took some time answering questions about his life, candidacy and the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Anti-Gunner Offers Cartoonish Version of U.S. History to Demand Civilian Disarmament

At one of the two No Kings protests held in Richmond, Virginia this past weekend, one of the speakers urged attendees to go out and buy a gun and exercise their Second Amendment rights. There was no call to violence in his statement, just a call to arms.

I’m not sure how well that comment went over with those in attendance, but I’m pretty sure that if California writer Matt Stone had been in the audience he would have turned tomato-faced with rage. In a diatribe for the Davis Vanguard, Stone has taken aim at “the gun,’ which, in his mind, has primarily (and perhaps only) been a tool of oppression for hundreds of years.

To understand the American obsession with firearms, you have to strip away the nostalgia and look at the ledger. The gun was the specific technology required to seize a continent and build an economy. It was the instrument that turned “uninhabited” land into private property and human beings into chattel.

The Second Amendment was not drafted in a vacuum of philosophical abstraction. It was drafted to protect the state militias, whose primary function, explicitly cited in the text, was to execute the “Law of the Union” and suppress “Insurrections.” In the language of the time, that meant one thing: killing Native Americans to clear the land and terrorizing enslaved Africans to keep the labor force in check.

I could devote this entire post to debunking just this paragraph, but I’ll settle for the Cliff’s Notes version since there’s so much more stupidity to cover. Chattel slavery existed long before the musket ever came into existence, and the African slavers who were the source of the millions of souls trapped in bondage weren’t dependent on firearms.

The Second Amendment was drafted, in part, to ensure that militias, which were comprised of every able-bodied male from young adulthood to old age, would not be destroyed by an act of Congress, but it was also meant to ensure that the people’s right to keep and bear arms outside of those militia purposes would not be infringed. Stone is simply off his rocker when he claims that “insurrections” only meant targeting Native Americans and “terrorizing” slaves. Even if Stone had referred to putting down slave revolts (which did fall under “insurrections”), it’s just flat out false to say those were the only “insurrections” in the colonies where the militia was used to stop the disorder.

Continue reading “”

Florida AG, NRA argue nonviolent felons should keep Second Amendment rights

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, with support from the National Rifle Association, is arguing that nonviolent felons should not lose their Second Amendment rights.

“My duty is to protect and defend the rights of the people as enshrined in our Constitution because those rights are nonnegotiable. As Attorney General, my commitment is to the people, no matter the cost,” Uthmeier said in a post on X.

The Attorney General’s position mirrors efforts by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, the organization’s legal and lobbying arm, which has long worked to defend Second Amendment rights through litigation and policy advocacy.

“The NRA has long held that firearm bans for nonviolent felons violate the Second Amendment, and Uthmeier is now advancing that argument in a state case, underscoring that such individuals are not barred from exercising their constitutional rights,” the advocacy arm of the NRA wrote on its X account.

Uthmeier made the case in Morgan v. State of Florida, which is now before the state’s First District Court of Appeal. The case involves Morgan, who was convicted in 2007 of a third-degree felony under Pennsylvania law for carrying a firearm without a license.

During a traffic stop in 2022, Morgan told officers he had a gun in his car’s center console. He was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. Morgan challenged the law as unconstitutional. After a trial court upheld his conviction, he appealed.

The state initially defended the conviction but changed course on Feb. 13, 2026. On March 18, Uthmeier filed a supplemental brief explaining the shift.

The brief leans on the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test, arguing that prohibiting gun ownership for nonviolent felons isn’t justified. It says Morgan, despite his felony, remains part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

It also points to historical examples, noting that English, Founding-era, and Reconstruction-era laws only disarmed people who were demonstrably dangerous or posed a public safety risk. Uthmeier’s brief argues that a felony conviction alone shouldn’t automatically strip someone of their gun rights.

While the brief notes that most felonies suggest some level of dangerousness, it says Morgan’s record shows no evidence he posed a threat.

Of course the current governor of Kentucky is a demoncrap, so we’ll see if he vetoes it.

HB 312 allowing adults under 21 to bear arms sent to governor

FRANKFORT – Members of the General Assembly voted to approve HB 312. This bill, sponsored by State Representative Savannah Maddox of Dry Ridge, is a straightforward but important statutory update that would allow eligible, law-abiding Kentucky adults between the ages of 18 and 20 to exercise their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

“This measure recognizes that many responsible young adults already legally vote, sign contracts, join the military, serve in combat, start a family, own a business, and work in law enforcement fields, yet under current law, these adults are prohibited from carrying a firearm concealed for self-defense,” Maddox said. “This creates a dangerous inconsistency. If we recognize their adulthood and the responsibilities that come with it in every other area, we can’t deny them the ability to protect themselves and their loved ones.”

HB 312 would allow law-abiding Kentuckians age 18 to 20 years-of-age to obtain a provisional concealed carry license, which has the same requirements as Kentucky’s standard concealed carry license: background check, training, and proficiency in handling and operating a firearm.

“This bill strikes the right balance between individual liberty and personal responsibility by ensuring that young adults who choose to carry a firearm do so through a clear, lawful process,” Maddox said. “The Second Amendment is clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Adults 20 and under are very much part of the people. State law should recognize those rights equally.”

The measure would align Kentucky with 25 other states that recognize that law-abiding citizens age 18 to 20 have a constitutional right to carry concealed for self-defense.

“I believe in constitutional carry for all law-abiding American adults. This bill is a good faith step forward that meets in the middle and gives young adults a lawful path to exercise their rights,” said State Senator Aaron Reed, R-Shelbyville, who carried the bill in the Senate. “This matters because every adult deserves a right to defend themselves, especially our daughters, who today are often left without that clear protection.”