Category: RKBA

Knife Victory in Arkansas, Gov. Sanders Signs Preemption Law

Multiple United States Supreme Court decisions have made it clear that the Second Amendment applies to all bearable arms. Bearable arms include knives. Knife Rights, a knife owners’ organization, just secured a big win in Arkansas. Preemption legislation championed by the group was signed into law by Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders on February 25, 2025.

Knife Rights, a 501(c)(4), has been lobbying to have prohibitions on bladed arms removed across the country. One of their big pushes is having preemption put into the statute of state laws. With preemption, people don’t have to work through a patchwork of regulations that vary from town to town, and instead can follow one set of laws established by the state legislature.

“After over a decade of Knife Rights’ efforts, Arkansas Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed HB 1418 that enacts Knife Rights’ signature Knife Law Preemption in the state, becoming Act 161,” a release from Knife Rights states. “The bill adds ‘Knives’ and ‘Knife-making components’ to the state’s existing Firearms Law Preemption statute. The new law is effective 91 days after the session ends, scheduled for April 11, but the session can be extended.”

Knife Rights has successfully deconstructed prohibitive laws across the country. They say that their first knife law preemption bill was in Arizona in 2010. Since then, Knife Rights has had knife preemption bills enacted in: Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, New Hampshire, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and now in Arkansas.

Knife Rights’ release further states:

Knife Law Preemption is a Knife Rights’ criminal justice reform effort that repeals and prevents local ordinances more restrictive than state law which only serve to confuse or entrap law-abiding citizens traveling within or through the state. Preemption ensures citizens can expect consistent enforcement of state knife laws everywhere within a state.

Congratulations and our thanks to Rep. Joey Carr and Sen. Terry Rice for their support and successful sponsorship of this important bill. Thanks to all who used our Legislative Action center to help move this bill forward.

Victories like these are needed across the U.S. There are states where the bearing of bladed arms – even pocket knives or box cutters – is illegal without just cause. Some jurisdictions are so strict that if a person admits that they’ve armed themselves with a knife for self-defense, they’d be in violation of the law. This work helps to keep prohibitive regulations from becoming a reality in municipalities that are in states with preemption.

A hearty congratulations to Knife Rights and the good people of Arkansas for securing this victory. We applaud Governor Sarah Huckabee Sanders for her leadership on this issue. We’ll be continuing to keep our eyes peeled for more Knife Rights supported legislation and lobbying efforts. Their work leads to the destruction of unconstitutional laws and regulations.
More information about Knife Rights:

Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America™ and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans™. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 51 bills enacted repealing knife bans and protecting knife owners in 32 states and over 200 cities and towns since 2010.

Second Amendment Roundup: Supreme Court Should Hold its Decision in VanDerStok
The new Administration should notify the Court of its change in position on ATF regulations.

As of now, of the nine cases argued in the Supreme Court’s October calendar, five have been decided.  Still pending is Garland v. VanDerStok, which was argued on October 8.  Before rendering a decision, the Court should give the Trump Administration an opportunity to express its views of the case with the Court.  It’s a challenge to the Final Rule of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) redefining and expanding the definitions of “firearm” and “firearm frame or receiver” that criminalizes conduct not made unlawful by Congress, with Second Amendment implications.

The new Administration is sure to hold views adverse to those presented by the Biden Administration. Indeed, the Plaintiffs’ arguments in the case are similar to those made by DOJ in defense of the previous, longstanding regulatory definition of “firearm” before the Biden Administration upended that definition in the Rule.

On February 7, the President issued the Executive Order Protecting Second Amendment Rights directing the Attorney General to examine all regulations and other actions of executive departments to assess any ongoing infringements on Second Amendment rights and to propose a plan of action to the President to protect those rights.  That includes rules promulgated by ATF and the positions taken by the United States in ongoing litigation that could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Prompted by the Executive Order, Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas) and 29 other U.S. Senators wrote to ATF Deputy Director Marvin Richardson requesting that ATF immediately rescind several regulations promulgated by the Biden Administration, including the “so-called ‘ghost gun’ rule, which cracks down on law-abiding hobbyists who are exercising their Second Amendment rights to privately build firearms—a longstanding tradition that traces back to the Colonial Era.”  That’s the rule at issue here.

If the Supreme Court is on the verge of issuing an opinion in VanDerStok, it should delay to give Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris an opportunity to review the matter and advise the Court of the new Administration’s position.  That office must be overwhelmed by the deluge of cases in which the district courts are enjoining actions of the President, such as the DOGE efforts to weed out fraud and abuse from the executive branch and the effort to exclude birth-right citizenship to unlawful aliens and temporary visitors.

The SG’s Office should act quickly to ensure that the Court is advised of the Administration’s views on VanDerStock.  If it doesn’t make this a top priority, it risks a decision that is uninformed by the Executive Branch’s position on a constitutional right exercised by millions of Americans.

The Department of Justice has already taken steps to ask courts to put cases on hold to give counsel an opportunity to advise the courts on the government’s position consistent with the Executive Order.  In Colon v. BATFE (11th Cir.), a challenge to ATF’s pistol brace regulation, DOJ filed a motion to postpone the oral argument scheduled for March 5 and to hold the appeal in abeyance.  Similarly, in Kansas v. U.S. Attorney General (D. Kansas), involving ATF’s “engaged in the business rule,” the DOJ submitted a brief requesting that the Court stay the case, including all deadlines on pending motions, in light of the Executive Order.

In VanDerStok, the Department of Justice should promptly file a letter to notify the Court that the position of the United States has been reconsidered and that the government’s previously stated views no longer represent the United States’ position.  It recently filed such a letter in United States v. Skrmetti, advising the Court that the new Administration would not have intervened to challenge Tennessee’s ban on gender-altering medical “experimentation” on minors.  The letter did not seek further “likely duplicative briefing from the same parties about the same court of appeals judgment in the underlying suit.”

Here, it is unlikely that the Court would accept any further briefing from the United States, which in any event would likely duplicate the excellent briefing from the respondents and their amici.  I commented on two of such amici briefs here and here (which I coauthored).  Whatever alternative the Acting Solicitor General chooses, she should notify the Court quickly of the government’s change in position.

For a comprehensive review of the issue on the merits, see my article “The Meaning of ‘Firearm’ and ‘Frame or Receiver’ in the Federal Gun Control Act: ATF’s 2022 Final Rule in Light of Text, Precedent, and History.”

Will Absorbing the ATF Into the FBI Rein in Each Agency’s Abuses?
The ATF, charged with regulating firearms, has a history of abuse and incompetence.

By appointing FBI Director Kash Patel as acting head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), President Donald Trump took a step towards reining in a federal agency justifiably viewed by many as a threat to self-defense rights. He also signaled that he may consolidate government bodies that overlap in their responsibilities. Fans of big government and opponents of privately owned firearms won’t like the move, but the idea of combining the agencies is hardly unprecedented. After all, President Bill Clinton had the same idea three decades ago.

Patel Wears Two Hats

“ATF welcomes Acting Director Kash Patel to ATF, who was sworn in and had his first visit to ATF Headquarters in Washington, D.C. today,” the ATF posted on X on February 24. “We are enthusiastic to work together for a safer America!”

Patel takes over from Steven Dettelbach, who resigned just before Trump took office. Dettelbach presided over an ATF seen as even more hostile to gun owners than has historically been the case.

Continue reading “”

What Kash Patel Should Do As Acting ATF Director

I spent the weekend with a number of Second Amendment advocates, including some names you’ll probably recognize. That’s where I first heard that Kash Patel, in addition to being director of the FBI, was named to helm the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. He wasn’t who I thought would get tapped, but the general consensus was that this was a good thing.

And I agree.

But now that Patel is in charge, what is on the agenda?

He started at the FBI by getting rid of some of the dead weight in that agency as well as some who used their positions to push their own agendas. Now, he’s got a chance to do that again.

With Kash Patel now in the position of Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the agency is in for a shake-up.

One thing that Patel can do is get rid of problem employees who have gone out of their way to infringe on the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms. This purge has already started with the firing of the ATF’s Chief Council, Pam Hicks. Hicks was a rabid anti-gun attorney that chose to defend very constitutionally dubious rules. Although Hicks was a good first step, without removing other problem members, nothing will change.

The first person that Patel should remove from the Bureau is the ATF’s Deputy Director, Marvin Richardson. Mr. Richardson has been behind some of the ATF’s most controversial rules. He was the driving force behind the reclassification of pistols equipped with braces. Mr. Richardson proposed reclassifying pistols with braces and unfinished firearms frames during a 2020 meeting with the Biden transition team without President Trump’s knowledge….

Mr. Patel should look at Matthew Varisco. Mr. Varisco is the ATF Assistant Director for the Office of Field Operations. When he worked out of the Philadelphia Field Office, he pushed the targeting of companies selling firearms precursor parts, including issuing a cease-and-desist letter to JSD Supply. This action was taken before the rule change of pistol frames. He pioneered the idea of firearms “structuring.” According to Varisco, if someone buys firearms parts from multiple companies to build a working firearm, that is “structuring.” This use of the term was the first time it was used outside banking crimes. He claimed that the possibility of “structuring” meant that all 80% firearm frames needed to be treated like completed guns. Mr. Varisco’s idea of “structuring” made it into the final rule.

Other names are, of course, mentioned, and I happen to agree. Far too many people achieved success in the ATF by supporting gun control, which would expand the agency’s authority by virtue of trampling on the rights of the American people and by reinterpreting rules as much as possible to expand it.

And a lot of names went into that.

However, there’s a lot more to be done than just clean house. Patel needs to also purge the ATF of some of the problematic interpretations of federal law, and do so in the way Brandon Herrera talked about in a video regarding what he would do as ATF director. No, the AK Guy isn’t calling the shots at the ATF, but Herrera says he came up with this after close consultation with groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition and Gun Owners of America and they happen to be smart ideas.

Whether the end goal is to merge the ATF with the FBI and get rid of the agency entirely or not, the truth is that we have a golden opportunity to preserve gun rights for the next generation. Kash Patel strikes me as the kind of guy who would be interested in doing it just this way, too, so I’m incredibly hopeful going forward.

Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump’s appointment of Kash Patel (and Dan Bongino at the FBI), we’ve got the opportunity to make the FBI great again and bring the ATF to heel. The two-tiered system of justice that we’ve seen from the Biden administration is a thing of the past and the bureau is on its way back to being America’s premiere law enforcement agency.

Sixth Time the Charm for Snope at SCOTUS?

We can only hope. The Supreme Court has once again scheduled both Snope v. Brown and Ocean State Tactical v. Neronha for debate in conference this week, keeping hope alive that the justices will grant cert to one or both cases next week.

This Friday’s conference will be the sixth appearance for Snope (which is the challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons), while Ocean State Tactical (taking on Rhode Island’s ban on “large capacity” magazines) is up for its seventh go-round behind closed doors as the justice decide what cases they’ll accept. The good news is that neither of these cases were disposed of in today’s orders, but that still doesn’t mean that either or both are guaranteed to be heard by SCOTUS in the future.

I have to say that I’m still cautiously optimistic as well. Both Snope and Ocean State Tactical have been heard in conference since mid-December (December 4, in the case of Ocean State Tactical), which is more than enough time for Justice Thomas, Gorsuch, or Alito to write a dissent from denial of cert.

Of course, that’s also plenty of time for four justices to vote to hear one or both of these cases, and that doesn’t appear to have happened yet either.

We have no idea what’s being said during conference, or what’s causing the hold up, but there’s a slate of other Second Amendment cases that are heading the Court’s way, so the justices will have plenty of 2A topics to choose from in the near future.

A cert petition was filed in Antonyuk v. James (taking on New York’s post-Bruen carry laws) last month, and a reply is due from the New York AG this Wednesday, so that could be heard in conference in early March.

The Court has requested a response from the University of Michigan in Wade v. UofM, which challenges the university’s ban on concealed carry, and that response is due on March 10. That’s the same day that the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation must submit their response to the state of Minnesota in Jacobson v. Worth. The challenge to Minnesota’s ban on carrying for under-21s was successful at the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, but Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison is intent on defending the ban til the bitter end.

The DOJ has a deadline of March 17 to reply to the cert petition in Perez-Garcia v. United States, which is an as-applied Second Amendment challenge to firearms-related pretrial release conditions. It’ll be interesting to see how AG Pam Bondi responds to the lawsuit and whether the Justice Department will defend the current law that allows for defendants to be prohibited from possessing a firearm before they’re convicted of a crime.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta have a March deadline of their own in B&L Productions v. Newsom, which takes on the state’s prohibition on contracting for, authorizing, or allowing the sale of any firearm or ammunition on state-owned property. The law is designed to kill off the biggest gun shows in the state, and has been upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The state’s reply brief is due on March 20, about one week before the federal Justice Department’s deadline to reply in the last 2A-related case to come before the Court’s attention next month.

On March 28th the DOJ’s reply brief in Missouri v. United States is due before the justices. Missouri is seeking to defend the Second Amendment Preservation Act, which lower courts have thrown out a violation of the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. The law was mean to block local and state law enforcement from cooperating with the feds in enforcing constitutionally suspect firearm statutes, but Missouri argues that the state has the power under the Tenth Amendment to decide which laws should be treated as null and void in the Show Me State.

As great as it would be for the Court to greenlight every one of these cases, that’s not likely to happen. Heck, at this point it’s an open question as to whether the justices will grant cert to any of these lawsuits. Fingers crossed that by this time next week we’re celebrating a grant in Snope and Ocean State Tactical instead of gritting our teeth in frustration.

Gov. Rhoden Signs Pro-Second Amendment Bill into Law

Gov. Rhoden Signs Pro-Second Amendment Bill into Law

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Larry Rhoden signed SB 81, which prohibits the use of a firearms code for transactions involving firearms, accessories, components, and ammunition and to provide a civil penalty therefor.

“I am proud to protect our Second Amendment rights with the signing of this bill,” said Governor Larry Rhoden. “South Dakota has seen strong growth of our firearm industry, and this bill will help that continue. I am grateful that both the bankers and the firearm industry came together on this issue.”

A private signing ceremony was held this morning and included representatives from South Dakota’s growing firearms industry, South Dakota’s banking industry, the National Rifle Association, and prime sponsors of the bill. You can find a picture of Governor Rhoden signing SB 81 here.

Governor Rhoden has signed 35 bills into law this legislative session.

May they  go into permanent vapor-lock.

Anti-Gunners Clutching Pearls Over Trump’s 2A Executive Order

The results of Attorney General Pam Bondi’s investigation into the Biden administration’s executive actions on guns and its defense of federal gn laws won’t be in for another couple of weeks, but anti-gun activists are already putting their own spin on what’s likely to emerge from her findings.

Brady’s Kris Brown spoke to to WGN-TV about the potential impact of Trump’s executive action, as well as some of the other moves we’ve seen from his administration, including the shuttering of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

“There is no possible rationale for closing that office, unless what you want to do is simply ignore that gun violence is the number one killer of our kids, and to me, that is horrific because it doesn’t,” Brown claimed, adding, “Not having the office does not change that. It only worsens it.”

Brown’s comments are, of course, absolute nonsense. The biggest rationale for ending the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention is that it never really about reducing “gun violence”, but promoting gun control (and providing cushy federal jobs to anti-2A activists).

It’s silly for Brown to claim that scrapping the office means that either “gun violence” or violent crime will increase. Reported homicides were already trending down when Biden created the office in the fall of 2023, and there’s no evidence whatsoever that anything Biden did through executive actions led to a further drop in reported homicides around the country last year.

In addition to her bluster on Biden’s gun control office, Brown also tried to put her spin on the likely undoing of Biden’s executive actions on guns.

[Brown] said Biden-era reforms like background checks and restrictions on who can purchase weapons, helped to strengthen public safety. Undoing them, she said, has the potential to endanger public safety.

“We’re not a lawless nation, so there should be no reason, not to have laws that actually save lives,” Brown said. “In fact, laws like the Brady background check, which stands for a proposition that something like 97% of Americans agree with, that. If you go in to buy a firearm and you’re a convicted felon, you should be denied that firearm, right?”

Background checks on retail purchase of firearms won’t be going away as a result of Bondi’s examination of Biden’s EO’s, though we’ll hopefully see the formal rescinding of the ATF rule expanding who is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, which was put in place with the goal of requiring almost every gun owner who offered a single firearm from their collection for sale to obtain a federal firearms license.

Brown failed to inform WGN or its viewers that the rule in question was already in legal jeopardy before Trump’s EO, along with the other attempts by ATF and the Biden administration to bypass Congress and enact new gun control laws in the guise of regulations. The Supreme Court has already struck down the bump stock ban imposed by the Trump administration, and they’re set to issue their ruling on the agency’s regulation treating unfinished frames and receivers as fully functional firearms later this spring. Legal challenges to the ATF’s rules on pistol stabilizing braces and forced reset triggers have also been largely successful in the lower courts, but those rules will hopefully be undone by Trump and Bondi in the months ahead.

I’m sure that Brown is legitimately bothered by the likely demise of the Biden-era regulations foisted on gun owners and the firearms industry, but I suspect that what really frosts her cookies is the fact that the gun control lobby has lost its influence on the White House. Gun control groups like Brady, Everytown, and Giffords had no better friend in Washington, D.C. than Biden himself, while Trump has promised to protect our Second Amendment rights while using the DOJ to target violent offenders. The anti-gunners no longer have their perch inside the executive branch, but that’s cause for celebration, not consternation, for those of us who reject the idea that fighting “gun violence” has to stop and end with targeting lawful gun owners and our right to keep and bear arms.

BLUF: (YAY!)
The departure of Hicks was bemoaned by anti-gun activist groups such as Brady who characterized the sacking as “chilling.”

30 Senators Tell ATF to Get With Trump 2A Agenda as Agency’s Top Lawyer Canned

A group of 30 Republican lawmakers on Thursday “strongly encouraged” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives to begin scrapping Biden-era anti-gun rules.

In a five-page letter to ATF Deputy Director Marvin G. Richardson— who has been leading the agency since the recent departure of the bureau’s avowedly anti-gun Director Steve Dettelbach– the senators urged the regulator to align its policies with “President Trump’s Second Amendment priorities” as laid out in his recent Executive Order.

Specifically, the letter calls on ATF officials to work with Attorney General Pam Bondi to quickly identify and rescind policies that allow “unlawful firearms regulations” to include the agency’s “Engaged in the Business,” “Pistol Brace,” and “Ghost Gun” rules as well as its “Zero Tolerance” policy under which ATF has revoked the licenses of FFLs over minor bookkeeping violations.

The senators said, “We urge you to immediately align ATF’s rules and policies with the President’s strong support for the Second Amendment.”

Further, the GOP lawmakers took aim at the agency’s huge cache of decades-old gun dealer records, urging ATF to destroy the reportedly hundreds of millions of ATF Form 4473 firearm transaction forms and allow FFLs to also destroy such records over 20 years old. The Biden administration had issued a rule that such records had to be maintained forever, creating what many argue is the foundation of a backdoor gun registry.

Continue reading “”

Massachusetts vs. the Second Amendment

In Massachusetts, a legal battle is unfolding that should resonate with every conservative who values the sanctity of the Second Amendment. Escher v. Mason isn’t just about firearms; it’s a litmus test for how we view adulthood, responsibility, and constitutional rights in contemporary America.

The Massachusetts law in question, House Bill 4885, strips legal adults aged 18 to 20 of their right to purchase, possess, or carry semiautomatic firearms and handguns. This isn’t merely overreach; it’s a direct assault on the clear text of the Second Amendment, which does not discriminate by age among “the people.” If we are to take our Constitution seriously, we must defend the rights of all citizens, not just those deemed “mature enough” by the state’s paternalistic gaze.

At the heart of this legal challenge lies a fundamental conservative principle: the inviolability of individual rights. The Founders did not carve exceptions into the Second Amendment for age. They understood that freedom and responsibility go hand in hand, which is why 18-year-olds have been historically recognized as adults — capable of voting, joining the military, and, yes, bearing arms. The Militia Act of 1792, enacted shortly after the ratification of the Second Amendment, explicitly included 18-year-olds in the national defense, expecting them to be armed like their elders.

This historical precedent is not just a footnote but the bedrock upon which the plaintiffs in Escher v. Mason stand. They argue that there is no traditional basis for denying these rights to young adults. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen have made it abundantly clear that firearms “in common use” are constitutionally protected. Semiautomatic firearms and handguns are the dominant tools of self-defense in modern America. To deny these to a segment of the adult population is not only anachronistic but egregiously unconstitutional.

Continue reading “”

Gun Ownership – Right Not Privilege

Democrats continue to pass laws infringing the uninfringeable right to  “keep and bear arms.” Count on that, as it happens over and over. Where does it end? From Maine to California, Democrat legislators and governors trample the rights of law-abiding gun owners. Thank God, for good judges.

Beyond the saving grace of sane, reasoned, reasoning, historically faithful Supreme Court justices, the federal bench is divided – in favor of Democrat appointees. While we hope political views are replaced by reading plain text and history after a lifetime appointment, that is not always true.

Luckily, judges exist with enormous integrity, understand their oath, no interest in being a legislator, governor, member of Congress, or president. They read the law, review history, and interpret. One such judge resides in Maine, Lance Walker. His recent 2nd Amendment decision is powerful.

Last August, Maine’s legislature – together with Maine’s Democrat governor – passed a bill that aimed, as so many Democrat bills do, to restrict gun rights. While not the constitutionally reprehensible “red flag law” – defeated by Republicans and citizen groups like AMAC – it was bad.

The law aimed to eclipse Second Amendment rights in Maine, specifically imposing a three-day waiting period for acquiring a firearm – on top of a background check. True, nine states and DC have waiting periods, and so far the US Supreme Court has not yet reviewed and repudiated them.

True, the US Supreme Court turned back challenges (in January ) to other Second Amendment restrictions, specifically by Maryland (waiting period, weapon style) and Rhode Island (magazine size). But the US Supreme Court is selective, as well as overwhelmed by cases on appeal.

Bottom line: The Maine federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction – blocking a transparent Democrat power grab. Finding: Plaintiffs are likely to prevail on merits, irreparable harm is likely for Mainers who need a firearm for self-defense, equities tip toward gun owners, and an injunction is in the public interest.

Maine Democrats, represented by Democrat Attorney General Aaron Frey, argued citizens may have a right to keep and bear arms, not to acquire them. The judge shredded that nonsense, noting no one can “keep and bear” without “acquiring.”

Nor does the Bill of Rights say your rights to speech, worship, gun ownership, or anything else kick in after 72 hours. If you interpreted the Bill of Rights that way, we would have “prior restraint” on speech, restrictions on when, where, and whether you can worship, and other nonsense.

Interestingly, Democrats are adept at finding ways to suspend rights and did so – as many Mainers will recollect – during COVID. Not only has “cancel culture” been afoot, but restrictions on gathering for prayer, which seem unthinkable, were pushed by Democrat lawmakers.

On guns, the recent ruling by Judge Walker makes clear a waiting period has no constitutional basis, offends the Constitution, and creates “indiscriminate dispossession” and “temporary disarmament.”

He continues, noting history does not support such restrictions, as there is “no suitable regulatory analog” to justify this limit on a right to keep and bear arms; it is not an “objective, narrow, or defined “ regulation. In short, this act is like “prior restraint,” indefensible and unconstitutional.

Interestingly, the Augusta, Maine Democrats – out of touch with their own State, like Maine’s Democrat Congressman Jared Golden who pushed for more gun control – argue waiting periods are justified by the Constitution notwithstanding, to stop the use of guns in suicides.

Perhaps surprisingly, I take things as they come, and think hard about what is right. I am a trained constitutional lawyer, litigated in multiple states, clerked on a US Court of Appeals for a Reagan appointee, and grew up with guns, from .22s to shotguns, was an NRA “safe hunter” at age 12.

I decided to look into suicides, not because that issue would cancel the US Constitution, but just to understand what was afoot. I learned more than I bargained for. Maine is – compliments of the Democrat lack of leadership – awash in mental health issues, drug addiction, and depression.

Much that should be right is wrong, businesses going bankrupt, taxes unsustainable, housing unaffordable, good jobs fleeing, education in collapse, families in distress, anxiety and suicide high.

But here is a fact no one talks about, further lying to Maine’s Democrats and their push to take away rights.  Nationally, the top five causes of suicide are poisoning, cutting, gassing, hanging, and drowning – then guns. Should we try to stop suicides? Yes.  Violate the US Constitution? No. ]

The recent ruling by Judge Walker, in Beckwith v. Frey, is solid jurisprudence. If leftist Democrats continue to go after Maine gun owners, they will find the US Supreme Court siding with Walker. Until then, maybe common sense is about to make a comeback. Guns are a right, not a privilege. Period.

Robert Charles is a former Assistant Secretary of State under Colin Powell, former Reagan and Bush 41 White House staffer, attorney, and naval intelligence officer (USNR).

GOP Lawmakers Introduce Bills to Make North Carolina 30th Constitutional Carry State

Republican lawmakers have introduced legislation to make North Carolina the 30th constitutional carry state in the union.

The Daily Tar Heel reported that both bills–HB 5 and SB 50–“would allow U.S. citizens with no felonies and no mental illness-related charges, over the age of 18, to conceal carry a weapon.”

The House bill also contains language that would “allow elected officials to conceal carry weapons in legislative buildings and offices in Raleigh.”

It is interesting to note that at least one NC state Senator who opposed constitutional carry during the 2023-24 session is a sponsor on the carry legislation now.

South Carolina became the 29th constitutional carry state on March 7, 2024, just two days after Gov. Jeff Landry (R-LA) signed legislation making Louisiana the 28th constitutional carry state.

Utah House Overwhelmingly Approves Bill to Teach Kids REAL Gun Safety

A bill mandating true gun safety in Utah schools has sailed through the state House, but anti-gunners are doing their best to derail the measur as it heads to the state Senate for approval.

HB 104 is a common sense measure that would require all public school students to learn about the safe storage and handling of firearms on three separate occasions between kindergarten and the end of sixth grade. Rep. Rex Shipp, the primary sponsor of the legislation, says the instruction would be age-appropriate, with younger kids essentially being taught the advice given by the NRA’s Eddie Eagle.

“A lot of times when they don’t have any firearms in their homes or don’t do any hunting and shooting, then these kids are not taught what to do when they come in contact with a firearm,” Shipp said.

Who could object to teaching young kids not to pick up a gun? Oddly enough, gun control advocates are the main opponents of the measure.

Gun violence prevention advocates have applauded Utah Republicans this year for growing gun safety education programs, but some argue those lessons should only be aimed at adults.

The proposal unfairly places the responsibility of gun safety on children rather than their parents, said Barbara Gentry of the Gun Violence Prevention Center of Utah. “Guns and gun safety are the responsibility of the adult gun owner, not school children,” Gentry said. “We support schools sending home materials to parents outlining the importance of safe storage in keeping our families and schools safe from gun violence.”

Jaden Christensen, a volunteer with the Utah chapter of Moms Demand Action, said lawmakers should instead look to grow programs that teach parents the importance of keeping firearms away from children.

“The burden should always be on adults,” Christensen said.

Utah law already mandates that any parent or guardian of a minor who fails to make reasonable efforts to remove a firearm from the minor’s possession is criminally liable, so adults are already “burdened”, as Christensen put it.

Even with that law in place, however, there are going to be some adults who just don’t give a damn. So why shouldn’t we also teach kids what to do if they see a firearm?

For younger kids, Eddie Eagle’s advice to “stop, don’t touch, run away, and tell an adult” might suffice, but there’s nothing wrong with age-appropriate gun safety lessons that offer older children and adolescents more detailed advice on gun storage and safe handling of firearms.

The abstinence-based approach advocated by Christensen and other prohibtionists is downright dangerous. In making real firearm safety taboo, the gun control activists only increase the chances that a kid who runs across a gun will be fascinated and intrigued enough to pick it up. Taking the mystery out of a gun can go a long way towards keeping kids safe from harm, and it’s utterly ridiculous that these activists would prefer children be left in the dark instead of getting a real education.

The good news is that in Utah, anyway, the gun control advocates aren’t likely to get their wish. With overwhelming approval in the state House, HB 104 looks to be in pretty good shape now that its in the upper chamber. And for those anti-gunners intent on keeping their own kids clueless about what to do if they run across a gun, they can take comfort in the fact that there’s an opt-out provision in the legislation, so even if it becomes law they can still ensure that their children are ignorant when it comes to real gun safety.

Gun Control Orgs Doing Battlefield Prep As Trump Administration Zeroes In On Biden Gun Control Policies.

sheldon big bang paper bag panic

“Gun owners fought hard to elect a president who would take a sledgehammer to Biden’s unconstitutional gun control policies, and today, President Trump proved he’s serious about that fight,” Aidan Johnston, a director for Gun Owners of America, said in a statement. “We hope that this executive order is just the first of many victories reestablishing our Second Amendment rights during the Trump administration.”

Gun safety advocates are sounding the alarm, including those galvanized by the devastating high school massacre that took place seven years ago Friday in Parkland, Florida.

“Trump’s priorities couldn’t be more clear. Spoiler: it’s not protecting kids. Gun deaths finally went down last year, and Trump just moved to undo the rules and laws that helped make that happen,” said Natalie Fall, Executive Director of March For Our Lives, in a statement. “He is going to get Americans killed in his thirst for vengeance and eagerness to please the gun lobby and rally armed extremists. Remember the next time that a mass shooting happens, Trump did everything in his power to enable it, not prevent it.”

— Mark Follman in Trump Prepares to Wipe Out Years of Progress on Gun Violence

Colorado Democrats Eyeing Ammo Restrictions in Addition to Semi-Auto Ban

While the constitutional abomination known as SB 3 has rightfully been getting a lot of attention as it makes its way through the Colorado legislature, it’s far from the only assault on our right to keep and bear arms under consideration in Denver this year.

On Thursday, a bill barring adults under the age of 21 from purchasing ammunition cleared a House committee, and could be up for a vote on the House floor as early as next week.

Though multiple courts around the country have shot down age-based restrictions that deny under-21s from keeping, bearing, and buying firearms since the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen back in 2022, anti-gunners in the Rocky Mountain State have been empowered and emboldened by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to block the state’s law banning firearm purchases to under-21s last November.

In their decision overturning a preliminary injunction against the age-based prohibition, the appellate court bizarrely concluded that age-related purchasing restrictions fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment, leaving the door open to Colorado imposing a ban (however unlikely) on adults of any age purchasing firearms. As the Duke Center for Firearms Law (which typically loves it when courts uphold gun control restrictions) elaborated at the time of the decision:

After determining that at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the restriction, the panel outlined the Bruen framework and the threshold textual step of determining whether the regulated conduct is protected by the Second Amendment.  The panel found initially that the plaintiff with standing was part of the “people” with the right to keep and bear arms and that the plaintiff intended to purchase a protected “arm.”

 However, the panel then noted the Supreme Court’s assessment in Heller that certain types of regulations are “presumptively lawful”—and it placed this inquiry in Bruen “step one,” implying that at least some of these laws simply don’t touch on “keeping and bearing” and thus don’t implicate protected conduct.  

While noting that Heller’s “presumptively lawful” paragraph was dicta, the panel nevertheless found itself “bound by Supreme Court dicta almost as firmly as by the Court[’s] outright holdings.”

It’s an utterly absurd decision, given that the right to keep and bear arms is rendered meaningless without the the ability to acquire one. The same goes for ammunition.

Without ammo, a firearm is a paperweight, or maybe a club. Either way, it’s absolutely useless for its intended purpose. But the Tenth Circuit has taken the position that  “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are lawful extends equally to laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial purchase of arms.” The court went on to say that even under the Bruen test Colorado’s law is likely to withstand constitutional muster because setting the age to purchase a gun at 21 is “consistent with both scientific evidence on brain development and historical regulatory practice.”

Other courts have held that laws prohibiting members of the political community from exercising their Second Amendment rights cannot stand, and though the age of majority might have been 21 in 1791 and 1868, today it’s 18, which makes these under-21 gun bans inconsistent with the national tradition of gun ownership.

If HB 1133 does become law I’m sure it will face a legal challenge, but unfortunately, the Tenth Circuit’s illogic holds sway in Colorado. As a result, anti-gun lawmakers can feel at least somewhat confident that the appellate court will green light their ammo restrictions just as it’s allowed the ban on under-21s buying guns to take effect.

Let’s Understand What Maryland, Baltimore’s Lawsuit Against Glock is Really About

Glocks are among the most popular handguns in the country. They’re priced decently, run reliably, and just plain work. Police trust them as do numerous armed citizens. They’re everywhere.

And that bothers a lot of people. Now, though, Glock is being sued by the city of Baltimore and the State of Maryland, with the help of Everytown for Gun Safety, and let’s talk a bit about what’s really going on here.

First, let’s get into the official word.

In an attempt to keep fully automatic guns off the streets, Baltimore and Maryland authorities Wednesday sued Glock, the maker of some of the best-selling handguns in America. The lawsuit demands Glock take steps to prevent its guns from being modified into machine-gun-like weapons capable of firing 120 rounds in one minute.

Small, easily installed devices known as “auto sears” or “switches” that are growing more common have terrified law enforcement because they enable high-powered violence not seen since 1934, when Congress banned machine guns after their prominent use by mobsters.

But police statistics show the number of “modified Glock” shootings is on the rise, including an incident near a Baltimore YMCA in March in which a woman’s car was hit 18 times, and police found 41 shell casings nearby. In Philadelphia last year, eight high school students were shot in one spray, including a 16-year-old who was hit nine times. In Memphis in April, a police officer was killed and two other officers wounded in a firefight with two teenagers, one armed with a modified gun.

The lawsuit, filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court, is the first to test Maryland’s new Gun Industry Accountability Act, passed by the General Assembly last year to create liability for gun manufacturers and possibly circumvent an earlier related law. The Maryland lawsuit mirrors others filed in Chicago, Minnesota and New Jersey in recent months.

But here’s the problem: Glock doesn’t make the switches. They didn’t design them. They didn’t have anything to do with them.

Further, they’re illegal to make or possess–at least if you’re not one of the handful that has a transferable switch that was made before 1986 and is registered with the ATF. People are getting them left and right, but they’re not doing it lawfully.

What at least some are claiming is that Glock hasn’t redesigned its reliable handgun so it can’t accept a switch.

Yet they don’t punish Toyota because someone might modify one of their cars and circumvent emissions controls or something. Why would they?

But this isn’t really about full-auto switches or even Glock.

No, this is about making it as expensive as possible to be in the firearm industry and to offer products to the civilian market. Right now, this is the angle of attack they’re taking, but it will not end there.

The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was created specifically to stop these kinds of nuisance lawsuits aimed at the gun industry, particularly when they’re being attacked for the actions of a third party. That’s what’s happening here. They’re trying to pretend it’s Glock’s fault and to get them to stop selling their guns in Maryland, but does anyone really think that would do any good?

It’s not like the people putting switches on their guns are going to suddenly decide they don’t want Glocks because they’re not sold there.

They’ll just get them from somewhere else.

But if enough states do it and enough companies get sued, they’ll either go out of business or just stop selling to private citizens.

You don’t need to control guns if there are no guns for anyone to buy, after all. That’s what this is really about. That’s the long game at work with anti-gunners, and they’re using anti-gun states to try and do it.

Make no mistake. Glock has done nothing wrong.

These two governments just don’t like the right to keep and bear arms.

What Trump’s Gun Executive Order Could Do

President Donald Trump has made his first move on gun policy.

Last Friday, he issued an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to undertake a 30-day review of executive branch gun actions and positions to ensure they don’t violate the Second Amendment. The order itself doesn’t tell Bondi what specific actions to take. However, it does outline a number of areas to focus her review on.

So, what might come at the end of those 30 days? Let’s break it down section by section.

First, it’s important to note that the president is fairly limited in what he can do unilaterally on federal gun policy. Without Congress, he can’t implement some of the top priorities of the gun-rights movement or undo some of the successes the gun-control movement had under former President Joe Biden–such as the reforms included in the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

There are seven areas the executive order tells Bondi to look at, but the first one basically just encompasses the other ones. It simply directs her to review “all Presidential and agencies’ actions” during the Biden Administration that “may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” From there, it gets a bit more specific.

Continue reading “”

When Money From Anti-Gun Billionaires Wasn’t Enough, Gun Control Orgs Went After Taxpayer Dollars.

Gun owners are getting exactly what they voted for with President Donald Trump. There’s now an accounting for government malfeasance in process and he’s turned up the receipts.

President Trump is delivering on his promise to break open the secretive spending habits of government officials. It’s exactly what voters wanted and, frankly, expected. The results, however, have been jaw-dropping. Gun control proponents have been smashing open the government piggy bank to swipe dollars for their pet gun control projects.

That’s right. Gun control advocates were using taxpayer dollars to fund their campaigns to rob Americans of their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms. That’s adding insult to injury after the Biden-Harris administration installed a taxpayer-funded office dedicated to pushing gun control. It was staffed by a former lobbyist for Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun control group funded by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. That office effectively closed up in the days leading up to President Trump taking office as its staff all resigned.

It turns out, though, that billions of Bloomberg bucks and even more money from George and Alexander Soros weren’t enough for gun control advocates. They wanted to fund the effort to cut off Second Amendment rights straight from Americans’ wallets – including tax dollars paid by gun owners themselves.

Lee Williams uncovered, in a post to Shooting News Weekly, what many have suspected for years. Except it had been covered up in layers of bureaucracy and farmed out as “grants” through the U.S. Agency for International Development. That’s the federal agency that’s drawn the first and damning examination by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Continue reading “”