RKBA – Page 23 – MILESFORTIS

Senate Bill 3: Gun licensing scheme much broader than claimed

The Colorado legislature is close to final passage of Senate Bill 25-003, to impose one of the most restrictive licensing systems in the nation on many, but not all firearms. Legislators and the public should understand that the bill would apply to all semiautomatic centerfire handguns. The kinds of handguns that Coloradans typically choose—from companies such as Glock, Ruger, or Smith & Wesson—would become much more onerous to purchase.

Senate Bill 3 seems cunningly written. It purports to apply only to the “gas-operated semiautomatic handgun.” (p. 4). The bill then provides five types of gas operation. Cumulatively, the definitions cover almost every centerfire semiautomatic handgun.

The bill does not apply to semiautomatics that fire the puny .22 rimfire cartridge.

There is only one centerfire semiautomatic handgun model that does not fall within the bill’s definitions. That unique item is the Benelli B-80, a collector’s item last manufactured in 1990. The identical gun was produced in six different calibers, model numbers 76 through 82.

As for every other model of semiautomatic pistol, Coloradans will be forced to navigate their way through one of the most onerous systems in the nation, far exceeding even California’s.

Continue reading “”

Manhattan DA calls on 3D printing companies to deter creation of ghost guns

With crimes involving ghost guns on the rise, Manhattan District Attorney Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., is calling on a 3D printer manufacturer to put more safeguards in place to prevent the spread of 3D-printed guns and gun parts.

Bragg penned a letter to Shenzhen Creality 3D Technology Co., Ltd. (Creality), which produces 3D printers available to individual consumers, to install their printers with an available 3D-printing software program that detects the shapes of common gun parts and blocks their printing. Bragg also called on Creality to take down any online blueprints, also known as CAD files, from its cloud platform, and to ban the creation of illicit weapons in the company’s user agreement.

The letter comes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to uphold federal regulations, which the DA’s office filed an amicus brief in support of last summer, requiring ghost gun parts to have serial numbers and compelling background checks for prospective buyers of ghost gun home-assembly kits.

“We are calling on companies that sell 3D-printers to work with us to stem the flow of dangerous weapons into our communities by implementing targeted, commonsense fixes. Too often, gun violence tragically takes innocent lives and tears at the fabric of our communities. Over the past several years, the number of illegal, 3D-printed firearms and ghost guns has increased significantly. We have an aggressive and holistic approach to combatting gun violence alongside our law enforcement partners but we cannot do it alone. We are hopeful that we can partner with these companies and make a meaningful impact on public safety,” said District Attorney Bragg.

Creality printers have been previously seized during searches by law enforcement in New York City, including recent cases; the DA’s office cites the cases against Luigi Mangione and Robert Guerrero, which are still in progress, as well as Cory Davis and Cliffie Thomspon, both of whom plead guilty to manufacturing ghost guns.

Since 2020, the DA’s Office has been cracking down on use and possession of ghost guns and illegal firearms, creating the Ghost Gun Initiative with the NYPD. Between 2021 and 2024, homicides decreased by 20%, and shootings decreased by 45% in Manhattan.

In 2023, Bragg introduced legislation to close loopholes in New York’s gun laws to make manufacturing 3D-printed and ghost guns and gun parts a felony. The legislation would also make it a misdemeanor to share, sell or distribute files containing blueprints for 3D-printed firearms components.

Bragg will be sending similar letters to other leading consumer brands of 3D printers in the coming weeks. Click here to read the full letter.

We got rid of this here in Missouri 18 years ago, and the Sheriffs who administered it were thankful they didn’t have to deal with the annoyance of it anymore and it wasn’t anywhere near as restrictive as what this proposed legislation is. This is nothing more than goobermint harassment.

Permit-to-Purchase Measure Advancing in Washington

Washington State already has a “universal” background check law that requires everyone who purchases a firearm to go through a background check, but now Democrats in Olympia want to add a second check, along with training mandates, for every would-be gun owner in the state.

E2SHB 1163 has already passed out of the House of Representatives, and last Thursday cleared the Senate Law and Justice Committee on its way to the Senate floor.

Republicans, according to The Center Square, argue the bill violates gun rights protected by the Constitution. Critics also believe the bill will cost hundreds of dollars and take weeks before someone can buy a gun.

“To be rather blunt about this, I think this is another imprudent piece of legislation that probably will pass out of committee today, but I want to be real clear about it — I don’t think this will survive the brewing historical analog test,” Senator Jeff Holy, R-Cheney, said during Thursday’s Senate Law and Justice Committee meeting. “I could pretty much guarantee litigation is going to immediately come forward once this bill does pass both Chambers.”

Holy, added the media outlet, believes the cost of buying a firearm and taking a safety course is too much of a burden.

“The cost of the permit we’re talking about here is, we’re guessing, maybe $200,” Holy said, as reported by The Center Square. “It’s going to disproportionately impact lower and middle-income people. The last thing we’re going to want to have is people with a need for self-protection to have to go off-market and buy guns from inappropriate sources.”

It’s not only the cost that will send some people to the illicit market. The state currently has a 10-day waiting period on all firearm sales, which is already bad enough. But under the permit-to-purchase scheme making its way through the legislature, the Washington State Patrol would have an additional 30 days to approve or deny a permit application, which can’t be dropped off until after someone has passed the approved firearms safety course. The WSP has already indicated they’d have to hire or more staff or re-allocate existing personnel to process the applications, so you know there’s not going to be a quick turnaround.

What happens when a woman leaves her abusive partner and wants a handgun to protect herself? As things stand, she already has to hope and pray that he doesn’t come after her in the ten days she has to wait between buying a gun and picking it up, even if it only takes a matter of seconds for her background check to come back clean. Under Engrossed Second Substitute House Bill 1163 she could easily be forced to remain defenseless for over a month, at least if she wants to remain in compliance with the law.

There is simply no way for someone who’s not already a gun owner to be able to take possession of one in a timely manner, even if they have reason to believe that their life is in danger. Washington Attorney General Nick Brown claims this bill will save lives. The truth is that it puts the most vulnerable Washingtonians at risk, either of losing their life or being charged with a crime for daring to exercise their Second Amendment rights without a state-issued permission slip.

Most Americans have lived in a household with a gun

A new YouGov survey on gun ownership asked Americans about their personal experiences with guns and their opinions on gun violence in the U.S. Americans who live in rural areas are especially likely to have personal experiences with guns, to be gun owners, and to believe that the average American can be trusted with guns.

54% of Americans have ever owned a gun or lived in a household with someone who owned a gun. White Americans (62%) are more likely than Hispanic Americans (41%) or Black Americans (37%) to have ever owned a gun or lived with someone who owned a gun. Republicans (63%) are more likely than Independents (56%) or Democrats (43%) to have ever owned a gun or lived with someone who owned one.

23% of Americans say they currently own a gun and 13% say they don’t own one themselves, but someone in their household does. White Americans (27%) are more likely than Black Americans and Hispanic Americans (both 12%) to own a gun. Republicans (31%) are more likely than Independents (21%) and Democrats (15%) to own one.

People who live in rural areas (35%) are more likely than people who live in towns (24%), suburbs (23%), or cities (14%) to own a gun.

37% of Americans think that all (3%) or most (34%) households in their community have guns. 32% think some of the households in their area have guns, 11% think only a few do, and 2% think none of them do.

About two-thirds of people who live in a rural area (68%) believe all (10%) or most (58%) households in the community where they live have guns. Fewer than half of Americans living in towns (35%), suburbs (28%), or cities (27%) estimate that all or most households in their community have guns.

Continue reading “”

House Bill Seeks to Remove SBRs from National Firearms Act

Short-barrel rifles, or SBRs, are probably the most accessible NFA items out there. Yeah, you have to jump through the regulatory hoops for an NFA item in general, but once you do, you can just slap a new AR upper on your rifle or replace a pistol brace with a stock (back when that was an option) and you’re ready to roll.

But they really shouldn’t be on the NFA at all.

I get why they’re there. Short-barreled weapons like sawed-off shotguns might have been pretty common for gangsters and others to use back in the day, but the law didn’t stop people from using a hacksaw on Granpa’s old 12-gauge. Even so, they aren’t all that commonly used for violent crime these days, and I have doubts about how common they were back in the pre-NFA era.

So yeah, it’s stupid.

Now, a bill has been introduced to change that.

Sen. Roger Marshall (R-KS) is reintroducing the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act on Thursday to remove onerous restrictions on short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and other firearms.

The bill would amend the Internal Revenue Code if 1986 and remove these firearms from the National Firearms Act (NFA) classification. If passed, it would rescind the extra restrictions and taxes imposed on those who own these weapons.

Sen. Marshall argued that “’Shall not be infringed is crystal clear – and the Biden-era abuses of the Constitutionally protected rights of gun owners across the country need to be undone.”

The SHORT Act takes a step toward rolling back nonsensical regulations that the National Firearms Act has placed upon gun owners. I challenge my colleagues in both chambers to pass this legislation and join me in fully restoring and protecting our God-given Second Amendment rights.

Marshall and other lawmakers first introduced the measure in 2023.

The SHORT Act will remove language treating certain types of shotguns as “destructive devices” while doing away with the $5 transfer tax for “any firearm classified as any other weapon.”

The bill also seeks to negate state-level prohibitions on these weapons and even includes language that would override licensing requirements, saying, “any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon … shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement.”

So, yeah, kinda big.

Now, the question is whether this will go anywhere.

I’m a little more optimistic than I might have been a few days ago, thanks to the National Constitutional Carry Reciprocity Act advancing, but I do have my doubts about this making it to President Donald Trump’s desk.

It would have to go through the Senate, and as things currently stand there, I suspect this would never get a vote thanks to the filibuster. As I’ve said before, it kept a lot of bad gun laws from getting passed, but now it’s going to keep some good ones from getting passed, too.

But who knows, I may well be wrong. It’s happened before and will happen again, so why not on this?

The truth is that SBRs are demonized as somehow particularly dangerous weapons, mostly because they’re viewed as more concealable, but the fact that things like AR-pistols aren’t used in nearly as many crimes as some might like to believe kind of negates this argument, especially since the AR-style firearms are kind of like an adult Mr. Potatohead in that you can mix, match, and customize all you want, without needing a gunsmith to make many of the modifications.

If someone wants an illegal SBR, they can get one. You’re not stopping them.

But, as per usual with gun control, it does stop the law-abiding gun owner who might like a smaller, more compact and lightweight firearm for home defense purposes or just because they think it’s neat.

I’m praying this one passes. It should because there’s no reason for these guns to be NFA items, even if I thought there were validity to the NFA as a whole. I don’t, so that just gives me another reason to see these removed.

Supreme Court Second Amendment Update 3-27-2025

Edit: The Antonyuk cert petition was rescheduled after this article was published. That was not on my Bingo card, but I hope it is a good sign.

One of the two cases in which the gun-rights community seems to be the most interested, the case challenging a ban on “large capacity” magazines, has a new wrinkle. Last week, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s ban on magazines that hold more than ten rounds. The timing was interesting. The decision was published last Thursday, the day before the interlocutory magazine ban cert petition out of Rhode Island was scheduled for its ninth SCOTUS conference, in which the justices vote on which cert petitions they will grant.

We will never know for certain whether that 9th CCA opinion played a deciding role, but the petition was once again relisted. Tomorrow is the tenth time the cert petition was scheduled for a conference; it was rescheduled twice. On its heels is a cert petition seeking review of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that upheld the District’s “large capacity” magazine ban.

Last year, SCOTUS made it clear that it isn’t going to grant any Second Amendment interlocutory petitions, and so it is surprising that the petition out of Rhode Island has survived this long. This is particularly true in light of Supreme Court Rule 10, which says the Supreme Court rarely grants petitions that don’t involve a split between the Federal circuits or a split with a state court of last resort on a Federal question. Given that these magazine bans are only in Federal circuits where there is no doubt the appellate courts will uphold the bans, there will not be a circuit split.

That said, SCOTUS Rule 10 does say that SCOTUS can grant cert petitions that present questions of national importance. It remains to be seen whether or not there are four justices who think magazine bans present a question of national importance.

The second petition involves “assault rifles.” It has been listed for conference nine times and rescheduled once. It is out of Maryland (the Fourth Circuit). The petition seeks review of a final judgment, so no interlocutory appeal problem there. However, it suffers from the same SCOTUS Rule 10 obstacle as the “large capacity” magazine bans. These “assault rifle” bans are found in Federal circuits where there is no possibility of one being overturned, and thus no possibility of a Rule 10 split for the justices to resolve.

If there is anything we learned from the oral argument in the bumpstock case, it is that the justices know very little about firearms.

Both the magazine ban (Ocean State Tactical) and the rifle ban cert petitions (Snope) are scheduled for tomorrow’s conference. Another extremely important petition (Antonyuk) out of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals is among the petitions scheduled for the conference.

Antonyuk presents the following two questions in its petition. 1. Whether the proper historical time period for ascertaining the Second Amendment’s original meaning as applied to the states is 1791, rather than 1868; and 2. Whether “the people” must convince government officials of their “good moral character” before exercising their Second Amendment right to bear arms.

The justices could have answered the first question in NYSRPA v. Bruen, but did not. I see no reason why they would ever grant a petition to answer that question. Suppose they did and held that 1791 is the proper historical time period; that would entail that nearly every gun law violates the Second Amendment. That will never happen. As for the second question, the justices certainly do not want to put themselves in the position of deciding what constitutes “good moral character.” And again, there is that pesky Rule 10 obstacle to granting cert and deciding the case on its merits.

There are three more Second Amendment cert petitions and a motion for reconsideration scheduled for tomorrow’s conference. If it were up to me, SCOTUS would not be allowed to pick and choose which appeals it will decide. One hundred years ago, Congress gave SCOTUS that power after the justices promised to decide five hundred cases each term. SCOTUS never came anywhere near that number.

Congress can change that, but voters are easily distracted by shiny objects. Earlier this week, the issue was whether poor people should be allowed to buy soda pop with their food stamps. Okay! The object does not have to be shiny. Voters are easily distracted and have the attention span of a trout.

Here are the cases scheduled for tomorrow’s conference. Click on the case number, and you will be taken to the SCOTUS docket for that case, should you wish to take a deep dive into the case. As always, if a waiver was filed (or no response was filed) and the petition goes into conference without a justice requesting a response, then the petition was never voted on. The petition was placed on the SCOTUS deadlist and will appear as “Petition Denied” on next week’s Orders list. A “GVR” is a Grant, Vacate, and Remand, which, for all intents and purposes, sends the case back to the lower courts for a do-over. In the past two terms, I can only recall one petition where the Feds asked for a GVR, which was denied. I chalk that up to a clerical error.

Continue reading “”

It’s still not enough

White House Repeals Unscientific HHS Advisory On Gun Violence.

Democrats and anti-Second Amendment stooges are up in arms about your right to bear them once again, as the Trump administration has repealed former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s anti-gun tract, Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America, from the official Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website. The move is part of an avalanche of actions building up in response to the President’s February 7 Executive Order, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” claiming to seek the identification and elimination of ongoing infringements upon American gun rights. With weaponization of the federal bureaucracy against law-abiding gun owners being a staple of the former Biden-Harris administration, it is hopeful to see a refocusing of those efforts onto the actual criminals themselves under President Trump.

“Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and as he again made clear during his recent speech at the Department of Justice, President Trump is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order,” the White House responded to the Guardian’s question about the removal of webpages.

The NRA predicted under heavy scrutiny that the appointment of Murthy as U.S. surgeon general during the second Obama-Biden administration would lead to further politicizing of his anti-gun agenda, a position Murthy lied about under oath to Senators at his first confirmation hearing, saying he would not use his platform as a bully pulpit for gun control, and would instead focus on the obesity epidemic. During his initial term as surgeon general, Murthy’s failure to effectively address that epidemic led to his being reappointed by the Biden administration, where failing upwards is practically in the job description.

With a reinvigorated sense of tenure and those promises under oath in his rearview mirror, the good doctor did what he did best, pretending to have special insight into the causes of firearm-related crime, much like his calls for gun control when he headed the advocacy group Doctors for America. In July 2024, he published his 40-page manifesto, Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America, even promoting it through media appearances like the perjurous little rock star he is.

“[T]he advisory has nothing to do with treating gunshot wounds, dealing with potential lead exposure from handling firearms or ammunition, hearing loss from exposure to muzzle reports, or any other medical issue pertaining to guns. Instead, it is simply a taxpayer-funded tract that promotes the same tired slate of oppressive gun control laws that Murthy’s fellow firearm prohibitionists have wanted for decades. It also seeks to provide cover for the disastrous crime-control failures of Murthy’s Democrat party by insisting that firearm assaults and homicides are akin to a disease or contagion rather than crimes committed by predators (most with lengthy records) who too often act with impunity,” according to analysis of the document by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA).

Of course, the tired effort of anti-Second Amendment groups and grifters has done nothing to reduce firearm-related deaths in the United States, but that has never really been the goal in the first place. Any literate person can pick up a book on the history of governments disarming citizens to find a clear pattern of subjugation and worse following the successful confiscation of the means to defend liberty.

The revocation of this anti-Second Amendment propaganda masquerading as science is part of a series of actions that have taken place in the last week by the Trump administration and the Department of Justice that will hopefully move necessary pieces into place, further defending and more tangibly restoring American gun rights. Yes, I will remain skeptical and cautiously optimistic until something happens that feels less punitive towards the previous administration and more substantive to my life as someone who owns and purchases guns. In the meantime, I will drink from the cup of leftist tears as the meltdowns continue and pray that I’ve been wrong about America’s tipping point and our ability to restore the founding values that made this country great in the first place.

What Happens if DOJ Stops Defending Silencer Regs?

Now that Attorney General Pam Bondi has signaled the Justice Department is re-evaluating its stance that silencers aren’t “firearms” protected by the Second Amendment, what happens if the DOJ reverses course and suddenly declines to defend their inclusion in the National Firearms Act?

We wouldn’t suddenly see suppressors available for sale with a simple NICS check, unfortunately. That would require changing the NFA itself, which in turn would require congressional approval. The House may very well give its approval to the SHUSH Act, but it’s gonna be tough to get 60 senators on board with the change. So what impact would a DOJ reversal have in practical terms?

The NFA has been a flashpoint for advocates, who say that silencers are not frequently used in crime and believe that the silencers and other weapons regulated under the law, including machine guns and short-barreled rifles and shotguns, are protected by the Second Amendment. A decision by the Justice Department not to defend the law may, however, make it harder for gun rights groups to challenge the law at the Supreme Court.

“If Trump administration decides not to prosecute people under for illegal silencer possession while in office, that’s a good short-term win, that’s what a lot of gun rights activists will want,” said Stephen Gutowski, a gun safety instructor and founder of The Reload.

However, Gutowski added that if Democrats regain the White House in four years, “They can just reverse the policies and go back and start prosecuting people again, because the law was never found unconstitutional or invalid.”

If the Trump administration just decides not to enforce the NFA regulations surrounding suppressors, I don’t think that would actually be much of a win for gun owners, though it might provide some short term benefit for suppressor buyers and the companies that make them. What would stop the next Democratic administration from zealously prosecuting those companies or anyone who purchased/possesses a suppressor not registered or taxed under the NFA?

The best option may be for the Trump administration to decline to defend the current statute and not raising any objections to anti-gun AGs intervening as defendants in ongoing litigation. Then the full weight of the DOJ could be directed to side with the plaintiffs in these lawsuits, while allowing the cases to continue to make their way to SCOTUS.

Gun safety groups, for their part, say that silencers put people at risk by make a mass shooting harder to hear and contend that because silencers reduce the recoil when a gun is fired, it could make it easier for a gunman with a semiautomatic to shoot with fewer interruptions.

“Silencers in the wrong hands create serious public safety risks,” Everytown for Gun Safety writes on their website. “The loud and distinctive noise that a gun makes is one of its most important safety features: when people hear it, they realize they may need to run, hide, or protect others.”

The group also raises concerns that removing silencers from the NFA would allow them to be purchased without a background check.

Frankly, if suppressors aren’t “firearms” as the DOJ (and at least one federal court contends), then they arguably shouldn’t be included in the National Firearms Act as a restricted firearm. And yes, their removal from the NFA could allow their purchase without a background check, but if they’re merely an accessory then so what? What other firearm accessory requires a background check of any kind, much less a detailed check and an extra $200 tax?

Of course, whether there are five justices on the Supreme Court at the moment who are ready to remove suppressors from the NFA is very much an open question, especially after Wednesday’s 7-2 decision upholding the ATF’s rule treating unfinished frames and receivers as completed firearms. The bottom line is even if the Trump administration is on board with the idea, deregulating suppressors is going to be a challenge, whether it’s through the legislative or judicial branches.

Chavez v. Bonta. California’s 18-20 year old ban on buying semiauto centerfire rifles is upheld

This is ‘merely’ in the District Court; as it were, Act 1 in the play. The Firearms Policy Center will almost undoubtedly appeal and from the 9th Circus historical record we know how that will ultimately turn out, so in a few years, we may see it appealed to SCOTUS.

The judge cites that the Plaintiffs have failed to show that the restriction on retail sales, meaningfully constrained the 18-20 year old Californians’ right to acquire firearms. The judge says that there are other routes e.g. private sales, gifts etc. BUT, this is ‘interest balancing‘, which SCOTUS has ruled is unconstitutional and repeated that several times.

Youngkin Vetos Gun Bills

Gov. Glenn Youngkin isn’t the most outspoken of governors. He just quietly does what he does in Virginia, even with a hostile legislature that seems determined to make the Old Dominion State one of the most anti-gun in the nation.

In fact, they sent a pile of gun control bills to him, which would be bad news for Virginia residents like our dear, old Cam Edwards.

But, well, it seems that he wasn’t interested in playing along.

Northern Virginia legislators are decrying Gov. Glenn Youngkin’s recent veto of a bill to keep firearms from the homes of domestic abusers.

Youngkin vetoed 157 bills on Monday (March 24), including Sen. Barbara Favola’s (D-40) Senate Bill 744 and Del. Elizabeth Bennett-Parker’s House Bill 1960 — identical pieces of legislation that amend existing Virginia law by removing firearms from the hands of convicted domestic abusers.

“Guns and domestic violence are a lethal combination and these deaths are preventable,” Bennett-Parker said in a statement. “These bills were a common-sense fix to ensure that illegal guns stay out of the hands of convicted domestic abusers. I’m incredibly frustrated that the Governor vetoed our ability to protect women who are dying at the hands of their abusers through better enforcement of our existing laws. The Governor has made Virginia less safe for women and families.”

Youngkin has vetoed the measure for the second year in a row, and Bennett-Parker and Favola’s statements mirror their reactions to last year’s veto.

They should get used to disappointment.

However, this wasn’t the only anti-gun bill in and amongst those 157 items. Neary two dozen more got the veto treatment, according to a press release from the NRA:

Yesterday, Virginia Governor Glenn Youngkin reaffirmed his support for the rights of law-abiding gun owners by vetoing two dozen bills that would have trampled on the Second Amendment freedoms of the citizens of the Commonwealth. Similar to last session, Governor Youngkin disposed of egregious legislation that would have emboldened criminals and left peaceable Virginians defenseless.

“On behalf of Virginia’s NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, I want to thank Governor Youngkin for standing strong in his support for the Second Amendment by vetoing the litany of gun control bills pushed through the General Assembly this year,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “For the second year in a row, gun control activists tried to enact dozens of radical, California-style laws that would have severely restricted the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in the Commonwealth. The NRA applauds Governor Youngkin for upholding his promise to protect our Constitutional freedoms.”

The bills vetoed by Governor Youngkin came from the long wish list of radical gun control activists. This included attempts to restrict the Constitutional rights of 18- to 20-year-old adults, dramatically expand gun-free zones that would have left law-abiding Virginians defenseless and enact a mandatory waiting period to take possession of a legally purchased firearm. In addition, the vetoed legislation would have banned a wide range of commonly owned firearms used by Virginians to hunt, compete and for self-defense.

That’s the good news.

The bad news is that Virginia has off-year elections. In fact, they go to the polls this fall to elect a new governor and vote on the legislature, among other offices. Youngkin can’t run for re-election because Virginia has a law where governors can’t serve consecutive terms.

And based on the 2024 election, where Kamala Harris took the state by over five points, it doesn’t look like a red wave is likely this year.

But much of the anti-gun lean in the state comes from Northern Virginia, where many federal bureaucracy employees live. Unless you’ve been living under a rock, you know what DOGE is doing to the bureaucracy.

That might have some kind of impact on the election outcome, as many now unemployed federal workers may be relocating to less expensive communities throughout the nation.

Or, at a minimum, someplace where they can get a job.

However, gun rights proponents in the state should probably not count on that and mobilize now, back candidate who will support their gun rights, and do everything the can to mitigate the impact anti-gun groups will have on the upcoming election.

The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF’s “frame or receiver” rule.

During the Biden ‘administration’ ATF ruled that “80%” receivers were to be treated and regulated just like they were fully finished guns.

The were sued and it went all the way to SCOTUS.

Justices Alito and Thomas were the only ones to dissent. All the others agreed. Regard the fate of future decisions accordingly.

Why Lawrence VanDyke’s Video Dissent in Duncan is a Real Problem For Anti-Gun Judges

Courts do have a lot of rules for introducing evidence and arguments. The net effect of all of those rules is simple: they tend to entrench the things that the court wants to believe. If your argument benefits from the court’s biases, the rules of evidence will help you. If you’re working against the court’s biases, the rules of evidence can be fatal to your case.

VanDyke is in a unique position here. As a judge rather than a party to the case, he can do pretty much whatever he wants. And he’s using that power to say the majority is using the rule against judges bringing outside facts to cover up their real goal: preventing judges from bringing outside logic. They don’t like standard-capacity magazines. And that’s a personal opinion that people are free to have. But under Bruen, the only way a court could uphold a ban on those magazines is if they prevent people like VanDyke from pointing out the holes not in their facts, but in their basic logic.

Lay people don’t read court rulings, let alone dissents. But video is a much more effective medium, and VanDyke’s video is all over social media right now. That’s a problem for the majority’s logic, but it’s good for logic in general.

— Open Source Defense in Judges on gun knowledge: “That’s for me not to know and for you not to find out”

SCOTUS Still Silent on Semi-Auto, Magazine Bans as More 2A Cases Head Its Way

Another Monday has rolled around with the Supreme Court taking no action whatsoever on two cases that have been heard in conference on an almost weekly basis since last December.

Monday mornings are starting to feel a little like Groundhog Day when it comes to Snope and Ocean State Tactical, and I have no idea what’s going on with either of these cases. Both were heard in conference for first time back in December, so even if there’s going to be a denial with a written dissent the justices who are penning their displeasure with the decision not to grant cert have had plenty of time to formalize their objections. The same is true when it comes to a per curium opinion that would find either or both of the challenged laws to be a violation of the right to keep and bear arms.

It’s possible that the justices are still wrestling with the issue of whether or not to accept one or both of these cases, but that strikes me as pretty unlikely as well. The Court has had months to consider granting cert, and while other Second Amendment challenges like Heller and Bruen went through multiple conferences before cert was granted, neither of those cases were kept in limbo nearly as long as Snope and Ocean State Tactical have been.

Meanwhile, there are several other cases dealing with the right to keep and bear arms that are slated to be heard in conference for the first time in the coming days and weeks. This Thursday the justices should take up Antonyuk v. James in their weekly conference. That’s the case that deals with one of the post-Bruen restrictions that New York put in place in defiance of what the Supreme Court had to say about the right to bear arms; the “good moral character” requirement for a concealed carry license that is essentially serves as a replacement for the subjective “justifiable need” gun owners had to demonstrate under the may-issue permitting regime the Court ruled unconstitutional.

The justices are also expected to debate a case called Price v. U.S. this week that deals with whether or not possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number constitutes Second Amendment-protected conduct. That case has yet to be fully briefed and decided on the merits, however, and I suspect that the justices will turn it aside, at least for now.

There are three other cases slated for conference in April as well:

Wade v. University of Michigan, which addresses “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments allow a criminal ordinance that prohibits mere possession of firearms on an entire poorly-delineated university campus, except by permission of a single government official with unfettered discretion, which is granted onlyfor “extraordinary circumstances.”
Jacobson v. Worth, which seeks to answer “Does Minnesota’s statute limiting permits for public carry of pistols to those 21 and older comport with the principles underlying the Second Amendment?
B & L Productions v. Newsom, a challenge to California’s ban on “sales” of firearms and ammunition on any state-owned property.

The odds of the Court granting cert to every one of these cases is slim. In fact, at this point the odds of the Court taking any of them feels pretty small. I’m still holding out hope for Snope, but at this point it’s anyone’s guess as to what the justices will do with Maryland’s semi-auto ban… other than once again considering the Snope case (and Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha) at this Thursday’s conference.

Latest Anti-Gun Talking Points Seem to Have Dropped, And They’re Shockingly Stupid

Every so often, you’ll see a lot of different accounts suddenly start making identical or nearly identical posts, raising the same points that often aren’t even that impressive. This is usually a case of someone sending them to certain political influencers and then repeating them verbatim. No thought went into this on the part of the influencer, of course, but someone out there thought it was a zinger.

Over the weekend, a new one dropped, apparently, and it’s all that you could have hoped for.

And, of course, there are indications that Tristan here wasn’t the only one who got the memo.

It’s possible this whole thing is just some kind of organic growth, to be sure, but it doesn’t really matter where it originated. It’s ridiculous.

The firebombing and shooting up of Tesla dealerships are domestic terrorism, which involves political motivations, so those are inherently going to be treated differently while being investigated.

But let’s think about how we’re “protecting” Teslas.

Teslas have something called “sentry mode” that monitors the vehicle’s surroundings are records if someone approaches. That’s how we have so many videos of Teslas being keyed or otherwise vandalized.

A lot of this vandalism is probably not even investigated because it’s such a petty crime. If an identity comes up, the cops might go and ask a few questions, but this is probably not very high up on their list of priorities, particularly in cities with high crime. Frankly, I get it.

Now, let’s think about what we do with our school children.

I don’t know about Tristan or Jo, but I personally want every teacher so inclined to have a gun to help protect those kids. I want school resource officers in every school as well, just to help protect those school children.

If someone hurts a school child, they’re hunted by every law enforcement agency with relevant jurisdiction–and the others would love to hunt that party but generally can’t unless the suspect crosses into their jurisdiction.

But let’s go back to protecting schools for a moment, though. Note where I stand on that protection. Many of you agree with either part or all of what I laid out.

Do you know who doesn’t?

That’s right, people like Tristan and Jo, that’s who.

When the subject of armed teachers–hell, even the subject of metal detectors at the door–people like those two lose their minds. They fight such things tooth and nail, screaming about how it creates the wrong environment and how everything will be awful. They rage against school resource officers, screaming about the “school to prison pipeline” and oppose those left and right as well.

Pretty much everything that might actually protect school kids gets shut down by the same people.

And then they have the nerve to push this kind of talking point? It’s insulting, infuriating, and absolutely idiotic.

We know what they want. They’re trying to leverage this into justifying gun control. They think this is a dunk on gun rights.

And it’s even dumber than the talking point on its own because of that.

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them
— Richard Henry Lee

Ninth Circuit Upholds California Mag Ban, But Not Without Epic Dissent From Trump-Appointed Judge

Thursday’s decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upholding California’s ban on “large capacity” magazines wasn’t exactly unexpected, but the video dissent from Judge Lawrence Van Dyke was a curveball that I doubt anyone saw coming.

An en banc panel had previously ruled the state’s magazine ban in line with the Second Amendment, but SCOTUS vacated that decision and remanded the case back to the appellate court after Bruen in 2022. In turn, the Ninth Circuit sent the case back down to U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez, who’d previously declared the ban unconstitutional. Benitez reached the same conclusion the second time around, and just like before an en banc panel has now overruled the West Coast “saint” of the Second Amendment.

“First, the Founders protected the right to keep and bear ‘Arms,’ not a right to keep and bear ‘Arms and Accoutrements,’ a common expression at the time of the Founding,” the opinion said. “Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine. A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”

The judges wrote that even if large-capacity magazines were covered by the Second Amendment, “California’s law falls neatly within the Nation’s traditions of protecting innocent persons by prohibiting especially dangerous uses of weapons and by regulating components necessary to the firing of a firearm.”

Under the Ninth Circuit’s argument, virtually all detachable magazines, regardless of their capacity, would fall beyond the Second Amendment’s protections because they’re “accoutrements” and not arms. The Court tried to get around that absurdity with its argument about a national tradition of prohibiting “especially dangerous uses of weapons”; establishing a whole new test that flies in the face of existing Supreme Court precedent. Going back to Heller the Court has held that arms that are in common use for lawful purposes are, prima facie, protected by the right to keep and bear arms. Magazines that can hold more than ten rounds aren’t just common, they’re ubiquitous, and they are possessed and used by far more lawful gun owners than violent criminals or mass shooters.

Three judges appointed during President Donald Trump’s first term authored dissenting opinions. Judge Ryan Nelson wrote that his colleagues flouted the standard set by the Bruen ruling and in so doing “(butchered) the Second Amendment and (gave) a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court.”

Judge Lawrence VanDyke included in his dissent a video of himself operating firearms in his chambers. Seven of the eight judges who were part of the majority opinion joined in an opinion calling the video “wildly improper,” both because the video introduced facts that were not part of the record and because VanDyke appeared to be attempting to offer expert testimony.

It may be wildly improper in the eyes of VanDyke’s gun-controlling colleagues, but frankly I’d like to see more of this. Most folks aren’t going to read through more than 100 pages of legal arguments, but they’d be much more inclined to watch an 18-minute video on YouTube.

Continue reading “”

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992

DOJ Allows Federal Gun Rights Restoration for First Time Since 1992

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

March 19, 2025

Washington, D.C. – The Department of Justice (DOJ) has issued an Interim Final Rule removing the Attorney General’s delegation of authority to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to process applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). This action follows more than three decades of Congressional funding restrictions that have rendered ATF unable to process individual applications.

The rule removes outdated regulations and is part of a broader review of firearm-related policies under Executive Order 14206 (Protecting Second Amendment Rights). Upon the interim final rule’s expected publication tomorrow, the DOJ will begin allowing individuals who are not “dangerous to public safety” to use the statute and petition to have their gun rights restored.

Key Points of the Rule Change:

Since 1992, Congress has prohibited ATF from using funds to process gun rights restoration applications, making the statute obsolete.

ATF will no longer handle individual firearm disability relief applications under 18 U.S.C. 925(c). DOJ will instead carry out the statute and process petitions for gun rights restoration.

The DOJ rule goes into effect immediately upon publication and will simultaneously accept public comments on the rule before issuing a final version.

Gun Owners of America remains committed to monitoring this process and ensuring that any future policies respect the constitutional rights of all law-abiding citizens.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:

“For decades, law-abiding Americans who have had their gun rights unfairly restricted have been left in legal limbo—creating an unconstitutional de facto lifetime gun ban. This bureaucratic failure has denied thousands of individuals their lawful opportunity to restore their rights. The DOJ’s decision to finally withdraw ATF’s authority in this matter is an encouraging sign that this administration is serious about protecting the Second Amendment for all Americans.”

Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:

“Since its enactment in 1992, Gun Owners of America has fought against the ‘Schumer Amendment’ which defunded the federal gun rights restoration statute. GOA and thousands of would-be gun owners are grateful to President Trump and Attorney General Pam Bondi for once again allowing gun owners to petition to have their gun rights restored by the Department of Justice. We hope to see many more infringements repealed as the federal government carries out President Trump’s executive order Protecting Second Amendment Rights.”

President Trump’s Department Of Justice just argued that suppressors or silencers aren’t protected by the 2nd Amendment…

A great Second Amendment victory in the 9th CCA, for now.
21-16756 Todd Yukutake, et al v. Anne E. Lopez, et al

On Friday, March 14, 2025, a divided three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that two Hawaii laws violate the Second Amendment. Invalidating the two laws, in and of themselves, although a victory, was not a great victory.

The most important thing is how the laws were invalidated.

The two laws invalidated were 1) a permit to purchase a handgun that expired 30 days after it was issued and 2) a requirement that newly purchased firearms be brought to a police station to verify that the paperwork to purchase the firearm matched the firearm.

Two of the three judges on the panel facially invalidated the two laws.

Why is this of great importance? Because in 2022, the United States Supreme Court held in US v. Rahimi that a Second Amendment facial challenge fails if there are any constitutional applications of the law (seemingly, a single application is all it takes for a facial challenge to fail).

Continue reading “”

SAF FILES RESPONSE BRIEF WITH SCOTUS IN MINNESOTA CARRY CASE

BELLEVUE, Wash. — March 10, 2025 — Attorneys representing the Second Amendment Foundation and its partners in a case challenging the State of Minnesota’s prohibition on licensed concealed carry by young adults ages 18-20 have filed a response brief with the U.S. Supreme Court encouraging the justices to “grant plenary review and set the case for argument.”

The case is known as Jacobson v. Worth, originally filed in June 2021 as Worth v. Harrington. SAF is joined by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Firearms Policy Coalition, and three private citizens, Kristin Worth, for whom the case is named, Austin Dye, and Axel Anderson. While all three have turned 21, the Eighth Circuit Court granted a motion to supplement the record and allow another individual, Joe Knudsen, to carry the complaint. They are represented by attorneys David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, John D. Ohlendorf and William V. Bergstrom at Cooper & Kirk in Washington, D.C.

SAF won this case at trial and at the appeals court level. Minnesota is appealing the ruling.

“Today’s filing is unique in that we are agreeing with Minnesota’s request in asking the Supreme Court to hear our case to resolve a dispute between the circuits,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The lower courts are not unanimous in their approach to the Second Amendment rights of 18-20-year-olds. It is important that the Court weigh in to confirm that 18-20-year-olds are part of ‘the People’ and the Second Amendment applies in full to those individuals. The ban Minnesota seeks to uphold eviscerates the right of those adults to be able to carry a firearm for self-defense. This is patently unconstitutional and while we prevailed at the court of appeals, the Supreme Court needs to ensure all the lower courts reach the proper result. By taking this case, they can do just that.”

“A clear majority of federal courts have already protected the Second Amendment rights of young adults,” added SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we note in our brief, we are not aware of any evidence of colonial or Founding-era laws restricting 18-to-20-year-olds from their right to keep and bear arms. Indeed, history is full of evidence that people in this age group were not prevented from keeping or carrying their own arms.”