Category: RKBA

BLUF
No, permitless carry has increased.

Has Concealed Carry Fallen?

In its annual report on concealed carry, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) determined that 20.88 million Americans now have concealed-carry permits—this is a 2.7% drop from 2024.

The number of citizens with concealed-carry permits in the U.S. peaked in 2022 and has now declined for the third year in a row. Today, roughly 8% of U.S. adults hold permits. But has the number of people who choose to legally carry concealed really dropped?

The straightforward answer is no. The number of people with permits actually rose in the 21 non-constitutional carry states, but they fell by a slightly larger percentage in the 29 constitutional carry states.

“Even so, our data show that the total number of people legally carrying firearms has increased, driven by the expansion of constitutional carry,” says John Lott, president and founder of the CPRC.

The central reason for this decrease is the widespread adoption of constitutional carry laws. As this was being written, citizens in a total of 29 states now enjoy some type of constitutional carry. Indeed, “46.8% of Americans (157.6 million) now live in constitutional carry states, with 67.7% of the land in the country (2.57 million square miles),” reports the CPRC.

Although no additional states enacted such laws in 2025, the impact of more state governments getting out of the way of citizens’ constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms has continued. Many people in constitutional carry states still go through the trouble to get permits, as this enables them to travel with their self-defense firearm to states that don’t have constitutional carry but do recognize their state’s permit.

The trouble for researchers like Lott, however, is that unlike gun ownership surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really “hard data” on the number of people who carry we have available; in fact, this data becomes less accurate as more states become constitutional carry. But then, that is in step with the true nature of freedom—law-abiding citizens shouldn’t need to apply to the government for their rights.

So, though the number of permit holders from 2024 to 2025 fell by 0.59 million to 20.88 million, the number of people carrying is thought to be rising. Interestingly, outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 9.3% of adults have a permit; whereas the inclusion of these two states brings the number down to about 8%.

IN REPLY:

@ShamashAran

I’m a black woman who pretends to be a catgirl on the internet. I enjoy sci-fi novels and I fix cars for enjoyment. None of that tells you a damn thing about the usefulness of MY stance of gun control. Just like you being a gun owner, a veteran, or married to a crime victim tells nobody anything about whether a proposed law is constitutional, effective, or even coherent.

Personal biography is not policy analysis. It’s just vibes in a dress uniform. In your case, I’ll bet the medals are on backwards. Gun control is a nice idea. So is banning drugs. So is banning murder. The problem isn’t intention, it’s reality. Laws don’t operate in a vacuum where only good people follow them and bad people politely comply. They operate in the real world, where criminals route around restrictions the way water routes around rocks. Felons and domestic abusers are already prohibited from owning firearms.

The “Charleston loophole” rhetoric pretends this isn’t true, as if violent criminals are currently wandering into gun stores, twirling mustaches, and lawfully purchasing rifles because a stopwatch hit zero. That isn’t how crime works, and it isn’t how criminals acquire guns. (HINT: They steal them, generally)

What these laws ACTUALLY do is expand discretionary denial and delay for people who are already legal, already vetted, and already compliant. They turn a right into a permission slip that expires if the government is slow, incompetent, or simply hostile. If the state can block a right by failing to act, that right no longer exists. It’s a favor. You can believe gun control should work. (Many people do.) The thing is, belief isn’t evidence. Your credentials aren’t arguments. If the policy fails in practice, pointing at your life story doesn’t make it succeed.

 

Soros: The Other Billionaire Behind the Anti-Gun Agenda

Everyone knows that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg is knee deep in funding just about every anti-gun effort that comes around the bend. The man has it bad for gun rights, and I have no idea why, especially as he’s surrounded by armed bodyguards all the time. He can’t be that anti-gun.

He’s just anti-you having a gun.

But he’s far from the only billionaire funding the anti-gun agenda. Another name is one familiar to anyone who follows the left-leaning money trail on pretty much any issue, and that’s George Soros.

As Frank Miniter notes at America’s 1st Freedom, Soros is a major funder of anti-gun efforts via his Open Society Foundations.

Indeed, the Hungarian-born billionaire’s public persona could have been inspired by Ian Fleming’s villains in his James Bond novels. Soros, who is now 95 years old, could be a combination of Dr. No and Ernst Stavro Blofeld (a character the Austin Powers trilogy parodied so well!). Indeed, Soros’ Open Society Foundations can be SPECTRE level nefarious.

The Washington Free Beacon recently jumped into this topic with a piece titled, “‘Assault on Our Sovereignty’: How George Soros Funds Foreign Government Lawsuits Against American Gun Makers.”

The report details how Soros’ Open Society Foundations helped fund the anti-gun group Global Action on Gun Violence (GAGV), which worked with Mexico to bring a lawsuit against U.S. firearms manufacturers, a case that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court—the Court ruled 9-0 that Mexico could not make gun makers pay for criminal actions in Mexico.

“Over the years, Soros has funneled $32 billion to the Open Society Foundations, which in turn bankrolls many leftwing causes throughout the world,” explains NRA-ILA.

Indeed, Soros’ money has been used against Americans’ Second Amendment rights for decades.

“In 2000, Open Society published a widely circulated report entitled, Gun Control in the United States. The publication called for a host of new federal and state gun restrictions … . In the early 2000s, Open Society also gave support to gun control groups such as the Million Mom March, the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, New Yorkers Against Gun Violence, and Women Against Gun Violence. Further, the group funded various dubious lawsuits against the gun industry, including a high-profile case brought by the NAACP.

Now, I’m not saying that Soros is a real-life Bond villain. I’m just saying that I don’t know anything that a real-life Bond villain would do differently.

Especially since people compared Elon Musk to just such a character for working with President Donald Trump, when he hasn’t come close to the level of manipulation of our society that Soros has.

Couple his efforts with Bloomberg’s, and what we’ve clearly got here is the money behind the efforts.

While the anti-gunners love to make a big thing about money playing a role in the gun debate, our money tends to come in the form of private individuals donating what they can to organizations they believe in, while the gun control side is funded by billionaires who wouldn’t know what it’s like to have to defend the lives of themselves and their families. They hire people for that and if you can’t afford to do the same, well, you’re just not important enough to live.

I’m sure some will try to flip the script and make out like my issue is some other characteristic of these two men, but it’s not. I don’t even care that they’re rich. That doesn’t bother me at all.

It’s that they’re trying to destroy this country by taking away the very right our Founding Fathers enshrined in the Bill of Rights to protect all others.

SAF Files Amicus Challenging Lifetime Firearm Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed an amicus brief with the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in a case challenging the federal lifetime ban on firearm possession as applied to an individual with a decades-old misdemeanor DUI conviction.The case, Williams v. Attorney General of the United States, will be argued before an en banc panel in February. SAF is joined in the amicus filing by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Second Amendment Law Center.

“The government’s position defies Bruen and Rahimi by seeking to impose a permanent disarmament on a law-abiding citizen based solely on a nonviolent misdemeanor from 20 years ago, with no evidence of ongoing danger,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the risks of intoxication and firearms through temporary restrictions on those currently impaired, never by stripping gun rights forever from someone who once drank irresponsibly but has since reformed. We urge the Court to reject this overreach and affirm the district court’s ruling.”

If the Third Circuit rules in favor of Mr. Williams, it could have major implications for many others who are disarmed due to similar convictions.

“This case highlights the unconstitutional overreach of federal disarmament laws that ignore historical limits and present-day realities,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is committed to defending the rights of individuals like Mr. Williams, and we believe this case warrants the Court’s careful consideration.”

For more information visit SAF.org.

US government sues US Virgin Islands and accuses officials of violating the Second Amendment

SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico (AP) — A Second Amendment clash has erupted between the federal government and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

The U.S. government sued the U.S. territory, its police department and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks on Tuesday, accusing them of obstructing and systematically denying American citizens the right to possess and carry guns.

The U.S. Virgin Islands requires that applicants demonstrate “good reason to fear death or great injury to his person or property,” and to have “two credible persons” to vouch for their need of a firearm. Local law also requires that someone have “good moral character” to obtain a gun permit, which is valid for up to three years and applies to a single weapon.

The lawsuit states that no specific standard has been set or defined for the requirement of character. It also claims that the defendants “regularly” refuse to issue permits to those who by law are “deemed to be an improper person” by the territory’s police commissioner.

The lawsuit states that those in the U.S. territory also must “submit to intrusive and warrantless home searches” as one condition to obtain a gun permit. If an applicant refuses a home inspection, which takes “several months to a year to schedule and complete,” the government will not process their request, according to the lawsuit.

Tim Walz Tries to Create a Backdoor Firearm Registry After Gun Ban Fails in State Legislature.

Tim Walz may actually be one of those politicians who really is as dumb as he looks. Despite the DFL’s [Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party] virtual control of Minnesota government, he still couldn’t gin up enough support to push an “assault weapons” ban through the legislature. About that situation, he wasn’t happy.

Not willing to allow that very public failure to stand, he signed two executive orders yesterday designed to generate some, uh, positive headlines in the state’s cooperative legacy press as a way to blunt the effects of the legislative defeat, the latest in a long string of very bad news for the hapless knucklehead who sits in the big chair.

From Northern News Now . . .

Governor Tim Walz signed two executive orders on Tuesday morning, surrounded by DFL lawmakers and advocates for gun violence prevention.

“I do not have the capacity as governor to issue an executive order to get rid of [assault weapons], but what I do have the ability to do is to start to move in a direction,” he said ahead of signing the orders.

The first order, according to Walz, aims to expand the administration’s efforts to provide added education on so-called red flag laws and safe storage practices.

The order will also require insurance companies to submit homeowners’ policy and claims data on firearms, using the state’s existing authority to issue “data calls” to recommend possible policy changes to the legislature.

Using taxpayer dollars to encourage the use of due process-free red flag law firearm confiscation isn’t anything new. It’s been done by the usual suspects at both the federal and state levels. But Walz is also creating a bureaucratic monstrosity he’s euphemistically calling the “Statewide Safety Council.” In practice it will likely serve the same purpose in the Land o’ Lakes as Biden’s now defunct White House Office Gun Violence Prevention.

As the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus describes it . . .

The newly announced Statewide Safety Council raises serious concerns. The council is composed entirely of appointed officials and pro–gun control advocates, with no representation from the Second Amendment community. Like similar advisory panels in the past, it appears designed to deliver predetermined recommendations aligned with the Governor’s policy goals rather than to provide balanced input or genuine stakeholder engagement.

And then there’s Walz’s attempt to hoover up data on gun owners from insurance companies . . .

“The insurance companies, they need to let us know what the economic impact is,” said Walz, “We know what the economic impact is. We know what the emotional impact is; now we can quantify it.”

The only thing is, economic data isn’t likely the only thing Walz is looking for here. Again from the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus . . .

We are closely reviewing the legality of Governor Walz’s executive order directing state agencies to gather data from insurance companies, including any information related to firearms owned by peaceable, law-abiding Minnesotans.

We have already heard from dozens of our members who are deeply concerned that the Walz administration is attempting to build a registry of gun owners and the firearms they legally own by using insurance records as a backdoor mechanism.

Let us be clear: any attempt to track or monitor Minnesota gun owners will be met with fierce resistance.

We will take all appropriate legal and legislative action to protect the privacy, dignity, and rights of Minnesotans under the Second Amendment and the Minnesota Constitution.

The Constitution is not a suggestion.

Governor Walz does not get to decide which rights are convenient to ignore.

This looks very likely to be challenged in the courts. Stay tuned.

Gun Bans Aren’t Enough for Everytown, Giffords

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Reality of Nationwide Gun Control
the math behind the policy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

Unfortunately, he still managed to say some stupid stuff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some good, but mostly bad news

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

Supreme Court Turns Away Challenges to National Firearms Act

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Fifth Circuit’s Suppressor Decision Could Gut Second Amendment Protections

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Twisted World of Gun Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Students Push New Gun Control Bill to Prevent Gun Theft

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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