Never forget:
The Left will stop at nothing to enact their gun control agenda and strip the people of our Right to Keep and Bear Arms
Category: RKBA
Echoes of Joe Biden: James Talarico Says Second Amendment ‘Not Absolute’
During an appearance on the Unity Over Division podcast, U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico (D) echoed Joe Biden by saying the Second Amendment is “not absolute.”
Talarico said, “I believe in the Second Amendment just as much as I believe in the First. We have a right to bear arms to protect ourselves, our families. We have a right to own weapons for sport or for hunting. But like any freedom in the Bill of Rights, it’s not absolute.”
Breitbart News reported that on February 26, 2020, during a CNN Town Hall, Biden argued that the Second Amendment was not “absolute.”
He followed the Town Hall with a post to X in which he elaborated: “I taught constitutional law for a long time and here’s the deal: No amendment is absolute. There are limits.”
Talarico stressed what he believes are limits on other constitutionally protected rights as well. For example, he told Unity Over Division, “You have a freedom to assemble, to protest, but you need a permit.”
The First Amendment does not mention a need for a permit. Rather, the amendment says, “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble …”
Democrats on Capitol Hill Introduce Ban on Suppressors
Signaling the agenda should polarity shift in Washington in the coming months and years, a group of House Dems has debuted legislation to outlaw suppressors.
Dubbed the Help Empower Americans to Respond, or HEAR, Act, the proposal would “ban the importation, sale, manufacturing, transfer, and possession of gun silencers or suppressors.”
Saying “Silencers are not tools of self-defense,” HEAR Act sponsor U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey Democrat, argues such devices “have no legal application,” and her proposal is part of “a common sense approach to firearms legislation.”
SCOTUS Keeps Hardware Bans on Hold, but Makes Interesting Move on Prohibited Person Case
Yet again, the Supreme Court’s orders from its weekly conference have been released with no news on any of the five lawsuits challenging bans on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines.
I still think SCOTUS is waiting on the Third Circuit to issue its en banc opinion in the challenges to New Jersey’s gun and magazine ban, which could create a circuit court split on the constitutionality of banning commonly-owned arms. As some have theorized, though, the Third Circuit could be waiting on SCOTUS to issue its opinions in Wolford v. Lopez and U.S. v. Hemani to see if those decisions will provide any guidance to lower courts.
SCOTUS 2A Decisions on Horizon; More Cases Waiting in Wings
By Dave Workman
Editor-in-Chief
Sometime between now and the end of June, the U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hand down rulings on a pair of Second Amendment cases which could have considerable impact on the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and those who use controlled substances.
The cases are known as Wolford v. Lopez—which challenges a restrictive Hawaii carry law—and United States v. Hemani, which challenges the ban on gun ownership by persons who regularly use illegal drugs, including marijuana.
Reuters is reporting that Hayley Lawrence, executive director of the Duke Center for Firearms Law, and is described as a “gun control advocate,” expects Hawaii to lose. The Aloha State currently requires property owners to provide “express authorization” to any legally armed citizen to bring their firearm onto private property which is open to the public (i.e. restaurants, supermarkets, shopping malls, etc.).
An affirmative ruling by the high court could nix, or greatly restrict, government designations of so-called “sensitive places” as a means of discouraging concealed carry.
In the Hemani case, Reuters heard from Darrell Miller, a law professor at the University of Chicago. He suggests the court might deliver a narrow ruling.
Waiting in the wings, according to the Second Amendment Case Tracker, are several other Second Amendment cases, including a couple for which the court has been essentially “kicking the can down the road” for several weeks, and their outcome could have a significant impact on restrictive state gun laws.
Chief among these are Duncan v. Bonta, a case out of California challenging California’s ban on so-called “large-capacity magazines,” and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, challenging the Evergreen State’s ban on “large-capacity magazines.” Both cases have been essentially gathering dust, and it is likely the Supreme Court would consider both together.
An affirmative ruling would be a hammer blow to several states and the gun control lobby, which has a big stake in the outcome. Should the court take both cases and rule such magazines are protected by the Second Amendment, it would be an embarrassing loss to anti-gun politicians including California Gov. Gavin Newsom and Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson, the latter who has boasted frequently that he has never lost a case to the gun lobby.
Another case with sweeping implications is Viramontes v. Cook County, challenging the ban on so-called “assault weapons” in Illinois. If the court takes this case and rules on the side of the Second Amendment, it could remove similar bans in California, Washington, New York and several other states.
Similar cases are Nat’l Assoc. for Gun Rights v. Lamont and Grant v. Higgins, challenging the semi-auto ban in Connecticut. Lamont also challenges the state’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
Extract from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright
Monticello in Virginia. June 5. 1824.
…the constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed…
More Virginia prosecutors oppose gun ban enforcement
(The Center Square) – A growing number of Virginia prosecutors and sheriffs are publicly signaling they do not plan to enforce or prosecute certain violations under the commonwealth’s new assault firearms restrictions before the law takes effect July 1.
The expanding list of statements follows earlier opposition from several commonwealth’s attorneys after Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed Senate Bill 749 and House Bill 217 in May.
The law prohibits the future import, sale, manufacture, purchase or transfer of assault firearms and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Existing owners are grandfathered under the law.
Violations are punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor carrying up to 12 months in jail and fines up to $2,500. A conviction also carries a three-year prohibition on possessing, purchasing or transporting firearms.
Since The Center Square’s earlier reporting on the issue, additional prosecutors and sheriffs across Virginia have issued public statements, formal memorandums and joint letters raising constitutional concerns and signaling they may decline prosecution under portions of the law.
In Clarke County, Sheriff Travis M. Sumption and Commonwealth’s Attorney Matthew E. Bass issued a joint statement saying charges and prosecutions under the new statutes “will not be enforced in Clarke County against nonviolent offenders, where no other criminal conduct is alleged.”
The statement cited constitutional concerns, pending litigation and limited local resources.
In Warren County, Commonwealth’s Attorney John S. Bell issued a formal memorandum stating his office would not prosecute law-abiding citizens for the possession, purchase, sale, transfer or transportation of firearms, ammunition or magazines that were lawful before the legislation took effect, pending constitutional challenges.
Bell also wrote his office would not devote resources to prosecuting charges brought solely under the assault firearms ban or related public carry restrictions.
Goochland County Commonwealth’s Attorney John Lumpkins Jr. similarly wrote that his office would “decline to initiate or pursue prosecutions” based on alleged violations of Senate Bill 749.
In Appomattox County, Commonwealth’s Attorney Leslie Fleet wrote in a public statement that he and the county sheriff were “in total agreement” they would not enforce the assault weapons and public carry bans because they believe the laws are unconstitutional.
Patrick County Commonwealth’s Attorney Dayna Kendrick Bobbitt also publicly raised constitutional concerns and cited prosecutorial discretion under Virginia law in a May 29 statement to residents.
Other prosecutors previously identified by The Center Square included officials in Powhatan, Spotsylvania, Pulaski, Smyth and Scott counties.
Democrats and statewide officials have criticized the pushback.
Democratic Attorney General Jay Jones previously said commonwealth’s attorneys are expected to enforce Virginia law when the restrictions take effect July 1.
“Gun violence is a key driver of violent crime, and the leading cause of death for young people in our Commonwealth,” Rae Pickett, a spokeswoman for Jones’ office, previously told The Center Square. “The General Assembly passed critical legislation to reduce violent crime and protect our communities and the Governor signed it into law. Commonwealth’s attorneys are elected to enforce our laws, which is what we expect them to do when these laws take effect on July 1.”
Multiple lawsuits seeking to block the firearms restrictions before July 1 remain pending in both state and federal court.
Gun rights organizations including the Firearms Policy Coalition, Gun Owners of America, Virginia Citizens Defense League, National Rifle Association and National Shooting Sports Foundation have filed separate legal challenges arguing the law violates constitutional protections under the Second Amendment and the Virginia Constitution.
Grassroots Legislative Report—June 1, 2026
By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Trump Administration: Department of the Interior: On May 26, the Department of the Interior announced significant steps to expand hunting and fishing access on lands and waters it manages; House Oversight Subcommittee Hearing: ATF Director Robert Cekada testified at a House Oversight subcommittee hearing on May 14 about ATF oversight;
Oregon Initiative Petition 28 (IP28), officially titled the PEACE Act: Extreme: Anti-hunting initiative to ban all cruelty to animals. As of late May 29, backers have submitted more than 120,000 signatures for the hunting ban referendum;
State Legislation: Arizona: Governor Kathie Hobbs vetoed SB1058;
California: Four bills are awaiting Senate action;
Connecticut: On May 26th, Governor Ned Lamont signed H5043;
Florida: HB 7031-E includes holiday sales tax exemptions for ammunition, firearms, and firearm accessories (including suppressors);
New Hampshire: HB609: The bill is scheduled for votes in both houses on June 4, 2026;
New York: Governor Kathy Hochul signed the budget bill that included more gun restrictions on May 27;
South Carolina: H3872 was signed by Governor Henry MacMaster;
Virginia: HB1525 included immediate effective date, and ten Virginia prosecutors have publicly stated they will not enforce Governor Abigail Spanberger’s new “assault firearm” restrictions,
Many Police agencies have never liked the idea that people can and will -legally- take matters into their own hands
Des Moines Police Issue Bizarre Warning After Self-Defense Shooting
It’s not uncommon for police or sheriffs to issue a warning after a defensive gun use in their communities, but generally they’re admonishing criminals to be aware of the fact that armed citizens have the right to protect themselves.
In a twist, the Des Moines, Iowa police department is warning legal gun carriers after a shooting near a park in Des Moines, Iowa last month that’s been deemed to be a justifiable use of force on the part of an armed citizen.
In that incident, a group of individuals tried to rob a 22-year-old of his belongings, including a gun he was carrying. Little did they know that the armed citizen, who was sitting in his car when he was confronted by the group, had a backup gun on him, and the armed citizen shot and killed one of his attackers in self-defense.
Though the 22-year-old isn’t facing any charges, the Des Moines police appears to be using this as an excuse to chastise those of us who exercise our right to bear arms on a regular basis.
Law enforcement officials explained that self-defense shootings, which are more commonly associated with police officers, are increasingly being seen among civilians.
“There’s been several changes in gun laws here in Iowa over the years. And the one thing that we’ve seen, the byproduct of that is there’s more guns out there,” said DMPD Sgt. Paul Parizek.
Since 2021, Iowa has been a constitutional carry state, allowing any law-abiding adult to carry a handgun without a permit.
Police emphasized that self-defense with a firearm is only justified under strict criteria. Deadly force can only be used if there is a reasonable assumption that one’s life or wellbeing is in immediate danger.
“Somebody can’t drive by and flip you off, and you can’t shoot them. That’s not a response for that. You can’t say I was scared they were going to get out of their car. There has to be a threat,” Parizek said.
Based on Parizek’s comments, folks might be left with the impression that gun owners carrying under Iowa’s permitless carry law are causing all kinds of problems, but that isn’t the case. Last year the city saw ten homicides, which was a 33% decrease compared to 2024. So far this year police have investigated at least eleven homicides, but we know that one of those cases has been deemed a justifiable use of deadly force, and there may be others as well.
We’re also now five years in to Iowa’s experience as a permitless carry state, so if the city does end up seeing a spike in homicides this year I doubt that the law will have anything to do with it. Crime analyst Jeff Asher’s Real Time Crime Index shows other cities in permitless carry states are seeing big declines in murders; with Houston, Fort Worth, Memphis, Kansas City, New Orleans, Birmingham, Cincinnati, and Jacksonville all down by more than 20% so far this year.
If the Des Moines PD wants to remind folks about when it’s appropriate and legally okay to use lethal force, so be it. Still, it’s bizarre to use a legally justified use of deadly force as the reason to do so. It would be far more appropriate to use this incident to warn would-be robbers in the city that they’re putting their lives at risk by engaging in violent crimes, but for some reason I can’t fathom, the DMPD seems more concerned about lawful gun owners than armed robbers.
The Push by Democrats to Ban One of the Commonly Owned Handguns in the US
Gun control advocates are trying a new tactic. Instead of trying to ban all handguns, some Democrat states are trying to ban one of the most commonly owned handguns – Glocks, which they claim can be easily converted into machine guns.
This week, Maryland’s Democrat Governor Wes Moore and Connecticut’s Democrat Governor Ned Lamont joined California by signing into law a ban on the manufacture, sale, purchase, and transfer of guns with a cruciform trigger bar. A cruciform trigger bar is a vital internal component of semi-automatic pistols—most notably Glock and Glock-style firearms. Named after its cross-like shape, it connects the trigger to the firing mechanism and plays a crucial role in the firearm’s safety and discharge sequence.
Legislatures in Illinois and New York are among the states actively considering bills to ban these firearms.
Lawsuits by the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation were immediately filed against Maryland’s new law. In landmark rulings starting with the District of Columbia v. Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Second Amendment protects “bearable arms” that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The Court specifically contrasted these with “dangerous and unusual” weapons, stating that outright bans on common-use firearms (such as handguns) are unconstitutional.
New Jersey is now in a discovery process to subpoena Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) across the state for records involving Glock pistol sales to New Jersey residents.
Under a 1986 federal law, it is already illegal for ordinary civilians to manufacture or convert a firearm into a machine gun. Twenty-six states have similar laws. There is no evidence that law- abiding gun owners are converting their handguns, and even the advocates for these laws focus on only the threat from criminal gangs. Indeed, all 43 murders in the 20 U.S. attacks involving “Glock switches” that the Crime Prevention Research Center—which I head—has identified since the beginning of 2021 occurred during gang fights.
Over 65 percent of police departments in the U.S. issue or authorize Glock handguns for officers. In 2025, Glock had three of the six most popular semi-automatic handguns sold in the United States, with Sig having two of the top six.
These states argue that Glock knowingly designed and marketed pistols that criminals can easily convert into illegal machine guns using so-called “Glock switches.” They contend that Glock has known about the problem for years, ignored repeated warnings from law enforcement, and still refused to redesign its pistols to make those conversions more difficult.
Glock rejects the claim that its pistols are uniquely or unusually easy to convert. The company argues that its semiautomatic operating system does not differ fundamentally from those used in many other modern semiautomatic pistols. Glock pistols use a fairly conventional short- recoil, locked-breech design common throughout the handgun industry. Glock also maintains that criminals—not the manufacturer—bear responsibility for illegally modifying firearms with already-prohibited conversion devices.
Moreover, a Glock switch creates a firing mechanism fundamentally different from that of a true, fully automatic machine gun. A military-style machine gun uses an integrated fire-control system specifically engineered for automatic fire. By contrast, a Glock switch disrupts the pistol’s existing trigger-bar and reset mechanism. The device forces the trigger bar out of engagement and causes the pistol’s short-recoil action to cycle uncontrollably. Once the trigger is pulled, the firing continues until the gun exhausts its ammunition.
That crude method creates serious reliability and safety problems. Because the switch bypasses the pistol’s normal timing and reset functions, the firearm can discharge before the slide and chamber fully close and lock. As a result, the modification creates a real risk of catastrophic malfunction, including damage to the firearm and potentially serious injury to the shooter.
Common damage includes a destroyed or blown-open magazine, cracked or split receiver or upper, damaged or missing bolt, firing pin, extractor, ejector, operating springs, and stock.
Flying brass shards or case fragments can slice skin (hands, arms, face, cheek) or embed in tissue. Real incidents include a shooter’s thumb being sliced open “like a box cutter” with powder burns, or brass embedding in a shoulder, causing bleeding. Fragments can strike the face or eyes.
But others besides the shooter can also be harmed. “The problem about that is when you pull the trigger, you can’t stop it, the gun, the bullets are going to go and what we’re seeing is young people and adults can’t control their gun. … ” warned Richland County, South Carolina Sheriff Leon Lott. “You may hit a lot of innocent people, you may even hit people that’s on your team because you can’t control that gun.”
These laws don’t target criminals who are already breaking federal and state laws by illegally owning and using guns, let alone using illegal conversion devices; the laws are targeting millions of law-abiding Americans who own one of the country’s most common handguns. If courts allow states to ban Glocks because criminals can illegally modify them, no semiautomatic firearm will be safe from the same argument. The real solution is to prosecute the gangs and criminals using Glock switches—not to outlaw firearms that police and citizens have relied on safely for decades.
Sacramento Journalist Calls for “Immediate Ban” on U.S. Gun Production — and a “Gun-Free Society”
Gun-control advocates have spent decades carefully managing their public messaging. The Brady Campaign — originally named Handgun Control Inc. — changed its name after polling showed that “handgun control” as an explicit goal didn’t poll well with Americans. The organizational focus on “responsible gun ownership” replaced what had been a more direct argument about restricting handguns.
The careful messaging discipline occasionally breaks down. When it does, the unfiltered position behind the polished framing is worth paying attention to.
Sacramento-based journalist Seth Sandronsky has just provided one of those moments. In a May 22 op-ed at CounterPunch headlined “Ban U.S. Gun Production Now!”, Sandronsky argues that conventional gun control laws are insufficient and the actual solution is ending domestic firearm manufacturing entirely.
Arkansas Court Delivers Win for the Right to Bear Arms
Arkansas’s firearm preemption law prohibits localities and political subdivisions from enacting any measures dealing with the ownership, transfer, transportation, carrying, or possession of firearms, ammunition for firearms, or components of firearms. Despite that, the city of Little Rock has prohibited lawful carry in all city-owned buildings… at least until now.
Law professor Robert Steinbuch believed the policy was a violation of state law, and decided to do something about it back in 2022.
“We saw this sign up that said nobody is allowed in with firearms,” Steinbuch said. “Including, critically, those that have the enhanced concealed carry license.”
Steinbuch felt that violated state law. So he, along with another attorney, decided to sue.
“Chris Corbett went up to the city hall and said to the security guard, ‘I have an enhanced concealed carry license- may I come in with my firearm?” Steinbuch described. “And they said no.”
After that, the lawsuit began.
And then dragged on, to the point that Steinbuch and Corbett appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court in the hopes of getting a new judge assigned to the case; one who wouldn’t drag their feet in issuing a ruling.
Coincidentally or not, the judge did finally issue an opinion last Friday, and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.
“He issued the order in which we won,” Steinbuch said. “So four years later, on a matter that could have been decided three-and-a-half years earlier, finally, we got a decision.”
Judge Fox’s office didn’t return our request for comment on Tuesday.
However, his ruling shows clear agreement with Steinbuch on two points—the city’s policy violates Arkansas code, and the city must stop enforcing it immediately.
Steinbuch said he hadn’t yet confirmed how the city plans to follow this ruling.
Officials have indicated they’ll appeal the decision instead of taking down the “no guns allowed” signage, but if the judge issued an injunction halting enforcement of the carry ban then the city will have to ask to have that order stayed while the litigation continues.
The state’s firearm preemption law arguably should be enough to strike down the city’s policy, but the law regarding enhanced concealed carry permits makes is abundantly clear that Little Rock doesn’t have the authority to ban lawful carry in all city-owned buildings… at least for those with an enhanced carry license. The Arkansas Department of Public Safety website helpfully notes the areas where those with an enhanced permit can legally bear arms.
A.C.A. § 5-73-122 – Carrying a firearm in publicly owned buildings or facilities.
Exempted licensees with an Enhanced CHCL from the prohibition on carry and possession of a firearm in publicly owned buildings, facilities, and on State Capitol grounds, so long as the location is not a:
▪ Courtroom;
▪ Administrative hearing conducted by a state agency;
▪ Public school (K-12), public pre-K, or public daycare facility;
▪ Facility operated by the AR Division of Correction or Division of Community Correction; or
▪ “Posted firearm-sensitive area” located at the Arkansas State Hospital, the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, or a collegiate athletic event
Given that language, I share Steinbuch’s frustration with the slow-walking of the lawsuit. There’s no legitimate reason why this litigation should have been dragged out for four years when the statute explicitly states that carrying in publicly owned buildings is allowed with a very few exceptions.
Based on that, there’s also no way that Little Rock is going to prevail in its appeal. Instead of doing the right thing, though, it looks like city officials are going to try to delay the inevitable for as long as possible. The appellate court should swiftly rule in favor of the plaintiffs here, and the courts should also reject any attempt by Little Rock to keep its “gun-free zones” in place while they drag out their doomed defense of the carry ban.
School president cites study finding guns don’t increase crime to oppose campus carry.
UPDATED – President Elizabeth Chilton’s opposition to campus carry included a study that found no link to increased crime
New Hampshire lawmakers should vote down campus carry because some people might feel less safe, according to a university president.
Editor’s note: The article has been updated to show the legislation is dead.
Legislators were considering House Bill 1793, which would prohibit public universities from regulating guns on campus and establish a commission to study campus carry. The bill officially died last Thursday, however.
According to a student government survey cited by The New Hampshire, a majority of respondents said they would be less likely to attend UNH if campus carry were allowed. In response to the perceived campus climate, the student senate passed a resolution opposing the bill.
President Elizabeth Chilton also took an institutional stance against the law, sending out both a campuswide message and testifying to the state senate judiciary committee. She (pictured) submitted testimony along with Don Birx, president of Keene State College and Plymouth State University, and Mark Collopy, the police chief for UNH.
They said “research from states that have adopted campus carry has found increased fear of crime, lower perceptions of campus safety, and reduced confidence in campus police.”
But neither study found a link to actual crime and campus carry.
Anti-Gun Activist Calls for End to U.S. Firearms Production
The gun control lobby has done a pretty good job of masking its true intentions behind a veneer of “gun safety.” Even though advocates like Gabby Giffords have proclaimed at times that the goal is “no more guns,” folks like Brady’s Kris Brown regularly claim that they’re not opposed to gun ownership but are just in favor of a few “reasonable, common sense gun regulations.”
Every now and then, though, an anti-2A activist tells the truth about what they’re really after. I have to thank Californian Seth Sandronsky for his candor at the lefty website Counterpunch, where he says that while he supports gun control efforts, they don’t go far enough.
Gun production is where the focus belongs, economically and politically. There is no market with politics.
… Politically, the pro-war two-party system is the main obstacle to a ban on gun production. It’s a morbid symptom of the system of legalized bribery (campaign donations) from the gun lobby (e.g., National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundation). This political economy makes corporations and the wealthy richer via their tight control of the local, state and federal governments.
Now, I’d say that politically, the main obstacle to a ban on gun production is the Constitution, not the two-party system, especially since one party is all in favor of curbing access to guns. And while Comrade Sandronsky is upset with campaign donations from pro-2A groups like NRA, GOA, and SAF, he completely ignores the fact that the gun control lobby has donated even more money to anti-gun Democrats in recent years.
Sandronsky insists that the gun lobby “calls the shots, economically, politically and thus socially, at the workplace and away from it.” As much as I’d love for that to the case, it’s just not true. If it were, the NFA would be repealed, the Supreme Court would have struck down bans on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines years ago, and most “gun-free zones” would be at thing of the past.
The rulers, a demographic minority, have two parties that represent their interests, and it’s time for the majority to have theirs. Demanding a ban on gun production could open the door to that end. The political obstacles are formidable, but what is the alternative if the status quo keeps raising the body count of gun deaths?
It amuses me to no end that Sandronsky believes there’s virtually no difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to our Second Amendment rights. It’s true that no Democrat I’m aware of has come out and demanded an end to firearms production in the United States, but that’s because the idea is so nutty that it would do more harm than good to the gun control movement.
Remember a couple of years ago when anti-gun activists tried to hold a huge rally at the state capitol in Denver, Colorado to demand Gov. Jared Polis sign an executive order halting all gun sales in the state? Sarai Rao predicted tens of thousands of women would descend on the statehouse to ““use the power of white women to repeal the Second Amendment.”
Instead, about 1,000 anti-gun activists showed up, but the leadership of virtually every gun control organization stayed far away. Rao’s protest was a complete flop, because as much as the anti-gun leadership of these groups might want to wipe the Constitution clean of the right to keep and bear arms, they understand that it’s not even remotely feasible to do so right now.
What they’re really angling for is a Democrat-controlled Congress that would pack the Supreme Court full of anti-gun justices willing to overturn Heller and declare there is no right to keep and bear arms in the Constitution, merely a collective right to join a militia, and one that’s been mooted with the creation of the National Guard more than a century ago. If Democrats are ever successful in that endeavor we might see legislation to ban gun ownership outright, but with huge majorities of Americans expressing their support for the Second Amendment to one degree or another, that would be political poison for Democrats.
Sandronsky reminds me of those nutjobs who excuse away the horrors of collectivism by claiming that “real” Communism has never been tried. Their idealism has crossed over into idiocy, and their utopian vision of the future is cartoonishly simplistic. I’m not worried about Sandronsky’s big idea catching on. What really concerns me is the incrementalist approach of the gun control movement, which is willing to take what it can get at the moment, knowing it will always come back for more.
Court Rules 2nd Amendment Covers Firearms Parts, Good News for Those Who Build Guns
What used to be a fringe hobby in the firearms world, building or customizing your own guns, is increasingly popular.
So, Wyomingites welcome a ruling by the federal 10th Circuit Court of Appeals, stating that the Second Amendment could apply to the buying, selling and possession of firearms parts without serial numbers.
AR-15 style rifles in particular can be built or customized to owners’ liking, using parts and accessories that can be purchased over-the-counter or ordered online.
“It’s like Barbie dolls for men. It’s all about accessorizing,” firearms enthusiast Nic George of Sheridan told Cowboy State Daily.
Court Rules On Colorado Case
At issue is whether the purchase, exchange and possession of firearms parts without serial numbers fall solely under state commercial regulations, or has Second Amendment implications.
The 10th Circuit Court on April 23 ruled the latter, Casper Attorney Ryan Semerad told Cowboy State Daily.
Yadda, Yadda, Yadda: Anti-Gunners Warn of a Bloody Apocalypse if Gun Rights are Expanded…Again.
It should come as no surprise to anyone who follows the debate over gun control that anti-gun messaging hasn’t changed much over the years. Once a particular “problem” is invented by anti-gun extremists, they generally settle in on a flawed argument to “correct” it, then just keep hammering away at it.
When Florida started the modern movement to expand the carrying of firearms by law-abiding citizens for personal protection in 1987, those opposed to the Second Amendment and the right to self-defense immediately began wailing about simple disagreements exploding into shoot-outs on the streets.
They predicted Florida would devolve into Hollywood’s depiction of the Wild West. But that never happened.
As the right to carry movement spread across the country, extremists still screeched about those impending Wild West scenarios unfolding in each state, but those predictions proved to be overwrought. In fact, when self-defense options were expanded for law-abiding citizens, states saw either a decline in violent crime or no significant change.
Then came the transition from expanding access to carry permits—or removing unconstitutional restrictions on who may obtain one or what they must do to be granted a permit—to promoting constitutional carry, where law-abiding citizens were simply presumed to remain law-abiding if the government didn’t first require they get a permission slip to carry a firearm for self-defense.
We now sit at 29 states with some form of Constitutional Carry, and in virtually every state where there has been a legislative push for such a law, those opposed repeated the same doom-and-gloom predictions they rolled out for the push to make carry permits more easily obtained.
“Our state will return to the days of the Wild West!”
“Simple arguments will explode into violent shoot-outs!”
“The streets will become a war zone!”
Again, none of that happened, just like it didn’t happen during the carry permit reforms.
More Virginia Prosecutors, Sheriffs Say They Won’t Enforce ‘Assault Firearm’ Ban
Multiple lawsuits have been filed in both state and federal court since Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a bill outlawing the sale, manufacture, and transfers of so-called assault firearms and large capacity magazines, as well as another measure prohibiting the carrying of “assault firearms” in most public spaces. Spanberger is also facing an enforcement challenge in addition to the legal challenges, with a growing number of county sheriffs and Commonwealth Attorneys declaring their intent not to enforce the new laws if they take effect on July 1.
Earlier this week I reported on two prosecutors who’ve publicly stated they have no plans on enforcing the laws against peaceable citizens. That number has grown to at least five Commonwealth Attorneys who serve Spotsylvania County, Smyth County, Powhatan County, Pulaski County, and Scott County.
I reached out to Buckingham County Commonwealth Attorney Kemper Beasley III for comment, and late Thursday night I head back from the prosecutor, who told Bearing Arms:
My responsibility and duty as Commonwealth’s Attorney for Buckingham County is to uphold both the U.S. and Virginia constitutions.
Both documents protect individual’s rights to bear arms, and recent decisions by the United States Supreme Court have helped clarify that right and I anticipate will eventually overturn recent legislation passed in our state.
That definitely sounds like Beasley doesn’t plan on enforcing the law, but I have sent a followup asking him directly if that is, in fact, the case.
Texas Democrat Prime Example of Why We’re Never Giving Up Our Guns
The purpose of the Second Amendment is the defense of this nation. Our Founding Fathers were generally smart men, and they recognized that defending our nation might mean fighting our government. It’s part of why they were largely distrustful of standing armies in the first place and preferred the militia.
But, as things have chanced in the last 250 years, a lot of people figure that the purpose of the Second Amendment has also changed. They think it’s about hunting or, if they’re feeling charitable, about personal protection, and not anything else. It’s why they want to take certain guns from us–at least, that’s the rationale we get from them now, though we know everything is in their sights.
We’re not giving up jack squat, and a Texas Democrat in the midst of a runoff is a prime example of why.
The top Democrat in a southern Texas House race, sex therapist Maureen Galindo, has called for transforming an immigration facility into a “prison for American Zionists” equipped with a castration center.
Galindo’s campaign made a vile pledge that she will introduce legislation to that effect if she gets elected to Congress after baselessly alleging her Dem runoff foe was “being paid to put Jews and Mexicans in concentration camps via Zionist trafficking networks.”
“When Maureen gets into Congress, she’ll write legislation so that all Zionism and support of Zionism is undoubtedly Anti-Semitic, since it’s Zionism harming the Semites,” her campaign wrote on Instagram last week.
“She’ll turn Karnes ICE Detention Center into a prison for American Zionists and former ICE officers for human trafficking. (lt will also be a castration processing center for pedophiles which will probably be most of the Zionists).”
Now, castrating pedophiles is a rare moment of me agreeing with a Democrat on something, but it’s literally every other word she says that’s the problem.
Zionism is simply the idea that Israel has a right to exist as a modern nation. I get that some people disagree with that position, and we’re not here to debate whether it’s the right concept or not. It is what it is, and Galindo is talking about writing legislation to round up everyone who holds a very particular belief, including a whole lot of Jews, and herding all of them into the very camp her party claims are concentration camps.
While she’s not the nominee as of yet–runoff elections are May 26th–the fact that someone this mentally damaged is this close to being the nominee is troubling, especially when you think about Graham Platner in Maine, who is likely to be their nominee for the Senate.
This is a fringe belief, though. I haven’t seen all that many people who agree with Galindo here, and that’s the good news, but I can’t help but acknowledge that I’m also not seeing loud denouncements from party leaders, either.
Regardless, this is someone who thinks it’s perfectly acceptable to round people up based on their political opinions. Right now, it’s “Zionism,” but do you really think it would stop there?
Hell. No.
So, I’m going to hold onto my AR-15s. I’m going to hold onto my standard capacity magazines. I’m going to urge everyone to do the same, and to stand up to these state legislatures that seem to think that this fringe belief being expressed by a fairly promenent Democrat isn’t anything to worry about. I’m sure the years of others talking about going after their political opponents or “breaking the spirit” in the coming years is nothing at all to be concerned about and we won’t need our guns to fend off these monsters.
But I’m keeping it ready just the same.
You want me to give up my guns and trust my government? That’s never going to happen, because there are people in this country who support some truly awful people who want to hurt me and mine, and they’re not going away anytime soon.
The Right They Keep Trying to Qualify
The Second Amendment is the most litigated right in the Constitution right now. That’s not because the doctrine is unclear. It’s because several states have decided the Supreme Court’s rulings are inconvenient and have organized their legislative calendars around working past them.
Three decisions settled the questions that mattered. Heller (2008) established an individual right to keep and bear arms. McDonald (2010) applied it to the states. Bruen (2022) replaced the interest-balancing framework lower courts had used to uphold almost every gun restriction with a historical-tradition test: regulations must be consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, and the government bears the burden of proving they are. Those are the holdings. California, New York, and Illinois have spent the years since treating them as starting points for the next workaround.
I’m a Marine Corps OCS graduate with 30 years in institutional investment management. My son graduated from West Point and flies Army aircraft. My brother retired from Army Special Forces as a Green Beret. I’m also a Life Member of the NRA. My family has carried firearms professionally in service to this country. That’s the credential here.
Before Bruen, lower courts evaluated gun restrictions through a two-step interest-balancing test. At step two, courts routinely deferred to the government’s stated public safety interest, and most restrictions survived. Bruen eliminated that deference. Justice Thomas’s 6-3 majority required governments to identify historical analogues to their modern restrictions, regulations from the founding era or Reconstruction period that are relevantly similar in purpose and burden.
The state response wasn’t compliance. California passed new restrictions on carry in expanded ‘sensitive places,’ effectively rebuilding a near-total carry prohibition through categories Bruen had acknowledged as legitimate but hadn’t quantified. New York passed the Concealed Carry Improvement Act days after Bruen was decided, adding dozens of sensitive places and a ‘good moral character’ requirement that functioned as the old discretionary system under a new name. Illinois added similar restrictions. Each law was designed to produce litigation, not to comply.
United States v. Rahimi (2024) gave the states some judicial support. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for an 8-1 majority that Bruen required only a “relevantly similar” historical regulation, not a historical twin. That’s a real qualification that gives regulators more room. It didn’t restore the pre-Bruen deference. The government still has to find historical analogues. Several of the state restrictions enacted after Bruen are still being litigated, and the outcomes aren’t certain.
One gap the Court’s decisions left is the patchwork problem, and it’s one Congress can close directly. A law-abiding gun owner with a valid concealed-carry permit from her home state may find that permit legally worthless the moment she crosses into a state that doesn’t recognize it. The constitutional right doesn’t change at the border. The state’s willingness to honor it does.
The National Constitutional Carry Act (H.R. 645) requires states to recognize valid carry permits issued by other states. The model is driver’s license reciprocity: every state recognizes every other state’s license to drive. No state demands re-licensure when a visitor crosses the border. No constitutional principle places the Second Amendment below the right to drive in the hierarchy of rights that interstate travelers can exercise. H.R. 645 applies the same common sense to a constitutional right that has been affirmed by the Supreme Court three times.
Polling on this question is consistent: support for carry reciprocity routinely exceeds 70% in surveys that cross party lines. The people most burdened by the current patchwork are law-abiding gun owners who travel, precisely the population least likely to be a public safety concern. The argument for H.R. 645 doesn’t require a particular view on gun policy. It requires only recognizing that a constitutional right the Court has repeatedly upheld deserves the same cross-state recognition we give to a driver’s license. We don’t make visitors from other states pass a new driving test. We shouldn’t make them surrender a constitutional right at the border either.
The Founders wrote the Second Amendment for citizens. My brother was a weapons Sergeant in Army Special Forces. My son carries one now as an Army aviator. Both of them took an oath to defend a Constitution that includes the rights they exercised as their profession. The civilian version of that right doesn’t need a cultural argument. Three Supreme Court decisions have supplied the constitutional one.
It’s worth stating clearly: the population most affected by the current patchwork isn’t the population any legislator is actually worried about. Permit holders went through background checks, paid fees, completed whatever training their state required, and carry legally because they’ve done everything asked of them. That population doesn’t become dangerous at a state line, and it wasn’t dangerous before it crossed one. The argument for H.R. 645 doesn’t require defending anyone’s right to break the law. It requires only that Congress treats a constitutionally protected right with the same cross-state respect we give to a driver’s license.
The question is whether the states that disagree with those decisions will eventually accept the answer, or whether they’ll spend the next decade generating litigation designed to look like compliance while achieving the same practical result as defiance.
ATF Director Robert Cekada says the Biden-era rule on pistol braces nearly tripped him up, and chastised those who say the only reason to own short-barreled firearms is to commit murder… as @bradybuzz head @KrisB_Brown recently told NPR. https://t.co/6HUlqzlM4o
— Cam Edwards (@CamEdwards) May 20, 2026