Category: RKBA

Cleared in Self-Defense, Charged for Carrying: Michigan Case Shows Why ‘Sensitive Places’ Fail

A licensed concealed carry holder in Michigan is now facing punishment not because prosecutors say he committed a crime in his defensive gun use, but because the state says he was armed in the wrong place when he needed that gun the most. That is exactly why so-called “sensitive places” laws remain one of the most dangerous and constitutionally suspect fronts in the post-Bruen Second Amendment fight.

According to Fox 2 Detroit’s reporting, Genesee County prosecutors determined that 23-year-old Christopher Gill acted in lawful self-defense after being attacked inside a restroom at Ballenger Fieldhouse on the campus of Mott Community College during a day of basketball games. Prosecutors say Gill was confronted by a group, restrained, and punched several times. During the assault, Gill managed to reach into his hoodie pocket, where he had a handgun, and fired one shot through the hoodie, striking Malik Zamir Henderson. Prosecutor David Leyton ruled the shooting was lawful self-defense.

Henderson was charged with gang membership, assault with intent to rob while unarmed, and assault with intent to do great bodily harm less than murder. Gill, by contrast, was not charged over the shooting itself. Instead, he was charged with carrying a concealed handgun in a sports arena, a Michigan law lists a “sports arena or stadium” among the places where a concealed pistol license holder may not carry concealed. For a first offense, Michigan law provides for a civil infraction, a fine of up to $500, and a six-month license suspension; state guidance also says the pistol is subject to immediate seizure if carried concealed in a prohibited area.

That split outcome should get the attention of every gun owner in America. The government’s position here is effectively this: yes, you were lawfully defending yourself against a violent assault, but you still should not have been armed when the attack happened because the legislature had already declared that location a “sensitive place.” That insane theory collapses the moment it meets real life. The danger to Gill did not disappear because he was inside an athletic facility. The criminal assault did not stop because the law supposedly made the venue special.

Continue reading “”

When a ‘Common Sense’ Gun Control Measure Depends on the Fantasy of Competent Government.

In a stunning admission, a Los Angeles County Superior Court has revealed that it failed to report hundreds of thousands of criminal case outcomes to the California Department of Justice—including roughly 147,000 felony convictions.

Let that sink in.

For four decades, criminal records simply weren’t entered into the background check system.

  • No alerts
  • No safeguards
  • No accountability

Just a broken government system quietly failing while politicians demanded…more gun control.

A System That Only Works If Everything Goes Right

Here’s the part they don’t want to talk about…the entire background check system depends on perfect data entry, flawless coordination, and bureaucratic competence at every level of government. And as this case proves—that’s a fantasy.

Because when records aren’t reported:

  • Felons slip through the cracks
  • Background checks return incomplete or inaccurate results
  • And the system politicians claim “keeps us safe” simply doesn’t work

Even federal officials admit the system only functions if it receives “complete, accurate, and timely information” from thousands of agencies nationwide. Clearly, that’s not happening.

The History They Don’t Want You to Know

The federal background check system—known as NICS—was created by the Brady Act in 1993 and went live in 1998.

Since then:

  • Hundreds of millions of background checks have been run.
  • Millions of Americans have been delayed or denied.
  • Tthe system still relies on error-prone government databases.

In fact:

  • Only about 1% of transactions are denied.
  • Many denials are later overturned on appeal.
  • Tens of thousands of justified denials occur each year, but only a tiny fraction are ever prosecuted.

So let’s be clear…this system overwhelmingly burdens law-abiding citizens while failing to consistently stop criminals.

The Real Purpose: A Backdoor Gun Registry

Continue reading “”

Virginia Illustrates Insidious Anti-Gun Threat

I’ve joked before that Virginia’s politics swing back and forth like an unlatched screen door in a hurricane. From red to blue to red to blue, all so fast it makes your head spin.

But last year’s elections opened the door for a lot of troubling things in Virginia, up to and including their redistricting plan that seeks to essentially wipe out Republican representation from the state, and with it, support for gun rights. Sure, there’s one district, but only because there was no way to gerrymander the state badly enough to make it solid blue.

However, Virginia reveals an insidious threat because the state is too purple to suddenly swing this far left.

Progressive groups are behind a wave of tougher restrictions on firearms, wielding a quiet power that Second Amendment proponents worry could unravel gun rights in friendly territory.

Earlier this month, Virginia lawmakers sent a spate of gun bills tightening firearms restrictions to Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s (D-VA) desk. It’s a development fueled by Moms Demand Action, and one that one of the country’s most prominent pro-gun rights organizations fears foreshadows things to come in other purple states.

“Virginia is a purple state, and so having this sweeping, massive gun control package in the state that’s got a lot of gun owners, to see that happen and happen so rapidly should really be alarming to everybody in this country,” National Rifle Association’s Director of Public Affairs, Justin Davis, told the Washington Examiner.

“It’s really just a blueprint of what’s to come in this country. This is a trial balloon for the midterm elections,” he said. “They’re seeing what they can pass in a purple state? What is the backlash from that? And how do people react?”…

Davis said many such state races can be “so easily” flipped with small “injections“ of cash. Due to progressive activism, every state is “ripe for flipping at any time,” he said.

“To think that the stuff they’re pushing here is happening in Virginia should wake up every single purple state in the country, any place that is, it was in the realm of what a ‘moderate state’ is that there’s a very well-trained, very concerted effort to get progressives elected positions,” Davis said. “There are people who literally look at these races, race by race, and say, ‘How do we make sure that we can flip this for a broader scale, to flip this state to pass these same leftist laws?’”

Groups like Moms Demand Action and Everytown for Gun Safety are specifically named for injecting a significant amount of cash into the race, and the truth of the matter is that these groups will run ads that feature policies other than gun control, usually pretty progressive ones.

So what happens is that for a few million dollars, they can push a candidate who might not appear all that bad in the grand scheme of things–remember, Spanberger tried to position herself as a moderate, and a lot of people listened–only to take office and start trying to run the table with things like gun control.

Virginia is a purple state, but the current agenda in Richmond looks like something you’d expect in California.

No, it doesn’t help that Virginia governors can only serve a single term at a time, thus meaning they never have to worry about re-election. That means they can trot out their agenda on day one, and other than the midterms, there’s nothing stopping them from going as far left or right as they’d like. In this case, it means trotting out the most ridiculous anti-gun agenda you’re ever going to see in any part of the South.

This is something we need to be on guard against and work to counter if we don’t want to see our rights destroyed at the state level.

ATF Says Brace Rule Case Is Moot, Warns Some Braced Pistols Still Face NFA Enforcement

In a blunt court filing from Monday, March 16, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) urged a federal judge to dismiss a high-profile challenge to its now-defunct pistol stabilizing brace rule, arguing the case has become completely moot. At the same time, the agency made clear it has no intention of abandoning enforcement against certain braced pistols under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).

The 6-page reply brief, filed in State of Texas et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al., marks the latest twist in a legal saga that began three years ago. The plaintiffs, led by the State of Texas and joined by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and several Texas citizens, had sued to block the ATF’s January 31, 2023, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” rule (88 Fed. Reg. 6478). That rule used a complex points-based system to reclassify many popular braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs), subjecting owners to NFA registration, a $200 tax stamp, and potential felony charges for non-compliance.

But the landscape changed dramatically when another federal court issued a universal vacatur of the entire rule, a decision that became final in mid-2025. With the rule formally nullified and revoked nationwide, the ATF now argues that nothing remains for this Texas court to enjoin or declare unlawful.

“The case became moot,” the ATF’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiffs appear to accept that the Court can no longer grant them meaningful relief in relation to the Rule, which has already been formally nullified and revoked through universal vacatur.”

The agency’s earlier motion to dismiss cited Fifth Circuit precedents holding that, once an agency rule is vacated, APA challenges lose their live controversy. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief sought to keep the case alive by insisting the court could still block the “legal theories” that underpinned the rule, specifically the ATF’s position that at least some pistols equipped with stabilizing braces qualify as NFA-regulated short-barreled rifles.

Continue reading “”

Missouri court considers if cities can regulate how guns are stored in parked cars

The city of St. Louis was a state appeals courtroom on Thursday arguing for the right to require gun owners who want to leave their firearms in unattended vehicles to put them in a lock box.

Last July, a judge struck down a 2017 St. Louis ordinance that required gun owners to use lock boxes if they wanted to leave firearms in unattended vehicles, saying that it violated Missouri’s law banning local gun regulations. The city of St. Louis appealed.

A Missouri appeals court is weighing whether the city of St. Louis can require gun owners to lock up their firearms if they want to leave them in an unattended parked vehicle.

The city passed its lock-up requirement in 2017, in response to a rash of cases in which guns stolen from cars were later used in crimes. In 2024, St. Louis resident Michael Roth had his gun stolen from the middle console of his locked car while he attended Mass at the Cathedral Basilica in the Central West End. When he reported the theft to police, he was cited for failing to keep the weapon in a locked box.

Though city prosecutors dropped the case, Roth sued. He argued they could issue the charges again and had also filed similar cases against other gun owners, in violation of a state law that strips cities of most of their power to regulate firearms.

Circuit Judge Joseph Whyte ruled in favor of Roth last July. The city appealed. Oral arguments were Thursday.

Attorneys for the city and for Roth agree that state law places limits on local gun regulations. But they disagree about the extent of those limits.

The state law in question has two key subsections. The first says the General Assembly “occupies and pre-empts the entire field of legislation touching in any way firearms, components, ammunition and supplies to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by any political subdivision of this state.”

A second subsection says local political subdivisions cannot pass any regulations on “the sale, purchase, purchase delay, transfer, ownership, use, keeping, possession, bearing, transportation, licensing, permit, registration, taxation other than sales and compensating use taxes or other controls on firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies.”

Roth’s attorney, Matt Vianello, told the court it was the broader first subsection that set the limits on what’s legally known as preemption — where a higher level of government sets limits on a lower level of government. Judges, he said, have to look at the plain language of the law to determine how far the General Assembly intended it to go.

“Their intent is clear: uniform firearm legislation throughout the state, so that you don’t have a hodgepodge of regulation just because you cross Skinker Boulevard coming into the city of St Louis,” Vianello said.

Nathan Puckett, an attorney for the city, told the court that the second subsection — which lists specific categories — was where the judges should look to decide the validity of the ordinance.

“The problem with looking to subsection one is that legislation ‘touching in any way firearms’ is not a specific area of legislation at all,” he said. “It is so general as to be nearly unlimited,” he said. Therefore, the court needs to look to subsection 2, which outlines specific areas like transportation and taxation.”

The city’s ordinance, Puckett said, dealt solely with the storage of firearms, which is not something on the list. Therefore, he said, it remains valid and the city should be allowed to enforce it.

Vianello disagreed with that analysis. Requiring someone to lock up a gun if they want to leave it in their car in the city, he said, regulates the transportation and possession of guns by making a person choose whether or not they bring their gun into the city if they don’t have a lock box.

The court will rule at a later date.

Iran Proves Value of our Second Amendment

It is estimated that Iranian police, military and paramilitary forces have murdered more than 36,000 unarmed citizens in the past few months. No one will know the actual number until after the current regime falls.

Some of the victims were simply protesting. Others were murdered because they were caught outside, so their killings were convenient for the government’s henchmen.

Not a single member of the Iranian police, military or paramilitary forces has been arrested much less charged for even one of the 36,000 killings—not a single one.

The current Iranian regime has said very little about the thousands of deaths, but everyone knows the reason. Thirty-six thousand Iranians were murdered simply to make a sick point: Obey the current government or you’ll be shot in the street like a dog.

Iran has no real constitution, much less anything even close to our Second Amendment, so the victims had no chance of fighting back. Personal firearms were seized by the government decades ago.

As a result, the Iranian people became unarmed sheep up against the government’s heavily armed wolves. They stood no chance despite their valor and the righteousness of their cause.

These reprehensible killings can be difficult for many Americans to understand, especially those who don’t fully understand the protections brought by our Second Amendment.

As it stands now in free states, the government cannot order you to turn in your guns and trust that nothing bad will ever happen. This would never happen in Florida, Texas, Mississippi or any other free state, right?

Unfortunately, an anti-gun cancer is spreading across the country, especially in states that were never thought susceptible.

Virginia Democrats just sent a massive collection of anti-gun bills to their governor, but the authors exempted themselves from any legal issues.

“The provisions of this section shall not apply to any member of the General Assembly,” they wrote, ensuring that Democratic lawmakers don’t lose their Second Amendment rights.

Other bright-blue states are following suit. Look at their unconstitutional bills. Almost every single one bans the one weapon and its accessories that gives its owner a fighting chance to defend themselves and their family—the ArmaLite Rifle or AR.

The left’s leadership is solely responsible for all of these unconstitutional bills. They want us spending time and money fighting against legislation that was clearly unconstitutional when it was written, much less signed into law. It’s better that, they believe, than proposing our own pro-gun bills. They don’t care that millions of law-abiding gun owners will become criminals—in some states even felons—once the bills become law.

Our Second Amendment protections have been in place for more than 238 years, but anti-gun politicians simply do not care. It remains the only amendment treated with such blatant disrespect by elected officials who took an oath to support and defend the entire Constitution.

I cannot help but wonder what just one of the 36,000 Iranians would say about our current saga, if one of them were still alive. I am pretty confident they would support an individual’s right to keep and bear arms regardless of their political beliefs, because it provides the ability to defend oneself against tyranny in any form, especially from illegitimate politicians who would knowingly arrest or endanger their own constituents if that’s what their political party tells them to do.

Judge Denies DOJ Request to Limit Injunction on Post Office Carry Ban

In June, 2024 the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on firearms in U.S. postal facilities. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs last September, but the DOJ has tried to keep that ruling on hold while it appeals to the Fifth Circuit.

The appellate court denied the DOJ’s request back in January, but at that point the DOJ had also settled on a secondary strategy; asking O’Connor to limit the scope of the injunction so that it would only cover those who were FPC and SAF members at the time the lawsuit was filed. Since late October, the two sides have been filing back-and-forth briefs on the DOJ’s request, and today O’Connor handed down his decision.

O’Connor’s decision covers present and future members of Second Amendment Foundation as well. From today’s order:

The Government asserts that the Court’s injunctive relief should be limited only to individuals who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) and the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) as of June 18, 2024—the date Plaintiffs filed their complaint—because FPC and SAF “did not have standing to represent and obtain relief for members who did not yet exist.”

The Government argues that to obtain relief for members who join after June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs should have sought class certification. Otherwise, the Government argues, nearly any organization could evade the Supreme Court’s prohibition of nationwide injunctions in Trump v.CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 861 (2025) by using associational standing as a “backdoor way” to grant universal injunctions.

But despite its arguments, the Government has not provided, and the Court has not found, a case limiting injunctive relief to only those members of an association at the time a lawsuit is filed. And while Plaintiffs could have sought class certification, they apparently also relied instead on associational standing—which the Government seemingly agrees they have in some form.

The DOJ’s attempt to limit the scope of the injunction has less to do with the 2A issues involved in the case and much more to do with its concern about nationwide injunctions in non-2A cases dealing with, say, immigration efforts. The DOJ can’t really argue that some broad injunctions are okay but others are not, so this is at least a consistent position on the part of the Trump administration.

Of course, there’s nothing requiring DOJ to continue to defend the carry ban in postal facilities either. The administration could simply drop its appeal and let O’Connor’s decision stand. It could also voluntarily rescind the ban of its own accord… and I’d argue that’s exactly what the Trump administration should do now.

So what are the real world implications here? It sounds to me like all current FPC and SAF members are covered by the injunction, which means that they should be allowed to carry in postal facilities (as customers, not as employees). I would suggest having something identifying you as a member if you do so, though, and be prepared to explain the contours of the lawsuit and Judge O’Connor’s decisions to those public-facing employees who have no idea that the injunction is in place.

GOA:
WV: Setting the Record Straight on SB 1071

In recent days, West Virginia Senate President Randy Smith released a public statement regarding SB 1071, the Public Defense and Provisioning Act. His comments have created confusion about the bill’s drafting, legality, and level of expert review.

It is essential that West Virginians have the full and accurate factual record. Many of the claims made about SB 1071 do not reflect the truth, and the following information provides a clear, fact-driven response based on verifiable legal authorities and documented expert analysis.

A Bill with Momentum — and an Unexpected Intervention

The fight for modern firearms equality began in early February. West Virginia made national history when it became the first state in America to introduce legislation authorizing the lawful sale of post-1986 machine guns under the federal carve-out in 18 U.S.C.922(o)(2)(A).

SB 1071 immediately ignited excitement among legislators, industry leaders, and grassroots supporters. Other states quickly took notice—several have already copied West Virginia’s language, and more are preparing to introduce their own versions.

A flash poll conducted by Gun Owners of America showed overwhelming enthusiasm among West Virginians, with 94 percent saying their out-of-state family and friends would be more likely to move to West Virginia if this bill became law. The momentum was real, and the nation was watching.

SB 1071 was introduced by Senator Chris Rose, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the committee advanced the bill with overwhelming support. But immediately after that vote, the bill seemed to vanish.

Chairman Tom Willis, who had reported the bill out of Judiciary, was himself confused about why it had not moved to the Finance Committee as expected. This unusual stall prompted West Virginians across the state to begin calling their Senators, demanding Sen. Chris Rose (left), sponsor of SB 1071, stands with Senate President Randy Smith.
answers about what had happened to a bill that had just passed committee with overwhelming support.

In response to the growing public concern, Senate President Randy Smith publicly stated that he personally made the decision to halt SB 1071, clarifying that the choice did not come from Chairman Willis or the Judiciary Committee. This admission dramatically shifted the understanding of events. What many initially believed to be procedural delay within Judiciary now appeared to be a direct intervention from Senate leadership.

Additionally, several advocates and legal experts have raised serious concerns that President Smith may have been relying on information provided by an outside individual who strongly opposed SB 1071 and may have misrepresented key legal facts about the bill.

According to these observers, this misinformation appears to have played a significant role in shaping the Senate President’s decision—ultimately stopping a bill that had strong public support, clear legislative interest, and validation from some of the most respected constitutional attorneys in the country.

This context is essential for understanding how SB 1071 was derailed and why an accurate factual record matters as West Virginians evaluate what happened and determine the path forward.

Continue reading “”

New Court Split Could Force Supreme Court to Decide Magazine and AR-15 Ban Cases

The legal fight over so-called “large capacity” magazine bans and semi-automatic rifle restrictions may be heading straight toward the U.S. Supreme Court. A new round of filings from some of the nation’s most experienced constitutional litigators has added serious momentum to that possibility.

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner explains the significance of newly filed supplemental briefs in two major Second Amendment cases. Those filings argue that a fresh appellate court ruling has created the kind of legal conflict the Supreme Court typically requires before stepping in.

Attorneys representing gun owners in Duncan v. Bonta and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz have now filed supplemental briefs at the Supreme Court pointing to a critical development.

The filings cite the recent decision in Benson v. United States, where the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled that the District’s ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds violates the Second Amendment.

That decision directly conflicts with rulings from other courts that have upheld similar bans. In particular, the federal Ninth Circuit previously allowed California’s magazine ban to stand in Duncan v. Bonta, while the Washington Supreme Court upheld its state’s restrictions in Gator’s Custom Guns v. Wentz.

This disagreement between courts is known as a “split of authority,” and it is one of the primary triggers that pushes the Supreme Court to grant review. When different courts interpret the Constitution in conflicting ways, the justices often step in to settle the matter once and for all.

According to the new briefs, that moment may have arrived.

The ruling in Benson did more than simply strike down Washington D.C.’s magazine restrictions. The court issued a detailed opinion explaining that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are commonly owned and widely used for lawful purposes.

Under the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The D.C. court concluded that bans on commonly owned magazines do not meet that test.

In other words, the court found that these magazines fall squarely within the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment.

Continue reading “”

Virginia’s Democrat Senate Majority Leader on Why Their ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban and Magazine Capcity Limit Really Isn’t a Big Deal

If you have an assault rifle, you can keep it. If you have an assault pistol, if you have one of these pistols with a silencer on it and a pistol grip in the front. A really big, big pistol…you want to have one with a telescope on it or lasers or whatever else you want, that’s okay. You just can’t buy a new one and you can’t sell it to anybody. If you want to have a magazine with more than 15 bullets, you can keep that, too. You just can’t buy a new one.

— Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell

It’s easy to tell when a politician favors state power over the rights of the people

Wyoming Governor Vetoes Second Amendment Protection Act

For the second year in a row, Wyoming Gov. Mark Gordon has vetoed legislation aimed at preventing law enforcement from enforcing federal gun laws. Gordon’s veto was hardly unexpected, given that last week he called the proposed amendments to the state’s Second Amendment Protection Act an “embarrassment” and described it as fundraising disguised as legislation.

Gordon, who vetoed a similar bill last year, cast it as an affront to local law enforcement during the radio show.

“So, when you have 23 sheriffs come in and say, ‘This Second Amendment protection act does nothing more than what we already have in law, except it imposes penalties on our local law enforcement — and criminal charges, potentially.’ That is devastating,” Gordon said.

He continued: “It’s a bill that’s brought from out-of-state interests. It’s a fundraising thing. And I’m sick of Wyoming people being used as, you know, some treasure trough, some well of funding.”

Gordon’s veto drew condemnation from groups like Firearms Policy Coalition, which had some choice words for the governor in response to his post on X about rejecting the legislation.

Gordon may enjoy the taste of shoe leather, but it’s also worth noting that just like last year, this session’s SAPA bill was heavily pushed by Wyoming Gun Owners, one of multiple groups run by the Dorr brothers, who bill their groups as “no compromise” organizations but have been accused of primarily using the Second Amendment as a grift by politicians and other 2A activists (Incidentally, the Dorrs also set up a 501(c)3 called Six Brothers Disaster Relief, Inc. that had its non-profit status revoked by the IRS in 2022 after failing to file its Form 990 disclosures three years in a row).

While Gordon may be right about Wyoming Gun Owners’ real mission, though, this years SAPA bill did get majority support in both chambers… including buy in from the handful of Democrats in the legislature,

Continue reading “”

“blast radius”

D.C. Claims Chaos Will Ensue if Magazine Ban Disappears

Last week a three-judge panel on the D.C. Court of Appeals (which is the highest local court in the District) ruled the District of Columbia’s ban on ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. These magazines are “arms”, the court concluded, and they are unquestionably in common use for lawful purposes, which means that they’re protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Now the District of Columbia is hoping to reverse that decision through an en banc review, and is asking the Court of Appeals to keep the ruling from taking affect while it appeals.

In its request, the District claims that the panel’s decision “has created uncertainty and chaos” and that the “blast radius of the decision is potentially massive”, arguing that the opinion also impacts “exceedingly common charges governing unlicensed and unregistered firearms.”

I think D.C.’s licensing and registration requirements are equally unsound from a constitutional perspective, but there’s nothing in the panel’s decision that impacts those statutes. The opinion released by the court deals exclusively with the District’s prohibition on commonly owned magazines, and the only uncertainty resulting from the decision is whether or not the ban is still actively being enforced.

The U.S. Attorney’s office has already declined to pursue charges against any legal gun owner caught with a “large capacity” magazine, though the D.C. Attorney General’s office has continued prosecuting possession cases.

The D.C. Court of Appeals hasn’t granted the District’s request, but the opinion will likely remain on hold while the en banc review is being considered. The court has set an expedited briefing schedule that will conclude next Wednesday, and a decision on granting or denying the en banc request could come by the end of next week.

There’s an easy way to ensure there’s no confusion over the panel’s decision: let it stand and take effect.

Continue reading “”

Senate President Responds To Criticism Of Bill Killed ‘In The Dark’

Senate President Randy Smith, R-Preston, responded Friday to criticism from the chamber floor about the lack of action on legislation loosely referred to as “the machine gun bill.”

Senate Bill 1071 would have created the state’s Office of Public Defense, to require the West Virginia State Police to sell machine guns to qualified citizens of the state. There was no fiscal note attached to the bill and it stipulated that the state police would have to take on this responsibility with no additional staff. The bill was approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee, but never made it to the chamber floor.

Sen. Laura Chapman, R-Ohio, was openly angered.

“It was killed without transparency and without consensus,” Chapman said Tuesday on the Senate floor. “The decision was made in the dark, despite the fact that this bill had overwhelming support by this body. This is exactly why the public doesn’t trust politicians.” 

Smith said in a statement Friday that he alone decided not to take the bill up and said he did so without reservation. He called it a “poorly drafted piece of legislation” that was unlikely to pass the House of Delegates and would face numerous legal challenges if it did.

“With an issue as critical as the protection of our Second Amendment rights, we must ensure the legislation we pass will survive legal challenge. This would not have,” Smith said.

“My record with the NRA (National Rifle Association) and WVCDL (West Virginia Citizens Defense League) is unquestioned, and West Virginians unquestionably trust the judgment of these groups on Second Amendment issues. And, further, I trust them,” he added.

He said the behavior of an out-of-state group behind the bill had been disappointing but welcomed the Gun Owners of America to consider legislation next year – preferably earlier in the session.

California’s Anti-Gun AG Wants to Dictate Law to Rest of Nation

California Attorney General Rob Bonta is a piece of work. We thought Kamala Harris was bad in that role, but the truth is that Harris was always going to be held back by her inability to form actual sentences.

Bonta, though, can. Unfortunately, he uses those actual sentences to repeatedly attack the rights of law-abiding Americans.

His latest target, though, isn’t someone within his own state. He’s going after people who engage in perfectly legal activity elsewhere, all because some Californians break the law.

A lawsuit filed by Calif. Att. Gen. Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu is targeting the Gatalog Foundation Inc. and CTRLPEW LLC.

California claims that Gatalog and CTRLPEW are providing prohibited persons with plans to make “ghost guns” (3D printed firearms without serial numbers).

Matthew Larosiere, who is an attorney in Florida and is loosely connected to hobby gunsmiths via Gatalog, is one of the people California is suing. He explains in this video interview that what they call “Gatalog” is just hobbyists who found each other on the internet. They are not selling guns. They are talking about and toying with concepts for guns digitally.

“If California can regulate access to the instructions,” said Larosiere. “Not just by California, but with this lawsuit, [then] what they’re saying is they want to regulate the entire internet worldwide. That would mean that you’d be cut off at the heels from making a gun at home. And I think most of us can agree that if you have a right to keep and bear something, it necessarily subsumes the right to acquire it.”

When asked about Gatalog, Larosiere explained that it is not a group “like the NRA. There’s no member that has a card; there’s no board of directors; there’s no nothing. It’s kind of just a group of hobbyists associating around an idea. And the idea is home gunsmithing.”

In other words, Bonta wants to shut down access to this information, not just for people in California, but throughout the nation. If we can’t share the information freely, then it might as well not exist from a lawful perspective.

But it should be remembered that files are just computer code, and computer code has long been ruled as a form of speech.

As I wrote about on Wednesday, we don’t stifle access to The Anarchist Cookbook or P.A. Luty’s book on making your own submachine gun with things you can get from Home Depot. Those books contain information every bit as deadly as what one might find in 3D printing files, if not more so, and yet, as books, you cannot lawfully ban them.

Bonta is taking it a step further, though, by attacking everyone who he can who shares this information via the internet.

He’s trying to use his authority as the attorney general of California to dictate to the rest of the nation what it can and cannot do with regard to 3D printing guns.

As it is, California has a long history of trying to dictate to the country what it should and shouldn’t do. They create standards that industries are obliged to follow, even if the rest of us want nothing to do with them, and we’ve accepted it because the companies are the ones making the decision to use those standards throughout the nation.

We don’t want it, but it’s easier for them.

This is different. This is them attacking our rights because they don’t want the American people to be able to do something they’ve already forbidden the small percentage of the population living there from doing.

If ever there were an example of statehood being a mistake…