Category: RKBA
GREAT NEWS! DOJ is making moves against California’s Glock ban!
Glock and handgun bans are the new front in the gun grabbers’ war against your rights across the United States, and they’re spreading FAST, with two new states enacting similar laws.
Getting ahead of them before… https://t.co/ndS0MwpEo5
— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) June 24, 2026
BLUF:
The Court’s reading of the Commerce Clause since Wickard has had wide-ranging consequences for Americans’ liberty and the powers the Constitution reserves to the states. Much federal overreach is accomplished in the name of this Clause, a provision that virtually no one, not even the Antifederalists, objected to at the time of the ratification debates. It’s well past time for the Court to reassert the Clause’s original meaning. Justice Thomas is leading the way.
Twenty-One Years Later, Justice Thomas Is Still Right About the Commerce Clause.
Marijuana stinks, enervates malaise into America’s youth, and even has a tendency to induce panic attacks. But let it not be said that marijuana has no benefits. After all, thanks to marijuana, or more accurately, Congress’s regulation of it, Justice Clarence Thomas has written opinions reminding Americans, and his fellow Justices, that Congress’s powers are not unlimited.
In a recently decided Supreme Court case called United States v. Hemani, the Court reversed a conviction of a man who had been prosecuted under a federal statute that prohibits anyone who uses a controlled substance from owning a firearm. The government prosecuted Ali Hemani under the statute because, while owning a firearm, he used marijuana.
The majority opinion in Hemani asked whether Hemani’s prosecution violated his Second Amendment rights and found that it did. Justice Thomas agreed with that conclusion but wrote a separate concurring opinion in which he asked the more fundamental question: Did Congress have the authority to pass this law in the first place?
The Constitution vests in Congress certain powers, and Congress has no power not vested in it by the Constitution. When Congress passes a law, it must be able to point to a specific power enumerated in the Constitution that allows it to do so. When a representative introduces a bill, he must point to the specific section of the Constitution that permits him to do so, called a Constitutional Authority Statement. Although the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, does place further limits on those congressional powers, the Bill of Rights is irrelevant where Congress lacks the power to pass a law in the first place.
As Justice Thomas’s concurring opinion explains, Congress likely lacked authority to pass the law at issue in the Hemani case.
The Commerce Clause empowers Congress to “regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” As scholarship has made clear, and as Advancing American Freedom has argued several times in amicus briefs, at the time of the founding, the word “commerce” simply meant the trade of goods and “among the several states” meant — well — among the several states.
In other words, the Commerce Clause allows Congress, as Justice Thomas put it, “to regulate the buying and selling of goods and services trafficked across state lines.” By the time Hemani owned his firearm, it was no longer in interstate commerce — it was not being bought or sold across state lines. As such, Congress had no power to regulate it under the Commerce Clause.
Nor is this the first time Justice Thomas has had an opportunity to remind Americans about the Commerce Clause in a case involving marijuana. In a 2005 case called Gonzales v. Raich, federal officials, acting under a statute enacted by Congress supposedly under its Commerce Clause power, seized marijuana plants that individuals were growing in their backyards for personal medical use.
Why is it that, after being told their gun laws are unconstitutional, so many areas that are run by anti-gun extremists seem to respond with something along the lines of, “Oh yeah? Watch what we do next!” We saw this type of response after the landmark NYSRPA v. Bruen decision that affirmed law-abiding gun owners have a right to carry firearms for self-defense away from the home.
Like spoiled children who run to their room when told they can’t do something by their parents, anti-gun extremists ran to anti-gun legislatures to ram through more anti-gun laws that seek to circumvent the Bruen decision. We saw several states, including Hawaii, New Jersey, and New York, quickly pass and enact new laws to restrict the lawful carry of firearms.
The laws in both New Jersey and New York—based on expanding so-called “sensitive places” where carry is prohibited to the point where virtually nowhere is deemed suitable for lawful carry—have suffered losses in court, while Hawaii’s may soon be dealt a crushing blow to its anti-self-defense regime by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In apparent preparation for a loss, anti-gun extremists ran to the Hawaii legislature shortly after the Supreme Court heard the challenge to its unconstitutional law, filing yet another feeble attempt to potentially circumvent a ruling by the Court.
Meanwhile, Bearing Arms recently reported the U.S. Virgin Islands, has adopted “a massive gun control bill,” even as the U.S. territory is already facing a lawsuit challenging existing policy relating to the issuance of their gun permits.
In December of last year, the Second Amendment Section of the Civil Rights Division of the DoJ announced its intent to sue the Virgin Islands Police Department for “an unconstitutional permitting process” in the V.I. As part of that announcement, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who’s in charge of the Civil Rights Division and created its Second Amendment Section, was quoted in a release, stating . . .
The newly-established Second Amendment Section filed this lawsuit to bring the Virgin Islands Police Department back into legal compliance by ensuring that applicants receive timely decisions without unconstitutional obstruction.
So, similar to other anti-gun jurisdictions, the most virulently anti-gun operators in the V.I. responded to being told they were doing something wrong…by doubling down on the wrongness.
Bearing Arms describes the VI effort as an attempt to moot the lawsuit challenging the permit issuing process, a procedure Hawaii should have probably considered in light of the hard questions its counsel faced during the Supreme Court hearing on its initial attempt to circumvent Bruen.
But along with the apparent attempt to moot the suit regarding carry permit issuing in the island territory, Bearing Arms reports there’s also language seeking to impose bans on popular semi-automatic firearms and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds, as well as adding restrictions on where permit holders may lawfully carry firearms for self-defense—the so-called “sensitive place” restrictions on carry that jurisdictions like New Jersey and New York implemented that led to their laws being challenged in court.
Similarly, semi-auto and magazine bans are also being challenged by Harmeet Dhillon’s team of attorneys, most notably in Denver, Colo., and Washington, D.C.
So, as with others, the V.I. appears to be thumbing its nose at the Second Amendment and the Trump administration by doubling down on anti-gun efforts when told they are already doing something unconstitutional. Disappointing, but hardly surprising.
We will be sure to continue to post updates on these cases, as well as what we presume will be other cases coming out of other anti-gun government agencies at the state, local, or territorial level.
Like All Gun Control Measures, 3D Censorware Mandates Are Doomed to Fail.
The Assn. of 3D Printing supports the legislation in New York and California, but “it’s not going to work,” [Chairman Bill] Decker said. “It’s more of a political statement than anything else.”
Criminals still will come up with ways to make guns from 3-D printers, either by altering their designs or taking their printing projects elsewhere, Decker said.
The more aggressive the technology becomes, the more likely that it also blocks unintended items, said Rory Mir, director of open access and technology community engagement at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a nonprofit digital rights group. Some harmless pipes might look like gun parts, or an S-shaped wall hanger might resemble an auto sear trigger used to modify a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun.
“These sort of censorship algorithms don’t work, and they wind up capturing and blocking a lot of lawful speech,” Mir said.
If print instructions are submitted for a cloud-based artificial intelligence search, it also risks the privacy of people’s artistic and proprietary creations, Mir said.
— David A. Lieb in In California and New York, a push to take aim at guns made with 3-D printers
Justice Thomas Questions Congress’s Power to Regulate Gun Possession Across State Lines
AP Photo/Eric Gay
In a concurring opinion for Hemani, Justice Clarence Thomas focused on another aspect of the federal statute on which the case centered and suggested Congress lacks the power to regulate gun possession across state lines.
Breitbart News reported the Supreme Court of the United States handed down the Hemani decision on Thursday, June 18, 2026. All nine justices stood against federal statute §922(g)(3), the statute under which Ali Hemani was arrested and prosecuted as “unlawful user” of marijuana in possession of a gun.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote SCOTUS’s majority opinion and Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, looking at another aspect of §922(g)(3) wherein he believes Congress exceeds its authority.
Thomas opened his opinion: “I agree with the Court that §922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment as applied to respondent Ali Hemani, and I join its opinion in full. I write separately to call attention to another issue: As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents, §922(g)(3) appears to exceed Congress’s enumerated power to regulate interstate commerce.”
He narrowed his focus to Section 922(g), writing that it “appears to exceed Congress’s powers under the Commerce Clause.”
Thomas continued: “Congress has the power to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several States.”
However, he added, “As a matter of both original meaning and this Court’s precedents, Congress lacks the power to regulate the possession of firearms solely on the ground that they crossed state lines at some point in the past.”
Thomas opined, “Because §922(g) criminalizes possession of firearms apart from any purchase or sale of goods and services across state lines, I doubt that it could be an exercise of Congress’s Commerce Clause powers as an original matter.”
Although he stressed that this was not an issue in the Hemani case, he encouraged SCOTUS “and lower courts” to “revisit the constitutionality” of Congress regulation of firearm possession across state lines.
Well, from the responses by other Justices to her an Sotomayor’s dissents in other cases, it’s pretty clear both of them are stupid, agenda driven hacks who, like all other leftists, don’t like the idea of their political rivals having the means to make telling them “No” a real decisive statement.
Jackson’s Concurring Opinion in Hemani Case Makes Laughable Argument Against Bruen
The Supreme Court decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen is probably the most important ruling the Court has made on the Second Amendment in history. While Heller and McDonald are critical as well, the Bruen test is a simple, straightforward test that can and should be easily applied to gun control laws. Did something like that exist at the time of the nation’s founding? Was there something like it during the time of incorporation? No, then knock it off.
But while the Hemani decision was ultimately unanimous, Justice Kentaji Brown Jackson wrote a concurring opinion, along with Justice Sonya Sotomayor, arguing that the Bruen decision needs to be revisited.
Along with Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Jackson is advising the court to review its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
Jackson and Sotomayor said the 2022 decision is “unworkable” and that the court may need to “retire the failed Bruen experiment.” That test, according to Jackson, is based on centuries-old evidence that may not be relevant to today’s legal questions.
“It imposes on judges the unfamiliar and difficult tasks of sifting through centuries-old evidence in order to answer ‘contested historical questions,’ and ‘applying those answers to resolve contemporary problems,’” Jackson said in her opinion, per Law & Crime.
“Given those challenges, it is unsurprising that Bruen’s test is vulnerable to inconsistent and arbitrary application, as judges draw different conclusions from the same historical evidence and reach divergent assessments of the same laws.”
I find it interesting that Jackson and Sotomayor seem to think that applying history to whether something would align with the Founding Fathers’ intentions is problematic for “contemporary problems.” Never mind that we still look at their intentions on, say, the Fourth Amendment as it relates to your cell phone data or what’s on your laptop. The historic norms were that your person and your property were largely off limits without a warrant. While frisking was one thing–the things in your pocket, for example–it was easy for the Court to decide that your cell phone was a different thing.
Why is it that guns are a different matter? Is it because the history doesn’t align with what these two justices really wanted?
Another Day, Another Reason ‘Public Safety’ Arguments for Gun Control Fall Flat
As Cam noted earlier this week, the Second Amendment Foundation is suing the sheriff in Contra Costa, California, over some rather bizarre concealed carry rules.
In particular, he will not issue a permit for any firearm that has a red dot sight or a flashlight, as well as any single-action only firearm. While I vehemently disagree with his position on SAO firearms, one can almost see the argument there. After all, single-action handguns have to be carried cocked and locked, which makes a lot of people nervous. It’s a non-issue, though, but I also understand many people don’t realize it. Still, we don’t base our rights around what makes other people scared, so it’s still a non-starter.
But the other things are a big issue in and of themselves, and it’s part of something I’ve noticed for a while with anti-gunners. Despite their claims about wanting to keep the public safe, they actively attack things that help keep the public safe.
Even if you think gun control works, most anti-gunners will still say the right to self-defense exists. They can’t afford not to, granted, but that right is there, has been affirmed by the courts numerous times, and that means we have a right to use a firearm in self-defense.
Now, let’s think about the sheriff in Contra Costa for a moment.
Red dot sights make it faster for someone to get a weapon on target and help to increase accuracy, particularly during high-stress situations. That means the rounds go where they’re meant to go, preferably into the bad guy and not someone standing off to the side who isn’t part of anything except, maybe, trying to be a good witness on your behalf.
Flashlights on a weapon are beneficial for properly identifying your target in a dark alley or parking lot. They help people make sure there’s actually a threat to their life by helping them identify the weapon as, you know, an actual weapon. They help to make sure the person you’re pointing the gun at is someone who needs a gun pointed at them, rather than someone else who popped up at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Both of these things are almost as common as oxygen in this day and age, and many firearms are built around them being added rather easily, and that’s assuming the gun didn’t come with the red dot from the factory. Moreover, they help make sure the good guys don’t shoot someone who doesn’t deserve it.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the country, we’ve got New Jersey.
For all the state’s many sins against the Second Amendment, the one that stands out for our purposes here is its ban on hollow-point ammo. While it’s sometimes framed as expanding so as to cause more damage to the person being shot, the reality is that hollow points are in my gun because they have less of a chance of overpenetrating my target and hitting someone or something else that doesn’t need shooting.
Yes, I should pay attention to both my target and what’s beyond it, but if lives are on the line, I can’t guarantee I’m going to get everything right. Police departments use hollow points for the same reason I do, so that officers don’t end up shooting through bad guys and into bystanders.
New Jersey, though, has banned them and is very strict on the subject, even prosecuting people who came in from out of state with them in their firearms.
From red dots to hollow points, the items that make it so the general public is safer in self-defense situations are treated like they’re somehow making guns less safe for that public. There’s no evidence of any of it, but they scare someone somewhere, so screw our rights because it makes someone nervous.
Why, if I were more cynical, I’d swear that the reason they do this is because they want innocent people to get shot, all so they can demonize self-defense even more than they already have.
But they wouldn’t do that, now, would they?
The Real Reason Why Everytown is So Angry About the ATF’s 34 Proposed Rule Changes.
This is outrageous. I’ve been wanting a hit piece like this written about me since forever, and have practically lobbied for one, but ATF’s chief counsel, Robert Leider, gets one for his all too sensible rule reform package. It’s all just staggeringly unfair.
I considered boycotting Everytown’s Smoking Gun anti-gun agitprop operation because of this affront, but I know they rely on me for a decent chunk of their traffic and I can’t just put people out of work like that, even if their entire job is to eliminate my gun rights (and yours, too).
I’m a bloodthirsty gun nut lawyer, not a monster after all. They start like this . . .
If you’ve read any of Leider’s pre-ATF scholarship, you’d know he’s a Second Amendment true believer, not some gun industry lapdog. The Smoking Gun naturally frames Leider’s rules reforms as “placating the gun industry” because that suits them more than the truth does. And the truth is that millions of Americans — Leider included — insist on their Second Amendment rights.
I did a full thread on that ProPublica article on the administration allegedly easing up on gun trafficking, so I won’t go into detail on it here. Suffice it to say, the ATF’s “zero tolerance” campaign was about harassing gun dealers for paperwork errors, not catching dealers who were intentionally breaking the law.
No, that’s not at all what he said in the interview. What he was explaining was that paperwork errors often arise from confusing or unneeded required information. So by simplifying the form, fewer errors will happen due to confusion and never become a problem in the first place. Intentional violations would still be punished.
By the logic of this idiotic article, we should make voter registration forms more confusing on purpose, and then prosecute those who make an honest error for voter fraud.
You could do this with literally any time frame. California has a ten-day waiting period. Someone could become prohibited on day nine and pick up their gun the next day. Is Smoking Gun really contending any significant number of prohibited people would be stopped by a 30-day window, but would have made it through a 60-day window? There’s no statistical backing for that contention.
Everytown asserts that the current form 4473 is a useful tool to catch prohibited people. You know, prohibited people like those who walk into a gun store and say, “Why yes, I’m a human trafficker, give me my gun now, please.” But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised, these are the same dipshits who think criminals pay attention to “no guns” signs.
Note that we have already long been doing this form of sales for suppressors. And suppressors are almost never used in crimes.
By the end, we get to what Everytown is actually mad about: the continuing normalization and mainstreaming of firearms purchases.
The ATF’s changes would be a step back towards what the process had been for most of our history until the gun control interregnum of the last 60 years or so when authoritarian anti-gunners had the upper hand. They’re now losing the argument outside the minority of states they control and they’re big mad about it.
I guess they’ll just have to learn to live with that.
Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation.
Texas: Pro-Gun Rhetoric vs. the Reality of Lingering Restrictions
Texas has long positioned itself as a bastion of Second Amendment freedom. With its deep gun culture, cowboy heritage, and constitutional carry law enacted in 2021, the Lone Star State projects an image of unapologetic support for the right to keep and bear arms. Politicians often tout Texas as a model for the rest of the nation, where law-abiding citizens can carry without government permission. Yet, a closer examination of its statutes reveals a more nuanced, eye-opening picture.
Truth is, Texas does not even rank in the top 10 of the most pro-Second Amendment states in various assessments, precisely because its legal framework is still riddled with technical requirements that are problematic for responsible gun owners.
Recent events have brought this tension into sharp focus. The arrest of NBA star James Harden in Houston exemplifies how Texas’s vaunted permitless carry law falls short of the “shall not be infringed” ideal in practice. On June 13, 2026, police pulled over Harden during a traffic stop in downtown Houston. Officers spotted a handgun resting openly in the vehicle’s cup holder. Harden acknowledged ownership, but the firearm was not secured in a holster. He was arrested and charged with unlawful carrying of a weapon, a Class A misdemeanor.
This incident ignited widespread discussion on social media. Gun owners across platforms questioned the logic: In a “constitutional carry” state, why does a loose gun in one’s own car trigger criminal charges? The answer lies in the specifics of Texas Penal Code §46.02. While permit-less carry allows eligible adults (generally 21 and older, not otherwise prohibited) to carry handguns openly or concealed without a License to Carry (LTC), open carry of a handgun requires it to be in a holster if visible. This applies in public places and explicitly in motor vehicles. A handgun in plain view, such as in a cup holder, on a seat, or in a door pocket, must be holstered for lawful open carry. Concealed carry avoids the holster mandate, but visibility changes the rules.
Texas law does not define “holster” in exhaustive detail, but courts and enforcement interpret it as a device designed to secure the firearm to the person or vehicle in a manner that prevents it from being loose, ultimately the decision on what is considered “secure in a holster” is arbitrary and based on the opinion of law-enforcement officers. Even magnetic mounts or simply placing the gun in a safe direction often fails this test. The result is a technical violation that hands law enforcement and prosecutors a tool to charge individuals based on placement rather than any demonstrated threat or criminal intent. Harden was released on a low bond, and such cases often resolve with minimal consequences for first-time, law-abiding offenders. But the principle stays troubling.
This holster requirement for visible handguns in vehicles is not a minor footnote. It stems from pre-2021 laws and survived the push for constitutional carry. Before HB 1927, open carry was more restricted. The 2021 reform expanded rights by removing the permit requirement for holstered carry, but it preserved the holster mandate for anything visible. Proponents argue this balances public safety and open carry; critics see it as a half-measure that supports unnecessary government micromanagement of how citizens exercise a fundamental right. Compare this to states with stronger reputations for minimal interference. In places like Arizona, Vermont, or Alaska, often ranked higher for gun freedom, carry laws emphasize simplicity.
Many true “constitutional carry” areas impose fewer conditions on vehicle transport or visible carry, focusing prohibitions on prohibited persons, sensitive places, or reckless behavior rather than technical securing requirements. Texas’s more extensive statutes, including detailed rules on display in vehicles and watercraft, contribute to its absence from many top 10lists of gun-friendly states. Strong culture and pro-2A politicians are assets, but layered regulations undermine the claim of maximal liberty.
Defenders of Texas law point to progress. “Constitutional carry” was a significant victory after years of advocacy. Stand Your Ground and Castle Doctrine provide strong self-defense protection. Long guns enjoy broader open carry freedoms, and there are no statewide registration or permit mandates for ownership. Yet, the persistence of rules like the vehicle holster requirement reveals a reluctance to fully embrace the simplicity that “shall not be infringed” demands. In truly elite pro-2A environments, the default is liberty, with narrow, clearly justified exceptions. Technical gotchas erode trust and create opportunities for selective enforcement.
Social media reactions to the Harden case highlighted broader frustrations, with gun rights advocates noting the irony; a state that mocks “gun control” states for overregulation still gives officers discretion over cup holder placement. Others emphasized personal responsibility, secure your firearm properly, but the core complaint is philosophical. Why should law-abiding adults need to navigate such details in their private vehicle? This isn’t about celebrity exceptions; it’s about consistent principles. If the goal is empowering citizens as their own protectors, especially in rural areas with slow response times or urban settings with variable policing, laws should minimize friction for the compliant majority.
Broader Texas gun laws add context. Prohibited places are still extensive: schools, polling places, certain government buildings, and private property with proper signage. Age restrictions (with some court challenges for 18–20-year-olds) and disqualifiers for certain misdemeanors persist. While these exist nationwide, they illustrate that Texas has not purged all pre-existing controls. Extensive statutory language around carry modes creates gray areas that defense attorneys and instructors must constantly clarify. Firearms trainers often dedicate time to vehicle-specific scenarios precisely because of these nuances. Critics from the gun control proponents use such incidents to argue thatpermit-less carry is reckless, but that misses the point. Partial reforms invite exactly the kind of “gotcha” enforcement that undermines public confidence.
True Second Amendment maximalism would prioritize clear, minimal rules focused on prohibiting the dangerous rather than regulating the method of carry for the responsible. Texas has a vibrant gun culture and elected leaders who claim to champion 2A causes. Events like the Harden arrest, however, serve as teachable moments. They spark necessary debates about whether statutes truly reflect the state’s professed values. Gun owners should push legislators for further simplification: clearer definitions, broader allowances for vehicles without technical traps, and a continued emphasis on intent over form. Strong culture is vital, but when law still equips prosecutors with tools to penalize technicalities absent criminal mindset, it undercuts the promise of constitutional carry.
The Second Amendment is not a suggestion or a privilege granted by the state. It is an inalienable right. Texas has advanced farther than many states, but genuine unencumbered recognition is still lacking. Incidents like this remind us that rhetoric must align with reality, and that vigilance from the gun community is essential to close the gaps between profession and practice. For a state that prides itself on independence and self-reliance, settling for “mostly pro-2A” should be unacceptable.
The goal must be straightforward defense of the Second Amendment. Anything less is infringement.
Two Federal Courts, Two Weeks Apart, Split on Whether Silencers Are Protected Arms
Key Takeaways
- The Fifth Circuit ruled that silencers qualify as ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment, while the Ninth Circuit disagreed.
- This split creates a significant circuit disagreement, potentially beneficial for suppressor owners.
- The Fifth Circuit emphasized that if a device aids self-defense, it qualifies as an arm, while the Ninth Circuit viewed silencers as optional accessories.
- Both cases upheld convictions due to non-ideal test circumstances, illustrating the complexities of the registration process.
- The split may encourage the Supreme Court to address the definition of suppressors and their status under the Second Amendment.
NEW ORLEANS, LA — Two federal appeals courts just looked at the same question weeks apart and gave opposite answers. The question was simple. Is a silencer an “arm” the Second Amendment protects?
On June 18, the Fifth Circuit said yes. On June 3, the Ninth Circuit said no. That disagreement is now a real circuit split, and it may be the best thing to happen to suppressor owners in years.
I covered the Ninth Circuit loss earlier this month in United States v. DeBorba. Now the Fifth Circuit has answered back.
Start with the win. In United States v. Comeaux, a three-judge Fifth Circuit panel ruled that silencers are protected “Arms.” Brennan James Comeaux had been convicted of possessing an unregistered silencer under the National Firearms Act after deputies searched his home and he admitted making the devices. He challenged the charge on Second Amendment grounds.
Earlier rulings had ducked the core question, assuming silencers might be arms without deciding it. Judge Jerry E. Smith decided it. “They are,” he wrote.
His reasoning tracks the Constitution. Silencers cut noise and recoil, reduce muzzle blast, and improve accuracy and follow-up shots. Those functions make a gun safer and more effective for lawful self-defense. Because a silencer facilitates armed self-defense, it falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment. The government’s argument that a silencer is not necessary to fire a gun did not move the court. Under Bruen, an arm does not have to be necessary. It only has to facilitate self-defense.
Now compare that to the Ninth Circuit. In DeBorba, the same kind of NFA charge produced the opposite holding. That panel called silencers “optional accessories,” lumped them in with slings and scopes, and ruled they are not arms because a gun fires without one. Same statute, same Supreme Court precedent, completely different result.
This is the heart of the split. The Fifth Circuit asks whether a device facilitates self-defense. The Ninth Circuit asks whether a device is strictly necessary to make a gun go bang. One test protects the modern tools gun owners actually use. The other lets a court carve away any feature it decides is optional, and there is no obvious stopping point once scopes and sights are on the table.
Here is the frustrating part the two cases share. Both men still lost, and both courts leaned on the same crutch to get there.
Survey: More Americans Are Carrying Concealed Guns
Three in 10 Americans at least occasionally carry a firearm.
Firearms sales went through the roof during COVID and 2020’s social unrest as people scrambled to deal with a world that seemed to be coming apart at the seams. Previously thought of—with a great deal of exaggeration—as the domain of white male rural-dwellers, gun ownership became increasingly diverse as women and minorities acquired the means of self-defense. A recent survey finds that many people among the growing ranks of gun owners are carrying their tools for protection.
Concealed Carry Became More Common Since 2024
“In the survey, 13.2% carry all/most of the time, with another 16.6% carrying sometimes/rarely,” the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) announced last month of the results of a survey conducted by McLaughlin & Associates. “The percent who carry all or most [of] the time is virtually the same as the percent who carried similarly in December 2024. But the percent who carry at [least] some of the time or rarely has increase[d] by 5.4 percentage points (from 11.2% to 16.6%). So the total who are carrying increased by 5.5 percentage points (from 24.3% to 29.8%).”
BREAKING: 5th Circuit Rules Suppressors Protected by Second Amendment
LOUISIANA — On Thursday, June 18, 2026, the 5th Circuit for the Western District of Louisiana ruled suppressors are bearable arms protected by the Second Amendment. This historic ruling means no state in the Fifth Circuit can ban suppressors, and we’re one step closer to the Supreme Court reaching the same conclusion.
The court ruling states, “Peterson left open the question whether silencers are Second Amendment ‘Arms.’. 161 F.4th at 339. They are. Under the Second Amendment, “Arms” comprises “weapons of offence,” “armour of defence,” and “anything that a man wears for his defence, . . . takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 581 (citation modified). To “bear arms,” in sum, means to “wear, bear, or carry . . . for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in case of conflict with another person.” Id. at 584 (ellipses in original). Silencers fit that definition.”
Democrats Want Taxpayers to Fund Gun Control Advocacy Through the CDC.
U.S. Rep. Valerie Foushee (D-N.C.) introduced legislation that would put the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in charge of creating a publicly accessible federal database of “gun violence prevention” research.
The Gun Violence Prevention and Public Safety Database Act of 2026, listed as H.R. 9274, would direct CDC to build and maintain an online database of research related to “gun violence” and public safety. It would also authorize $5 million in taxpayer money each fiscal year from 2026 through 2030 to carry out this goal.
That isn’t neutral housekeeping. It’s a taxpayer-funded effort to create a federal clearinghouse for a gun control agenda that begins with a goal — create more restrictions on law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights — then searches for the “right” data to justify it.
Don’t be shocked that we’re extremely skeptical of this scheme. Just look at the track record.
A Federal Stamp for Gun Control Research
Rep. Foushee’s bill would require CDC to include research from federal public health data systems, peer-reviewed journals, research organizations and information issued or commissioned by federal, state or local government agencies. It would also require CDC to publish inclusion criteria and update the database every six months.
That gives federal officials broad discretion to decide what research is elevated, what receives the implied credibility of a CDC platform and what lawmakers, media outlets and gun control activists will later cite as “the science.”
But, as we’ve seen over and over and over again, “gun violence prevention” isn’t a neutral phrase for a sizeable contingent in Washington, D.C. It is the preferred branding of gun control groups and activists to promote bans on commonly owned firearms, magazine limits, waiting periods, firearm retailer liability schemes, firearm purchase delays and government-funded programs that target the lawful firearm industry instead of violent criminals.
Go figure that Rep. Foushee’s own announcement says the bill is endorsed by Brady, Everytown for Gun Safety and the Safe States Alliance. That’s not incidental, that’s the point.
The Brief:
The Colorado Supreme Court ruled that private employers cannot terminate at-will employees for exercising their right to self-defense against imminent bodily harm. This decision, arising from a convenience store incident, establishes that corporate policies cannot override an individual’s fundamental legal privilege to protect their own life while working.
This ruling creates a specific public policy exception to at-will employment. While businesses can still enforce protocols against escalating non-violent thefts, they are prohibited from firing workers for lawful and necessary self-defense. This shifts the legal balance between corporate liability policies and individual safety rights.
DENVER, CO — A legal battlefield that has spent six years winding through the federal and state court systems has culminated in a massive paradigm shift for worker safety and the Second Amendment community.
Writing for the 5-2 majority, State Supreme Court Justice Maria E. Berkenkotter dismantled the long-standing corporate assumption that at-will employment agreements allow businesses to force complete submission from employees facing violent workplace crimes.
“The employment relationship should not be used to strip workers of the ordinary legal privileges every person possesses,” Berkenkotter declared in the historic June 15 opinion. “The right to self-defense has never been cabined by role or location… Rather, the right follows the employee from home to work and back and everywhere in between.”
The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Hemani was the first opinion released on Thursday morning, and the Court essentially delivered a unanimous victory for Ali Danial Hemani, who was charged with possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of drugs.
The majority opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, found that the government failed to justify Section 922(g)(3) as it applies to Mr. Hemani, with the DOJ’s case suffering several major defects.
The government construes §922(g)(3) to automatically ban an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance and remains in effect until he ceases being one, regardless of what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts, whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others, why he keeps a gun, or how safely he does so.
The government analogizes its construction of §922(g)(3) to what it calls “habitual drunkard” laws, which it submits enjoy deep roots in the country’s history and are “relevantly similar” to the regulation it wishes to enforce.
These habitual drunkard laws fall into three general categories: vagrancy laws that allowed habitual drunkards to be confined in workhouses or jailed; civil-commitment statutes that allowed courts to appoint guardians for habitual drunkards or authorized their commitment to asylums; and surety laws under which judicial officers could compel habitual drunkards to post surety bonds to ensure their good behavior.
The government’s analogy fails on every metric it invites the Court to consider. Taken cumulatively, these problems prove fatal to the government’s prosecution of Mr. Hemani.
Gorsuch and the other justices concluded that the habitual drunkard laws are not analogous to the modern prohibition on gun possession by unlawful drug users, for several reasons; “drunkards” are not the same as every kind of drug user, the civil commitment and vagrancy laws were generally designed to protect drunkards from themselves and not the public from drunkards, and “the way habitual drunkard statutes worked in the past differs significantly from how §922(g)(3)’s unlawful user provision works today.”
There are reasons to doubt that the government has established §922(g)(3) even serves the purpose the government claims, of disarming categorically violent and unusually dangerous persons.
Section 922(g)(3)’s reliance on the Controlled Substances Act—a statute adopted to protect “the health and general welfare of the American people,” 21 U. S. C. §801(2), and under which drugs can be added to schedules for reasons having little or nothing to do with their potential to induce violence—makes it far from obvious that 18 U. S. C.§922(g)(3) confines its reach to those who are categorically and unusually dangerous.
Additionally, the government’s own regulatory actions undercut its position: the Department of Justice has directed federal prosecutors to curtail enforcement efforts against marijuana users, most States have legalized marijuana use to some degree, and the government recently moved some marijuana products from Schedule I to Schedule III, 91 Fed. Reg. 22714.
Affording the government “broad power to designate any group as dangerous and thereby disqualify its members from having a gun” would risk allowing it to “quickly swallow” the Second Amendment.
Gorsuch notes, however, that today’s decision is a narrow one, and that it does not address efforts “to ban addicts or those presently intoxicated from possessing a firearm,” and “other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms.
Section 922(g)(1)’s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies is also left untouched by today’s opinion, as is the question about whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) “accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant’s drug use renders him a danger to himself or others, or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous.”
Still, the decision isn’t so narrow as to only apply to Ali Hemani. As Gorsuch writes, marijuana use has become far more common than it was just a few decades ago, in part because the federal government has moved to stop prosecuting individuals for personal amounts of cannabis and more than half the country has legalized its use for medical or recreational purposes.
“Whatever one thinks of these developments, the federal government has not just tolerated them;it helped fuel them,” writes Gorsuch. “All of which leaves it awkwardly positioned to suggest that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
The government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week.
More than that, because he possessed a gun despite this prohibition, the government insists it may imprison him for up to 15 years and disarm him for life.
According to the government, none of this turns on how much marijuana Mr.Hemani uses or what effect it has on him. It makes no difference either if he keeps a firearm only in his home for self defense, never misuses a gun while intoxicated, and never poses a danger to himself or others as a result of his marijuana use.
The only thing the government must show, it says, is that an individual like Mr. Hemani regularly uses any amount of any controlled substance.
To square that expansive theory with the Second Amendment, the government invites us to draw an analogy between its present regulation and historical laws addressing habitual drunkards.
Those laws, the government contends, demonstrate a tradition of firearm regulation consistent with its effort to disarm any regular user of any controlled substance without any further showing.
But the government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider: The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.
And faced with all these shortcomings in the government’s submission, we cannot say it has carried its conceded burden of showing its prosecution of Mr. Hemani complies with the Second Amendment. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is affirmed.
Today’s decision doesn’t render Section 922(g(3) moot, but it does mean that individuals cannot lose their Second Amendment rights solely because they regularly use marijuana; a decision that will have an impact on millions of Americans, including those who have previously had to choose between possessing a medical marijuana card and possessing a firearm.
I’m not particularly shocked by the decision, but I am surprised that every justice agrees, even if a couple of them wrote separate concurrences instead of joining the majority opinion. I figured Alito and Roberts might not go along with the majority based on their questions during oral arguments, but Roberts joined the majority opinion and Alito wrote a concurrence in which he was joined by Justice Elena Kagan.
We’ll have more on those concurrences later today, but for now gun owners can celebrate a significant win for the right to keep and bear arms. We still have one more Second Amendment case waiting in the wings in Wolford v. Lopez, and that decision could be released as early as next Tuesday.
Machine Guns and Bootleggers | Rightly Decided
The litigators from TPPF’s Center for the American Future begin by breaking down a major Fifth Circuit victory that struck down an 1869 federal ban on home distilling of spirits. They analyze the McNutt and Hobby Distillers Association v. U.S. Department of Justice case, dissecting standing doctrine, the limits of the taxing power, and the Necessary and Proper Clause’s role in preserving federalism.
They also highlight their litigation targeting the Hughes Amendment’s ban on post-1986 machine guns (Temple Gun Club v. Blanche), and the FinCEN case (Corley v. U.S. Dep’t of the Treasury) involving Treasury rules on residential real estate transfers.
SAF Backing Former Virginia AG’s Challenge to State’s New ‘Assault Firearms’ Ban.
The Second Amendment Foundation has agreed to help support former Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in a challenge to the state’s newly passed “assault weapons” ban.
In May, Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed into law a ban on so-called “assault firearms” declaring that “…any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.” The law further defines an “assault firearm” as a semiautomatic rifle chambered in any caliber besides .22 rimfire or one that contains a litany of common features. The law also bans magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition and goes into effect on July 1.
“Unlike other lawsuits filed challenging this ‘assault weapons’ ban, this case is unique in that plaintiffs are arguing they have the right to buy the banned arms to preserve their ability to function as the militia that is preserved under the Virginia constitution’s Militia Clause,” Cuccinelli said. “Most other cases are making Heller-like arguments, and we feel this case is a good vehicle to ensure this unconstitutional ban is looked at by the court from every angle.”
Virginia’s Militia Clause treats the militia as including any able-bodied person within a specified age range who is not already part of an organized militia. The newly passed assault weapons ban runs afoul of the Militia Clause because it prevents members of the militia from acquiring the arms necessary for their militia service.
“While SAF is already a named plaintiff in our own federal Second Amendment challenge McDonald v. Katz, we felt it important to support this unique lawsuit,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “When it comes to vindicating the rights of our members, we will pursue every viable legal option. We are thrilled to have been given the opportunity to support this state court challenge with Mr. Cuccinelli and think it complements our ongoing federal challenge very nicely.”
As noted in the compliant, “The General Assembly cannot…prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.” Joining SAF in Curtis v. Katz are Bob’s Gun Store, Mike Wood, Dustin Curtis and Daniel Hinkson. Cuccinelli is the attorney of record for the lawsuit. “We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again – Virginia lawmakers outright lied to their constituency when they said these new laws aren’t bans,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “As we’ve seen in the news lately, numerous county prosecutors across Virginia have publicly stated they will not enforce this new ‘assault weapons’ ban. When the people who enforce the laws are refusing do so it should be a wakeup call for lawmakers that they passed an unconstitutional law.”