RKBA – Page 4 – MILESFORTIS

Permitless Carry Permeates Across U.S., and Homicides Keep Falling at Record Rates

At the moment, we seem to be stuck on “29” when it comes to permitless carry states. The North Carolina legislature approved a permitless carry bill earlier this year, but it was vetoed by Democrat Gov. Josh Stein, and so far lawmakers have unsuccessful in obtaining a veto-proof majority in the state House.

Now a pair of lawmakers are hoping to make Wisconsin the 30th state in the nation to adopt a permitless carry law. State Sen. Andre Jacque state Rep. Chanz Green actually unveiled a few bills related to our right to bear arms this week, with their Constitutional Carry proposal serving as the centerpiece.

The proposals, circulated for cosponsorship Oct. 20, include making firearms, ammunition, crossbows and more merchandise exempt from sales tax each year on the Fourth of July and during the third week of December.

“Hunting, sport shooting and self-defense are deeply woven into the fabric of both our rural and urban communities,” the bill authors said.

Jacque and Green also proposed eliminating permit requirements for firearm owners who want to carry guns in a concealed fashion, known to supporters as constitutional carry. Under the bill, “law-abiding adults” wouldn’t need a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.

… A third proposal authored by Green and Jacque would strengthen language in Article I of the state constitution, which establishes a right to keep and bear arms. That’s in addition to the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Currently, the section reads: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”

The amendment would change that wording to: “The people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, which right shall never be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right, and any restriction on that right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”

Constitutional amendments don’t require approval by the governor, though they do have to be approved in consecutive legislative sessions, so it’s possible that their last proposal will come to fruition.

Unfortunately, on permitless carry Jacque and Green are likely to run into the same issue that pro-2A lawmakers in North Carolina are facing: an anti-gun governor and the lack of a veto-proof majority to override his objections. In the Badger State, Gov. Tony Evers is a big supporter of putting more gun control laws on the books, and while Republicans control both chambers, they don’t have anywhere close to a veto-proof majority in either the House or Senate.

While that’s frustrating in terms of being able to pass pro-Second Amendment legislation, it also means that Democrats won’t have enough legislative support to deliver any gun control bills to the governor.

Democrats, meanwhile, want to expand training for the permits. That includes continuing firearm safety courses to renew their license every five years and requiring courses to provide information on gun storage and preventing accidental shootings.

That bill was part of a suicide prevention effort introduced in September in honor of Milwaukee Alderman Jonathan Brostoff. Another bill proposed a voluntary “do not sell” list for handguns.

Sen. Chris Larson, a Democrat from Milwaukee, said, “Wisconsin Republicans are trying to make our gun violence problem worse.”

Democrats keep insisting that permitless carry leads to chaos and carnage in the streets, but not a single one of the 29 states that have adopted the measure have seen fit to repeal the law. And violent crime is down dramatically in permitless carry Florida, where Miami recorded the fewest number of homicides in nearly 80 years last year.

In fact, crime analyst Jeff Asher says violent crime and homicides are falling at record rates, to the point that he predicts the FBI will report the lowest recorded homicide rate in our country’s history when the 2025 crime data is finalized. With permitless carry the law of the land in more than half the country, that simply wouldn’t be happening if the law led to huge spikes in crime as anti-gunners claim.

There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that permitless carry doesn’t lead to the “Wild West.” Sadly, none of it is likely to change Tony Evers’ mind if Wisconsin lawmakers do approve a bill next session.

Grassroots Legislative Update—October 20, 2025

By Tanya Metaksa

What’s New—Trump Administration: FBI analytics need some review; Presidential issues: President Trump seeks emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court; Politics: Virginia: Democrat candidate for Attorney General suggested violence toward a prominent Republican colleague; California: Governor Newsom signed four anti-gun bills’; Illinois: A special session might be coming to Illinois; New York: Suffolk County: A thread on LongIslandfirearms.com about registering semi-auto rifle purchases should be examined if you live in Suffolk County; North Carolina: The veto override vote of SB50 has been rescheduled for October 20, 2025.

Continue reading “”

Supreme Court Grants Cert to Case Involving Gun Prohibition for ‘Unlawful’ Drug Users

The Supreme Court has granted cert to a second case dealing with Second Amendment issues this term; this one dealing with the federal prohibition on gun ownership for “unlawful” users of drugs.

The justices have been considering five cases involving Section 922(g)(3) in conference, but only granted cert in Hemani v. United States, which was the case the Department of Justice and Solicitor General D. John Sauer had been pressing the Court to take as a vehicle to decide the constitutionality of the federal statute.

Unlike other cases like Daniels v. United States, which revolve around someone’s conviction for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of marijuana, Hemani involves someone who was alleged to have used and sold promethazine, as well as using both cocaine and cannabis. Ali Hemani is also a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan whose actions “have drawn the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” according to Sauer’s cert petition.

In 2019, a search of his phone at a border crossing revealed communications suggesting that he was poised to commit fraud at the direction of suspected affiliates of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization.

In 2020, respondent and his parents traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before. Respondent’s mother was captured on video telling an Iranian news agency that she prayed that her two sons, including respondent, would become martyrs like Soleimani.

Respondent also maintains weekly contact with his brother, who attends an Iranian university that the U.S. government has designated as having ties to terrorism. And respondent has told law-enforcement officials that, if he knew about an imminent terrorist attack by “a Shia brother” that would kill innocent people, he would not report it to the authorities.

Of the five cases dealing with Section 922(g)(3), Hemani is by far the least sympathetic individual convicted of violating the statute, which helps to explain why the DOJ was eager for SCOTUS to use his case as the testing ground for the constitutionality of the law.

Still, the Court will likely consider the multiple splits in appellate courts over the statute, which includes a finding by the Fifth Circuit that laws prohibiting users of intoxicating substances do not comport with the national tradition of firearms ownership, and a Third Circuit opinion that suggests an individualized finding of dangerousness is necessary before depriving an “unlawful” drug user of their Second Amendment rights.

The DOJ’s position is that Section 922(g)(3) only disqualifies “habitual users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms,” though the statute doesn’t use the term “habitual” at all.” The DOJ also asserts that “the statute imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction—one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use.”

Continue reading “”

Virginia Judge Tosses State’s ‘Universal’ Background Check Law

Five years ago Virginia Democrats enacted a “universal” background check law (along with several other gun control measures) after the took complete control of state government for the first time in several decades.

Now Gun Owners of America has won an injunction barring enforcement of that statute.

Twenty-Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge F. Patrick Yeatts issued his opinion on Thursday afternoon, declaring that there was no need to “embark on an analysis as to whether Virginia’s background check requirements comport with the “\’historical tradition of firearm regulation’ in the United States.

In exercising judicial restraint, the Court finds it improper to resolve the question of firearm regulation through the lens of Bruen. Instead, the inherent as-applied constitutional deficiencies of the Act require that the court strike the statute in its entirety.

Not to get too into the weeds here, but the statute in question originally imposed background check requirements on all gun purchasers over the age of 18. There’s a conflict, however: Virginia law allows 18-year-olds to purchase and possess handguns, while federal law does not. So, any 18-to-20-year-old attempting to buy a handgun, even from a private party, still had to go through a NICS check and would be denied.

Yeatts previously granted an injunction as it applied to those young adults, but today he ruled that the law must be thrown out in its entirety based on a prior case know as Ayotte. If you want to geek out on the legal underpinnings behind Yeatts’ decision you can read his opinion here, but the short version is that at the moment the background check requirement on private transfers seems to be null and void.

A note of caution, though. Because this wasn’t decided on Second Amendment grounds, Yeatts left open the door for lawmakers to remedy the technical deficiencies that led to him striking down the statute.

The Court also observes that it is feasible to create a system where all individuals are treated equally in obtaining a background check. For example, Nevada law requires all firearm sales and transfers, with limited exceptions, to go through a background check conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). The FFL conducts the background check through the Nevada Department of Public Safety’s (DPS)Point of Contact system. This system interfaces with the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) to determine the eligibility of the buyer to possess a firearm-regardless of age. While Virginia has not adopted such a system, whether due to cost or other reasons, Nevada demonstrates that it is possible to implement a uniform approach.

The statute as it stands, cannot remain intact. If the legislature wishes to rewrite the law to create a system that does not impose disparate treatment based on age, it may do so. At that time, a court might rightly address the question of whether it is constitutional to require a background check to obtain a handgun through a private sale. Now is not that time.

Nevada’s law prohibits sales of handguns to adults younger than 21, so running NICS checks on private party sales involving under-21s doesn’t create a conflict with state law. I don’t know if this was his intention or not, but it seems to me that Yeatts is essentially inviting the Virginia legislature to institute a ban on handgun sales to under-21s, although I’d argue that would absolutely create a system that imposes disparate treatment based on age.

If Democrats once again regain a governing trifecta in next month’s elections we may very well have to deal with an attempt to raise the age to purchase handguns, along with a host of other anti-2A actions. For now though, Gun Owners of America has succeeded in taking down Virginia’s “universal” background check law, and that’s good news for Second Amendment advocates across the Old Dominion.

Glocks, Guns, & Government Overreach: How California Keeps Missing the 2nd Amendment Express

California’s recent surge in gun control legislation, especially Assembly Bill 1127, which effectively bans Glock and Glock-style handguns, reveals a troubling pattern of the state enacting laws that conflict with the Second Amendment, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and established Supreme Court rulings. This relentless legislative push threatens the constitutional rights of California citizens and demands urgent corrective action.

The Second Amendment and Supreme Court Guidance

The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Landmark Supreme Court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that this right includes possessing firearms for lawful self-defense. The Court emphasized that the right to self-defense is central to the Amendment and that restrictions cannot apply to weapons “in common use.” California ignores this legal precedent.

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court reaffirmed this position, ruling that gun regulations must reflect the historical understanding of the right at the time the Amendment was adopted. States must justify any restrictions based on this historical framework, especially when banning firearms like Glocks, which are essential tools for lawful self-defense.

Again, California ignores this legal precedent.

Continue reading “”

NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’

The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.

AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.

Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”

The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”

He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

Florida Bill Will Make Churches Safer

My late father, a retired police officer and Freewill Baptist preacher’s son, wasn’t a fan of carrying in church. As a retired officer, he could, even though churches are off-limits here in Georgia. He just didn’t like it. He told me once that he didn’t believe carrying in church should be necessary, and it just felt wrong for him to do so.

At least, that’s how he felt until I reminded him that the world is full of goblins who don’t feel that way and see churches as targets.

The Annunciation Catholic School shooting is odd because it’s both a school shooting and a church shooting. While most of those attending mass that day were children, the truth was that they were left undefended during worship.

Church security has stopped mass shootings before. Most famously in White Settlement, Texas.

Now, Florida wants to make it easier to provide that kind of security.

A Florida Republican wants to make it easier for armed volunteers to provide security for churches and other houses of worship.

A bill, titled “Security Services at Places of Worship,” has been sponsored by Senator Don Gaetz and aims to waive some of the licensing and training requirements for individuals who want to volunteer to protect religious facilities.

Gaetz said that pastors in his district have asked for the measure, adding that smaller congregations typically don’t have the money to afford private security, FOX 13 reported.

Anyone hoping to volunteer will have to obtain a concealed carry permit, pass a level 2 background check, and secure approval from their local sheriff’s office before formally acting in a security capacity.

The bill specified that those acting as security via this method cannot be paid for their work, but it allows them to receive a “reasonable” reimbursement for their training costs.

It’s not a bad start.

I think a better move would be to just make it so anyone can lawfully carry in a church, then you don’t have to worry about the rest of the stuff. Those who mean harm will make it clear soon enough, and with an armed congregation, that will be a bad move.

However, I think there are a lot of ostensibly pro-gun people who somehow think people shouldn’t carry guns in churches–people like Dad–because it’s supposed to be a place of peace and worship. I sincerely understand that. I just repeat that not everyone feels that way, and far too many of those want to rack up a massive death toll.

Because of that, this might be the way to step forward without completely pushing those parties too far. When this turns out not to do any of the things the anti-gunners claim it will–and there will be claims of the church aisles running red with blood–then it becomes a bit easier to move that line a little farther down the road to where it should have been all along.

And, in the meantime, churches get a lot safer than they might otherwise be if they don’t have the resources to hire private security.

Newsom Signs Glock Ban Bill Into Law

California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been calling himself a Second Amendment supporter for several months now, but if anyone had any doubts about his lack of sincerity those can now be put to rest. On Friday afternoon the governor signed AB 1127 into law, which will outlaw the sale of Glock handguns in the state starting in January.

In addition to AB 1127, Newsom also signed legislation that will require sales of gun barrels to go through an FFL and a background check, as well as AB 1078, which replaces California’s “1-in-30” handgun rationing law (which is already on hold thanks to a lawsuit) with a “3-in-30” law. The bill, however, states that California will return to its previous one-gun-a-month scheme if it’s ultimately upheld by the courts.

As you can imagine, gun control activists are thrilled to see California become the first state in the nation to outlaw the sale of some of the most popular pistols in the country, and they’ll be making a major push for other blue states to adopt similar bans in the months ahead. From Everytown for Gun Safety:

“We applaud Governor Newsom and state lawmakers for putting California at the forefront of the fight against DIY machine guns, which are just as scary as they sound,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “It speaks volumes about the gun industry’s fixation on profits that only a new law can force it to take the most basic steps to prevent mass carnage.”

“Governor Newsom, state lawmakers, and California volunteers continue to prove that the days of putting gun industry profits over our lives are long gone,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action. “DIY machine guns should never have had a pathway onto our streets, and today, we’re taking a big step to get them out of our communities. Our movement will keep fighting to hold reckless gun manufacturers accountable — because they shouldn’t get to profit off our tragedies.”

AB 1127 theoretically allows for Glock to change the design of its Gen 3 model to block the installation of illegal switches, but even if the company could take that step CalDOJ would view the redesigned pistol as a new firearm subject to the state’s handgun roster, and it would be rejected due to a lack of a magazine disconnect feature. That’s the reason why newer Glock models haven’t been approved for sale in California, though the Gen 3 was previously grandfathered in to the roster.

The NRA is already vowing to sue Newsom over the ban.

My guess is most of the other national Second Amendment groups will soon be filing suit as well, and we’ll probably see a coalition or two combining forces to take on the new laws.

So far there’s been no word from Glock on the new legislation, which is part of a broader effort to prohibit the sale of the popular handguns. The cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Seattle are also suing the company, claiming the gunmaker is willfully allowing the illegal conversion of their pistols into full-auto machine guns through the installation of illegal switches. New York also has a similar Glock ban bill pending in the legislature, and now that Newsom has signed AB 1127 into law that could start moving as well.

The gun control lobby can’t ban handguns outright, so their new strategy is to go after the most popular pistols on a piecemeal basis. In the short term, Glock sales will likely skyrocket in California, but unless AB 1127 is stayed via an injunction those sales will come to a screeching halt once the new law takes full effect.

The Second Amendment Holds More Weight Than ‘Uncle Dick’s Deer Stand’

In a Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing this week, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi faced questions regarding her leadership of the Justice Department.

But at the hearing, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) used her time questioning the nation’s top law enforcement official to repeat her canned comment about her ‘Uncle Dick’s deer stand’ when reiterating her support for legislation that would infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights by banning popularly-owned firearms.

Stop us if you’ve heard this one before.

Illogical Reasoning, Rinsed and Repeated

Opening her time on the microphone, Sen. Klobuchar set the scene for an attack on our right to keep and bear arms. Addressing AG Bondi, Sen. Klobuchar got to her point.

“In 2018, after the Parkland shooting, you were attorney general and there was a bill called the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act and the bill banned bump stocks and enacted red flag laws and raised the minimum age to purchase a firearm in Florida from 18 to 21 and you actually defended the law in court from a challenge from the NRA and we know that I’m in favor of an assault weapon ban. Period,” she said.

“I look at these bills, and I think ‘Does this hurt my Uncle Dick and the deer stand?’ – we have a proud tradition of hunting in Minnesota – I don’t think they do,” Sen. Klobuchar suggested.

Sen. Klobuchar has referenced her Uncle Dick numerous times when discussing her belief that Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) can and should be banned.

Since she brought it up, though, NSSF views gun control bills through the lens and with the knowledge that our Founding Fathers didn’t add the Second Amendment to the Constitution in response to a rogue deer herd. They added it as a guarantee that law-abiding Americans had the Constitutional right and means to keep and bear arms to keep a new government in check.

Mislabels and Misinformation

Another key point to address is the term ‘assault rifle,’ which has been attributed to Adolf Hitler after he referred to the MP 43 (Maschinenpistole) by the German word Sturmgewehr – “assault rifle” in English. That the firearm, which became known as the Sturmgewehr 44, features an intermediate cartridge, controllable automatic fire, and a higher rate of fire, is not an accurate comparison to the MSRs of today.

Here in the United States, the term ‘assault weapon’ didn’t even exist in the lexicon of firearms before 1989. In 1988, anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann, who was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, recommended that gun-control groups use public ignorance and fear to ban everything they can stuff into the phrase “assault weapon.”

Sugarman wrote, “Assault weapons … are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons…. Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.”

In the past several years, though, Americans have purchased Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) by the millions and are becoming more aware of the firearm’s functionality and operation. They aren’t buying the lies repeated by gun control groups and their elected allies who seek to ban the popular firearm.

In fact, firearm industry data has shown over the past few years while law-abiding Americans purchased firearms at a blistering pace, the MSR was a popular choice, including among first-time gun owners. Since 1990, there are more than 30 million MSRs in circulation today. That includes more than 4.5 million in the last three years alone. That makes the MSR more popular and commonly-owned today than there are Ford F-150 pickup trucks on the road.

I wonder if Uncle Dick drives an F-150?

The Cold Hard Truth

Unfortunately for Sen. Klobuchar and her gun control allies, America has already experimented with a ban, and facts overwhelmingly prove the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not reduce crime.

“These are just incredibly popular firearms… they are commonly owned, commonly used,” said political economist and assistant professor William English of Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. “At the end of the day, it is a rifle that I think is very easy to shoot, it’s very easy to control, not a lot of recoil.”

“So, it’s a good gun,” English added, when speaking with Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard. “And to see it become widely owned, I suppose, makes sense in that context.”

Clearly, We the People agree. Sen. Klobuchar should take note.

A Handgun is No Longer Enough: The Evolving Standard for Armed Self-Defense

The Sovereign Citizen and the Imminent Threat

The right enshrined in the Second Amendment was not a mere allowance for hunting or personal security; it was a profound constitutional imperative designed to ensure the survival of the republic.

Our Founding Fathers deliberately vested the ultimate responsibility for public safety and the nation’s defense in an armed, prepared citizenry they called the American Militia. They understood that the collective strength of the people, armed with common, readily available firearms, was the most resilient check against tyranny, invasion, and civil catastrophe.

As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story stated, the right to keep and bear arms “has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.” Furthermore, James Madison argued that an armed citizenry, trained and ready, is “the best and most natural defense of a free country.” Their intent was clear: a free state is secured by a citizenry that is equipped to defend itself against the three distinct threats of tyranny, foreign invasion, and domestic unrest.

Today, this core mandate remains profoundly true, especially in the face of alarming official warnings. The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) recently issued a sobering advisory that the U.S.-designated terrorist group Al-Qaida and its Yemen-based affiliate (AQAP) remain intent on striking America. This is not a theoretical threat; it is a live intelligence concern.

READ MORE: US National Counterterrorism Center warns of threat from al Qaeda

This reality has been sharply articulated by law enforcement leaders. My local Butler County, Ohio, Sheriff Richard K. Jones, reflecting on warnings from the FBI regarding imminent terrorist threats, stated, “The terrorists are here… it is just a matter of time before they attack. The national government can’t take care of it all. There are more local police than the FBI. It all comes down to preparing for it.” To meet this level of threat, preparation must surpass outdated standards.

Continue reading “”

NRA-Backed Plaintiffs Seek Full 3rd Circuit Review of New Jersey’s Sweeping Gun Permit Restrictions

Trenton, NJ – The National Rifle Association announced that plaintiffs in Siegel v. Platkin have filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the full court to overturn a panel decision that upheld large portions of New Jersey’s post-Bruen carry law.

The challenge—brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seven individual plaintiffs—targets the state’s near-total list of “sensitive places” and its requirement that applicants for a carry permit produce written references from four “reputable” non-relatives.

Background: From Bruen to Trenton’s Response
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self-defense, Governor Phil Murphy condemned the ruling as “dreadful” and promised to take “actions” to limit its impact. The legislature quickly passed Chapter 131, a sweeping law that made it a crime to carry in 26 broad categories and 115 subcategories of locations—ranging from beaches and parks to museums, bars, and even libraries.

The law also imposed new hurdles for permit holders: a $50 “victims-fund” tax, a $150 application fee, a $300,000 mandatory insurance requirement, and the four-reference rule that forces applicants to find non-relatives willing to vouch for their “reputation.”

Continue reading “”

Second Amendment Foundation Challenges Constitutionality of National Firearms Act

The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.

The groups Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three people: John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase a silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or “Any Other Weapon” to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The One Big Beautiful Bill removed the tax on these arms but kept the registration requirement.

The newly filed suit seeks to completely remove the affected arms from the NFA, eliminating the remaining registration requirements for gun silencers, short-barreled rifles, or barreled shotguns.

“With the tax now set to $0, the remaining registration requirements for these arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Completely removing them from the NFA is now a must, and this suit aims to eradicate the barriers to the exercise of the Second Amendment. SAF is already a plaintiff in its own lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these elements of the NFA, and now our sister organization the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is joining the fight as a plaintiff with our financial backing in this companion case.”

Continue reading “”

GOA, Partners Request Summary Judgement on NFA Provisions

We’re kind of in a special time right now. While the Hearing Protection Act and SHORT Act didn’t land quite like we wanted, with the new fiscal year, we can buy short-barreled rifles and suppressors without the $200 tax stamp.

The problem, though, is that we still need NFA paperwork, and those products will still be entered into the NFA database.

That’s a database whose stated existence isn’t about registering scary devices to keep them out of naughty hands. It’s about making sure whoever has them has paid the tax.

And the fact that there’s not a tax on these items anymore means there shouldn’t be a registration requirement.

While Congress insisted on leaving that in, unfortunately, Gun Owners of America and its partners have filed a lawsuit to try and fix the issue. Now, they’ve just filed a motion for summary judgment in the case.

From a press release:

Yesterday [October 7th], Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, together with a coalition of plaintiffs including Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, Brady Wetz, and fifteen states led by Texas, filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

The motion seeks both a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional and an injunction to halt their enforcement as applied to newly “untaxed” firearms—including short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and so-called “any other weapons” (AOWs).

GOA’s coalition of plaintiffs challenged the NFA’s making, transfer, and possession restrictions on these “untaxed” firearms, arguing they are unconstitutional following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. No. 119-21) (“OBBB”), which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.

Effective January 1, 2026, the OBBB eliminates the NFA’s taxation requirements for these categories of firearms, leaving behind vestigial registration requirements that no longer serve as proof of payment of any tax. As a result, we argued that these excessive regulatory burdens go beyond Congress’s taxing power, cannot be defended under the Commerce Clause, and violate the Second Amendment.

With the filing of this motion for summary judgment, GOA and GOF now expect the Trump Administration to take an official position on untaxed firearm registration and file a response on or before November 6, 2025.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“The National Firearms Act’s onerous registration requirements for untaxed firearms are a relic of a taxing scheme that no longer exists. These provisions violate the Constitution by exceeding Congress’s authority and infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. We urge the Court to strike down these unconstitutional restrictions and protect the rights of our members, supporters, and millions of gun owners nationwide.”

John Velleco, GOF’s Executive Vice President, issued the following statement:

“The NFA is the strictest federal gun control law in the nation’s history. Even so, NFA-regulated weapons have proliferated in recent years, quickly becoming favored tools of the home defender, hunter, and hobbyist alike. This lawsuit takes aim at FDR-era restrictions that never should have been passed in the first place. We look forward to taking a big step towards restoring the Founders’ original vision for American gun owners.”

This is a bit of a test for the Trump administration.

They’ve already done more for the Second Amendment than any previous administration in my lifetime, but there have also been some cracks that I don’t like seeing. The DOJ has defended a few questionable gun control laws, for example. Here, they can make a clear position on the matter, and one that should make perfect sense in the long run. The registration is about a tax that no longer applies to suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

If the DOJ does the right thing here and agrees with GOA and its allies, then what we’ll see is a world where you can walk into a gun store, buy a suppressor with just a NICS check, then take it home without any further paperwork than you would buying a single-shot .22.

I’d say that’s how it should be, but it’s not. We shouldn’t even have to go through that, but it would at least be far more acceptable than the current status quo, where you go to the ATF with hat in hand and ask, “Mother, may I?”

That’s not how our rights should work. We should be able to buy what we want, when we want.

But this is just the first step in a process of getting to that point. The Department of Justice can help with that, but even if they don’t, there’s a long road ahead, and we can and should follow the process to the very end. We need this killed throughout the country and done so in a way that leaves no ambiguity, so states figure they can do their own registries on these devices.

Good luck to the plaintiffs on this one.

If it was never clear you, by now it should be that government, as a whole and no matter the fundamentals of how and why it was formed (cf. The Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights), has always been really hesitant to give free and unfettered access to the implements that make it so much easier for the unwashed masses to do away with a tyrant goobermint that sees them as mere peons.

Federal Judge Says Gun Law Unconstitutional, But Allows Feds to Largely Keep Enforcing It

Five years ago, Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, and several individual plaintiffs filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on handgun sales to adults between the ages of 18 and 20. In late 2022, U.S. District Judge Robert R. Summerhays dismissed the complaint, ruling that young adults have no Second Amendment right to purchase the most common firearm for self-defense, but that decision was overturned by a panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in January of this year.

Since then, the plaintiffs and the DOJ have been arguing over the scope of the relief that should be granted, given that the appellate court found the law in question is unconstitutional. That alone should have favored a judgment from Summerhays that covered as many 18-to-20-year-olds as possible. Instead, on Tuesday, Summerhays rendered a judgment that leaves the unconstitutional law in place for almost everyone.

In a press release, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said the “practical effect of this order is almost laughable if it wasn’t so frustrating and didn’t impact the Second Amendment rights of thousands of individuals.”

“What the court has done here is say that this law is unconstitutional, but in order for an 18-year-old to avoid having their constitutional rights trounced by it today they must live in one of only three states in the nation and have been the member of SAF at age 13. And even then, they’re only covered if SAF discloses their membership to the government under duress. We’re currently examining our options in relation to the relief granted and will vigorously defend our members’ right to free association and privacy of such.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition is similarly incensed, stating in a release:

Rather than uphold the Constitution and binding Supreme Court precedent, the Court regurgitated the Trump Administration’s self-serving demand to wipe away the Fifth Circuit’s ruling against the government’s unconstitutional ban and continue denying millions of peaceable adults their right to keep and bear arms.

To be clear: FPC has never provided a list of its members to the government—and never will.

Our legal team is already taking action to urgently address this appalling order. We will commence appellate proceedings as necessary to protect our members and effectuate the Fifth Circuit’s decision in our favor. Further updates will be provided as the case proceeds.

The descriptions of Summerhays’ judgment aren’t hyperbolic. Here’s the text of the order so you can see for yourself.

The Court enters declaratory judgment, as described in paragraph 3 below, with respect to (a) Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, Emily Naquin, and (b) individuals and federally licensed firearms importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., Second Amendment Foundation, or Louisiana Shooting Association at the time this action was filed on November 6, 2020.

The Court hereby declares that 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1), and their attendant regulations, are unconstitutional and violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, its Director, the Attorney General of the United States, and their officers, agents, servants, employees, and all persons in active concert with them and who have actual notice of this Judgment are hereby enjoined, within the jurisdictional boundaries of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (i.e., Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas), from enforcing the provisions referenced in paragraph 3, to the extent those provisions prevent the sale or delivery of handguns and/or handgun ammunition by and to persons identified in paragraph 2 on account of the buyer being 18 to 20 years old.

Within twenty-one (21) days of issuance of this Judgment, those Plaintiffs identified at paragraph 2(b) shall provide to Defendants a verified list of their members as of November 6, 2020.

Summerhays’ order basically parrots the judgment proposed by the DOJ, which is another problem. President Donald Trump’s executive action to protect the Second Amendment states, in part, that:

… 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:
…
(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;

The judgment proposed by the DOJ (and accepted by Summerhays) is completely contrary to Trump’s order for the DOJ to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.

Donald Trump wasn’t in office when oral arguments in Reese v. ATF took place before the Fifth Circuit last fall, and had only been in office for ten days when the Fifth Circuit overturned Summerhays’s original decision and declared the ban on handgun sales unconstitutional.

Trump issued his executive order on protecting the Second Amendment in early February, and DOJ decided not long after that it would not appeal the Fifth Circuit’s decision to the Supreme Court. That was in accordance with the president’s order, but at some point between February and July, when the DOJ submitted its proposed judgment to the court, the agency adopted a position that runs counter to Trump’s executive action.

What makes this even more frustrating is that the proposed judgment was written, at least in part, by attorneys within the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which has been taking historic actions to protect the right to keep and bear arms. In just the past couple of months the division has weighed in against “assault weapon” and “large capacity” magazine bans and sued the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed carry permits. It’s bizarre, then, to see the DOJ take the position that, even though this law is unconstitutional, it can continue to enforce it against virtually everyone except the named plaintiffs in Reese.

We’ll be talking more about this case with FPC”s Brandon Combs on today’s Bearing Arms Cam & Co, and I encourage you to tune in and check out what he has to say. Thankfully, this isn’t the only case dealing with young adults and their 2A rights in the legal pipeline, and the Supreme Court has the opportunity to grant cert to similar challenges coming out of the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits later this fall. There’s a clear split in the appellate courts on the issue, and hopefully SCOTUS will soon provide young adults the relief denied to them by Summerhays.

I love it when activist judge with a political agenda get slapped by SCOTUS and have to publicly reverse themselves.

Federal Judge Dismisses Lawsuit Blaming Gun Company for Mass Shooting

A Brady-backed lawsuit against Century Arms blaming a Romanian gun company and a U.S. firearms distributor for the 2019 mass shooting at the Gilroy Garlic Festival in California has finally been dismissed by a federal judge, almost a year after he ruled the case could move forward.

U.S. District Judge William Sessions refused to dismiss the suit in late 2024, arguing that the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act didn’t shield Romarm S.A. and Century Arms because the plaintiffs had “plausibly pled an aiding and abetting theory that satisfied the predicate exception to PLCAA’s liability bar.”

The predicate exception, according to the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Smith & Wesson v. Mexcio, requires that defendants “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing” of firearms, and the violation “was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought.”

The plaintiffs in the case stemming from the Garlic Festival shooting had argued that Romarm and Century Arms had aided and abetted the shooter’s illegal gun possession in California by selling the WASR-10 that was used in the attack in states where the arm is perfectly legal to own.

Sessions originally accepted that claim under the dubious reasoning that the defendants “knew that California-based criminals were buying guns in Nevada with the illegal intent of transporting them into California,” yet “flooded the Nevada market with guns and employed marketing and pricing strategies with the intent of encouraging or facilitating such transport, not merely with indifference that such transport occurs,” which in turn “aided the commission of illegal gun possession in California.”

But in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, the Supreme Court stated that any aiding-and-abetting claims that aren’t based on a specific violation of state or federal law “must be backed by plausible allegations of pervasive, systemic, and culpable assistance.” After that decision was handed down Romarm and Century Arms asked Sessions to reconsider his decision, and now the judge has reversed himself and dismissed the case.

The issue for reconsideration, in light of Smith and Wesson, is that none of those findings are particular to the specific incident in this case. The shooter was a Nevada resident at the time of purchase, so his purchase was presumptively legal. Plaintiffs have not alleged with any specificity that Defendants advertised or marketed their products in any way that encouraged the shooter to take his legally purchased firearm across the border to California where it would be illegally possessed.

The oversupply argument similarly fails, as applied to the shooter, because he was a Nevada resident. No matter how many surplus guns were distributed in Nevada beyond what the Nevada market could bear, the fact that the Plaintiff was a part of the Nevada market who was not engaged in some sort of broader trafficking scheme is a flaw in that reasoning.

Put another way, the firearm at the center of this case was not part of an excess supply allegedly flooded into Nevada with the goal of attracting California residents for the simple reason that the shooter was a Nevada resident. So, while Defendants’ act in manufacturing the firearm and marketing it in Nevada may have aided the commission of some illegal gun possession in California, it does not follow, on the facts pled, that they aided the shooter’s illegal gun possession in California “beyond providing the good on the open market.”

It seems to me that Sessions could and should have dismissed the case even before SCOTUS handed down its unanimous decision throwing out Mexico’s lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and other U.S. gunmakers, but the fact that he allowed the case to move forward under such specious claims just demonstrates the importance of the Supreme Court’s decision that helped lay out the scope of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act’s protections.

Sessions, a Clinton appointee who’s served on the bench since 1995, still argued in dismissing the case that “it may well be true” that “Defendants’ acts aided the commission of illegal gun possession in California” in other instances, but the plaintiffs haven’t plausibly proved that to be the case here. That statement was completely superfluous and unnecessary, and appears to telegraph Session’s willingness to punish companies in the firearms industry for the third-party actions of criminals whenever possible.

In this case, thankfully, Sessions couldn’t get around the plain language of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico. If it weren’t for that unanimous decision penned by Justice Elena Kagan, though, Brady’s junk lawsuit would still be an ongoing threat to the lawful commerce in arms.

The Supreme Court has grated certiorari and will consider overturning a Hawaii law that imposes strict regulations on where people can carry guns.

The Trump administration had urged the justices to take the case, arguing the law violates the court’s 2022 ruling that found people have a right to carry firearms in public under the Second Amendment.

The Hawaii law bans guns on private property unless the owner has specifically allowed them.

24-1046 WOLFORD, JASON, ET AL. V. LOPEZ, ATT’Y GEN. OF HI

Wolford v. Lopez

Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit erred in holding that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively gives express permission to the handgun carrier.

Original Intent: What the Founders Had to Say About Guns
The very idea of American freedom hinges on the right to keep and bear arms.

The US Constitution took effect March 4, 1789 – and the Bill of Rights a while later on December 15, 1791. Among other freedoms, this included the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. But now it’s 2025, more than 230 years removed from that great work of America’s Founding Fathers. So where do our gun rights stand – and what would those men think if they could see us today?

The Birth of Gun Control Meant Death to Liberty

In 1934 – more than 140 years after the Bill of Rights and nearly a century after the last remaining Founding Father, James Madison, died in 1836 – the nation’s first successful gun control bill became law. Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt was president, and he led a trifecta in the Swamp that included a supermajority in the Senate and a large majority in the House. The gun control that they passed regulated, for the first time, various types of firearms differently. Even with the majorities necessary to bulldoze the minority opposition, they knew an outright ban wouldn’t fly. So, instead, they passed a bill technically regulating the sale and taxation of certain types of arms – and, in practice, pricing out most Americans from owning them.

Three decades later, Democrats once again held both houses of Congress and the presidency. And, once again, they capitalized on a series of crises to justify further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. With the Gun Control Act of 1968, we got the establishment of prohibited persons – entire groups of people who would be stripped of the right to be armed. Guns could no longer be bought and sold commercially without going through a federally licensed dealer, in person.

In 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act established the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and the background check as a way to weed out prohibited persons. This was followed quickly by the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, which made certain semi-automatic firearms illegal for anyone, though it expired in 2004. Democrats have been trying ever since to pass another ban – this time, without a sunset clause.

Every gun control law passed in this nation’s history – and the time between them seems to shrink with each one – brings us farther from the Founders’ vision of liberty. Yes, in the last few years, Supreme Court rulings, executive actions, and the spread of the constitutional carry movement through the states all seemed to push back on this slow march to disarmament. But freedom today doesn’t mean what it did to the Founders. They envisioned something quite different, and nothing paints a better picture of that vision than their own words.

Continue reading “”

I wish the Trump administration would be more consistent in pro-RKBA moves like this.

DOJ Sues LA Sheriff Over Gun Permit Delays, Says 2A Violation Scope ‘Staggering’

The Department of Justice on Tuesday filed a federal lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, alleging deliberate foot-dragging by the department in processing applications for California concealed carry licenses.

If this is the first high-profile move fulfilling the mission of the DOJ’s “Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force” announced by Attorney General Pam Bondi in April, it’s a major offensive. The nine-page federal complaint, filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, does not mince words.

“The scope of this constitutional violation is staggering,” the complaint says. “Between January 2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two—a mere 0.05% approval rate that cannot be explained by legitimate disqualifying factors alone. This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.”

The complaint, submitted by Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, Acting U.S. Attorney Bilal A. Essayli for the Central District of California and other DOJ officials in Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles, declares, “The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.”

Named as defendants are the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna, in his official capacity. The department did not immediately offer a response.

Continue reading “”

Federal Court Says Post Office Carry Prohibition Unconstitutional
A federal court ruled that prohibitions on carrying firearms in post offices are unconstitutional. This ruling comes out of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.

On September 30, 2025, Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor delivered an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC is joined by the Second Amendment Foundation and two citizens — Gavin Pate and George Mandry — in challenging the federal law.

O’Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” There’s nothing in the order limiting it to Texas and applies to all members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The complaint was originally filed in June 2024 and the named defendant was then-Attorney General Garland. “So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a ‘sensitive place,’ it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue,’” the complaint said.

This order in Texas comes at the heels of the Department of Justice dropping a bid for an appeal in a criminal matter involving carriage on U.S. Postal Service property. U.S. v. Ayala in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involved defendant Ayala’s possession of a firearm on postal grounds. District Court Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that: “The United States fails to meet its burden of pointing to a historical tradition of firearms regulation justifying Ayala’s indictment under § 930(a).”

In Ayala, the Department of Justice dismissed their motion for an appeal in August. That move allowed Judge Mizelle’s order to stand.

“Millions of people across the country visit the U.S. Post Office as part of their daily routine,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a statement. “As we’ve stated throughout this case, there is no historical tradition of banning firearms at post offices, and peaceable Americans all over the country should not be forced to choose between using basic postal services and the exercise of their fundamental rights. Today’s ruling is an encouraging step towards restoring these rights.”

The order applies to “ordinary post offices,” and explains, “Because Plaintiffs have agreed to limit their relief to ordinary post offices not located in restricted areas like military bases or where the Government provides armed security, the Court likewise limits its remedies to ordinary post offices.”

“This is a huge win for SAF and its members,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “There is no historical analogue to justify a ban on carrying a firearm on postal property, and we are pleased the court rightly saw through this thinly veiled attempt at preventing citizens from fully exercising their constitutional rights.”

Named plaintiff FPC observed in their statement that “Judge O’Connor explained, ‘it is hard to envision that the Founders would countenance banning firearms in the post office — particularly because they did not do so themselves. Thus, the Government has not carried its burden’ to justify its ban on carry in and around post offices. The Court thus held that the prohibition is ‘unconstitutional as-applied to carrying firearms’ inside a post office or on post office property.”

Speaking on behalf of FPC, Foundation President Brandon Combs noted that governments can’t ban weapons in “unsecured public spaces.” He further stated that governments also can’t “invent new so-called ‘gun-free zones’ whenever they please.”

“For too long, peaceable people have been threatened with prosecution simply for carrying weapons for self-defense while mailing a package or buying stamps,” Combs said. “That ends here.”

The victory in FPC v. Bondi is another step towards fully repatriating the people with a whole Second Amendment. Rather than turn into contortions of Cirque du Soleil proportions to find an analogue, the federal court found the government failed to meet the appropriate burden of proof — because there isn’t one.

Considering the Department of Justice’s recent withdrawal in the Ayala criminal possession case, it’s not likely they’ll seek an appeal in the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. But you never know. We’ll be keeping up with this case and will be reporting back with any future findings.

Something to be aware of for those of us who do carry.

Overturn of Montana Man’s Conviction Illustrates Issue With Gun-Free School Zones

The Bruen decision left the door open on “sensitive places” that can be gun-free zones. Places like courthouses, for example.

For a lot of people, schools should definitely be on that list. I’m not so sure, but I can accept that some people disagree with me. They have a right to be wrong, after all, especially since we know that the gun-free zone thing doesn’t seem to keep bad people from carrying them onto the campus anyway.

But a case in Montana, where a man’s conviction was just overturned, highlights one major issue with gun-free school zones.

See, the issue isn’t just the schools, but a perimeter around the schools, and that’s what got him arrested.

A man who was convicted in federal court of firearms violations after menacing neighbors and an elementary school in Billings by carrying guns and patrolling the neighborhood has had his conviction overturned in a split decision by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a ruling earlier this week, the panel of three appellate judges said that Gabriel Metcalf’s conviction should be overturned because he offered a plausible interpretation and understanding of federal gun law, even while acknowledging that federal district court judge Susan Watters had a more straightforward and traditional definition of the law.

The majority opinion, written by Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a former Montana Solicitor General, noted that Metcalf appears to be the only person to test whether Montana’s open carry gun law complied with the federal Gun-Free School Zones Act. In his appeal, Metcalf also raised concerns that his conviction also violated his Second Amendment rights, but the appellate court stopped short of deciding that issue, ruling instead that Metcalf’s interpretation of the law was plausible, and therefore he could not have known he was violating federal law.

Judge Mary M. Schroeder issued a dissenting opinion in the case, saying that VanDyke and Judge John B. Owens had reached their conclusion “by means of a tortured application” of judicial principles, even while acknowledging that Watters had the better and more traditional interpretation of state and federal law.

At the heart of the issue, at least in the case itself, is that Montana’s permitless carry law basically says that everyone who isn’t expressly forbidden from carrying a gun is considered licensed, and the federal law says people with licenses can carry in the buffer area around a school. The Biden administration argued that no, the licensing had to be explicit–something the law doesn’t seem to actually state, for the record–and so he was in violation of federal law.

Metcalf’s defense is that he literally had no reason to believe any such thing, which is fair.

However, a bigger issue is the existence of this area outside of the school grounds themselves.

See, the federal law doesn’t account for permitless carry as most states have it, nor does it account for things like reciprocity. You have to be licensed in that state in order to just walk past a school on the sidewalk, which is a problem.

This is something most people are going to be unaware of when traveling, for one thing, just as they’re not going to be aware of where all the schools in a given city might be. Just following Google Maps could land you a felony charge, simply because Google didn’t know you needed to be so many feet away from a school because you’re lawfully carrying a firearm.

It’s ridiculous.

If we’re going to insist that schools should be gun-free zones for law-abiding adults, can’t we at least agree that if someone intends anything malicious, stretching that zone out however many feet or isn’t going to actually stop them any better than the sign on the door will? Can’t we also agree that it’s ridiculous that people otherwise obeying the law, going about their day, might end up with a felony charge because they set foot outside of their house with a gun on their person, simply because they live in a constitutional carry state and live too close to a school?

Of course we can’t, because some people are so vehemently hoplophobic that they can’t accept anyone with a gun not being evil.