Category: RKBA

Virginia Gun Ban Lawsuit Argues Banned Arms Are Militia Arms

While four Second Amendment-based cases challenging Virginia’s semiautomatic gun and magazine ban are on hold pending a decision by a three-judge panel on whether they should be consolidated, another case, taking a different approach, is still “scheduled to be argued next Wednesday, June 17th at 9am,” Counsel for Plaintiffs Kenneth T. Cuccinelli stated in a June 10 “Non-client specific case update” email.

The Curtis v. Katz complaint, filed in the Circuit Court of the County of Spotsylvania, asks for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against SB 749 / HB 217 because  the “ban provisions of the Act  violate the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia.”

That’s where the important difference from the other challenges comes in:

“Plaintiffs challenge these prohibitions solely under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. They do not rest their case on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor on the individual right to keep and bear arms also embodied in Article I, Section 13.

Their argument is simpler and more fundamental: the militia clause guarantees the existence of a “well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” That guarantee is self-executing.

It necessarily presupposes that the body of the people may acquire and possess the arms with which they must be trained. The General Assembly cannot, consistent with that guarantee, prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.”

Simply put, as noted in the Statement of Facts, “The weapons banned by the act are the arms of the citizen militia.”

Along with the update email came a welcome bonus.

“The Commonwealth Attorney Defendant in our case, Ryan Mehaffey, filed a blockbuster brief in our case arguing that WE should get our preliminary injunction,” Cuccinelli informed. “It’s a good piece of work and a very pleasant surprise.  I’ve attached it for your reading pleasure (merged in the embed below).

While Mehaffey was named in the complaint because he is the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Spotsylvania County, it should be noted he is one of the brave Virginia prosecutors who has gone on record saying he will not enforce the ban. (While his brief is, indeed, “a good piece of work” his contention that “a sawed off shotgun is not protected because it does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” is historically arguable, as is what some of us might see as overreliance on limiting small arms to those that “are lawfully in common use today,” which suggests bans on machineguns and limiting developing technologies to the standing army would be consistent with Founding intent instead of potentially rendering the Second Amendment moot. That said, the brunt of Mehaffey’s brief is outstanding and educational.)

“I will let you all know if I hear anything about consolidation or our case schedule,” Cuccinelli advised his email recipients. “If you don’t hear from me, that means we’re still on the schedule above.”

Panic Setting In As Administration Moves to Bolster Americans’ Gun Rights Advance.

In the last 17 months, the Trump administration has delivered win after win for the nation’s most ardent gun-rights advocacy groups, chipping away at dozens of federal regulations. While many of these efforts target regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — the law enforcement agency within the Justice Department tasked with regulating the nation’s millions of firearms — the administration’s work stretches across the executive branch.

Supporters of tighter gun restrictions have pilloried the Trump administration, saying officials are acting recklessly and could endanger the public with a wholesale rollback of regulations. But gun rights advocates who portrayed the Biden administration as trampling on the Second Amendment have praised the current administration’s actions as a needed corrective.

Trump vowed on the campaign trail to be a pro-Second Amendment president and pledged that, under his leadership, “no one will lay a finger on your firearms.” He said he would roll back Biden-era ATF regulations and received the backing of the big gun rights groups.

Critics, however, have said that the Trump’s administration’s push to unwind gun regulations contradicts the president’s tough-on-crime political agenda. And, they say, the efforts could make it easier for potentially dangerous people to access firearms. …

[ATF general counsel Robert] Leider has been working on the regulations for more than a year. The plan had been to announce them July 4, 2025, at an Independence Day celebration, The Post previously reported.

But [Acting Attorney General Todd] Blanche has said the proposed changes took longer than expected to complete because lawyers had to scrupulously review them to ensure they passed legal muster. Justice Department officials expect them to face court challenges.

Because the Trump administration is making these changes through the regulatory process — and not by legislation passed in Congress and signed into law — the next administration could reinstate the scrapped rules. The goal, Justice Department officials said, is to ensure that the regulations do not run afoul of laws so that they can remain intact.

“We were very careful on how we did the rules,” Leider said. “Congress has decided that certain people cannot be trusted with firearms. ATF has to enforce those congressional judgments. It is not the agency’s job to amend Congress’s criteria in an effort to predict who will become violent.”

— Perry Stein in Inside the Trump administration’s rapid rollback of gun regulations

Congressional Candidate Brandon Herrera to Address GRPC in September

The Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) planning committee has announced that Second Amendment advocate and Congressional candidate Brandon Herrera will address the crowd at this year’s event.

Co-hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), the 41st annual GRPC is scheduled for Sept. 25 – 27 in Dallas at the Westin Dallas Fort Worth Airport hotel.

After pursuing studies in pre-law, Herrera started a small business in firearms manufacturing. Using his lifelong passion for firearms, he built his business, as well as a large social media following, accumulating over half a billion views using entertainment to promote firearm safety and Second Amendment advocacy. Herrera has become a leader in the industry and continues to work with pro-freedom groups both in the Second Amendment and America First communities and is an advocate for our military and veterans.

In addition to Herrera, other GRPC speakers include:

  • Robert Cekada, Director of the ATF
  • Robert Leider, ATF Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel
  • Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets YouTube channel
  • Joseph Greenlee, Director of the Office of Litigation Counsel at the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action
  • Kenyon Gleason, president of National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers
  • Shermichael Singleton, political consultant, television anchor, CNN analyst
  • Jeff Folloder, Executive Director, NFA Trade and Collectors Association
  • Chris Boeck, General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer at Silencer Shop
  • Fernando Nava, Second Amendment advocate and owner of Rusty Wheel Ranch
  • Cam Edwards, editor of BearingArms.com and host of Cam & Company podcast
  • John Petrolino, writer, firearms instructor, and author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on Basic Gun Safety & Use
  • And many more!

The full GRPC agenda is guaranteed to be packed with leading 2A experts, legal minds, and grassroots advocates – all working together to protect and strengthen our Second Amendment rights. In addition to GRPC, registrants also have the unique opportunity to take part in AMM-Con, Friday’s pre-conference event. Scheduled for Friday, Sept. 25, AMM-Con is a gathering of some of the top Second Amendment media who provide educational presentations about all things related to 2A media.

Visit SAF.org/grpc for registration and hotel information.

West Virginia Carry Reforms Improve 2A Rights for Young Adults

When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, West Virginia is by far the best Virginia. While Democrats in Richmond have imposed more than a dozen anti-gun measures on residents this year, the GOP-dominated legislature in Charleston continues to advance Second Amendment rights. As of last Friday, adults under the age of 21 can now lawfully carry without the need for a permit, making West Virginia a true Constitutional Carry state.

House Bill 4106 sailed through the legislature, passing the House on an 85-8 vote and the Senate 31-3. Still, the legislation had some critics during a public hearing earlier this year.

During a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting in March, Dr. Jim McJunkin said firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents in the United States. He said expanding permitless carry to younger adults creates concerns because of impulsive behavior, risk-taking and the potential for substance abuse.

Supporters of the bill argued that it applies to law-abiding adults and could help people protect themselves.

Art Thomm of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League told lawmakers that similar concerns have been raised during previous debates on the issue, but said the legislation applies to adults who follow the law.

McJunkin’s statistic is only accurate if you ignore every death of a child under the age of 1 and expand the definition of adolescent to include adults 18 and 19-years-old. In fact, as the Washington Post(!) reported last year, traffic fatalities are the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 1 and 15, not firearms.

Does that actually bolster McJunkin’s argument that young adults are too impulsive to exercise their Second Amendment rights? I don’t think so. Less than 1% of the population of adults under the age of 21 are going to be the victims or perpetrators of “gun violence,” and to me it makes no sense to strip away the Second Amendment rights of 100% of young adults in an attempt to reduce harm among 1% of them.

Targeted enforcement and educational efforts aimed at those young adults would be a much smarter option, in my opinion. I’d like to see West Virginia sheriffs offer free basic gun safety courses for new gun owners, including adults under 21. West Virginia is also a campus carry state, so offering those courses on the campuses of the state’s colleges and universities would be a good idea as well.

I’m not opposed to firearms training at all, but I don’t think that any right should come with a training mandate. Give these young adults (and other new gun owners) options to get educated and trained on the basics of responsible gun ownership and carrying, and many of them will take advantage of those opportunities. And in West Virginia, a fair number of these young adults have grown up in gun-owning households. They’ve been taught gun safety and responsible gun ownership from an early age, so they’re not just picking up a gun and deciding to carry it while remaining totally ignorant of the basic rules of gun handling.

HB 4106 is a big step forward, and one that’s all the more important given the regression in 2A rights taking place in neighboring Virginia. I applaud the West Virginia legislature and Gov. Patrick Morrisey for strengthening the right to keep and bear arms in the Volunteer State, and I hope that other states will soon follow their example.

On Building Guns, Difficulty or Ease is Irrelevant, Only Our Rights Matter

There’s been a push this year, especially, to try and step in the way of people who want to use a 3D printer to make their own firearms. Some states have banned so-called ghost guns entirely, but others are also trying to tell printer manufacturers that they can’t sell their products in those states unless they include software in the printers that bars it from making certain shaped parts entirely.

And, there’s a problem with that. Being able to make your own firearm is something Americans have been able to do since well before the Boston Massacre. It’s something we continued to be able to do until very recently. It wasn’t until a politician stood up before the press, panicking because “ghost guns” were a thing, and we just couldn’t have that.

A recent story I came across that was looking at the state-level restrictions on printers, though, started off by really kind of highlighting what the issue really does seem to boil down to.

For decades, making an untraceable firearm required specialized tools, technical expertise and hours of work.

Today, it can start with a downloaded file and a consumer-grade 3D printer.

As advances in additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing, make it easier to produce firearms at home, lawmakers in a growing number of states are pursuing new restrictions specifically for 3D-printed guns. That rapidly evolving category of weapons can be manufactured from digital blueprints and often lack serial numbers used by law enforcement to trace firearms.

The implication here is clear: these guns are way too easy to make for them to be permitted.

First, let’s understand something. Nearly a decade ago, I wrote about P.A. Luty and his wonderful little book that took fairly common tools and hardware store parts to build a submachine gun. It never required specialized tools or particular expertise. Hell, making an “untraceable” gun was as simple as scratching out the serial number, if we’re being honest.

Still, let’s also understand something else. At no point in time did the ease or difficulty in building a gun have any bearing at all on whether someone has the right to build a gun on their own.

As noted already, we had this right and the legal ability to exercise it for centuries. Many of the guns on Revolutionary War battlefields two and a half centuries ago were made in someone’s home workshop. They bought parts from gunsmiths, the ones they couldn’t replicate, then did much of the other work themselves to build rifles that were not just functional, but some are works of art.

While the skills to do so might not be as common today as they were then, it wasn’t considered some esoteric skillset, either. Many farmers and others in rural communities know how to work the wood, do some metalworking, and build themselves a functional gun with a few parts from the big city.

Over time, things get easier. At the time of the nation’s founding, farming was a small operation. Farms didn’t tend to have more cultivated land than the farmer and his family and/or farmhands could work. Weavers used small looms and made cloth by hand. Blacksmiths made tools and hardware like nails one piece at a time, taking up valuable time to produce products. Gunsmiths had to do much of the work for a single firearm one piece at a time, as well.

When the Industrial Revolution came about, it changed all of that. Suddenly, nails could be made in massive lots. Cloth could be woven by the mile. Farms saw mechanization that allowed a single farmer to handle much more acreage than he could have dreamed before. Things got easier.

The 3D printer has taken the concept of an individual being able to make his own firearm and, like the advancements of years gone by, made it easier for everyday people to take advantage of something that was always legal for them to do, and that is what really bothers the anti-gunners.

On the same token, though, that shouldn’t matter.

Do we suddenly decide that free speech is irrelevant now that we can easily communicate with millions with a few strokes on a keyboard? Does freedom of the press stop working because someone can create a blog or Substack at home in their underwear and become a journalist? Obviously not, and in that same spirit, the difficulty or ease of making a gun isn’t relevant, either.

And considering how few are used in crimes even today, that there’s no evidence that they increase crime, and that the Founding Fathers thought nothing at all negative about people making firearms for themselves, it’s well past time for these states to step the hell off and accept that our rights don’t stop existing just because they don’t like them.

At the end of the day, our rights are what they are. It’s up to states like California to learn to accept this as fact and move on.

Sometimes it makes you wonder if the DOJ’s Right hand knows what the Left hand is doing.

Supreme Court shrugs off DOJ appeal over gun rights for nonviolent felon

The Supreme Court refused Monday to step into a high-stakes battle over whether nonviolent felons can be banned from owning guns for life, letting a lower court victory stand for a Mississippi man who lost his firearm rights over back child support.

By declining to hear the Department of Justice’s appeal, the high court left intact a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court had overturned the conviction of Edwardham Cockerham, who pleaded guilty to violating a federal law that prohibits felons from possessing firearms.

Cockerham challenged the law after his conviction, arguing that a lifetime ban for a nonviolent offense violated his Second Amendment rights. U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho agreed, drawing a sharp distinction between violent criminals and debtors based on historical context.

“The Government analogizes failure to pay child support to theft. But during the Founding era, thieves were treated differently from debtors,” Ho wrote in the 5th Circuit’s opinion. “Thieves were subject to permanent disarmament. Debtors were not. Debtors could be imprisoned, and thus temporarily disarmed.”

Ho noted that debtors were released from prison once their debts were paid, adding that the government acknowledged Cockerham was no longer delinquent on his child support when he was caught with a firearm. “Cockerham’s conviction under §922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment,” Ho concluded.

The Justice Department routinely defends existing federal laws regardless of internal policy views, a standard practice highlighted by officials. Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, noted in an interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation that policy debates belong in the legislature.

“I understand people have policy differences with DOJ’s enforcement of federal laws, but, in my opinion, and I’ve said this to many gun groups, the appropriate place to launch those policy discussions is in Congress, not with us,” Dhillon said. “We have, I mean, not me, but other people in this building regularly respond to all kinds of litigation on behalf of the United States where I don’t necessarily agree with what we’re defending.”

Legal experts tracking gun rights cases viewed the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case as a potential signal of its current legal direction, particularly following its 2024 ruling in United States v. Rahimi.

“SAF was happy to hear the Supreme Court declined to review this case, as the Fifth Circuit reached the correct ruling: dangerousness must be the standard for disarmament, and many nonviolent felons are not dangerous,” Konstadinos Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation, told the DCNF. “That includes Mr. Cockerham, whose crime was failing to pay child support.”

However, Moros cautioned against reading too much into the Supreme Court’s procedural move.

“To be clear, the Supreme Court refusing to review a particular case does not necessarily mean the Court agrees with the lower court’s decision, so we should not treat this as definitive,” Moros said. “Still, it is a possible sign that the high court is sticking closely to what it decided in Rahimi — actual dangerousness is required to deny a citizen their Second Amendment rights. The upcoming ruling in US v. Hemani should shed more light on this.”

More clarity on the court’s stance may emerge soon. The Supreme Court is currently weighing United States v. Hemani, a separate case out of the 5th Circuit involving a federal ban on firearm possession by drug users or addicts. The justices heard oral arguments in that case in March, and a decision is expected shortly.

Here’s the official DoJ release:

Virginia judge shuts down universal gun background checks bill

A judge has shot down Democrats’ attempt to implement universal background checks for gun purchases in Virginia.

Virginia’s battle over gun violence prevention and gun control laws is as heated as it’s ever been now that the courts are hearing challenges to new laws passed by Democrats.

“It was a historical session for gun violence prevention,” said Del. Garrett McGuire, a Democrat from Fairfax County.

McGuire just had his universal background checks bill shot down by a judge in Lynchburg.

The bill required Virginia State Police to conduct background checks and provide criminal history records for private gun sales as well as restricting handgun purchases by teenagers.

Two gun rights groups, Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League, sued and won.

“One of the key reasons that the universal background checks law was unconstitutional is that it denied 18 to 20 year olds the ability to buy a handgun. Period,” said Philip Van Cleave with the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

More than 20 states and D.C. currently have some form of universal background check requirement in place, according to the Giffords Center for Violence Prevention. Virginia passed a similar law in 2020. A judge ruled against it in October.

Then the General Assembly passed a new version of the law this year. But last week, the same judge upheld their previous ruling, striking down the law.

McGuire said he championed this bill, in part, because he was a student at Virginia Tech during the campus shooting in 2007.

“Nineteen years later, I find myself in the House of Delegates still asking some of the same questions that we asked right after that shooting, including why is there a loophole in our code that allows criminals to purchase firearms?” he said.

Following the court’s ruling last week, Virginia State Police issued a notice saying the department was “prohibited from administering, enforcing, or otherwise imposing” universal background checks and that VSP “currently cannot provide criminal history background checks for the private sale of firearms.”

More than 90% of Americans support universal background checks, according to gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Chris Stone with Gun Owners of America said they’re unconstitutional.

“There’s instances where people need a firearm, and they get held up in a waiting period program,” he said. “Or even if there isn’t a waiting period, their name comes back as a false positive in the NICS system.”

When asked how can people with past violent offences or mental health conditions be prevented from buying guns if there’s no background check, Stone said, “Well, ironically what that shows is that the system itself doesn’t work.”

This likely isn’t the last legal action on Virginia’s universal background checks, and gun rights groups have more gun safety laws in their sights, with additional legal challenges on the way.

Virginia’s Democratic majority also passed an assault weapons ban that goes into effect next month. This Friday, gun rights groups are challenging that law in court, too.

Justice Department investigating Philadelphia for possible Second Amendment violations in gun permitting process

The City of Philadelphia and its police department are under a federal investigation for possible violations of the Second Amendment, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

The investigation is focused on the Philadelphia Police Department’s policies and practices for issuing and revoking gun permits, and the standards used to cancel permits to carry firearms, DOJ said in a news release. The investigation is being handled by the Second Amendment Section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

DOJ said Philadelphia police may be using a “good cause” standard — which the department called “vague, personal discretion” — when deciding whether or not to issue or revoke someone’s gun permit.

Where the investigation stands

Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to Mayor Cherelle Parker and other city officials, including Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel on Tuesday announcing the investigation.

The Second Amendment Section will seek to interview city and PPD officials, and people who have interacted with PPD in the past.

If the investigation finds the city committed Second Amendment violations, the city could then make a deal with the DOJ and establish a plan to remedy the violations, Dhillon wrote. If there’s no resolution, the city could face litigation in federal court.

CBS News Philadelphia has reached out to Parker’s office for comment, and we will update this story when we hear back.

What is the “good cause” standard?

The terms “good cause” or “proper cause” refer to gun laws across the nation that require applicants for gun permits to prove or demonstrate a need to protect themselves.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “proper cause” standard when it ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen — a case commonly abbreviated as “Bruen.”

Echoes of Joe Biden: James Talarico Says Second Amendment ‘Not Absolute’

During an appearance on the Unity Over Division podcast, U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico (D) echoed Joe Biden by saying the Second Amendment is “not absolute.”

Talarico said, “I believe in the Second Amendment just as much as I believe in the First. We have a right to bear arms to protect ourselves, our families. We have a right to own weapons for sport or for hunting. But like any freedom in the Bill of Rights, it’s not absolute.”

Breitbart News reported that on February 26, 2020, during a CNN Town Hall, Biden argued that the Second Amendment was not “absolute.”

He followed the Town Hall with a post to X in which he elaborated: “I taught constitutional law for a long time and here’s the deal: No amendment is absolute. There are limits.”

Talarico stressed what he believes are limits on other constitutionally protected rights as well. For example, he told Unity Over Division, “You have a freedom to assemble, to protest, but you need a permit.”

The First Amendment does not mention a need for a permit. Rather, the amendment says, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble …”

Democrats on Capitol Hill Introduce Ban on Suppressors

Signaling the agenda should polarity shift in Washington in the coming months and years, a group of House Dems has debuted legislation to outlaw suppressors.

Dubbed the Help Empower Americans to Respond, or HEAR, Act, the proposal would “ban the importation, sale, manufacturing, transfer, and possession of gun silencers or suppressors.”

Saying “Silencers are not tools of self-defense,” HEAR Act sponsor U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey Democrat, argues such devices “have no legal application,” and her proposal is part of “a common sense approach to firearms legislation.”

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS Keeps Hardware Bans on Hold, but Makes Interesting Move on Prohibited Person Case

Yet again, the Supreme Court’s orders from its weekly conference have been released with no news on any of the five lawsuits challenging bans on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines.

I still think SCOTUS is waiting on the Third Circuit to issue its en banc opinion in the challenges to New Jersey’s gun and magazine ban, which could create a circuit court split on the constitutionality of banning commonly-owned arms. As some have theorized, though, the Third Circuit could be waiting on SCOTUS to issue its opinions in Wolford v. Lopez and U.S. v. Hemani to see if those decisions will provide any guidance to lower courts.

Continue reading “”

SCOTUS 2A Decisions on Horizon; More Cases Waiting in Wings

By Dave Workman

Editor-in-Chief

Sometime between now and the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down rulings on a pair of Second Amendment cases which could have considerable impact on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and those who use controlled substances.

The cases are known as Wolford v. Lopez—which challenges a restrictive Hawaii carry law—and United States v. Hemani, which challenges the ban on gun ownership by persons who regularly use illegal drugs, including marijuana.

Reuters is reporting that Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, and is described as a “gun control advocate,” expects Hawaii to lose. The Aloha State currently requires property owners to provide “express authorization” to any legally armed citizen to bring their firearm onto private property which is open to the public (i.e. restaurants, supermarkets, shopping malls, etc.).

An affirmative ruling by the high court could nix, or greatly restrict, government designations of so-called “sensitive places” as a means of discouraging concealed carry.

In the Hemani case, Reuters heard from Darrell Miller, a law professor at the University of Chicago. He suggests the court might deliver a narrow ruling.

Waiting in the wings, according to the Second Amendment Case Tracker, are several other Second Amendment cases, including a couple for which the court has been essentially “kicking the can down the road” for several weeks, and their outcome could have a significant impact on restrictive state gun laws.

Chief among these are Duncan v. Bonta, a case out of California challenging California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines,” and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, challenging the Evergreen State’s ban on “large-capacity magazines.” Both cases have been essentially gathering dust, and it is likely the Supreme Court would consider both together.

An affirmative ruling would be a hammer blow to several states and the gun control lobby, which has a big stake in the outcome. Should the court take both cases and rule such magazines are protected by the Second Amendment, it would be an embarrassing loss to anti-gun politicians including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, the latter who has boasted frequently that he has never lost a case to the gun lobby.

Another case with sweeping implications is Viramontes v. Cook County, challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Illinois. If the court takes this case and rules on the side of the Second Amendment, it could remove similar bans in California, Washington, New York and several other states.

Similar cases are Nat’l Assoc. for Gun Rights v. Lamont and Grant v. Higgins, challenging the semi-auto ban in Connecticut. Lamont also challenges the state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Extract from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright

Monticello in Virginia. June 5. 1824.
…the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…

More Virginia prosecutors oppose gun ban enforcement

(The Center Square) – A growing number of Virginia prosecutors and sheriffs are publicly signaling they do not plan to enforce or prosecute certain violations under the commonwealth’s new assault firearms restrictions before the law takes effect July 1.

The expanding list of statements follows earlier opposition from several commonwealth’s attorneys after Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed Senate Bill 749 and House Bill 217 in May.

The law prohibits the future import, sale, manufacture, purchase or transfer of assault firearms and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Existing owners are grandfathered under the law.

Violations are punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor carrying up to 12 months in jail and fines up to $2,500. A conviction also carries a three-year prohibition on possessing, purchasing or transporting firearms.

Since The Center Square’s earlier reporting on the issue, additional prosecutors and sheriffs across Virginia have issued public statements, formal memorandums and joint letters raising constitutional concerns and signaling they may decline prosecution under portions of the law.

In Clarke County, Sheriff Travis M. Sumption and Commonwealth’s Attorney Matthew E. Bass issued a joint statement saying charges and prosecutions under the new statutes “will not be enforced in Clarke County against nonviolent offenders, where no other criminal conduct is alleged.”

The statement cited constitutional concerns, pending litigation and limited local resources.

In Warren County, Commonwealth’s Attorney John S. Bell issued a formal memorandum stating his office would not prosecute law-abiding citizens for the possession, purchase, sale, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or magazines that were lawful before the legislation took effect, pending constitutional challenges.

Bell also wrote his office would not devote resources to prosecuting charges brought solely under the assault firearms ban or related public carry restrictions.

Goochland County Commonwealth’s Attorney John Lumpkins Jr. similarly wrote that his office would “decline to initiate or pursue prosecutions” based on alleged violations of Senate Bill 749.

In Appomattox County, Commonwealth’s Attorney Leslie Fleet wrote in a public statement that he and the county sheriff were “in total agreement” they would not enforce the assault weapons and public carry bans because they believe the laws are unconstitutional.

Patrick County Commonwealth’s Attorney Dayna Kendrick Bobbitt also publicly raised constitutional concerns and cited prosecutorial discretion under Virginia law in a May 29 statement to residents.

Other prosecutors previously identified by The Center Square included officials in Powhatan, Spotsylvania, Pulaski, Smyth and Scott counties.

Democrats and statewide officials have criticized the pushback.

Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones previously said commonwealth’s attorneys are expected to enforce Virginia law when the restrictions take effect July 1.

“Gun violence is a key driver of violent crime, and the leading cause of death for young people in our Commonwealth,” Rae Pickett, a spokeswoman for Jones’ office, previously told The Center Square. “The General Assembly passed critical legislation to reduce violent crime and protect our communities and the Governor signed it into law. Commonwealth’s attorneys are elected to enforce our laws, which is what we expect them to do when these laws take effect on July 1.”

Multiple lawsuits seeking to block the firearms restrictions before July 1 remain pending in both state and federal court.

Gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, Virginia Citizens Defense League, National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation have filed separate legal challenges arguing the law violates constitutional protections under the Second Amendment and the Virginia Constitution.

Grassroots Legislative Report—June 1, 2026

By Tanya Metaksa

What’s New—Trump Administration: Department of the Interior: On May 26, the Department of the Interior announced significant steps to expand hunting and fishing access on lands and waters it manages; House Oversight Subcommittee Hearing: ATF Director Robert Cekada testified at a House Oversight subcommittee hearing on May 14 about ATF oversight; 

Oregon Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), officially titled the PEACE Act: Extreme: Anti-hunting initiative to ban all cruelty to animals. As of late May 29, backers have submitted more than 120,000 signatures for the hunting ban referendum; 

State Legislation: Arizona: Governor Kathie Hobbs vetoed SB1058;

California: Four bills are awaiting Senate action; 

Connecticut: On May 26th, Governor Ned Lamont signed H5043;

 Florida: HB 7031-E includes holiday sales tax exemptions for ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories (including suppressors); 

New Hampshire: HB609: The bill is scheduled for votes in both houses on June 4, 2026;

New York: Governor Kathy Hochul signed the budget bill that included more gun restrictions on May 27; 

South Carolina: H3872 was signed by Governor Henry MacMaster; 

Virginia: HB1525 included immediate effective date, and ten Virginia prosecutors have publicly stated they will not enforce Governor Abigail Spanberger’s new “assault firearm” restrictions,

Continue reading “”

Many Police agencies have never liked the idea that people can and will -legally- take matters into their own hands

Des Moines Police Issue Bizarre Warning After Self-Defense Shooting

It’s not uncommon for police or sheriffs to issue a warning after a defensive gun use in their communities, but generally they’re admonishing criminals to be aware of the fact that armed citizens have the right to protect themselves.

In a twist, the Des Moines, Iowa police department is warning legal gun carriers after a shooting near a park in Des Moines, Iowa last month that’s been deemed to be a justifiable use of force on the part of an armed citizen.

In that incident, a group of individuals tried to rob a 22-year-old of his belongings, including a gun he was carrying. Little did they know that the armed citizen, who was sitting in his car when he was confronted by the group, had a backup gun on him, and the armed citizen shot and killed one of his attackers in self-defense.

Though the 22-year-old isn’t facing any charges, the Des Moines police appears to be using this as an excuse to chastise those of us who exercise our right to bear arms on a regular basis.

Law enforcement officials explained that self-defense shootings, which are more commonly associated with police officers, are increasingly being seen among civilians.

“There’s been several changes in gun laws here in Iowa over the years. And the one thing that we’ve seen, the byproduct of that is there’s more guns out there,” said DMPD Sgt. Paul Parizek.

Since 2021, Iowa has been a constitutional carry state, allowing any law-abiding adult to carry a handgun without a permit.

Police emphasized that self-defense with a firearm is only justified under strict criteria. Deadly force can only be used if there is a reasonable assumption that one’s life or wellbeing is in immediate danger.

“Somebody can’t drive by and flip you off, and you can’t shoot them. That’s not a response for that. You can’t say I was scared they were going to get out of their car. There has to be a threat,” Parizek said.

Based on Parizek’s comments, folks might be left with the impression that gun owners carrying under Iowa’s permitless carry law are causing all kinds of problems, but that isn’t the case. Last year the city saw ten homicides, which was a 33% decrease compared to 2024. So far this year police have investigated at least eleven homicides, but we know that one of those cases has been deemed a justifiable use of deadly force, and there may be others as well.

We’re also now five years in to Iowa’s experience as a permitless carry state, so if the city does end up seeing a spike in homicides this year I doubt that the law will have anything to do with it. Crime analyst Jeff Asher’s Real Time Crime Index shows other cities in permitless carry states are seeing big declines in murders; with Houston, Fort Worth, Memphis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Birmingham, Cincinnati, and Jacksonville all down by more than 20% so far this year.

If the Des Moines PD wants to remind folks about when it’s appropriate and legally okay to use lethal force, so be it. Still, it’s bizarre to use a legally justified use of deadly force as the reason to do so. It would be far more appropriate to use this incident to warn would-be robbers in the city that they’re putting their lives at risk by engaging in violent crimes, but for some reason I can’t fathom, the DMPD seems more concerned about lawful gun owners than armed robbers.