Category: RKBA

Printer Panic: Everytown 3D Gun Summit Targets Technological Advancement

Recently, Everytown for Gun Safety hosted a 3D Printed Firearms Summit in New York City with the goal being to “build cross-sector collaboration and chart actionable strategies to stem the tide of 3D-printed firearm (3DPF) related violence.”  The gathering of gloom is seemingly a leftover from the Biden-Harris administration, which convened similar confabs of gun control absolutists. One positive note is that these kinds of anti-gun “summits” must now be funded with Everytown’s own money rather than by taxpayers through Biden’s defunct White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.

Media hype ahead of the summit warned, “We’re at the start of a new public safety crisis and there is no time to waste,” and “3D-printed firearms are the new frontier in the fight against gun violence.” Everytown is apparently measuring this crisis by “recovery data from twenty U.S. cities submitted exclusively to Everytown” according to their Facebook post. Exclusive crime-related data given just to Everytown may raise its own kinds of red-flags to consider.

While 3D printing is a newer and developing technology, homemade firearms, or PMFs — privately made firearms — are not. Since the birth of our nation, citizens have enjoyed the right to create their own privately made firearms. A review of the basic facts on PMFs would have made for a helpful presentation at the summit.

As far as federal law is concerned, individuals can legally make firearms for personal use without a license as long as the person isn’t prohibited from possession of firearms, the firearm is detectable, and the firearm isn’t made or sold for profit. Firearms and related items that are illegal under federal and/or state law, however, are still illegal. Items that are already regulated by federal and/or state law are still regulated.

Firearms continue to be heavily regulated regardless of how they are manufactured. Articles referring to 3D printed firearms are a mishmash of terms interchanging 3D printed firearms with “ghost guns” and undetectable firearms. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, to name just a few, continue to govern firearms produced by 3D printing.

The mere absence of a serial number does not make a gun undetectable and if 3D printers were capable of producing undetectable firearms, such guns would already be illegal to manufacture and possess anywhere in the country.

Continue reading “”

Self-Proclaimed ‘Human Rights Defenders’ Attack Right to Keep and Bear Arms

Self-defense is a human right. In fact, I’d argue it’s the most fundamental of all our inherent rights. Without that right to protect our lives, what does it matter if we have the right to think or say what’s on our mind, or to worship (or not) as we choose?

So, anytime I see a self-described human rights activist talking about the right to keep and bear arms, I’m always curious to see if they’ll actually embrace the human right of self-defense, or pretend that it doesn’t exist.

Sadly, it seems that the group Mindbridge Center falls into the latter category. In a new post at Psychology today, the self-described human rights defenders argue that only by denormalizing gun ownership and adopting laws that make it harder, if not impossible, for people to defend themselves, can we build a safer America.

While many Americans believe gun ownership is widespread and normalized, the truth is more nuanced. Only about 30 percent of Americans own a gun, and among men, 60 percent do not own a firearm (Pew Research Center, 2024). Yet, public perception often overestimates gun prevalence due to cultural portrayals and media emphasis.

If 1-in-3 people engage in a particular activity, I’d say that’s a pretty normal activity, wouldn’t you? More importantly, the Mindbridge Center itself says on its website that human rights defenders are those “advocating for minoritized groups such as racial minorities, Indigenous people, women, LGBTQ+ individuals, or the disabled community.”

So here’s my question to Mindbridge; if advocating for minoritized groups is defending human rights, and “only” 30% of Americans own guns, then why isn’t advocating for gun owners a defense of human rights?

And a followup: if members of these minoritized groups face threats of physical violence because of who they are, do the folks at Mindbridge really believe that they’re better off disarmed and defenseless? Shouldn’t they have the ability to protect themselves from those who would do them harm? Don’t they have the right to protect their lives?

The most obvious answer is that the folks at Mindbridge don’t think so. After all, it’s clear they want to denormalize and stigmatize gun owners. As they write in their call to action::

You don’t need to be a policymaker to help shift the culture. Start by challenging the myths: Most men don’t own guns, and most Americans support regulations like background checks. Share this truth in conversations, on social media, and in community spaces. Campaigns that highlight these facts, such as billboards or digital media stating “60% of American men don’t own a gun,” can help redefine what responsible citizenship looks like.

Got that? For Mindbridge, being a “responsible citizen” means not owning a gun. Which brings up another question: why bother pushing for things like “universal” background checks if they think that gun ownership itself is a problem?

The fundamental premise of their mindset is that, unless “both structural change and cultural transformation” surrounding gun ownership takes place, it’s impossible to “build a safer future.” That ignores the fact that violent crime is dropping at record levels at the moment, and 2025 is on pace for the lowest homicide rate in more than 60 years.

We are building a safer future (and a safer present as well), and we’re doing so while robustly exercising our right to bear arms… as well as our human right to self-defense.

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation Successful in Overturning Virginia’s Universal Background Check Law; Judge Halts Enforcement

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation Successful in Overturning Virginia’s Universal Background Check Law; Judge Halts Enforcement

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

October 30, 2025

LYNCHBURG, VA – In a landmark decision affirming Second Amendment protections, a Virginia circuit court struck down the state’s universal background check law for private firearm sales, granting a permanent injunction that bars the law’s enforcement statewide. The ruling in Wilson, et al. v. Colonel Matthew D. Hanley, highlights fatal constitutional flaws in the statute, rendering it completely unenforceable.

The Court declared Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:5 unconstitutional, particularly due to its discriminatory impact on law-abiding adults aged 18-20. The Court then granted our request to enjoin the administration and enforcement of the law across the entire Commonwealth of Virginia.

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

“This decision vindicates the rights of all Virginians to engage in lawful private firearm transfers without unconstitutional barriers. The Act’s enforcement mechanism was fatally flawed from the start—criminalizing everyday citizens while ignoring basic constitutional principles. We’re grateful the court recognized that patchwork fixes can’t save a broken law.”

John Velleco, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation, issued the following statement:

“We are thrilled the judge struck down Virginia’s universal background check law because it was unconstitutionally blocking young adults from exercising their Second Amendment rights. This ruling upholds the true meaning of the Constitution by ensuring all law-abiding citizens can acquire firearms without arbitrary government barriers.”

The Virginia Citizens Defense League was also a plaintiff in this lawsuit, along with GOA and GOF.

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization dedicated to protecting the right to keep and bear arms without compromise. GOA represents over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-

I’ve got a phone number for them: 1-800-CRY-BABY

Giffords: Increase in Defensive Gun Uses ‘Must Be Stopped’

When I covered the WSJ’s hit piece on Stand Your Ground laws on Wednesday, I wondered if the reporters had any behind-the-scenes help from gun control activists.

It’s not proof of anything, but since the story appeared online only one gun control group has promoted the story on X or Bluesky.

The premise of the WSJ story is that Stand Your Ground laws have led to a 59% increase in the number of justifiable homicides in some states between 2019 and 2024, and that the law is allowing some folks to literally get away with murder.

As we discussed yesterday, though, none of the anecdotal cases cited by WSJ in support of that premise are slam dunk examples of murders that were deemed justified as a result of SYG laws. The data set used by the paper is also suspect, since it did not include the significant number of states where Stand Your Ground exists in common law but not specifically in statute.

There are only 11 states that impose a general duty to retreat before acting in self-defense. The vast majority of states don’t require you to present your back as a target to your attacker while you try to run away; instead, they allow you to act in self-defense so long as you have a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm.

Stand Your Ground laws also aren’t really a new thing. Florida’s statute, for instance, has been in place for two decades. If the law automatically led to more unjustified shootings being deemed justifiable homicides by the courts, we would have expected to see that phenomenon occur long before 2020, but there’s no evidence that’s the case.

We saw a huge spike in violent crime in 2020, along with a big spike in new gun owners. That’s the most likely reason for an increase in justifiable homicides since then; with more crimes being committed and more people carrying for self-defense, there are more occasions when legally armed citizens will use a firearm to defend themselves. That doesn’t mean, however, that people are getting away with murder just because they tell police that they were in fear for their lives. Every time a life is taken a police investigation is going to take place, and charges may very well be filed even when there’s evidence of self-defense.

Even using the WSJ’s own flawed dataset, the percentage of homicides deemed justified in SYG states has climbed from about 2.8% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2024. We don’t know how many self-defense claims were raised in the 96.2% of homicides that were deemed murder, but we know the number isn’t “zero.” Stand Your Ground laws aren’t a “get-out-of-jail free” card for armed citizens, despite the slanted reporting from the WSJ and Gifffords’ wild suggestion that many or all of these justifiable homicides are actually murder.

Take this recent case from Stand Your Ground-Wyoming. Back on June 24 of this year a man named Kevin Hefley was shot and killed. It wasn’t until this week that the Laramie County Sheriff’s Office and the local D.A. officially deemed the shooting justified, with the sheriff’s office declaring it had “meticulously” investigated the case over the past several months despite what appears to be pretty clear evidence that the armed citizen had reason to believe his life was in danger.

Deputies responded at 4:22 p.m. that afternoon to a “disturbance” involving a shooting, says the sheriff’s office’s statement.

Earlier that day, Christine Hefley moved horses from the property she and Kevin shared to Patrick Gross’s property, “upsetting Kevin,” the statement says.

The two men had a recent history of conflict.

The sheriff’s office reports that on the morning of the shooting, Kevin Kefley threatened Gross via text message, saying, “I shoulda kicked your ass right in your own home.”

Later while Gross was parked in his own driveway, Kevin Hefley drove rapidly towards him, reportedly.

“Just prior to being rammed by Hefley, Gross shot Hefley’s radiator in an attempt to stop the vehicle,” says the statement, adding that later crash reconstruction indicated that Kevin Hefley hit Gross’s truck at 60 mph, “constituting the threat of deadly force.”

Kevin Hefley got out of his vehicle, approached Gross who was in hiw own truck, and punched him multiple times.

During the altercation, Gross shot Kevin Hefley, the statement says.

Though shot, Kevin Hefley kept attacking Gross while clinging to the driver’s door of Gross’s truck as Gross tried to drive away, the sheriff’s office reports.

Kevin Hefley kept attacking until he died of his injuries, the statement adds.

The sheriff’s office says investigators examined the scene “meticulously,” built advanced crash reconstruction analysis and analyzed evidence from phones and social media.

Kevin Hefley’s blood alcohol content was 0.143%, nearly twice the legal limit to drive, says the statement.

The statement says the Laramie County District Attorney’s Office has concluded that Gross acted in self-defense.

This is an example of the “legally sanctioned killings” that Giffords says must be stopped, which begs the question: would they have uttered a word if Hefley had managed to kill Gross by ramming into his truck at 60 mph, or by beating him to death afterwards?

Of course not. No gun would have been used, so there would be no reason for the gun control group to offer any kind of comment. It’s defensive gun uses like Gross’s they think must be stopped, not the actions of violent criminals that lead lawful gun owners to act in self-defense. I guess that shouldn’t be surprising coming from a group whose founder is working for a future with “no more guns,” but it’s a position that puts Giffords at odds with both the Constitution and common sense.

ATF Drops CLEO Notification from Form 1 NFA Applications

The ATF just previewed a batch of housekeeping changes to Form 1 (ATF 5320.1)—the form gun owners use to make and register NFA items like SBRs and suppressors. Buried in the Federal Register notice is the big one: the agency plans to remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement for NFA registration.

The ATF’s filing also modernizes items in preparation for the upcoming changes to the NFA’s tax structure, as it will no longer collect a tax on SBRs and suppressors. It clarifies how you can pay the $200 tax for “machinegun(s) or destructive device” or $0 for “other types of firearms,” such as SBRs and suppressors.

There is also an update to accept additional types of digital signatures and let applicants attach a passport-style photo or ID copy instead of using a fixed photo box on the form. There’s also a cleanup of wording and new instructions for married couples registering as an “other legal entity.” All of that is in service of making the form easier to complete and aligning it with incoming tax changes.

Continue reading “”

TPTB in Massachusetts need their faces rubbed in McDonald v Chicago where the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment was incorporated to also be a restriction on State’s powers via the 14th amendment.

Massachusetts Says Its ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban Immune to Federal Challenge

Back in August, the National Rifle Association and the Gun Owners Action League filed a lawsuit challenging the new “Assault Style Firearms” law adopted as part of the broader gun control package known as Chapter 135. Though the state has banned so-called assault weapons for several decades now, the new law offers a new opportunity to challenge the ban of commonly-owned arms.

Now the state of Masschusetts has responded to the complaint filed in Hanlon v. Campbell, and as GOAL reports, the state is making the audacious argument that its gun laws are essentially immune to challenge in federal court.

Continue reading “”

The Future of the Second Amendment: A Nation Divided, Armed, and at a Crossroads

The assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk has once again thrust the Second Amendment into the national spotlight. In the aftermath, media outlets and politicians are already seizing on the tragedy to rehash the same tired talking points about “common sense gun reform.”

But before we rush to legislate away rights, it’s worth revisiting what the Second Amendment actually says, and what it means.

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

That single sentence, just 27 words, has done more to preserve freedom, individual autonomy, and resistance to tyranny than perhaps any other in human history.

The Real Debate Isn’t About Repeal

Despite what some pundits might imply, there’s no realistic effort underway to repeal the Second Amendment. Both sides know it’s a constitutional cornerstone, one that would require near-impossible political consensus to remove.

Instead, the modern debate focuses on how far the right to keep and bear arms should extend. Should “arms” include semi-automatic rifles? High-capacity magazines? Concealed handguns? To many Americans, Charlie Kirk among them, the answer is simple: freedom comes with inherent risk.

As Kirk once said, “It’s worth the cost of, unfortunately, some gun deaths every single year so that we can have the Second Amendment to protect our other God-given rights.”

He understood a truth that too many forget: that liberty isn’t free, and disarming citizens doesn’t make evil disappear.

Continue reading “”

OR High Court to Finally Hear Measure 114 Arguments Nov. 6

By Dave Workman

Almost exactly three years after Oregon voters narrowly adopted gun control Measure 114, which bans so-called “large-capacity magazines” and requires permits-to-purchase firearms from police, the Oregon State Supreme Court will hear oral arguments challenging the measure’s constitutionality next week.

The hearing is scheduled Thursday, Nov. 6, just two days short of the third anniversary of the controversial initiative’s passage in November 2022. The measure squeaked by with 50.65 percent approval and 49.35 percent opposed, just 1.3 percent different on a gun control question which attracted 1,926,753 votes.

But before anyone gets too excited, the Oregon Capital Chronicle is reporting the three-year battle “may not be over.”

Measure 114 was supported by gun prohibitionists and many in the faith community, while opposition involved virtually every Second Amendment organization in the country including the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Oregon Firearms Federation, Oregon State Shooting Association, National Shooting Sports Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition. Lawsuits were filed in both state and federal courts, with U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut ultimately ruling against the federal plaintiffs, while Harney County Circuit Judge Robert Raschio ruled the measure violates the Oregon State Constitution. Both rulings were appealed by opposing parties, and it is the state case which will now come before the Oregon court, after the state appeals court reversed Raschio’s ruling.

Much has happened in the interim, with the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen setting the tone. Some, including the Capital Chronicle, assert the Supreme Court has been “expanding” gun rights. By contrast, gun advocates argue the high court is restoring Second Amendment rights that have been eroded over the course of decades.

Much is riding on this case, particularly whether the Oregon justices rule permits-to-purchase mandates violate the constitutional right to bear arms.

Second Amendment advocates maintain that citizens do not need permission from law enforcement to exercise a constitutionally-protected right.

Article I, Section 27 of the Oregon Constitution states, “The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]”

This case has the potential of winding up before the U.S. Supreme Court, some gun rights advocates have suggested.

BLUF:
As with the Ad Council, the federal funding these Agree to Agree “funding partners” enjoy isn’t gun control specific. However, taxpayers should be aware that organizations that receive significant federal resources are involved in propaganda to undermine their fundamental rights.

Why are Tax Dollars Funding a Civilian Disarmament Industry Anti-Gun Agitprop TV Ad Campaign?

The idiot box has been living up to the nickname.

In recent months television viewers have been subjected to a series of anti-gun propaganda pieces produced by the Ad Council. Dubbed the Agree to Agree campaign, the ads typically feature a misleading talking point about “children” and firearms followed by an invitation to go to the Ad Council effort’s website where visitors are bombarded with further gun control agitprop. The website even invites visitors to learn about how to secure red flag gun confiscation orders.

The name might suggest an effort to bridge political disagreements, but the campaign’s list of “stakeholder partners” shows it’s a gun control effort through and through. So-called “stakeholder partners” include: Brady: United Against Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.); Giffords (formerly Americans for Responsibly Solutions and the Second Amendment-denying Legal Community Against Violence); Everytown for Gun Safety; and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Bloomberg School of Public Health (named for billionaire gun control financier Michael Bloomberg). Handgun prohibition organization Violence Policy Center is not listed, although their longtime benefactor the Joyce Foundation was involved.

The campaign’s headline factoid is the following: “Gun injuries are now the leading cause of death for children and teens ages 1‑17, surpassing car crashes for the first time in two decades.” To justify the claim, the Ad Council cites a report from the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

For decades, gun control advocates and their allies in “public health” have pushed misleading talking points about children and firearms and NRA-ILA has repeatedly called them out for it.

Continue reading “”

The ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban That SCOTUS Could Strike Down This Term

Last June, when the Supreme Court denied cert to a lawsuit challenging Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines called Snope v. Brown, Justice Brett Kavanaugh predicted that the court would take up the issue “in a term or two.” There are pending decisions in the Third and Seventh Circuits addressing similar bans in Illinois and New Jersey, but by the time the opinions are released and cert petitions are filed, it’s almost impossible that SCOTUS could accept either case and issue a decision before their summer recess in June, 2026.

There is, however, a challenge to California’s magazine ban that is already pending review by the Supreme Court. Duncan v. Bonta is slated to be considered in the Court’s November 21 conference, so that would be one vehicle for the justices to address these bans sooner rather than later. And, waiting in the wings, there’s another case out of the Seventh Circuit dealing with bans on “assault weapons” that the Court could also take this term.

Viramontes v. Cook County is a Firearms Policy Coalition/Second Amendment Foundation challenge to Cook County, Illinois’ ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, and it’s been fully briefed and decided on the merits at the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ban in question. FPC and SAF filed its cert petition with the Supreme Court in late August, and Cook County’s reply is due on Wednesday, October 29.

The plaintiffs will have to file a reply brief, but that shouldn’t take too long, and it’s entirely possible that the Court could start its debate over granting cert before the end of year. If they accept the case, oral arguments would take place in the spring, and a decision could come down by the end of this term.

In their cert petition, the plaintiffs argue that SCOTUS “has frequently been solicitous of circuit court judges who are in apparent need of help in parsing this Court’s precedents,” noting that last term the Court granted cert to a case called Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, in response to “calls for clarification” and concern from circuit judges that they “continued to lack the guidance” to implement this Court’s precedents regarding the enforceability of certain federal statutes.

Lower courts, the plaintiffs contend, are equally in need of clarification on what constitutes “arms in common use for lawful purposes” and “dangerous and unusual” weapons that fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.

After this Court repudiated the courts of appeals’ interest-balancing regime in Bruen, courts, like the Seventh Circuit here, have expressed confusion and consternation at “what exactly falls within the scope of ‘bearable’ Arms” as a matter of plain text.

The Seventh Circuit’s reading of the Amendment to exclude arms that the court judges “can be dedicated exclusively to military use” from the scope of the term “arms” at all is just one manifestation of the confusion.

The Second Circuit very recently joined the chorus. In fact, it declined to decide whether “assault weapons” were “arms” at all, “prefer[ring] not to venture into an area in which such uncertainty abounds” when, it concluded, it could resolve the case (it thought) through application of the historical analysis.

The scope of that “uncertainty” for the Second Circuit was remarkable. It noted that it viewed “common use” as part of the plain text analysis, but it complained “the Supreme Court has not made clear how and at what point in the analysis we are to consider whether weapons are unusually dangerous.

Nor has the Court clarified how we are to evaluate a weapon’s‘ common use.’” In its view, “[t]he Court’s opinions may reasonably be read” in contradictory ways, and this “lack of clarity has led to disagreement among the parties in this case and confusion among courts generally.”

The plaintiffs go on to argue that under the Seventh Circuit’s opinion, the Second Amendment permits “anything short of a complete ban on all firearms,” except for the handguns that the Court explicitly stated are protected in Heller.

The Seventh Circuit’s test is even more toothless in this regard than the old interest balancing regime. Before Bruen, courts would at least purport to scrutinize modern laws to ensure there was some relationship between a ban and the aims of public safety. Not so here.

Under the decision below—and the circuit precedent on which it relies—“the plaintiffs” in a Second Amendment case, “have the burden of showing that the weapons addressed in the pertinent legislation are Arms that ordinary people would keep at home for purposes of self-defense, not weapons that are exclusively or predominantly useful in military service, or weapons that are not possessed for lawful purposes.” If they cannot make that showing—perhaps because precisely what is “predominantly useful in military service” is a malleable and ill-defined standard—then the restriction challenged gets no scrutiny whatsoever.

Now, I have no idea if the Court will grant cert to Duncan and Viramontes  or pass them over while the justices wait for other gun and magazine ban cases to reach their doorstep. There’s anticipation that the Third Circuit will strike down New Jersey’s ban on “assault weapons,” which would create a circuit court split that, theoretically anyway, would make the issue more compelling to SCOTUS. But the justices don’t have to wait until there’s split to take up an issue, and if the Court grants cert to both Duncan and Viramontes it can address both semi-auto and magazine bans this term instead of kicking the can down the road for another term or two.

17 Anti-Gun AGs Side With Hawaii On Purchase Permits, Inspection Requirement

A coalition of anti-gun attorneys general from 17 states has filed an amicus brief with the San Francisco-based 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in support of two restrictive Hawaii laws being challenged as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lawsuit revolves around two provisions of Hawaii’s permitting regime— a 30-day time limit to purchase a firearm after receiving a permit and a requirement that police inspect legally purchased firearms within five days.

The brief argues that not only do the laws directly violate the Second Amendment, but they also lack historical support and impose undue burdens on law-abiding citizens exercising their constitutional rights. In March, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court struck down the two provisions, but the state government appealed to the full 9th Circuit.

However, the brief from the 17 anti-gun AGs urges the 9th Circuit’s en banc panel to reverse the decision striking down the provisions. The brief claims that states’ interests in implementing “appropriate, reasonable regulations tailored to their specific circumstances” is more important than the protections afforded by the Second Amendment.

Heading up the AGs’ efforts is California Attorney General Rob Bonta, one of the most anti-gun attorney generals in the country.

Gov’t. Grant Money for ‘Gun Violence Prevention’ Withheld from Non-Profits

By Dave Workman

The Guardian is reporting that the Trump administration is this year cutting off government grants for so-called “gun violence prevention” programs to certain non-profit groups which the grants were reportedly built around.

While the news agency didn’t specifically say so, there have been concerns within the Second Amendment community that public funds were being utilized by some groups to push a gun control agenda. Essentially, gun owners—as taxpayers—were helping to fund efforts which ultimately were aimed at eroding their Second Amendment rights. At least, that’s the concern.

According to The Guardian, “The Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVIPI), was created in 2022, to support groups working in rural and urban communities struggling to address violence and fund research studying the programs’ efficacy.”

But following Donald Trunmp’s return to the White House, these “community-based organizations” were allowed to apply for grant funds. Now, those monies are limited to city, county and tribal governments, and the new goal of the program is to “support law enforcement efforts to reduce violent crime and improve police-community relations.”

As noted by The Guardian, when Trump returned to office in January, he immediately dismantled Joe Biden’s White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, which was a thinly-veiled “in-house” gun control effort. Instead, Trump nominated Pam Bondi to the office of Attorney General, and she has subsequently led the Justice Department in a full 180-degree shift from gun control to Second Amendment protection. The DOJ, with Harmeet Dhillon as U.S. assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights essentially leading the charge, has gone after the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for dragging its feet in the issuance of carry permits, holding up the process for up to two years.

Dhillon has also argued against the semi-auto ban in Illinois before the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Earlier this year, the Guardian noted that the Justice Department cut more than $800 million in grants that would have gone to “organizations that prevent and respond to gun violence, sexual assault and hate crimes” and other groups.

Trump Administration Cuts Flow of Tax Dollars Funneled to Leftist Gun Control Orgs and NGOs.

The Trump administration has released solicitations for a grant program meant to stop gun violence in underserved communities. But this year, the non-profits the grant was built around are disqualified from applying, according to an application notice released by the Department of Justice (DoJ) in September.

The Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVIPI), was created in 2022, to support groups working in rural and urban communities struggling to address violence and fund research studying the programs’ efficacy.

The pioneering program was born out of a recognition by the Biden administration that such community-centered programs were among the most successful tools in combating the US’ deep-rooted gun violence problem, and had played a crucial role in helping reduce homicides in major US cities.

Before Trump’s inauguration, community-based organizations, non-profits and local and state governments were eligible to apply for the grant. Now, only city, county and tribal governments are allowed. And the stated goal of the program has been changed from “comprehensive, community-based prevention” to “supports law enforcement efforts to reduce violent crime and improve police-community relations”.

Since 2022, the federal government has awarded more than $300m to over 120 non-profits, city and county governments and research institutions through the initiative, according to an archived list of grant recipients.

The department of justice, which oversees CVIPI, did not respond to a request for comment.

The changes at CVIPI are the latest in the Trump administration’s heel-turn from the Biden administration’s approach to gun violence prevention, which positioned Black and Latino-led groups working to address violence as legitimate solutions to crime in the nation’s hardest hit locales. Shortly after his inauguration, Trump dismantled the White House office of gun violence prevention, and in March his administration removed the former surgeon general Vivek Murthy’s advisory on gun violence as a public health issue from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ website.

— Abené Clayton in Gun violence prevention groups disqualified from grants built around their work

 

Guilt-Trip Gun Control Advocacy Won’t Work, So Knock It Off

Over the years, I’ve seen a lot of calls for gun control from a lot of different sources. You’ve seen a lot, too, I suspect, and you’re not necessarily someone who has to seek them out to any degree. You can imagine how many I’ve seen.

A lot of them just sort of repeat what’s been said before. In fairness, we do the same thing, too. After all, it’s the same issue and nothing has really changed about where anyone stands.

But one thing has really gotten under my skin over the years, and that’s what I call “guilt-trip gun control advocacy.”

That’s when someone tries to make you feel terrible for not supporting gun control. They’re focusing on emotions, either your own or the emotional struggles of others, all to make you feel like you should have to support gun control.

It looks like this:

The news ticker denotes yet another shooting and fire, this time at a Latter-day Saint church in Michigan. This tragic incident occurred only weeks after the massacre at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, a tragedy whose shock had barely begun to fade from public memory.

Each headline was a fresh rupture in our collective psyche, each one a new entry in the ever-lengthening register of loss. I felt the same fatigue—the hollow, tightening ache of resignation. How many times can we say “not again” before the words’ meaning dissipates?

America has a peculiar way of justifying sin and bearing her scars. Our country’s response to violence is not just inadequate; it is complicit. We have constructed a body politic that tolerates, even sanctifies, these acts through legislative inertia and a distorted interpretation of constitutional rights.

The sacred text of our republic has become a shield for the status quo, with lawmakers and justices hiding behind its language to justify inaction. Leaders at every level offer only platitudes, as if thoughts and prayers could bind wounds that legislation refuses to heal.

Our nation’s dysfunction runs deeper than any one event or single perpetrator. Behind the headlines are the haunted: families who will never again feel whole, first responders who carry silent burdens, and clergy who must find words when language feels useless.

And behind them, a vast community of the traumatized—students, parents, teachers, neighbors—bound together not by choice but by the grim lottery of proximity. This is not the mark of a healthy society. It is the sign of a nation adrift, its soul eroded by violence and its conscience dulled by repetition.

Yes, we’re complicit in mass murder simply because we aren’t willing to give up our rights, even when many of these killers are people who should have been caught by some existing law and weren’t.

How dare anyone try to claim that I’m complicit, that I’m responsible, simply because I recognize the failures of gun control in the past? I’ve been one of those who will never feel whole again, because a dear friend was gunned down by a maniac who was pissed that he couldn’t sit in a coffee shop anymore after being a pain for the last time.

How dare anyone say that to our own Ryan Petty, who lost his lovely daughter Aliana in the Parkland shooting, or RedState’s Jenn Van Laar, who lost a friend in a shooting in Thousand Oaks?

We lost, and we recognized that gun control wasn’t the answer, but now we’re told everything that followed was really our fault because we didn’t bend the knee and give up our rights?

No.

This guilt-trip gun control push isn’t working. It’s never going to work. People don’t get told they’re complicit, that they’re responsible for mass murders, then just go, “Oh, well, OK. I’ll change all my views about everything.” They get angry and dig in even harder, which is fantastic for our side.

The writer of this screed, Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson, describes himself as a “spiritual entrepreneur,” which sounds more like someone who uses faith to grift, if you ask me, but I’m not sure he understands that trying to guilt-trip someone isn’t really a great strategy.

Knock it off. You’re just making us mad and making yourself look like an absolute dipstick.

New Hampshire Bill Strengthening Second Amendment Rights on Public Property Advances.

A bill reaffirming that the New Hampshire Legislature, not state agencies or local governments, holds sole authority to regulate weapons on public property narrowly cleared a House committee this week.

House Bill 609, sponsored by Rep. Samuel Farrington (R-Rochester), seeks to close what he calls loopholes in the state’s existing firearms preemption law after learning the New Hampshire Department of Transportation barred its employees from carrying firearms on the job.

“The intent here is to emphasize that the Legislature’s preemption is the last word on the subject,” Farrington told the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.

Expanding Preemption

New Hampshire’s current preemption law, signed in 2003 by then-Gov. Craig Benson, already reserves regulation of firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies to the Legislature. In 2011, Gov. John Lynch expanded that statute to include knives.

Farrington’s proposal would extend those protections even further—covering stun guns, Tasers, pepper spray, and other self-defense tools. It also bars any state, county, or municipal agency from creating or enforcing its own weapons rules that conflict with state law.

Partisan Divide

The House panel approved the measure 9–7 along strict party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. Critics argued the legislation could handcuff local authorities from setting policies for large public events, such as the New Hampshire Air Show at Pease Air National Guard Base in Newington.

“This is of a very broad, sweeping nature,” said Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth). “It would override the practices of a lot of communities and further restrict local control.”

Supporters countered that Pease’s ban on firearms wouldn’t be affected, since it sits on federal property.

Florida judge strikes down under-21 concealed carry ban as unconstitutional

Siding with a 19-year-old man who was spotted with a gun in his waistband, a Broward County circuit judge Friday ruled that a state law barring people under age 21 from carrying concealed weapons violates Second Amendment rights.

Judge cites lack of historical precedent for age restriction 

Judge Frank Ledee issued a nine-page ruling that said Florida’s “prohibition on the concealed carry of firearms by eighteen-to-twenty year olds strips a class of legal adults of their ability to exercise the very right the Constitution guarantees.”

Ledee cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings in recent years that required analyzing the “historical tradition” of firearm regulation when determining whether laws violate the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Litigation Highlight: Plaintiffs File Second Amendment Challenge to Federal Ban on Mailing Firearms

In mid-July, two gun-rights groups and an individual plaintiff wishing to mail a handgun to her father filed suit in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that the federal ban on mailing firearms through the U.S. Postal Service violates the Second Amendment.  This federal restriction dates to 1927—as the complaint notes, it was the first federal gun control law[1] and pre-dates the National Firearms Act by almost a decade.  The lawsuit, which is still in its early stages, implicates tricky questions surrounding legislative intent and how historical tests can account for technological innovation.

Filed on July 14, the Pennsylvania case is captioned Shreve v. United States Postal Service.  The plaintiffs ask the court to strike down 18 U.S.C. § 1715, which provides that “[p]istols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person are nonmailable and shall not be deposited in or carried by the mails or delivered by any officer or employee of the Postal Service.”  The law contains exceptions for guns mailed in connection with military or law enforcement service and for “customary trade shipments” in which firearms are conveyed from manufacturers to dealers.  The statute only applies to the United States Postal Service.  Knowing violations of the ban constitute a federal crime.

Shreve, a Pennsylvania citizen, would like to mail a handgun to her father as a gift and is permitted to do so under state law. The two organizational plaintiffs, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, each assert standing because “some of the[ir] members . . .  also wish to use the U.S. Postal Service to mail their lawfully owned handguns and other concealable weapons for private, lawful purpose.”  The plaintiffs assert that they cannot use private courier services—such as UPS or FedEx—because “private common carriers have prohibited the practice [of mailing guns] for several years.”

The plaintiffs in Shreve argue that the conduct of mailing firearms is protected because, “if the Second Amendment’s plain text did not cover such ancillary acts as shipment or receipt, the government could ban these acts outright, crippling Americans’ access to firearms.”  They emphasize that, while “the U.S. Postal Service traces its lineage to 1775, . . . at no point did the Founders ever criminalize the mailing of handguns as the challenged statute does now.”  The complaint further argues that exceptions to the federal ban—including for official weapons shipped by government agencies, commercial transactions, and long guns—belie any purported public safety objective.  Plaintiffs frame the 1927 statute largely as a response to “anti-gun media sensationalism” that “did little – if anything – to curb violent crime.”  Thus, the complaint concludes, the law “is inconsistent with Founding-era historical tradition [and] violates the Second Amendment.”

Continue reading “”

Bondi DOJ Alleged to Back Warrantless ‘Home Invasion’ of Gun Owners

Attorney General Pam Bondi and the rest of the Trump Administration appear to be the most pro-Second Amendment administration in recent history, if not ever. That would be a fantastic thing all on its own were it not for the fact that the DOJ still keeps doing some anti-Second Amendment things.

Yeah, the title is still applicable in my book, but that’s because the bar is so low single-sell organisms can’t limbo under it.

However, the latest issue is a bit more complicated than it might look on the outside. It seems a man was shot by police in Montana after they entered his house without a warrant. The DOJ is apparently backing up the state in this case.

But the devil is in the details.

“The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing an argument that threatens to hollow out the Fourth Amendment’s core protection: that Americans may be secure in their homes against warrantless searches.

The lawsuit is Case v. Montana. After a difficult breakup, William Trevor Case was at home alone when police arrived for a so-called “welfare check.” They spent nearly an hour outside his house. Officers walked around the property, shined flashlights through windows, and even discussed calling his relatives or reaching him directly. They never did. Instead, they retrieved rifles and a ballistic shield, broke down his door without a warrant, and shot him.

Case survived, but his rights did not.

The Montana Supreme Court upheld the police’s warrantless entry. Apparently, the government’s “reasonable suspicion” that Treavor Case might need “help” was sufficient to justify an armed warrantless intrusion into his home. That standard is alarmingly low. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and judicial approval before government agents may enter a home. It does not permit entry based on a hunch.

The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Caniglia v. Strom in 2021. In that case, officers entered a man’s home without a warrant after a domestic dispute, claiming they were acting as “community caretakers.” The Court unanimously rejected that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Fourth Amendment’s protections do not vanish just because police say they are trying to help. The Court allowed for true emergencies—cases of imminent harm or death—but drew a clear line against open-ended “caretaking” exceptions.”

The welfare check is something that’s been around for years, and most people don’t seem to think much of it. Case was someone dealing with a difficult time in his life, one that could spark depression or suicidal ideation, and someone got worried about it. So, they called the police to check on him.

It happens all the time, and it’s saved lives. People who were injured or sick were found and rushed to the hospital where they could be treated.

However, this highlights the potential dark side of welfare checks.

It doesn’t help that police didn’t think Case was in need of immediate aid, yet they claimed he’d said he would “shoot it out” with law enforcement. They suspected he might try to ambush them and die via suicide by cop. Of course, the person who claimed that was one of the officers on the raid, and so I don’t know how valid that claim actually was, especially as he wasn’t arrested over making a threat, apparently.

So, they armed up, got ballistic shield, and never bothered to just knock on the door and see if he’d answer.

I don’t know how Case was unaware that someone was outside, shining a flashlight into the window, or if he did and that was why he was hiding in a closet with a handgun.

Honestly, the whole thing is wonky as all get out to me, and it would have been best of the DOJ had just stayed out of it or at least defend the Fourth Amendment for gun owners.

What makes this worse is the fact that it’s not hard to get the police to conduct a welfare check. Anyone can do it and justify it for almost any reason. The police will just respond, and if they respond like they did with Case, it’s not difficult to see how something could go sideways and an innocent person be killed.