Category: RKBA

Colorado Democrats Eyeing Ammo Restrictions in Addition to Semi-Auto Ban

While the constitutional abomination known as SB 3 has rightfully been getting a lot of attention as it makes its way through the Colorado legislature, it’s far from the only assault on our right to keep and bear arms under consideration in Denver this year.

On Thursday, a bill barring adults under the age of 21 from purchasing ammunition cleared a House committee, and could be up for a vote on the House floor as early as next week.

Though multiple courts around the country have shot down age-based restrictions that deny under-21s from keeping, bearing, and buying firearms since the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen back in 2022, anti-gunners in the Rocky Mountain State have been empowered and emboldened by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals, which declined to block the state’s law banning firearm purchases to under-21s last November.

In their decision overturning a preliminary injunction against the age-based prohibition, the appellate court bizarrely concluded that age-related purchasing restrictions fall outside the scope of the Second Amendment, leaving the door open to Colorado imposing a ban (however unlikely) on adults of any age purchasing firearms. As the Duke Center for Firearms Law (which typically loves it when courts uphold gun control restrictions) elaborated at the time of the decision:

After determining that at least one plaintiff had standing to challenge the restriction, the panel outlined the Bruen framework and the threshold textual step of determining whether the regulated conduct is protected by the Second Amendment.  The panel found initially that the plaintiff with standing was part of the “people” with the right to keep and bear arms and that the plaintiff intended to purchase a protected “arm.”

 However, the panel then noted the Supreme Court’s assessment in Heller that certain types of regulations are “presumptively lawful”—and it placed this inquiry in Bruen “step one,” implying that at least some of these laws simply don’t touch on “keeping and bearing” and thus don’t implicate protected conduct.  

While noting that Heller’s “presumptively lawful” paragraph was dicta, the panel nevertheless found itself “bound by Supreme Court dicta almost as firmly as by the Court[’s] outright holdings.”

It’s an utterly absurd decision, given that the right to keep and bear arms is rendered meaningless without the the ability to acquire one. The same goes for ammunition.

Without ammo, a firearm is a paperweight, or maybe a club. Either way, it’s absolutely useless for its intended purpose. But the Tenth Circuit has taken the position that  “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms are lawful extends equally to laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial purchase of arms.” The court went on to say that even under the Bruen test Colorado’s law is likely to withstand constitutional muster because setting the age to purchase a gun at 21 is “consistent with both scientific evidence on brain development and historical regulatory practice.”

Other courts have held that laws prohibiting members of the political community from exercising their Second Amendment rights cannot stand, and though the age of majority might have been 21 in 1791 and 1868, today it’s 18, which makes these under-21 gun bans inconsistent with the national tradition of gun ownership.

If HB 1133 does become law I’m sure it will face a legal challenge, but unfortunately, the Tenth Circuit’s illogic holds sway in Colorado. As a result, anti-gun lawmakers can feel at least somewhat confident that the appellate court will green light their ammo restrictions just as it’s allowed the ban on under-21s buying guns to take effect.

Let’s Understand What Maryland, Baltimore’s Lawsuit Against Glock is Really About

Glocks are among the most popular handguns in the country. They’re priced decently, run reliably, and just plain work. Police trust them as do numerous armed citizens. They’re everywhere.

And that bothers a lot of people. Now, though, Glock is being sued by the city of Baltimore and the State of Maryland, with the help of Everytown for Gun Safety, and let’s talk a bit about what’s really going on here.

First, let’s get into the official word.

In an attempt to keep fully automatic guns off the streets, Baltimore and Maryland authorities Wednesday sued Glock, the maker of some of the best-selling handguns in America. The lawsuit demands Glock take steps to prevent its guns from being modified into machine-gun-like weapons capable of firing 120 rounds in one minute.

Small, easily installed devices known as “auto sears” or “switches” that are growing more common have terrified law enforcement because they enable high-powered violence not seen since 1934, when Congress banned machine guns after their prominent use by mobsters.

But police statistics show the number of “modified Glock” shootings is on the rise, including an incident near a Baltimore YMCA in March in which a woman’s car was hit 18 times, and police found 41 shell casings nearby. In Philadelphia last year, eight high school students were shot in one spray, including a 16-year-old who was hit nine times. In Memphis in April, a police officer was killed and two other officers wounded in a firefight with two teenagers, one armed with a modified gun.

The lawsuit, filed in Baltimore City Circuit Court, is the first to test Maryland’s new Gun Industry Accountability Act, passed by the General Assembly last year to create liability for gun manufacturers and possibly circumvent an earlier related law. The Maryland lawsuit mirrors others filed in Chicago, Minnesota and New Jersey in recent months.

But here’s the problem: Glock doesn’t make the switches. They didn’t design them. They didn’t have anything to do with them.

Further, they’re illegal to make or possess–at least if you’re not one of the handful that has a transferable switch that was made before 1986 and is registered with the ATF. People are getting them left and right, but they’re not doing it lawfully.

What at least some are claiming is that Glock hasn’t redesigned its reliable handgun so it can’t accept a switch.

Yet they don’t punish Toyota because someone might modify one of their cars and circumvent emissions controls or something. Why would they?

But this isn’t really about full-auto switches or even Glock.

No, this is about making it as expensive as possible to be in the firearm industry and to offer products to the civilian market. Right now, this is the angle of attack they’re taking, but it will not end there.

The federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was created specifically to stop these kinds of nuisance lawsuits aimed at the gun industry, particularly when they’re being attacked for the actions of a third party. That’s what’s happening here. They’re trying to pretend it’s Glock’s fault and to get them to stop selling their guns in Maryland, but does anyone really think that would do any good?

It’s not like the people putting switches on their guns are going to suddenly decide they don’t want Glocks because they’re not sold there.

They’ll just get them from somewhere else.

But if enough states do it and enough companies get sued, they’ll either go out of business or just stop selling to private citizens.

You don’t need to control guns if there are no guns for anyone to buy, after all. That’s what this is really about. That’s the long game at work with anti-gunners, and they’re using anti-gun states to try and do it.

Make no mistake. Glock has done nothing wrong.

These two governments just don’t like the right to keep and bear arms.

What Trump’s Gun Executive Order Could Do

President Donald Trump has made his first move on gun policy.

Last Friday, he issued an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to undertake a 30-day review of executive branch gun actions and positions to ensure they don’t violate the Second Amendment. The order itself doesn’t tell Bondi what specific actions to take. However, it does outline a number of areas to focus her review on.

So, what might come at the end of those 30 days? Let’s break it down section by section.

First, it’s important to note that the president is fairly limited in what he can do unilaterally on federal gun policy. Without Congress, he can’t implement some of the top priorities of the gun-rights movement or undo some of the successes the gun-control movement had under former President Joe Biden–such as the reforms included in the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

There are seven areas the executive order tells Bondi to look at, but the first one basically just encompasses the other ones. It simply directs her to review “all Presidential and agencies’ actions” during the Biden Administration that “may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” From there, it gets a bit more specific.

Continue reading “”

When Money From Anti-Gun Billionaires Wasn’t Enough, Gun Control Orgs Went After Taxpayer Dollars.

Gun owners are getting exactly what they voted for with President Donald Trump. There’s now an accounting for government malfeasance in process and he’s turned up the receipts.

President Trump is delivering on his promise to break open the secretive spending habits of government officials. It’s exactly what voters wanted and, frankly, expected. The results, however, have been jaw-dropping. Gun control proponents have been smashing open the government piggy bank to swipe dollars for their pet gun control projects.

That’s right. Gun control advocates were using taxpayer dollars to fund their campaigns to rob Americans of their Constitutionally-protected rights to keep and bear arms. That’s adding insult to injury after the Biden-Harris administration installed a taxpayer-funded office dedicated to pushing gun control. It was staffed by a former lobbyist for Everytown for Gun Safety, the gun control group funded by antigun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. That office effectively closed up in the days leading up to President Trump taking office as its staff all resigned.

It turns out, though, that billions of Bloomberg bucks and even more money from George and Alexander Soros weren’t enough for gun control advocates. They wanted to fund the effort to cut off Second Amendment rights straight from Americans’ wallets – including tax dollars paid by gun owners themselves.

Lee Williams uncovered, in a post to Shooting News Weekly, what many have suspected for years. Except it had been covered up in layers of bureaucracy and farmed out as “grants” through the U.S. Agency for International Development. That’s the federal agency that’s drawn the first and damning examination by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

Continue reading “”

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Missouri GOP bills aim to loosen more gun laws.

Prosecutors say they would ‘make murder legal’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bill In Congress Would Outlaw Gun Taxes, Insurance Requirements.

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Ending the ATF Not So Fringe an Idea Anymore

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

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

But as time marches on, things change.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Trump Signs Executive Order To Protect Second Amendment Rights

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The site has already garnered high praise.

“Worth following @datarepublican,” said Elon Musk.

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

What Did Trump Promise Mexico’s President on Guns?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ORDER FILED. Lisa B. Fitzgerald, Appellate Commissioner.

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

This is both impressive and curious.

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Gun Owners Still Waiting on Pro-2A Executive Orders

President Trump must act on the Second Amendment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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