Category: RKBA

Gun Bans Aren’t Enough for Everytown, Giffords

My colleague Tom Knighton did a great job of poking holes in Everytown’s new “study” accusing some of the biggest gun makers of intentionally arming criminals and turning a blind eye for gun trafficking, but there’s another aspect of the anti-gun group’s report that we need to talk about as well.

In addition to pointing the finger at the firearms industry, Everytown also wants politicians to crack down on tech companies; specifically, those who manufacture 3D printers.

The gun control group claims that the seizure of 3D-printed guns increased by 1,000% between 2020 and 2024, though in the 20 cities they examined that accounted for just 325 firearms seized last year. In its report on Everytown’s “study,” NPR claims that these guns “recovered at crime scenes,” though ATF trace data doesn’t distinguish between a gun that was recovered at the scene of a homicide versus a gun that was traced as a “firearm under investigation” or a “found firearm”.

Everytown also claims that “while these guns are just beginning to proliferate domestically, they have already caused harm prominently abroad, where 3D-printed firearms have been used in military conflicts in Myanmar, by crime organizations in Europe, and in a synagogue shooting in Germany.”

What Everytown doesn’t say is that the 3D-printed guns used in military conflicts in Myanmar are generally used by those resisting the military junta that seized power several years ago. I can understand why Everytown would like to ignore the fact that these guns are helping pro-democracy forces resist government tyranny, but the truth is that 3D-printed guns, like their mass-produced counterparts, are still inanimate objects that can be used for both good and evil.

Several blue states have already cracked down on home-built firearms, but those bans aren’t enough for Everytown and other gun control organizations. They want to see printer controls as well.

Gun control advocates say there are strategies to regulate the printing of these firearms. Companies that make 3D printers could develop algorithms to block the printing of firearms, for instance, or states could make it illegal to publish blueprints for 3D printing a gun.

“I think what makes sense is to explore all of (the strategies) right now, to have every approach and push it forward,” [Giffords Law Center Legal Director David] Pucino said, “because this is such a new area and it’s such a concerning threat.”

When you’re intent on shredding the Second Amendment, I suppose it’s not a big deal to infringe on our First Amendment rights as well.

Make no mistake, what Pucino is calling for is criminalizing speech. If the gun control groups had their way, we could be criminally charged and imprisoned simply for disseminating lines of code. Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of Justice established more than twenty years ago that code is speech protected by the Second Amendment, so when Pucino says that states could make it illegal to publish codes used for 3D printing gun parts he is talking about putting people in prison for exercising their First Amendment rights.

The Anarchist’s Cookbook contains recipes for making explosives and illegal drugs, yet it remains available for sale in the United States and can be found online as well. If that is protected speech, then lines of code that can be used to help build a gun protected by the Second Amendnment clearly can’t be banned or made illegal.

Pucino might hate this fact, but home-built guns are a part of the national tradition of gun ownership in this country and are generally protected by the Second Amendment. 3D printing undoubtably makes it easier to build a gun at home, but advances in technology don’t cancel out our constitutionally protected rights.

The gun control lobby has become increasingly aggressive in its attempts to infringe on the First Amendment rights of gun owners and the firearms industry. California, for instance, passed a law that prohibited firearm advertising that “reasonably appears to be attractive” to minors that, thankfully, was struck down by the Ninth Circuit as a violation of the First Amendment. It and other blue states have also adopted public nuisance laws that allow for lawsuits against gun makers and sellers over the language and images used in their advertising.

Then there are those efforts aimed, not at government censorship of gun owners, but pressuring private businesses to prohibit peaceable assemblies of gun owners like Friends of NRA dinners. Those efforts aren’t necessarily direct attacks on our First Amendment rights, but when anti-gun politicians join in the calls to shut down these events they arguably do infringe on our right to peaceable assembly.

The push to ban code shouldn’t be seen in isolation, but as yet another front in the gun control lobby’s war on the First Amendment rights of those exercising their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.

The Reality of Nationwide Gun Control
the math behind the policy

A mass shooting occurred at Brown University, in Providence, Rhode Island, on the evening of Saturday, December 13, 2025.

If you think the lesson of what happened there is that we need nationwide gun control, I want to persuade you of something uncomfortable but important: you really don’t want that.

I promise that you don’t, and if you keep reading, I think I can explain why.

I’ve been to that campus a couple of times, so I followed the news more closely than I normally would. And in the midst of the usual commentary, I started seeing a familiar argument repeated in various forms. The commenter would acknowledge that both the state of Rhode Island and Brown University itself already have very strict laws and rules governing firearms.

From there, the conclusion followed naturally: therefore, we need nationwide gun control. These local restrictions are said to be meaningless because a would-be killer can simply go to New Hampshire or Vermont and buy a weapon with ease.

I understand why this argument feels compelling. But before accepting it, we need to be honest about what “nationwide gun control” would actually require in the United States as it exists, not as we might wish it to be.

I want to address this argument, but not in the usual ways. I’m not going to invoke the Second Amendment. I’m not going to point out that people willing to violate laws against murder are not ideal candidates for obeying other laws. None of that.

Instead, I want to talk about the cold, pragmatic reality of what people who think they want nationwide gun control are actually asking for.

Continue reading “”

Mark Kelly: ‘Facts of Shooting Matter, to Some Extent,” But Gun Control Matters More

How in the hell did Sen. Mark Kelly become a Navy captain and an astronaut while being so mentally incompetent? I mean, both of those suggest a degree of intelligence, but Kelly sure has been saying a lot of stupid stuff over the last handful of years, and has been ramping it up into overdrive in 2025.

His previous antics are bad enough, and our sister sites have documented them aplenty, but now he’s talking about the issue that made him a senator. That’s right, he’s talking about gun control, which one would think he’d know about since he helped found one of the largest anti-gun groups in the country.

Unfortunately, he still managed to say some stupid stuff.

Host Anderson Cooper then asked, “We don’t really know anything about this shooter, nor the kind of weapon or weapons he used. How much would that information guide next steps in Rhode Island, potentially nationwide?”

Kelly answered, “Well, it’s all going to be part of the investigation. And those details do matter, to some extent, but we pretty much know how this works, Anderson. Places that have stronger gun laws have less gun violence. If you look around the country, that’s very clear. And countries that have stronger gun laws than the United States have significantly lower rates of gun violence. You travel anywhere in Europe or Asia, you ask anybody if they know anybody who’s ever been shot, and it’s really, really hard to find somebody. You ask that question in the United States, and my experience has been, if I’ve got a room full of people, I ask if anybody knows somebody who’s been shot, it’s about 50%, consistently.”

Let’s start with whether the details matter and to what extent.

Before we can even start to discuss anything about what happened at Brown University, we kind of need to know who the shooter was, how he got his gun, what kind of gun he had, what kind of magazines he had, how he’d been behaving recently, what his history is, and pretty much everything else.

As it stands right now, we know literally nothing. The one person of interest they arrested was released, which one would imagine they didn’t have much evidence tying him to the shooting. Of course, considering the criminal justice system in blue states lately, they might have just not wanted to ask for bail, but I’m a smidge skeptical that wasn’t the case here.

So, with that in mind, we know nothing at all. We don’t, as of this writing, have a description of the suspect, even. We have no clue who did this, but Kelly wants to talk gun control, even though we can’t even look and see what laws might or might not have been involved.

That is absolutely stupid all on its own, but Kelly wasn’t done.

Oh no, he has to double down on his moronic take.

See, while he’s calling for more gun control, this attack happened in Rhode Island.

Rhode Island has gun control laws that make New York look like Texas. They have some of the most intrusive gun control laws in the country, all of which Kelly has championed in some way, shape, or form across the nation. Those laws clearly did nothing at all, since this attack happened, so why is it so important we pass more of what didn’t work in the first place?

Now, onto the other countries thing. All I’m going to do there is point out that our non-gun homicide rates are higher than most of those nations’ total homicide rates, which means it ain’t the guns.

Finally, I have to wonder just what rooms the senator is walking in where half of all people know someone who has been shot. I’ve been in a lot of rooms where I’m the only one who can say that, and these are rooms with a lot of folks in them.

Further, when and where were they shot? How many of those who raised their hands did so because their cousin was shot in Afghanistan in 2015 or something? That kind of matters, you know?

And what about stabbings? Does he ever ask about those in Europe or Asia? I’m willing to bet that a lot of those folks might know someone who has been stabbed.

Regardless, this is about the United States and our laws and rights.

That’s what Kelly never seems to get. The Constitution he swore an oath to support and defend, protects our right to keep and bear arms. Instead, he’s ready to dismiss the facts of a case that we still don’t know, all because his agenda demands gun control, and who cares about details at a time like that?

I’m ashamed to have been in the same service with the man at the same time he was in.

Some good, but mostly bad news

BLUF
The real question is what will the Court do with the gun and magazine ban cases in the new year? We’re getting to the point in the Court’s term that any case they decide to take up would most likely be heard next fall.

Supreme Court Turns Away Challenges to National Firearms Act

The Supreme Court didn’t grant cert to any Second Amendment cases in its orders list released on Monday, but they did keep ahold of several challenges to state-level gun and magazine bans as well as several prohibited persons cases.

The justices also denied cert to a pair of challenges to the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles, as well as the appeal of a Pennsylvania father who was hoping to revive a lawsuit against a gun maker and gun seller holding them civilly liable for the death of his son.

Robinson v. U.S. and Rush v. U.S had drawn attention from a number of Second Amendment groups including Gun Owners of America and Second Amendment Foundation, which filed amicus briefs in support of the cert petitions urging the Court to take one or both cases. The groups obviously were hoping that the Supreme Court would declare that short-barreled rifles are arms protected by the Second Amendment, but also pointed out multiple flaws in the rationale deployed by lower courts in upholding the NFA’s restrictions.

The brief filed by GOA and a number of state-level 2A groups in Robinson, for instance, noted the lower courts’ description of the NFA as a “shall issue” licensing system akin to concealed carry regimes.

Continue reading “”

Fifth Circuit’s Suppressor Decision Could Gut Second Amendment Protections

Earlier this week a three-judge panel on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals issued its third ruling in a case dealing with a Louisiana man’s possession of an unregistered suppressor. Unfortunately, the third time wasn’t the charm for George Peterson, with the panel once again upholding his conviction, as it did in its original opinion in February and its first revised opinion in August.

This time around, the panel assumed without deciding that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, but ruled that the National Firearms Act’s taxation and registration scheme is akin to a “shall issue” concealed carry permitting regime and is therefore presumptively constitutional.

The panel essentially agreed with the DOJ, which, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has recognized that suppressors are protected by the Second Amendment, but still maintains that the NFA taxes and registration are constitutional. As the panel wrote in its unanimous decision:

The NFA provides that the ATF will deny a firearm-making application if the “making or possession of the firearm would place the person making the firearm in violation of law.” This is precisely the “objective and definite” licensing criterion held permissible under Bruen.

Further, we have no reason to doubt on this record that the NFA’s fingerprint, photograph, and background-check requirements are “designed to ensure only that those bearing arms in the jurisdiction are, in fact, ‘law abiding, responsible citizens.’” Peterson’s failure to make any showing as to how the requirement places an unconstitutional burden on his Second Amendment rights alone is dispositive.

It is not even clear he could claim that this requirement posed an unconstitutional burden as applied to him given his explanation that he failed to register because he “forgot” to do so. Finally, the NFA enforces its objective shall-issue licensing requirement through prohibiting suppressor possession by unlicensed persons, as did several of the “shall-issue” licensing regimes that Bruen cited approvingly.

The Fifth Circuit panel avoided any debate on the constitutionality of the $200 tax imposed by the NFA (something the DOJ has described as a “modest burden” on our Second Amendment rights) by declaring that, since Peterson brought an as-applied challenge and he never attempted to pay the $200 tax, the question is not germane to his case.

While the panel left open the possibility that other as-applied challenges to the NFA could be successful, the judges were pretty adamant that the NFA and its requirements are no different than a “shall issue” system for issuing concealed carry licenses. And since the Supreme Court hasn’t said anything about various arms enjoying different levels of protection under the Second Amendment, any restriction imposed on the purchase and possession of suppressors could be imposed on commonly-owned handguns, rifles, and shotguns as well… at least in the states where the Fifth Circuit has jurisdiction.

Those states are Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas, so I’m not particularly worried about any of them suddenly deciding to apply NFA language to semi-automatic handguns or AR-15s. If the Fifth Circuit’s logic is adopted by other appellate courts, though, it’s not difficult to imagine anti-gun lawmakers in blue states doing just that. We’re already seeing a number of Democrat-controlled states push for permit-to-purchase laws, so adding additional taxes and registration requirements to those statutes wouldn’t be difficult.

The DOJ has been criticized by 2A groups like Gun Owners of America and Firearms Policy Coalition for continuing to defend the constitutionality of the NFA. That is a legitimate concern, and the fact that DOJ is also acknowledging that at least some NFA items are protected by the Second Amendment could also wreak havoc on our 2A rights in statehouses and courtrooms across the country.

As I said, SCOTUS has never suggested that the Second Amendment has tiers of protection for various arms. So when the DOJ says that a $200 tax on suppressors is only a “modest” and constitutionally permissible burden on our right to keep and bear arms, anti-gun politicians (and jurists) can use that to argue that a $200 tax on so-called assault weapons, semi-automatic handguns, or even all firearms is equally compliant with the Second Amendment.

I think the Fifth Circuit panel took some care not to give anti-2A politicians any legal ammunition to that effect, but I’m afraid they’ve opened up a Pandora’s Box by stating that the NFA’s restrictions are no different than a “shall issue” system for concealed carry. Let’s hope that an en banc panel of the Fifth Circuit or the Supreme Court close the lid on this “logic” before the gun control lobby uses it as a cudgel to attack our 2A rights.

The Twisted World of Gun Control

Gun control advocates and Democrats inhabit a different space. Perhaps it’s another dimension or some kind of odd singularity. Whatever it is, it’s a fantasy, complete with all the trappings, in which facts are not only irrelevant, they’re squashed by whatever claims are made by the faithful.

We’re accustomed to unsupported (and unsupportable) claims, cynical appeals to emotion, and carefully crafted, mass-market propaganda. However, it appears some gun-grabbers, even influential ones, have succumbed to their addiction and actually believe what they say. They have embraced the elves-and-fairies lifestyle.

After Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller upheld Washington’s assault weapons ban* last month, Renée Hopkins, CEO of Alliance for Gun Responsibility, released a statement:

“This is another strong affirmation that our state’s gun violence prevention laws are both constitutional and effective. Assault weapons have no place in our communities, and Washington has been clear about that.”

We’re still waiting on the Supreme Court to weigh in on ‘constitutional’ but ‘effective’? This is obviously some new definition of the word not found in any dictionary — ever.

A report from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs covered violent crime from 2019 to 2024. The report compared the number of offenses and rate per 100,000 population for Washington state to the national stats.

Washington’s violent crime rate rose 8%; aggravated assaults rose 27%; and the murder rate soared 43%.

Compare those figures to the national rates: The U.S. violent crime rate dropped 6%; the rate of` aggravated assaults rose just 2%; and the murder rate fell 4%.

Red flag laws weren’t ‘effective’, either. In the five years from 2019 to 2023, the CDC reported the percentage of Washington suicides committed with a gun rose 7%.

In fairness, if Ms. Hopkins’ concept of ‘effective’ is an increase in firearm-related fatalities, Washington’s statutes are doing an exemplary job.

There was another notable aberration in September of this year. Following a tragic mass shooting in Manhattan, New York Governor Kathy Hochul sought to place blame on Nevada’s lax gun laws.

Hochul bragged about New York state’s gun laws and demanded Congress pass similar laws on a national basis.

Neither Hochul nor the media figured out that all those strong gun laws failed spectacularly. They not only failed to prevent the incident, but there’s also no indication that they impacted the killer at all. Despite this, she wants all Americans to be subjected to those same laws.

All that’s missing is Rod Serling saying, “Presented for your consideration…”

Ensconced in their little pocket of ersatz reality, gun grabbers believe nothing can stand in the way of their desired goals. Even the impossible is disregarded.

Ihlan Omar, the controversial U.S. Representative from Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District, was captured on video as she spoke to a group:

“We have more guns in this country than we have humans. So one of the things that is going to be important is to create a registry so we know where the guns are. We know when they go into the wrong hands when they’re stolen. And we can actually start a buyback program. I know that some of the Minnesota legislators have had that legislation and that’s something that we should be thinking about on a federal level.”

Her first sentence is irrelevant: We also have more Crayola crayons than people. Left to themselves, they pose exactly the same threat to public safety as firearms — or steak knives, hand tools, or Ford F-150 trucks.
From the second sentence on, Rep. Omar falls back on a popular gun-grabber fantasy: Federal gun registration. There are two obstacles in our world, but it seems they aren’t considered an issue in whatever dimension is occupied by the gun-control crazies.

First, a national registry of firearms or firearm owners is prohibited by federal law and has been since May 19, 1986. 18 U.S. Code § 926 says: “No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”

The second challenge will be much more difficult to overcome: Americans are not going to register their guns. Only a fraction of the estimated 400 million+ firearms owned by more than 80 million citizens are located in states with long-standing gun registration laws. Attempts to impose new, state-level registration requirements on certain types of firearms delivered ‘disappointing’ results.

Actually believing in gun buybacks indicates a ban fan’s addiction has entered a critical phase, urgently requiring an intervention.

When it comes to restrictions on the legal ownership of guns, control addicts and Democrats cling to beliefs less credible than the Easter Bunny. These strongly indicate there’s no point in future discussions.

On the other hand, there is a pressing need for us to rein in some rogues in Congress and state legislatures who have fallen to the lure of the unicorn.

Students Push New Gun Control Bill to Prevent Gun Theft

A group of college and high school students in Minnesota is pushing for a gun control measure aimed at reducing the number of firearms stolen from vehicles.
This comes after the Annunciation Catholic School shooting in Minneapolis earlier this year. The group is working with state legislators on legislation that would ostensibly promote gun safety, according to The Minnesota Daily.

“ The University of Minnesota and high school students are working together with the state legislature to target legal loopholes to improve gun safety in Minnesota schools.

Jenny Wen, a student at Columbia University, is part of a student-led policy group working with state Rep. Julie Greene (DFL), to draft a new gun safety bill for the upcoming legislative session.

“This isn’t about taking away anyone’s guns,” Wen said. “It’s about addressing the reality of gun theft, accidental access and impulsive violence.”
The bill would establish uniform requirements for securely storing firearms in vehicles parked on all school property.
It also extends those requirements to Minnesota State High School League-sanctioned events and removes a provision allowing principals to give individuals permission to carry firearms inside school facilities.
Fourth-year Matthew Smeaton said he remembers sitting on a school bus years ago when a tree branch scraped across the windows. A friend jumped, thinking it was gunfire.
“That always stuck out to me just because of how ridiculous it is that we have to live in a world where that’s a concern kids have,” Smeaton said.”
Wen explained that state law prohibits firearms at school events. However, people can carry firearms if they get permission from the principal. She argued that “there’s no legitimate reason someone needs to bring a gun to a school football game” and that “Just because something is technically legal doesn’t mean it’s safe.”
She noted that the bill they are working on will punish people whose guns are stolen and then used in a violent crime.
Between 2019 and 2023, almost 1.1 million firearms were reported stolen. This breaks down to about 200,000 each year, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF).
The Council on Criminal Justice revealed that by 2022, about 40 percent of reported gun theft incidents involved thieves stealing the firearms from vehicles. Only about 14 percent involved burglaries.
However, only about 10 percent of stolen firearms are used to commit crimes. Among those using firearms for nefarious purposes, 43.2 percent bought their weapon from an underground dealer. Moreover, about 20 percent obtained the firearm for the specific purpose of committing a crime. It’s also worth pointing out that 85.9 percent of those who possessed a firearm when they committed a crime obtained it from someone other than a licensed dealer.
These kids likely mean well. They are probably too young and uneducated to understand the problems with this bill — and gun control in general.
Yes, we definitely want to prevent people from stealing firearms. But blaming a victim of gun theft for a shooting or homicide unfairly criminalizes people. Moreover, it’s not going to save lives because criminals don’t follow the law.
If an armed individual strolls onto a college campuses with intention to harm people, they already know they are breaking the law. Students and faculty on these facilities who obey the law will be sitting ducks. We have seen this happen over and over again with school shootings and other types of mass gun violence.
Nobody wants to see people gunned down at a football game. But a more effective way to prevent this would be to use other security measures such as cameras, metal detectors, armed security, and other methods. Simply passing a law mandating that people lock up their guns a certain way isn’t going to cut it.
It’s also worth noting that if a student or faculty member has to leave their firearms in their vehicle, they are granting a significant advantage to would-be mass shooters. This is not going to keep anyone safe. In fact, it’s yet another example of how gun control makes people more vulnerable to bad actors. If these students want to prevent gun crime, they should focus on how to stop criminals rather than making it harder for responsible people to defend themselves.

Blaming Firearm Retailers for Crime Guns is Bad Policy – and ATF’s Data Proves it

New Mexico lawmakers are publicizing a new national report from Everytown for Gun Safety to justify new burdensome and suffocating licensing, training and fee requirements onto already heavily regulated firearm retailers. Their claim is that “three out of four guns found at New Mexico crime scenes were originally sold by a firearm dealer,” and that in nearly 90 percent of cases, someone other than the original purchaser actually possessed the gun — which they frame as evidence of rampant straw purchasing and lax gun retailers.

It’s a textbook example of how gun control groups and sympathetic policymakers misuse firearm trace data and gun control advocacy “reports” to smear lawful businesses while doing nothing to confront the criminals.

Everytown’s report, “The Supply Side of Violence: How Gun Dealers Fuel Firearm Trafficking,” leans hard on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) trace data and recent trafficking assessments to argue for more state-level licensing schemes, higher fees, inspection mandates and expanded civil liability for licensed retailers. New Mexico’s proposal copies that script almost verbatim. But after a close examination of what the ATF and the Department of Justice (DOJ) actually say, and the federal laws already on the books, their case for targeting licensed retailers collapses.

Continue reading “”

The DOJ Says It Will Challenge Unconstitutional Gun Policies. Maybe It Should Stop Defending Them.
The Justice Department’s litigation positions are at odds with its avowed intent to protect Second Amendment rights.

The Justice Department recently established a “Second Amendment Section” within its Civil Rights Division. On its face, that move is a welcome development for defenders of the constitutional right to armed self-defense—an impression reinforced by the alarm the new initiative has generated among gun control advocates. But the section’s mission statement raises doubts about its commitment to Second Amendment advocacy. So does the Justice Department’s ongoing defense of constitutionally dubious federal gun laws.

“I’m really excited about this,” Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Rights Division, told Fox News. “For the first time, the DOJ Civil Rights Division and the DOJ at large will be protecting and advancing our citizens’ right to bear arms as part of our civil rights work….As Attorney General Pam Bondi has said, the Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and I couldn’t agree more with my boss.”

Dhillon said the Justice Department will challenge obstacles to obtaining concealed carry permits such as “multi-thousand-dollar costs” and “unreasonably long delays.” Another potential target, she said, is state bans on “guns that should be protected by the Second Amendment” under “recent Supreme Court precedent,” by which she presumably meant “assault weapon” bans. In a recent Supreme Court brief, the government’s lawyers suggested that “cases involving state laws banning AR-15 rifles” provide good “vehicles for clarifying the appropriate framework for discerning what types of arms the Second Amendment protects.”

So far, so good. But the Justice Department’s description of the Second Amendment Section’s agenda should give pause to anyone familiar with the litigation inspired by the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified the Second Amendment test for gun control laws and cast doubt on the constitutionality of many longstanding firearm restrictions.

The Second Amendment Section aims to protect “the natural firearm rights of law-abiding American citizens and ensure that such rights to keep and bear arms will not be infringed,” the Justice Department says. “The mission of the 2nd Amendment Section is to ensure that law-abiding American citizens may responsibly possess, carry, and use firearms.”

That “law-abiding” qualifier does not appear in the text of the Second Amendment. Nor is it “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by Bruen. And taken literally, it excludes millions of peaceful Americans from exercising “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” which is in fact the upshot of policies that the Trump administration defends.

Continue reading “”

Governor Rhoden working with State Senator Crabtree to deregulate suppressors in South Dakota

RAPID CITY, S.D. (KOTA) -An effort is underway to deregulate suppressors in South Dakota.

Governor Rhoden and State Senator Casey Crabtree will be working to remove suppressors from the list of controlled weapons in South Dakota. Removing suppressors from the state’s controlled weapons list would still mean they are regulated under federal law and purchasers would still need to go through background checks on other measures. Rhoden’s office says however the step sends a message of support to further deregulate the parts at the federal level. South Dakota NRA State Director Brian Gosch says he agrees with that sentiment. Gosch added during a phone call on Tuesday, “Suppressors are all about hearing protection”

Rhoden told KOTA Territory News last week that he believed the federal government was heading toward deregulation and that South Dakota was taking the lead on the issue.

“It shows that we respect our 2nd amendment rights in South Dakota, and was really, the suppressors were vilified and shouldn’t have been on that list in the first place,” said Rhoden.

State Senator Crabtree and Rhoden both initially announced their own individual proposals before announcing they would work together on Tuesday. Crabtree said in a press release, “Thanks to President Trump and Republican Leaders, the One Big Beautiful Bill was a major win for gun owners purchasing suppressors. This session, we will update South Dakota law to reflect this Second Amendment victory.”

Crabtree was referring to the Big, Beautiful Bill’s removal of a $200-dollar tax stamp to purchase suppressors. That tax will expire next month.

One Common Link for Mass Killings Should be Eliminated, and It’s Good for Gun Rights, Too

It’s darkly humorous to me how often anti-Second Amendment types see some kind of gun control law as the ultimate solution to everything. They pretend that this law will stop mass shootings, regular murders, suicides, domestic violence, type 2 diabetes, conflict in the Middle East, and Christmas’s encroachment into the rest of the year.

It’s funny how often they try that crap, and how often the media pretends they’re hearing BS and mistaking it for brilliance.

But there is one little change that could be made that would reduce a whole lot of problems. I’m honest enough to say it won’t make them all go away, but it’ll help reduce a lot, including mass shootings.

It’s pretty simple, really. End gun-free zones.

In their manifestos, many mass murderers have explicitly said they looked for targets that had disarmed victims in them. Nevertheless, mainstream-media outlets often leave this fact out.

The Annunciation Catholic School murderer wrote: “I recently heard a rumor that … the Aurora theater shooter, may have chosen venues that were ‘gun-free zones.’ I would probably aim the same way … .”

Yeah, this is pretty common. Mass killers have often picked gun-free zones for their rampages. That’s part of why schools are such popular targets. It’s why churches are popular targets. A lot of shopping malls are gun-free zones, and those are pretty popular with this bunch, too.

And look what happens when someone has a gun in one of these places that’s traditionally gun-free?

The Greenwood Park Mall shooting ended with an armed citizen becoming something of a legend in shooting circles. He put down the bad guy in impressive fashion.

Yet he wasn’t quite as impressive as Jack Wilson, who put down a would-be mass killer before the little bastard knew what hit him with a headshot that limited the horrific incident to just a few seconds at a church in White Settlement, Texas.

Guns save lives.

Gun-free zones are a primary target for would-be killers, and it’s not just mass killers, either. More pedestrian criminals have no respect for the signs on the door. Hell, if they’re going to prance around armed even though they can’t legally have a firearm at all, do you really think a sign will stop them? Of course not.

Look, making gun-free zones disappear won’t make all of society’s problems vanish in an instant. Unlike the other side of this debate, I’m not delusional.

But I can say that it’ll go a long way in reducing the threat to some of the places where people are the most vulnerable. What’s more, it means we’ll have more cases like White Settlement and Greenwood Park Mall, at the very least, and it might…encourage some people to look for another way to achieve fame or infamy, whichever they’re after.

Guns aren’t the problem. They’ve never been the problem. They’re tools; tools with no volition of their own. They serve their masters regardless of whether that master is a hero or a villain.

So let’s stop treating them like they are and start empowering the heroes instead of making it easier for the villains.

Alabama Gets “F” From Anti-Gun Organization. Let’s Examine Why That’s A Compliment

Some anti-gun politicians tout their “F” grade from the NRA with a certain amount of pride.

That’s fine, because the NRA isn’t doing it for the benefit of people who will see that as a mark of respect. Their grades for politicians is really just a tool for passing along who tends to be pro-gun and who isn’t as a means to help folks who might not know. Not everyone can know every politician in Congress, even those of us who work in politics are hard-pressed to know even most members of the House and Senate, much less all of them.

But what about an organization like Giffords?

No, they’re not trying to help individuals. They’re trying to guilt states into working toward a better grade, and they’re doing it by using allies in the media to pretend the grade means more than it actually does.

For example, Alabama just got a big, old “F” from them, and AL.com is all a-twitter about it.

Alabama continues to have some of the worst gun laws and rates of gun death in the country, according to an annual report from GIFFORDS Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

The report ranked Alabama at 36 out of all 50 states in terms of its gun law strength resulting in an F on the overall scorecard, maintaining the same grade from 2024….

Scorecards are determined after experts analyze the gun laws of each individual state and assess how effective they are at reducing gun violence, the report says.

“Gun violence is the leading cause of death for children and young people in the United States — an unacceptable reality. Our country can do so much better,” GIFFORDS Executive Director Emma Brown said. “Alabama has some of the weakest gun laws in the country, earning an F on GIFFORDS Law Center’s Annual Gun Law Scorecard. It’s time for leaders in Alabama to step up and act to address this crisis.

Except that the laws in question aren’t any with compelling evidence of them working. In fact, literally none have been found to have really great evidence of being effective. The left-leaning RAND has admitted as much in its annual reports of gun control studies. There are a few that have some degree of evidence, but none are compelling.

Instead, Giffords does essentially what the NRA does. It makes its ranks based exclusively on how much a state toes the line with its agenda. States that pass Giffords’ priorities get higher grades than states that don’t.

Which is fine, of course, if that’s what they want to do.

However, it has absolutely nothing at all to do with the effectiveness of a given measure.

While Giffords at least makes an attempt at showing a trend for weaker gun laws leading to higher “gun death” rates, what they don’t show is that they don’t even try to account for any other potential factors. It’s a pure attempt at correlation, which uses a trend so as to exclude outliers as mere inconveniences.

So Alabama getting an “F” isn’t a terrible thing.

In fact, it means the state is respecting the Second Amendment, something that Giffords cannot and will not ever try to comprehend. The fact that the founders both swore oaths to defend the Constitution, then immediately turned against it tells us an awful lot about just how meaningless anything they say actually is.

Crime Prevention Research Center Releases New CCW Data

The Crime Prevention Research Center has released its annual report on concealed carry in the U.S.

By Dave Workman

Editor-in-Chief

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) has just released its 2025 Concealed Carry report, and while the numbers are down, the figure is deceiving because of the increase of permitless (“constitutional”) carry in 29 states.

The report acknowledges the number of permit holders fell by 0.59 million, for an estimated total of 20.88 million citizens who are licensed to carry. But the CPRC quickly notes, “The primary reason for the decrease is that permit numbers tend to drop gradually in Constitutional Carry states, even though it is evident that more people are legally carrying.”

Continue reading “”

Analysis: What to Make of New DOJ Second Amendment Section

The Department of Justice (DOJ) has announced plans to create the first-ever dedicated Second Amendment section within the agency’s Civil Rights Division. But thus far, the agency hasn’t been too eager to talk about it, and the reported rollout date for the new section to begin operations has already come and gone without any movement.
Officials from the DOJ only publicly confirmed the existence of the planned section for the first time on Friday night after more than a week of media reports.
“The 2nd Amendment is not a second-class right. After the prior administration’s campaign to infringe on Americans’ gun rights, the Justice Department is strongly committed to undoing the damage,” Attorney General Pam Bondi (R.) wrote in a social media post. “This unit within our Civil Rights Division will advance President Trump’s pro-2nd Amendment agenda and protect the right to bear arms for all.”
Details about the move were first reported by Reuters last week, though the plans for the new entity appear to have been months in the making. In a September interview with an alumni publication for her alma mater, Assistant Attorney General and leader of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon announced that plans for the new section were already in the works as early as this summer.
According to planning documents provided to Congress and obtained by Reuters, the proposed new section would be tasked primarily with “investigating local laws or policies limiting gun rights,” and it would carry out that work “using existing funds and personnel.” The documents also identified December 4th as the new section’s expected opening date.
However, the DOJ has yet to formally announce the new section beyond Bondi’s social media post, and it remains absent from the Civil Rights Division’s organization page.
The DOJ also has not responded to The Reload’s requests for comment on details about the new division.

Continue reading “”

Psychology Today Thinks Answer to Suicides is Gun Control Not, You Know, Psychology

Psychology is a fascinating subject to me. Understanding how the human mind works is something that I think is of the utmost importance, and we need to devote a lot of resources toward that. The fact that there’s a replication crisis in psychology isn’t evidence that the study should be abandoned, in my mind, but that we need to figure out what the problem is so we can get stuff right.

But psychology has more problems than being unable to replicate studies.

It seems at least some psychologists think that psychology isn’t all that useful in preventing things like suicides, apparently.

So, where does all this leave people in the U.S.? Do we continue to accept an increasing number of firearm suicides, homicides, and mass shootings as the cost of living—and dying—in America?

We don’t have to. Several steps can be taken to reduce gun violence in this country, particularly gun suicides. One is universal background checks. Another is implementing a 10-day waiting period to buy a firearm. A third is enacting “red-flag” laws that enable police and immediate family members to remove guns from people who pose a threat to themselves or to others. A fourth is requiring gun owners to store their weapons safely. A fifth is banning the sale of high-caliber assault weapons.

None of these takes away the existing weapons of responsible gun owners or prevents them from buying more handguns and rifles. None infringes on their rights to protect themselves, to hunt, or to shoot recreationally. Their purpose is to ensure that firearms are used safely, the same way that traffic codes exist for drivers to operate motor vehicles safely. Is that too much to ask?

Let’s look at the last paragraph first. That argument, such as it is, looks familiar. “We’re going to ban you from buying certain things, throw in a bunch of hoops and red tape, and make it as hard as possible for you to buy or own a gun, but we’re not infringing on your rights.”

But look at the second paragraph for a moment. Especially where it says, “Several steps can be taken to reduce gun violence in this country, particularly gun suicides. One is universal background checks.”

So, to prevent suicides, instead of psychologists doing their jobs, we should have universal background checks that wouldn’t do anything at all to reduce suicides? Seriously?

Now, I think I get what the author, John Bateson, is trying to get at when he follows that up with a 10-day waiting period. If you have a universal background check law, then people would be forced to wait the 10 days, no matter who they buy the gun from. But that’s me having to guess as to where he sees the relationship. He sure as hell did lay it out for anyone.

And I’d like to point out that every study I’ve seen on waiting periods impacting suicides has focused exclusively on “gun suicides.” They’ve never looked at the impact of waiting periods in comparison to the overall suicide rate. If 100 people kill themselves in Year A, 50 of whom use a gun, and in Year B, only 25 use a firearm, it’s not exactly an improvement if 105 people commit suicide.

They never look at that. I wonder why?

Before getting to this bit, Bateson outlines the response to mass shootings in countries like the UK and Australia, but he fails to note that all of them keep having mass shootings. While they might not be on the scale of something like Port Arthur, nothing before then was on that scale, either. The status quo being maintained after an outlier is far from proof that the gun laws work.

What really gets me is that psychology is the one science that has a chance of not just reducing suicides of all causes, but any mass murder as well. They’ll never eliminate them–nothing will, unfortunately–but they could reduce them significantly. Only, instead of doing that, they’re pretending the issue is that the gun laws aren’t strict enough.

This is why academia has such little trust these days. Instead of actually looking at their wheelhouse and focusing one what they can do within that context, they want to infringe on our rights and use their appeal to authority to try and facilitate that.

No wonder they can’t figure out why they’re unable to replicate any of their studies. That would require effort.

‘nonpartisan’
My opinion is that anything concerning the 2nd amendment can not be ‘nonpartisan’. There is no middle ground when it comes (as Justice Thomas called it) the unqualified statement: “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED”
I’d like to see the actual curriculum that is going to be taught. That being said, two of the three directors, Ashley Hlebinsky and David Kopel are well known for their pro-RKBA stances.

Dept. of Education to fund nonpartisan 2nd Amendment high school curriculum

The U.S. Department of Education has awarded the University of Wyoming nearly $1 million to develop what the college calls a “historically grounded” school curriculum on the Second Amendment. The university’s Firearms Research Center said the initiative will give educators nationwide tools to better understand the constitutional right to bear arms.

The two-year, $908,991 grant stems from the department’s American History and Civics Education Program tied to the country’s 250th anniversary celebrations. In September, President Donald Trump redirected $137 million to the program that’s directed by what The New York Times called organizations “closely aligned with the president’s Make America Great Again movement.”

The National Second Amendment Initiative’s aim is to give teachers sources, instructional videos and access to academics that the university said come from various perspectives on the lightning rod issue of firearms in America.

“Our project will honor the nation’s 250th anniversary by allowing educators to engage with the complexity and nuance of the country’s founding documents,” Ashley Hlebinsky, executive director of the Firearms Research Center, said in a release.

Because it’s not named as a role of the federal government in the Constitution, the Department of Education cannot force the curriculum on school districts. The restriction is also described in the 1979 law establishing the department. It can only ensure schools are obeying federal education laws like the Civil Rights Act and conduct the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Why Wyoming?

While the U.S. has myriad schools focusing on constitutional law, colleges and universities with a specific focus on the Second Amendment are far and few between. Beyond Wyoming, Duke University’s Duke Center for Firearms Law is one of the only major collegiate programs that focuses on firearms law, but not from a gun violence prevention perspective.

Wyoming’s law school positions itself as the “premier law school for practitioners who serve the legal needs of all those who produce, employ, own, and regulate firearms.”

What happens in the classroom?

While the federal government cannot dictate curriculum and states set broad educational requirements, the teacher still controls the classroom.

The National Education Association, the country’s largest teacher union, has long been outspoken on its advocacy for gun control laws.

In an issues section of the union’s website, the association focuses on school violence due to the country’s proliferation of firearms and advocates for laws that would place restrictions on gun possession and locations where they can be carried.

The union did not respond to a request for comment.

“technology changes, rights don’t”

Where’s My EMP Rifle? Why Tomorrow’s Anti-Robot Weapons Are Already Protected by the 2nd Amendment

If Elon Musk gets his way, Tesla’s Optimus robots and full-self-driving cars aren’t just sci-fi—they’re the next multi-trillion-dollar industry.

Musk is openly talking about humanoid robots doing factory work, replacing human labor, and rolling out in the thousands in the next few years. (The Times of India)

Put that together with weaponized drones, autonomous systems, and AI everywhere, and you can see where this goes: at some point, the threat to you and your family may not be a human attacker at all, but a machine—whether it’s criminal misuse of robots, hostile code, or a rogue state’s toys.

So here’s the obvious question almost nobody in the gun-control world wants to touch:

If the Supreme Court says the Second Amendment covers “all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” why wouldn’t a future EMP rifle or anti-robot weapon be protected? (Justia Law)

If the right to keep and bear arms is tech-neutral, then the logic of Heller, McDonald, Caetano, and Bruen doesn’t stop with muskets, Glocks, and AR-15s. It runs straight into the age of Tesla robots and directed-energy weapons.

Lets makes that case—and swat down the usual anti-gun talking points on the way.

The Supreme Court Already Answered The “But It Didn’t Exist In 1791!” Argument

The anti-gun side’s favorite dodge is simple: “If it didn’t exist when the Founders wrote the Second Amendment, it’s not protected.”

The Supreme Court has already burned that argument to the ground—twice.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court went back to founding-era dictionaries to define “arms” and found they meant “weapons of offence, or armour of defence” and “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” (Teaching American History)

That definition isn’t about flintlocks or bayonets. It’s about function: offensive or defensive weapons you can carry.

Then in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Court took the next step and hammered it home:

“The Court has held that ‘the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.’” (Justia Law)

That’s not vague. That’s not soft. That’s a straight-up rule:

  • If it’s a bearable arm—a carried weapon for offense or defense—
  • It’s presumptively protected by the Second Amendment.

Stun guns weren’t around in 1791. The Court said: Doesn’t matter. They’re arms.

So, if tomorrow there’s a shoulder-fired EMP rifle or some compact anti-robot beam weapon you sling like a carbine, it fits the same box:

  • Bearable? Yes.
  • Weapon? Yes.
  • In existence in 1791? Irrelevant under Heller and Caetano.

On text alone, that future tech starts in the protected column.

Continue reading “”