Category: RKBA

Firearms Policy Coalition
LEGAL ALERT: Maine federal judge issues preliminary injunction against the state’s 72-hour firearm waiting period. storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco

“Though [Attorney General] Frey concedes that the Constitution makes inviolate a right to keep and bear arms, he asserts that it does not protect the corollary right to acquire arms, which is a curious construction indeed.”
“Acquiring a firearm is a necessary step in the exercise of keeping and bearing a firearm. Any interpretation to the contrary requires the type of interpretative jui jitsu that would make Kafka blush.”

Continue reading “”

Despite ATF’s Pistol Brace Ban Being Vacated, the Rogue Agency is Still Trying to Jail People Who Use Them.

Documents filed in an ongoing prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle are raising new concerns about ATF’s enforcement policy concerning pistols with attached stabilizing braces. The government’s assertions of authority are truly breathtaking, claiming they can use the terms of an invalid rule to interpret the underlying statute and enforce it against U.S. citizens in felony prosecutions.

We have been reporting on the saga of ATF’s ill-fated 2023 administrative edict, Factoring Criteria for Firearms with Attached “Stabilizing Braces,” ever since the rule was proposed. The final version of that regulation reversed more than a decade of prior statements by ATF that attaching a stabilizing brace to a pistol did not create a short-barreled rifle (SBR) regulated under the National Firearms Act. Instead, ATF would use a series of vague and open-ended criteria to determine if the braced pistol was intended to be fired from the shoulder. But the rule provided no guidance to owners of such pistols how the criteria would be applied. Instead, ATF essentially claimed, “We’ll know an SBR when we see it.”

The pistol brace rule drew numerous legal challenges – including by the NRA – and several different courts found it defective on various grounds. A series of injunctions against its enforcement issued until, on June 13, 2024, a federal judge in Texas vacated the rule altogether. Owners of braced pistols breathed a sigh of relief as the threat of felony prosecution seemingly abated.

Last month, however, we reported on an alarming email to a gun owner sent by ATF’s Firearm Industry Programs Branch. The owner had asked ATF if attaching a stabilizing brace to a CZ Scorpion pistol would turn it into an SBR subject to the NFA. FIPB’s reply stated: “Federal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short barreled rifle (SBR).”

The FIPB response also acknowledged that enforcement of ATF’s pistol brace rule was enjoined, and asserted, “While the appeal is pending, ATF is complying with the Court’s order.”

Yet ATF’s idea of “compliance,” according to the email, was to assert an even broader authority to treat ALL braced pistols as SBRs (not just ones fulfilling the “factoring criteria” specified in its rule), based on the agency’s reading of the underlying statutes.

After our reporting on that email, ATF quickly issued another statement, walking back the categorical statement about braced pistols. “ATF agrees that the statement ‘Federal law requires a pistol with an attached stabilizing brace or stock be registered as a short barreled rifle (SBR)’ is overbroad.” But the follow-up also continued to assert that ATF remained responsible for enforcing the underlying statutes.

“A firearm designed and intended to be fired from the shoulder that meets the statutory definition of a short-barreled rifle contained in the NFA must be made and transferred in accordance with the requirements of the NFA,” it stated. It did not, however, elaborate on how the agency would make this determination with respect to braced pistols or how owners of such guns might know whether ATF considers their firearms SBRs subject to the NFA.

Last week, however, NRA was made aware of a pending prosecution for illegal possession of a short-barreled rifle that answers this question in a shocking way. Documents the government filed in that case acknowledge ATF’s enforcement of the underlying statute continues to be informed by the terms of the agency’s illegal rule. The case is U.S. v. Taranto in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Continue reading “”

Missouri GOP bills aim to loosen more gun laws.

Prosecutors say they would ‘make murder legal’

One of the measures, Senate Bill 74, would bar cities and counties from imposing their own open carry firearm restrictions. Another includes a provision that someone who kills another person with a gun in self-defense would be presumed to be acting reasonably, removing the burden of proof.

A Missouri Senate committee is considering two bills that would repeal limitations on the carry and use of firearms.

Senate Bill 74, sponsored by Stone County Republican Sen. Brad Hudson, would bar cities and counties from imposing their own open carry restrictions.

If passed, the bill would be in conflict with local laws in municipalities including St. Louis. The St. Louis Board of Aldermen voted to prohibit people without concealed carry permits from openly carrying firearms in 2023. [By the way, that restriction is the ONLY one that state law allows]

Mary Gross, a volunteer for Moms Demand Action, was among those who testified in opposition to the bill at a hearing Monday. Gross said that the bill would interfere with local autonomy, and that cities such as St. Louis face different challenges and should be able to make their own rules.

“Consider the county where the bill sponsor lives, Stone County, has a population density of 70 people per square mile,” Gross said. “St. Louis city has a population density of 5,000 people per square mile.”

The other measure, Senate Bill 147, contains a wide array of changes, including making someone who uses a gun in self-defense immune to prosecution or civil action.
Continue reading “”

Bill In Congress Would Outlaw Gun Taxes, Insurance Requirements.

We’ve chronicled over the past few years how anti-gun politicians in some liberal states have attempted—sometimes successfully—to bolster their state budget on the backs of lawful gun and ammunition purchasers. In fact, California now levies an 11% excise tax on guns and ammunition, and  Colorado residents must pay an extra 6.5% tax on guns, ammo and accessories.

Other states and municipalities have attempted to pass legislation requiring gun owners to purchase expensive liability insurance policies for firearms they own. In fact, in 2022, San Jose, California, passed a statute forcing gun owners to pay an annual fee and purchase liability insurance to cover damages from accidental or negligent use of their firearms.

Now, a Texas Congressman is attempting to put an end to the trend of punishing gun owners for exercising a constitutional right. On February 4, U.S. Rep. Ronny Jackson, R-Texas, introduced the “No User Fee For Gun Owners Act,” which would prohibit any state or local government from requiring insurance, taxes, user fees or similar burdensome charges as a condition for the continued ownership of firearms, pistols or revolvers.

Continue reading “”

Gun Rights Activists Need to Use All of the Tools of Federalism at Their Disposal.

At first glance, gun owners have every reason to be optimistic about their prospects of passing pro-gun reforms at the federal level with a Republican trifecta in Washington, DC. President Donald Trump, in particular, won the popular vote and the electoral college—the latter in a decisive manner— with a clear mandate to govern.

Trump did not shy away from the gun issue on the campaign trail, and contrary to what the fearmongers in Gun Control, Inc. say, running on an unapologetic pro-Second Amendment platform is not an electoral loser.

That said, cautious optimism must always be exercised. Republicans, especially those in the thrall of the establishment gun lobbies, are notorious for letting gun owners down and selling out to the DC swamp. This requires activists to watch their representatives like hawks and hold them accountable.

Beyond federal activism, gun rights activists must be ready to broaden their political horizons. The federal level may not always yield the results they desire. As a result, gun owners will have to fight Gun Control, Inc. through creative means.

Continue reading “”

Ending the ATF Not So Fringe an Idea Anymore

There are a lot of people who want to end the ATF, but for a long time, all of them were gun rights advocates who had seen how the bureau abused its authority. For most Americans, it was just another federal law enforcement agency trying to do the right thing and catch criminals.

They had it in their heads that what happened in Ruby Ridge and in Waco were really just the result of lawless behavior rather than law enforcement screwing the pooch royally.

But as time marches on, things change.

Now, you can talk about ending the ATF and it’s not nearly as fringe of an idea as it once was. In fact, now it’s a fairly normal idea in politics.

The 119th Congress providesgun owners a unique chance to go on offense and advance pro-gun legislation. Donald Trump’s victory in November, coupled with Republicans’ retaking of the Senate and their continued control of the House, puts gun owners in a good position to get on the legislative scorecard, at least on paper.

On Jan. 7, 2025, Rep. Eric Burlison (R-MO) took the initiative byintroducingH.R. 221, the “Abolish the ATF Act’’, a succinct, one-page bill that aims to abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE). Burlison’s bill already has 27 co-sponsors, with Reps. Lauren Boebert (R-CO), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Paul Gosar (R-AZ), and Andy Biggs (R-AZ).

In a statement to The National News Desk earlier in January, Burlisondeclared, “The ATF is emblematic of the deep-state bureaucracy that believes it can infringe on constitutional liberties without consequence. If this agency cannot uphold its duty to serve the people within the framework of the Constitution, it has no place in our government.”

Burlison previouslyindicatedthat state governments should handle firearms issues without having the Feds butt in. He accused the ATF of “co-opting or commandeering [local] law enforcement to enforce laws” which elected officials in state legislation did not pass. The congressman suggested that states should be allowed to handle matters themselves, without federal interference.

Burlison’s bill is just the latest in congressional attempts to rein in the ATF’s power. Since the ATF’s infamous Waco siege of 1993, where nearly80 peoplewere killed, gun owners’ attitudes towards the ATF have hardened to the point where several elected officials have stepped up to introduce their respective ATF abolition bills. Members of Congress such Rep. Jim Sensenbrenner, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene(R-GA) Rep. Matt Gaetz(R-FL) have introduced their respective ATF abolition bills over the last decade.

Continue reading “”

Anti-Gun Fury over Trump 2A Exec. Order; Dem States Could Double Down

Washington gun owners expect Democrats who control the state legislature to double down on gun control in response to President Trump’s executive order protecting the Second Amendment.

While the reaction from gun prohibition lobbying groups to President Donald Trump’s executive order to protect the Second Amendment was predictable fury, grassroots gun rights activists in the Pacific Northwest—where Democrats are in control—expect them to “double-down” in retaliation.

The question was raised on Facebook, and remarks posted in response to this question—As Trump dismantles Biden’s gun control agenda, will Washington Democrats double down out of spite?—tell the tale. More about this in a minute.

Trump’s 451-word executive order met with immediate resistance from gun control groups, exemplified by Common Dreams, “An executive order issued Friday by President Donald Trump that aims to rollback gun control measures instituted by his predecessor received a swift rebuke from critics who said the order should be seen as a giveaway to the profit-hungry gun industry at the expense of a society ruthlessly harmed by gun violence year after year after year.”

Trump’s order covers all actions during the period from January 2021 through January 2025 focusing on rules promulgated by the Justice Department and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives during that time period. It also directs the Attorney General to review reports and related documents issued by the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which President Trump has abolished.

Continue reading “”

Trump Signs Executive Order To Protect Second Amendment Rights

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1.  Purpose.  The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty.  It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation.  Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.

Sec. 2.  Plan of Action.  (a)  Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.
(b)  In developing such proposed plan of action, the Attorney General shall review, at a minimum:
(i)    All Presidential and agencies’ actions from January 2021 through January 2025 that purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens;
(ii)   Rules promulgated by the Department of Justice, including by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, from January 2021 through January 2025 pertaining to firearms and/or Federal firearms licensees;
(iii)  Agencies’ plans, orders, and actions regarding the so-called “enhanced regulatory enforcement policy” pertaining to firearms and/or Federal firearms licensees;
(iv)   Reports and related documents issued by the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention;
(v)    The positions taken by the United States in any and all ongoing and potential litigation that affects or could affect the ability of Americans to exercise their Second Amendment rights;
(vi)   Agencies’ classifications of firearms and ammunition; and
(vii)  The processing of applications to make, manufacture, transfer, or export firearms.

Sec. 3.  Implementation.  Upon submission of the proposed plan of action described in section 2 of this order, the Attorney General shall work with the Domestic Policy Advisor to finalize the plan of action and establish a process for implementation.

Sec. 4.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

EXPOSED: Taxpayer Dollars Laundered Through NGOs to Everytown, Other Anti-Gun Operations.

Have you ever heard of NEO Philanthropy? They’re a left-wing group that has been around for more than 40 years. NEO wants folks to believe it’s a partnership between “changemakers and funders.” They claim to provide “resources to groups accelerating change.” Race, gender, and DEI are huge for them, but guns are a problem for them, too.

An incredible database has outed NEO Philanthropy’s actual duties, and those of thousands of other similar groups. NEO, it turns out, is nothing more than a middleman. It receives money and funnels some of it to Everytown for Gun Safety as well as other leftwing, anti-gun groups.

The website is called DataRepublican.com and it will forever change the way nonprofits handle their funding, especially those on the left.
A Closer look

“Have you ever wondered where the money goes? Billions of dollars are spent on government grants, charities, and other organizations every year,” the DataRepublican.com website states. “We’re connecting the dots between government grants, charities, and drawing connections to expose where the money flows.”

The site has already garnered high praise.

“Worth following @datarepublican,” said Elon Musk.

“Love your insights! You’re a must follow on this platform,” said Charlie Kirk.

It has already proven incredibly useful. On Wednesday, NAGR’s Hannah Hill “exposed taxpayer money flowing to Bloomberg gun control orgs.”

The next day, she used the website to link USAID funds that were laundered to Everytown, Giffords and other gun-control organizations.

Continue reading “”

What Did Trump Promise Mexico’s President on Guns?

President Trump has hit the pause button on his tariff threat to Mexico after discussions with his counterpart south of the border, but President Claudia Sheinbaum says that while her country will increase the number of military troops at the border to counter the drug cartels’ trafficking of fentanyl, Trump has agreed to “work jointly to avoid the entry of guns to Mexico.”

Sheinbaum’s comments came during her press conference on Monday. The Wall St. Journal covered Sheinbaum’s remarks, but she apparently didn’t announce any details of the supposed agreement between Trump and herself. 

“There are rocket launchers that come from the U.S. illegally,” Sheinbaum said she told Trump. “How is that possible?”

Mexico says that upwards of 70% of the weapons used by the country’s organized crime groups are smuggled from the U.S. “For the first time, the U.S. government will work jointly to avoid the entry of guns to Mexico,” she said at her daily news conference on Monday. 

Mexico is suing U.S. gun manufacturers and arms dealers in federal courts to try to end the illegal trafficking of weapons to the country.

If Sheinbaum’s end of the deal involves sending 10,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border to combat fentanyl trafficking, what is Trump supposed to do in return? Increasing border patrols is one thing, but Sheinbaum’s interest in targeting gun dealers and manufacturers suggests she might have something else in mind

Sheinbaum also hit back after Washington accused her government of having an “intolerable alliance” with drug trafficking groups.

“We categorically reject the slander made by the White House against the Mexican government about alliances with criminal organizations,” Sheinbaum wrote earlier on social media.

“If there is such an alliance anywhere, it is in the U.S. gun shops that sell high-powered weapons to these criminal groups,” she added.

U.S. gun stores aren’t selling rocket launchers to cartel members, despite Sheinbaum’s claims. In fact, one of the major sources of U.S.-manufactured arms that end up in the hands of the cartels were diverted there by Mexican law enforcement and the military. As CBS News reported more than a decade ago:

The State Department audits only a tiny sample – less than 1 percent of sales – but the results are disturbing: In 2009, more than a quarter (26 percent) of the guns sold to the region that includes Mexico were “diverted” into the wrong hands, or had other “unfavorable” results.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation‘s Larry Keane, who speaks for gun manufacturers, said he understands the potential for abuse.

“There have been 150,000 or more Mexican soldiers defect to go work for the cartels, and I think it’s safe to assume that when they defect they take their firearms with them,” Keane told CBS News.

If Sheinbaum really wanted to curtail cartel access to U.S. firearms she could order a halt to the direct sales to Mexican law enforcement and the military, but that would mean pointing the finger at the corruption within her own government instead of scapegoating the U.S. firearms industry.

I don’t think Trump is interested in stopping those sales either, to be honest, but the question still remains: what “help” did Trump offer, exactly? 

Gun control groups like Brady are calling on Trump to “craft a plan to ensure that gun manufacturers do not do business with those who break the law, fund the ATF, and instead of diverting agents to focus on immigration enforcement, allow them to focus on holding rogue gun dealers accountable.” 

Trump has yet to do undo the ATF rules enacted under the Biden administration, which has already exasperated many Second Amendment advocates. Now he also needs to offer up specifics about his agreement with Sheinbaum to put gun owners at ease.

Combatting the cartels shouldn’t result in an emboldened ATF or actions against the firearms industry, but that’s exactly what Sheinbaum and her allies in the American gun control movement are demanding.

The Unexpected Silencer Lawsuit in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals
Sanchez v. Bonta 24-5566

Many years ago, a wise, white-haired, old lawyer told me that lawsuits are not won because you have the law on your side. Lawsuits are lost by the guy who makes the first fatal procedural error.

That is why I spent well over a year preparing before I filed my California Open Carry lawsuit in November of 2011, and that is why my lawsuit is still standing today. I haven’t made a fatal procedural mistake. When the State’s attorney argued to the Court of Appeals that it could affirm the 2014 judgment of the district court on any grounds, the State’s attorney did not, and could not, point to any grounds by which the three-judge panel could have affirmed.

And so you can imagine my surprise when, after receiving an email PACER notification yesterday, I read the “briefs” and final judgment in this civil lawsuit challenging California’s silencer ban. The Order read:

ORDER FILED. Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner.

The court is inclined to appoint pro bono counsel to represent appellant in this appeal. Appellant may file a written objection within 14 days. If appellant does not object, the court will appoint counsel and set a new briefing schedule. [Entered: 02/03/2025 02:36 PM]

This is both impressive and curious.

The Order states, “The Court is inclined…” The Court is a three-judge panel that was picked long ago. Three-judge panels are formed long before they are assigned a particular case on appeal. Internally, two rosters of three-judge panels are formed. One roster consists of judges who will hear cases that will dispose of cases in unpublished memorandum opinions. The other roster consists of judges who will decide cases on the merits, via published, precedential opinions.

Each appeal goes through an internal screening panel of staff attorneys and judges. Most appeals are disposed of without any opinion being published because they suffer from some fatal procedural defect, such as filing a late notice of appeal.

Those cases that survive the initial screening process are assigned to a panel on one of the rosters.

In this particular case, it could have been assigned to a panel on either roster. But regardless of which roster the screening panel assigned it to, at least two judges think the case should be decided in a published, binding opinion.

That doesn’t mean the case will result in a published, binding opinion, but it is far more likely than not, given that the panel has, sua sponte, decided to appoint pro bono counsel to represent the Plaintiff-Appellant in his appeal.

Continue reading “”

Gun Owners Still Waiting on Pro-2A Executive Orders

President Trump must act on the Second Amendment

President Trump promised gun-owning voters that Biden’s unconstitutional anti-gun disasters would “get ripped up and torn out” during the first week of his Administration.

We just officially passed that milestone in the Trump-Vance Administration – and Biden’s anti-gun policies are still in effect.

Look, we all know there’s quite a lot to fix after four disastrous years of Joe and Kamala, but defending the Second Amendment of the Constitution MUST be a TOP priority for the President of the United States.

That’s why GOA is mobilizing gun owners like YOU to remind the President that we are still waiting on him to deliver on his promises to roll back the Biden-era anti-gun policies and revive the Second Amendment.

Please add your name to our pre-written letter reminding President Trump to deliver on the promises he made to gun owners like YOU.

On the campaign trail, President Trump specifically promised to take the following actions to roll back Joe and Kamala’s anti-gun record:

  • Stopping the Biden Pistol Brace Ban
  • Revoking the Universal Background Check Rule
  • Ending the “Zero Tolerance” policy on gun stores

Not only does out letter remind the President of these three explicit promises, but we are also urging him to withdraw the frame and receiver rule immediately and eliminate the ATF’s illegal gun registry.

President Trump makes it a point of saying how much he listens directly to the American people.

That’s why it’s critical that gun owners – a key voting bloc that helped give him the presidency – to speak up right now and ensure our voices are heard in the White House.

“There is no comparison whatever between an armed and disarmed man; it is not reasonable to suppose that one who is armed will obey willingly one who is unarmed; or that any unarmed man will remain safe.”
—Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

 

Wildfires in California Reinforce the Importance of Gun Rights
You are your own first responder

Wildfires have once again devastated California, reducing vibrant neighborhoods and close-knit communities to piles of ash in a matter of days.

The death toll continues to climb as firefighters and search teams recover the missing, and estimated damages now exceed $250 billion. Many residents are grappling with the heartbreaking reality that their homes—and priceless family heirlooms—are gone forever.

It is apocalyptic and utterly heartbreaking. My prayers go out to those mourning the loss of life, property, and their way of living.

But amidst the flames and destruction, another crisis has emerged: opportunistic criminals are preying on those who are at their weakest, looting homes, and businesses. They are targeting neighborhoods with high property values, exploiting this chaos for personal gain.

In Mandeville Canyon, a gang of looters stole over $200,000 worth of electronics and jewelry. In Altadena, another group was caught with an actual Emmy Award. More than 40 individuals have been apprehended by Santa Monica police alone and countless others remain on the loose.

Reports have emerged of armed residents having to patrol their neighborhoods at night to protect what little they have left. It is a stark and troubling reminder that in times of crisis, you cannot rely on someone else for your safety.

This moment, where a state of emergency has overwhelmed law enforcement resources, is a sobering reminder of why our Second Amendment rights are so vital. The ability to possess and carry a firearm could be the difference between life and death for residents in Southern California.

As a former California State Patrol officer, I served my community, region, and state for 13 years. We sacrificed life and limb to uphold our mission to “Protect and Serve,” and even deployed in 2017 (Tubbs Fire) and 2018 (Camp Fire) to protect devastated communities from criminals.

But despite our best efforts, there were many times when we arrived too late. Theft had already occurred, a victim was already dead, or property had been irreparably destroyed. The harsh reality is this: you are your own first responder. It is a difficult truth, but it is not up for debate. There are simply not enough law enforcement officers – especially during a national emergency – to protect everyone, everywhere, at all times.

That is why, in the years since my retirement, I have dedicated myself to Second Amendment advocacy. People need to understand the importance of the right to “keep and bear arms.” In moments like these, lives truly hang in the balance.

Following this disaster, there must be a robust conversation about accountability – who is responsible for the destruction, and how can justice be served? But equally important, we must address the dangerous impact of restrictive gun control policies that hinder Californians from protecting their loved ones. Taking firearms out of the hands of law-abiding citizens undermines public safety and emboldens criminals who know they will face little resistance.

We may never fully recover from these wildfires, but we can learn from them. History repeats itself unless we are willing to make meaningful changes. Government leaders must prioritize the safety and security of their citizens over political agendas.

In times of crisis, self-reliance is not just a virtue – it is a necessity. The ability to protect yourself, your family, and your community is a right worth defending