“Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.” – Thomas Jefferson
Category: RKBA
Trump Administration Cuts Flow of Tax Dollars Funneled to Leftist Gun Control Orgs and NGOs.
The Trump administration has released solicitations for a grant program meant to stop gun violence in underserved communities. But this year, the non-profits the grant was built around are disqualified from applying, according to an application notice released by the Department of Justice (DoJ) in September.
The Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative (CVIPI), was created in 2022, to support groups working in rural and urban communities struggling to address violence and fund research studying the programs’ efficacy.
The pioneering program was born out of a recognition by the Biden administration that such community-centered programs were among the most successful tools in combating the US’ deep-rooted gun violence problem, and had played a crucial role in helping reduce homicides in major US cities.
Before Trump’s inauguration, community-based organizations, non-profits and local and state governments were eligible to apply for the grant. Now, only city, county and tribal governments are allowed. And the stated goal of the program has been changed from “comprehensive, community-based prevention” to “supports law enforcement efforts to reduce violent crime and improve police-community relations”.
Since 2022, the federal government has awarded more than $300m to over 120 non-profits, city and county governments and research institutions through the initiative, according to an archived list of grant recipients.
The department of justice, which oversees CVIPI, did not respond to a request for comment.
The changes at CVIPI are the latest in the Trump administration’s heel-turn from the Biden administration’s approach to gun violence prevention, which positioned Black and Latino-led groups working to address violence as legitimate solutions to crime in the nation’s hardest hit locales. Shortly after his inauguration, Trump dismantled the White House office of gun violence prevention, and in March his administration removed the former surgeon general Vivek Murthy’s advisory on gun violence as a public health issue from the US Department of Health and Human Services’ website.
— Abené Clayton in Gun violence prevention groups disqualified from grants built around their work
Guilt-Trip Gun Control Advocacy Won’t Work, So Knock It Off
Over the years, I’ve seen a lot of calls for gun control from a lot of different sources. You’ve seen a lot, too, I suspect, and you’re not necessarily someone who has to seek them out to any degree. You can imagine how many I’ve seen.
A lot of them just sort of repeat what’s been said before. In fairness, we do the same thing, too. After all, it’s the same issue and nothing has really changed about where anyone stands.
But one thing has really gotten under my skin over the years, and that’s what I call “guilt-trip gun control advocacy.”
That’s when someone tries to make you feel terrible for not supporting gun control. They’re focusing on emotions, either your own or the emotional struggles of others, all to make you feel like you should have to support gun control.
The news ticker denotes yet another shooting and fire, this time at a Latter-day Saint church in Michigan. This tragic incident occurred only weeks after the massacre at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis, a tragedy whose shock had barely begun to fade from public memory.
Each headline was a fresh rupture in our collective psyche, each one a new entry in the ever-lengthening register of loss. I felt the same fatigue—the hollow, tightening ache of resignation. How many times can we say “not again” before the words’ meaning dissipates?
America has a peculiar way of justifying sin and bearing her scars. Our country’s response to violence is not just inadequate; it is complicit. We have constructed a body politic that tolerates, even sanctifies, these acts through legislative inertia and a distorted interpretation of constitutional rights.
The sacred text of our republic has become a shield for the status quo, with lawmakers and justices hiding behind its language to justify inaction. Leaders at every level offer only platitudes, as if thoughts and prayers could bind wounds that legislation refuses to heal.
Our nation’s dysfunction runs deeper than any one event or single perpetrator. Behind the headlines are the haunted: families who will never again feel whole, first responders who carry silent burdens, and clergy who must find words when language feels useless.
And behind them, a vast community of the traumatized—students, parents, teachers, neighbors—bound together not by choice but by the grim lottery of proximity. This is not the mark of a healthy society. It is the sign of a nation adrift, its soul eroded by violence and its conscience dulled by repetition.
Yes, we’re complicit in mass murder simply because we aren’t willing to give up our rights, even when many of these killers are people who should have been caught by some existing law and weren’t.
How dare anyone try to claim that I’m complicit, that I’m responsible, simply because I recognize the failures of gun control in the past? I’ve been one of those who will never feel whole again, because a dear friend was gunned down by a maniac who was pissed that he couldn’t sit in a coffee shop anymore after being a pain for the last time.
How dare anyone say that to our own Ryan Petty, who lost his lovely daughter Aliana in the Parkland shooting, or RedState’s Jenn Van Laar, who lost a friend in a shooting in Thousand Oaks?
We lost, and we recognized that gun control wasn’t the answer, but now we’re told everything that followed was really our fault because we didn’t bend the knee and give up our rights?
No.
This guilt-trip gun control push isn’t working. It’s never going to work. People don’t get told they’re complicit, that they’re responsible for mass murders, then just go, “Oh, well, OK. I’ll change all my views about everything.” They get angry and dig in even harder, which is fantastic for our side.
The writer of this screed, Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson, describes himself as a “spiritual entrepreneur,” which sounds more like someone who uses faith to grift, if you ask me, but I’m not sure he understands that trying to guilt-trip someone isn’t really a great strategy.
Knock it off. You’re just making us mad and making yourself look like an absolute dipstick.
New Hampshire Bill Strengthening Second Amendment Rights on Public Property Advances.
A bill reaffirming that the New Hampshire Legislature, not state agencies or local governments, holds sole authority to regulate weapons on public property narrowly cleared a House committee this week.
House Bill 609, sponsored by Rep. Samuel Farrington (R-Rochester), seeks to close what he calls loopholes in the state’s existing firearms preemption law after learning the New Hampshire Department of Transportation barred its employees from carrying firearms on the job.
“The intent here is to emphasize that the Legislature’s preemption is the last word on the subject,” Farrington told the House Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee.
Expanding Preemption
New Hampshire’s current preemption law, signed in 2003 by then-Gov. Craig Benson, already reserves regulation of firearms, components, ammunition, and supplies to the Legislature. In 2011, Gov. John Lynch expanded that statute to include knives.
Farrington’s proposal would extend those protections even further—covering stun guns, Tasers, pepper spray, and other self-defense tools. It also bars any state, county, or municipal agency from creating or enforcing its own weapons rules that conflict with state law.
Partisan Divide
The House panel approved the measure 9–7 along strict party lines, with Republicans in favor and Democrats opposed. Critics argued the legislation could handcuff local authorities from setting policies for large public events, such as the New Hampshire Air Show at Pease Air National Guard Base in Newington.
“This is of a very broad, sweeping nature,” said Rep. David Meuse (D-Portsmouth). “It would override the practices of a lot of communities and further restrict local control.”
Supporters countered that Pease’s ban on firearms wouldn’t be affected, since it sits on federal property.
Florida judge strikes down under-21 concealed carry ban as unconstitutional
Siding with a 19-year-old man who was spotted with a gun in his waistband, a Broward County circuit judge Friday ruled that a state law barring people under age 21 from carrying concealed weapons violates Second Amendment rights.
Judge cites lack of historical precedent for age restriction
Judge Frank Ledee issued a nine-page ruling that said Florida’s “prohibition on the concealed carry of firearms by eighteen-to-twenty year olds strips a class of legal adults of their ability to exercise the very right the Constitution guarantees.”
Ledee cited U.S. Supreme Court rulings in recent years that required analyzing the “historical tradition” of firearm regulation when determining whether laws violate the Second Amendment.
Litigation Highlight: Plaintiffs File Second Amendment Challenge to Federal Ban on Mailing Firearms
In mid-July, two gun-rights groups and an individual plaintiff wishing to mail a handgun to her father filed suit in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that the federal ban on mailing firearms through the U.S. Postal Service violates the Second Amendment. This federal restriction dates to 1927—as the complaint notes, it was the first federal gun control law[1] and pre-dates the National Firearms Act by almost a decade. The lawsuit, which is still in its early stages, implicates tricky questions surrounding legislative intent and how historical tests can account for technological innovation.
Filed on July 14, the Pennsylvania case is captioned Shreve v. United States Postal Service. The plaintiffs ask the court to strike down 18 U.S.C. § 1715, which provides that “[p]istols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on the person are nonmailable and shall not be deposited in or carried by the mails or delivered by any officer or employee of the Postal Service.” The law contains exceptions for guns mailed in connection with military or law enforcement service and for “customary trade shipments” in which firearms are conveyed from manufacturers to dealers. The statute only applies to the United States Postal Service. Knowing violations of the ban constitute a federal crime.
Shreve, a Pennsylvania citizen, would like to mail a handgun to her father as a gift and is permitted to do so under state law. The two organizational plaintiffs, Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, each assert standing because “some of the[ir] members . . . also wish to use the U.S. Postal Service to mail their lawfully owned handguns and other concealable weapons for private, lawful purpose.” The plaintiffs assert that they cannot use private courier services—such as UPS or FedEx—because “private common carriers have prohibited the practice [of mailing guns] for several years.”
The plaintiffs in Shreve argue that the conduct of mailing firearms is protected because, “if the Second Amendment’s plain text did not cover such ancillary acts as shipment or receipt, the government could ban these acts outright, crippling Americans’ access to firearms.” They emphasize that, while “the U.S. Postal Service traces its lineage to 1775, . . . at no point did the Founders ever criminalize the mailing of handguns as the challenged statute does now.” The complaint further argues that exceptions to the federal ban—including for official weapons shipped by government agencies, commercial transactions, and long guns—belie any purported public safety objective. Plaintiffs frame the 1927 statute largely as a response to “anti-gun media sensationalism” that “did little – if anything – to curb violent crime.” Thus, the complaint concludes, the law “is inconsistent with Founding-era historical tradition [and] violates the Second Amendment.”
Bondi DOJ Alleged to Back Warrantless ‘Home Invasion’ of Gun Owners
Attorney General Pam Bondi and the rest of the Trump Administration appear to be the most pro-Second Amendment administration in recent history, if not ever. That would be a fantastic thing all on its own were it not for the fact that the DOJ still keeps doing some anti-Second Amendment things.
Yeah, the title is still applicable in my book, but that’s because the bar is so low single-sell organisms can’t limbo under it.
However, the latest issue is a bit more complicated than it might look on the outside. It seems a man was shot by police in Montana after they entered his house without a warrant. The DOJ is apparently backing up the state in this case.
But the devil is in the details.
“The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi is advancing an argument that threatens to hollow out the Fourth Amendment’s core protection: that Americans may be secure in their homes against warrantless searches.
The lawsuit is Case v. Montana. After a difficult breakup, William Trevor Case was at home alone when police arrived for a so-called “welfare check.” They spent nearly an hour outside his house. Officers walked around the property, shined flashlights through windows, and even discussed calling his relatives or reaching him directly. They never did. Instead, they retrieved rifles and a ballistic shield, broke down his door without a warrant, and shot him.
Case survived, but his rights did not.
The Montana Supreme Court upheld the police’s warrantless entry. Apparently, the government’s “reasonable suspicion” that Treavor Case might need “help” was sufficient to justify an armed warrantless intrusion into his home. That standard is alarmingly low. The Fourth Amendment requires probable cause and judicial approval before government agents may enter a home. It does not permit entry based on a hunch.
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed a similar issue in Caniglia v. Strom in 2021. In that case, officers entered a man’s home without a warrant after a domestic dispute, claiming they were acting as “community caretakers.” The Court unanimously rejected that argument. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote that the Fourth Amendment’s protections do not vanish just because police say they are trying to help. The Court allowed for true emergencies—cases of imminent harm or death—but drew a clear line against open-ended “caretaking” exceptions.”
The welfare check is something that’s been around for years, and most people don’t seem to think much of it. Case was someone dealing with a difficult time in his life, one that could spark depression or suicidal ideation, and someone got worried about it. So, they called the police to check on him.
It happens all the time, and it’s saved lives. People who were injured or sick were found and rushed to the hospital where they could be treated.
However, this highlights the potential dark side of welfare checks.
It doesn’t help that police didn’t think Case was in need of immediate aid, yet they claimed he’d said he would “shoot it out” with law enforcement. They suspected he might try to ambush them and die via suicide by cop. Of course, the person who claimed that was one of the officers on the raid, and so I don’t know how valid that claim actually was, especially as he wasn’t arrested over making a threat, apparently.
So, they armed up, got ballistic shield, and never bothered to just knock on the door and see if he’d answer.
I don’t know how Case was unaware that someone was outside, shining a flashlight into the window, or if he did and that was why he was hiding in a closet with a handgun.
Honestly, the whole thing is wonky as all get out to me, and it would have been best of the DOJ had just stayed out of it or at least defend the Fourth Amendment for gun owners.
What makes this worse is the fact that it’s not hard to get the police to conduct a welfare check. Anyone can do it and justify it for almost any reason. The police will just respond, and if they respond like they did with Case, it’s not difficult to see how something could go sideways and an innocent person be killed.
Permitless Carry Permeates Across U.S., and Homicides Keep Falling at Record Rates
At the moment, we seem to be stuck on “29” when it comes to permitless carry states. The North Carolina legislature approved a permitless carry bill earlier this year, but it was vetoed by Democrat Gov. Josh Stein, and so far lawmakers have unsuccessful in obtaining a veto-proof majority in the state House.
Now a pair of lawmakers are hoping to make Wisconsin the 30th state in the nation to adopt a permitless carry law. State Sen. Andre Jacque state Rep. Chanz Green actually unveiled a few bills related to our right to bear arms this week, with their Constitutional Carry proposal serving as the centerpiece.
The proposals, circulated for cosponsorship Oct. 20, include making firearms, ammunition, crossbows and more merchandise exempt from sales tax each year on the Fourth of July and during the third week of December.
“Hunting, sport shooting and self-defense are deeply woven into the fabric of both our rural and urban communities,” the bill authors said.
Jacque and Green also proposed eliminating permit requirements for firearm owners who want to carry guns in a concealed fashion, known to supporters as constitutional carry. Under the bill, “law-abiding adults” wouldn’t need a license to carry a concealed firearm in public.
… A third proposal authored by Green and Jacque would strengthen language in Article I of the state constitution, which establishes a right to keep and bear arms. That’s in addition to the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.
Currently, the section reads: “The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose.”
The amendment would change that wording to: “The people have the inalienable right to keep and bear arms, which right shall never be infringed. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is a fundamental individual right, and any restriction on that right shall be subject to strict scrutiny.”
Constitutional amendments don’t require approval by the governor, though they do have to be approved in consecutive legislative sessions, so it’s possible that their last proposal will come to fruition.
Unfortunately, on permitless carry Jacque and Green are likely to run into the same issue that pro-2A lawmakers in North Carolina are facing: an anti-gun governor and the lack of a veto-proof majority to override his objections. In the Badger State, Gov. Tony Evers is a big supporter of putting more gun control laws on the books, and while Republicans control both chambers, they don’t have anywhere close to a veto-proof majority in either the House or Senate.
While that’s frustrating in terms of being able to pass pro-Second Amendment legislation, it also means that Democrats won’t have enough legislative support to deliver any gun control bills to the governor.
Democrats, meanwhile, want to expand training for the permits. That includes continuing firearm safety courses to renew their license every five years and requiring courses to provide information on gun storage and preventing accidental shootings.
That bill was part of a suicide prevention effort introduced in September in honor of Milwaukee Alderman Jonathan Brostoff. Another bill proposed a voluntary “do not sell” list for handguns.
Sen. Chris Larson, a Democrat from Milwaukee, said, “Wisconsin Republicans are trying to make our gun violence problem worse.”
Democrats keep insisting that permitless carry leads to chaos and carnage in the streets, but not a single one of the 29 states that have adopted the measure have seen fit to repeal the law. And violent crime is down dramatically in permitless carry Florida, where Miami recorded the fewest number of homicides in nearly 80 years last year.
In fact, crime analyst Jeff Asher says violent crime and homicides are falling at record rates, to the point that he predicts the FBI will report the lowest recorded homicide rate in our country’s history when the 2025 crime data is finalized. With permitless carry the law of the land in more than half the country, that simply wouldn’t be happening if the law led to huge spikes in crime as anti-gunners claim.
There is plenty of evidence to demonstrate that permitless carry doesn’t lead to the “Wild West.” Sadly, none of it is likely to change Tony Evers’ mind if Wisconsin lawmakers do approve a bill next session.
Grassroots Legislative Update—October 20, 2025
By Tanya Metaksa
What’s New—Trump Administration: FBI analytics need some review; Presidential issues: President Trump seeks emergency relief from the U.S. Supreme Court; Politics: Virginia: Democrat candidate for Attorney General suggested violence toward a prominent Republican colleague; California: Governor Newsom signed four anti-gun bills’; Illinois: A special session might be coming to Illinois; New York: Suffolk County: A thread on LongIslandfirearms.com about registering semi-auto rifle purchases should be examined if you live in Suffolk County; North Carolina: The veto override vote of SB50 has been rescheduled for October 20, 2025.
Supreme Court Grants Cert to Case Involving Gun Prohibition for ‘Unlawful’ Drug Users
The Supreme Court has granted cert to a second case dealing with Second Amendment issues this term; this one dealing with the federal prohibition on gun ownership for “unlawful” users of drugs.
The justices have been considering five cases involving Section 922(g)(3) in conference, but only granted cert in Hemani v. United States, which was the case the Department of Justice and Solicitor General D. John Sauer had been pressing the Court to take as a vehicle to decide the constitutionality of the federal statute.
Unlike other cases like Daniels v. United States, which revolve around someone’s conviction for possessing firearms as an unlawful user of marijuana, Hemani involves someone who was alleged to have used and sold promethazine, as well as using both cocaine and cannabis. Ali Hemani is also a dual citizen of the United States and Pakistan whose actions “have drawn the attention of the Federal Bureau of Investigation,” according to Sauer’s cert petition.
In 2019, a search of his phone at a border crossing revealed communications suggesting that he was poised to commit fraud at the direction of suspected affiliates of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, a designated foreign terrorist organization.
In 2020, respondent and his parents traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem Soleimani, an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before. Respondent’s mother was captured on video telling an Iranian news agency that she prayed that her two sons, including respondent, would become martyrs like Soleimani.
Respondent also maintains weekly contact with his brother, who attends an Iranian university that the U.S. government has designated as having ties to terrorism. And respondent has told law-enforcement officials that, if he knew about an imminent terrorist attack by “a Shia brother” that would kill innocent people, he would not report it to the authorities.
Of the five cases dealing with Section 922(g)(3), Hemani is by far the least sympathetic individual convicted of violating the statute, which helps to explain why the DOJ was eager for SCOTUS to use his case as the testing ground for the constitutionality of the law.
Still, the Court will likely consider the multiple splits in appellate courts over the statute, which includes a finding by the Fifth Circuit that laws prohibiting users of intoxicating substances do not comport with the national tradition of firearms ownership, and a Third Circuit opinion that suggests an individualized finding of dangerousness is necessary before depriving an “unlawful” drug user of their Second Amendment rights.
The DOJ’s position is that Section 922(g)(3) only disqualifies “habitual users of illegal drugs from possessing firearms,” though the statute doesn’t use the term “habitual” at all.” The DOJ also asserts that “the statute imposes a limited, inherently temporary restriction—one which the individual can remove at any time simply by ceasing his unlawful drug use.”
Virginia Judge Tosses State’s ‘Universal’ Background Check Law
Five years ago Virginia Democrats enacted a “universal” background check law (along with several other gun control measures) after the took complete control of state government for the first time in several decades.
Now Gun Owners of America has won an injunction barring enforcement of that statute.
Twenty-Fourth Judicial Circuit Judge F. Patrick Yeatts issued his opinion on Thursday afternoon, declaring that there was no need to “embark on an analysis as to whether Virginia’s background check requirements comport with the “\’historical tradition of firearm regulation’ in the United States.
In exercising judicial restraint, the Court finds it improper to resolve the question of firearm regulation through the lens of Bruen. Instead, the inherent as-applied constitutional deficiencies of the Act require that the court strike the statute in its entirety.
Not to get too into the weeds here, but the statute in question originally imposed background check requirements on all gun purchasers over the age of 18. There’s a conflict, however: Virginia law allows 18-year-olds to purchase and possess handguns, while federal law does not. So, any 18-to-20-year-old attempting to buy a handgun, even from a private party, still had to go through a NICS check and would be denied.
Yeatts previously granted an injunction as it applied to those young adults, but today he ruled that the law must be thrown out in its entirety based on a prior case know as Ayotte. If you want to geek out on the legal underpinnings behind Yeatts’ decision you can read his opinion here, but the short version is that at the moment the background check requirement on private transfers seems to be null and void.
A note of caution, though. Because this wasn’t decided on Second Amendment grounds, Yeatts left open the door for lawmakers to remedy the technical deficiencies that led to him striking down the statute.
The Court also observes that it is feasible to create a system where all individuals are treated equally in obtaining a background check. For example, Nevada law requires all firearm sales and transfers, with limited exceptions, to go through a background check conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL). The FFL conducts the background check through the Nevada Department of Public Safety’s (DPS)Point of Contact system. This system interfaces with the National Instant Criminal Background System (NICS) to determine the eligibility of the buyer to possess a firearm-regardless of age. While Virginia has not adopted such a system, whether due to cost or other reasons, Nevada demonstrates that it is possible to implement a uniform approach.
The statute as it stands, cannot remain intact. If the legislature wishes to rewrite the law to create a system that does not impose disparate treatment based on age, it may do so. At that time, a court might rightly address the question of whether it is constitutional to require a background check to obtain a handgun through a private sale. Now is not that time.
Nevada’s law prohibits sales of handguns to adults younger than 21, so running NICS checks on private party sales involving under-21s doesn’t create a conflict with state law. I don’t know if this was his intention or not, but it seems to me that Yeatts is essentially inviting the Virginia legislature to institute a ban on handgun sales to under-21s, although I’d argue that would absolutely create a system that imposes disparate treatment based on age.
If Democrats once again regain a governing trifecta in next month’s elections we may very well have to deal with an attempt to raise the age to purchase handguns, along with a host of other anti-2A actions. For now though, Gun Owners of America has succeeded in taking down Virginia’s “universal” background check law, and that’s good news for Second Amendment advocates across the Old Dominion.
Glocks, Guns, & Government Overreach: How California Keeps Missing the 2nd Amendment Express
California’s recent surge in gun control legislation, especially Assembly Bill 1127, which effectively bans Glock and Glock-style handguns, reveals a troubling pattern of the state enacting laws that conflict with the Second Amendment, the intent of the Founding Fathers, and established Supreme Court rulings. This relentless legislative push threatens the constitutional rights of California citizens and demands urgent corrective action.
The Second Amendment and Supreme Court Guidance
The Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Landmark Supreme Court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) confirmed that this right includes possessing firearms for lawful self-defense. The Court emphasized that the right to self-defense is central to the Amendment and that restrictions cannot apply to weapons “in common use.” California ignores this legal precedent.
In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court reaffirmed this position, ruling that gun regulations must reflect the historical understanding of the right at the time the Amendment was adopted. States must justify any restrictions based on this historical framework, especially when banning firearms like Glocks, which are essential tools for lawful self-defense.
Again, California ignores this legal precedent.
NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’
The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.
AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.
Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”
Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”
The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”
He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”
Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”
Florida Bill Will Make Churches Safer
My late father, a retired police officer and Freewill Baptist preacher’s son, wasn’t a fan of carrying in church. As a retired officer, he could, even though churches are off-limits here in Georgia. He just didn’t like it. He told me once that he didn’t believe carrying in church should be necessary, and it just felt wrong for him to do so.
At least, that’s how he felt until I reminded him that the world is full of goblins who don’t feel that way and see churches as targets.
The Annunciation Catholic School shooting is odd because it’s both a school shooting and a church shooting. While most of those attending mass that day were children, the truth was that they were left undefended during worship.
Church security has stopped mass shootings before. Most famously in White Settlement, Texas.
Now, Florida wants to make it easier to provide that kind of security.
A FloridaRepublican wants to make it easier for armed volunteers to provide security for churches and other houses of worship.
A bill, titled “Security Services at Places of Worship,” has been sponsored by Senator Don Gaetz and aims to waive some of the licensing and training requirements for individuals who want to volunteer to protect religious facilities.
Gaetz said that pastors in his district have asked for the measure, adding that smaller congregations typically don’t have the money to afford private security, FOX 13 reported.
Anyone hoping to volunteer will have to obtain a concealed carry permit, pass a level 2 background check, and secure approval from their local sheriff’s office before formally acting in a security capacity.
The bill specified that those acting as security via this method cannot be paid for their work, but it allows them to receive a “reasonable” reimbursement for their training costs.
It’s not a bad start.
I think a better move would be to just make it so anyone can lawfully carry in a church, then you don’t have to worry about the rest of the stuff. Those who mean harm will make it clear soon enough, and with an armed congregation, that will be a bad move.
However, I think there are a lot of ostensibly pro-gun people who somehow think people shouldn’t carry guns in churches–people like Dad–because it’s supposed to be a place of peace and worship. I sincerely understand that. I just repeat that not everyone feels that way, and far too many of those want to rack up a massive death toll.
Because of that, this might be the way to step forward without completely pushing those parties too far. When this turns out not to do any of the things the anti-gunners claim it will–and there will be claims of the church aisles running red with blood–then it becomes a bit easier to move that line a little farther down the road to where it should have been all along.
And, in the meantime, churches get a lot safer than they might otherwise be if they don’t have the resources to hire private security.
Newsom Signs Glock Ban Bill Into Law
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been calling himself a Second Amendment supporter for several months now, but if anyone had any doubts about his lack of sincerity those can now be put to rest. On Friday afternoon the governor signed AB 1127 into law, which will outlaw the sale of Glock handguns in the state starting in January.
In addition to AB 1127, Newsom also signed legislation that will require sales of gun barrels to go through an FFL and a background check, as well as AB 1078, which replaces California’s “1-in-30” handgun rationing law (which is already on hold thanks to a lawsuit) with a “3-in-30” law. The bill, however, states that California will return to its previous one-gun-a-month scheme if it’s ultimately upheld by the courts.
As you can imagine, gun control activists are thrilled to see California become the first state in the nation to outlaw the sale of some of the most popular pistols in the country, and they’ll be making a major push for other blue states to adopt similar bans in the months ahead. From Everytown for Gun Safety:
“We applaud Governor Newsom and state lawmakers for putting California at the forefront of the fight against DIY machine guns, which are just as scary as they sound,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “It speaks volumes about the gun industry’s fixation on profits that only a new law can force it to take the most basic steps to prevent mass carnage.”
“Governor Newsom, state lawmakers, and California volunteers continue to prove that the days of putting gun industry profits over our lives are long gone,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action. “DIY machine guns should never have had a pathway onto our streets, and today, we’re taking a big step to get them out of our communities. Our movement will keep fighting to hold reckless gun manufacturers accountable — because they shouldn’t get to profit off our tragedies.”
AB 1127 theoretically allows for Glock to change the design of its Gen 3 model to block the installation of illegal switches, but even if the company could take that step CalDOJ would view the redesigned pistol as a new firearm subject to the state’s handgun roster, and it would be rejected due to a lack of a magazine disconnect feature. That’s the reason why newer Glock models haven’t been approved for sale in California, though the Gen 3 was previously grandfathered in to the roster.
The NRA is already vowing to sue Newsom over the ban.
My guess is most of the other national Second Amendment groups will soon be filing suit as well, and we’ll probably see a coalition or two combining forces to take on the new laws.
So far there’s been no word from Glock on the new legislation, which is part of a broader effort to prohibit the sale of the popular handguns. The cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Seattle are also suing the company, claiming the gunmaker is willfully allowing the illegal conversion of their pistols into full-auto machine guns through the installation of illegal switches. New York also has a similar Glock ban bill pending in the legislature, and now that Newsom has signed AB 1127 into law that could start moving as well.
The gun control lobby can’t ban handguns outright, so their new strategy is to go after the most popular pistols on a piecemeal basis. In the short term, Glock sales will likely skyrocket in California, but unless AB 1127 is stayed via an injunction those sales will come to a screeching halt once the new law takes full effect.
The Second Amendment Holds More Weight Than ‘Uncle Dick’s Deer Stand’
In a Senate Judiciary Committee Oversight Hearing this week, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi faced questions regarding her leadership of the Justice Department.
But at the hearing, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) used her time questioning the nation’s top law enforcement official to repeat her canned comment about her ‘Uncle Dick’s deer stand’ when reiterating her support for legislation that would infringe upon citizens’ Second Amendment rights by banning popularly-owned firearms.
Stop us if you’ve heard this one before.
Illogical Reasoning, Rinsed and Repeated
Opening her time on the microphone, Sen. Klobuchar set the scene for an attack on our right to keep and bear arms. Addressing AG Bondi, Sen. Klobuchar got to her point.
“In 2018, after the Parkland shooting, you were attorney general and there was a bill called the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act and the bill banned bump stocks and enacted red flag laws and raised the minimum age to purchase a firearm in Florida from 18 to 21 and you actually defended the law in court from a challenge from the NRA and we know that I’m in favor of an assault weapon ban. Period,” she said.
“I look at these bills, and I think ‘Does this hurt my Uncle Dick and the deer stand?’ – we have a proud tradition of hunting in Minnesota – I don’t think they do,” Sen. Klobuchar suggested.
Sen. Klobuchar has referenced her Uncle Dick numerous times when discussing her belief that Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) can and should be banned.
Since she brought it up, though, NSSF views gun control bills through the lens and with the knowledge that our Founding Fathers didn’t add the Second Amendment to the Constitution in response to a rogue deer herd. They added it as a guarantee that law-abiding Americans had the Constitutional right and means to keep and bear arms to keep a new government in check.
Mislabels and Misinformation
Another key point to address is the term ‘assault rifle,’ which has been attributed to Adolf Hitler after he referred to the MP 43 (Maschinenpistole) by the German word Sturmgewehr – “assault rifle” in English. That the firearm, which became known as the Sturmgewehr 44, features an intermediate cartridge, controllable automatic fire, and a higher rate of fire, is not an accurate comparison to the MSRs of today.
Here in the United States, the term ‘assault weapon’ didn’t even exist in the lexicon of firearms before 1989. In 1988, anti-gun activist Josh Sugarmann, who was the communications director for the National Coalition to Ban Handguns, recommended that gun-control groups use public ignorance and fear to ban everything they can stuff into the phrase “assault weapon.”
Sugarman wrote, “Assault weapons … are a new topic. The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons…. Efforts to restrict assault weapons are more likely to succeed than those to restrict handguns.”
In the past several years, though, Americans have purchased Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) by the millions and are becoming more aware of the firearm’s functionality and operation. They aren’t buying the lies repeated by gun control groups and their elected allies who seek to ban the popular firearm.
In fact, firearm industry data has shown over the past few years while law-abiding Americans purchased firearms at a blistering pace, the MSR was a popular choice, including among first-time gun owners. Since 1990, there are more than 30 million MSRs in circulation today. That includes more than 4.5 million in the last three years alone. That makes the MSR more popular and commonly-owned today than there are Ford F-150 pickup trucks on the road.
I wonder if Uncle Dick drives an F-150?
The Cold Hard Truth
Unfortunately for Sen. Klobuchar and her gun control allies, America has already experimented with a ban, and facts overwhelmingly prove the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban did not reduce crime.
“These are just incredibly popular firearms… they are commonly owned, commonly used,” said political economist and assistant professor William English of Georgetown University’s McDonough School of Business. “At the end of the day, it is a rifle that I think is very easy to shoot, it’s very easy to control, not a lot of recoil.”
“So, it’s a good gun,” English added, when speaking with Washington Examiner’s Paul Bedard. “And to see it become widely owned, I suppose, makes sense in that context.”
Clearly, We the People agree. Sen. Klobuchar should take note.
A Handgun is No Longer Enough: The Evolving Standard for Armed Self-Defense
The Sovereign Citizen and the Imminent Threat
The right enshrined in the Second Amendment was not a mere allowance for hunting or personal security; it was a profound constitutional imperative designed to ensure the survival of the republic.
Our Founding Fathers deliberately vested the ultimate responsibility for public safety and the nation’s defense in an armed, prepared citizenry they called the American Militia. They understood that the collective strength of the people, armed with common, readily available firearms, was the most resilient check against tyranny, invasion, and civil catastrophe.
As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story stated, the right to keep and bear arms “has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.” Furthermore, James Madison argued that an armed citizenry, trained and ready, is “the best and most natural defense of a free country.” Their intent was clear: a free state is secured by a citizenry that is equipped to defend itself against the three distinct threats of tyranny, foreign invasion, and domestic unrest.
Today, this core mandate remains profoundly true, especially in the face of alarming official warnings. The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) recently issued a sobering advisory that the U.S.-designated terrorist group Al-Qaida and its Yemen-based affiliate (AQAP) remain intent on striking America. This is not a theoretical threat; it is a live intelligence concern.
READ MORE: US National Counterterrorism Center warns of threat from al Qaeda
This reality has been sharply articulated by law enforcement leaders. My local Butler County, Ohio, Sheriff Richard K. Jones, reflecting on warnings from the FBI regarding imminent terrorist threats, stated, “The terrorists are here… it is just a matter of time before they attack. The national government can’t take care of it all. There are more local police than the FBI. It all comes down to preparing for it.” To meet this level of threat, preparation must surpass outdated standards.
NRA-Backed Plaintiffs Seek Full 3rd Circuit Review of New Jersey’s Sweeping Gun Permit Restrictions
Trenton, NJ – The National Rifle Association announced that plaintiffs in Siegel v. Platkin have filed a petition for rehearing en banc before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, asking the full court to overturn a panel decision that upheld large portions of New Jersey’s post-Bruen carry law.
The challenge—brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs and seven individual plaintiffs—targets the state’s near-total list of “sensitive places” and its requirement that applicants for a carry permit produce written references from four “reputable” non-relatives.
Background: From Bruen to Trenton’s Response
After the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen affirmed the right of law-abiding citizens to carry a handgun for self-defense, Governor Phil Murphy condemned the ruling as “dreadful” and promised to take “actions” to limit its impact. The legislature quickly passed Chapter 131, a sweeping law that made it a crime to carry in 26 broad categories and 115 subcategories of locations—ranging from beaches and parks to museums, bars, and even libraries.
The law also imposed new hurdles for permit holders: a $50 “victims-fund” tax, a $150 application fee, a $300,000 mandatory insurance requirement, and the four-reference rule that forces applicants to find non-relatives willing to vouch for their “reputation.”
Second Amendment Foundation Challenges Constitutionality of National Firearms Act
The Second Amendment Foundation has filed a new lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act.
The groups Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three people: John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, and David Lynn Smith filed the lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
Since 1934, the NFA required anyone who wished to purchase a silencer, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun or “Any Other Weapon” to pay a $200 tax and register the firearm with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
The One Big Beautiful Bill removed the tax on these arms but kept the registration requirement.
The newly filed suit seeks to completely remove the affected arms from the NFA, eliminating the remaining registration requirements for gun silencers, short-barreled rifles, or barreled shotguns.
“With the tax now set to $0, the remaining registration requirements for these arms under the NFA have no constitutional basis,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Completely removing them from the NFA is now a must, and this suit aims to eradicate the barriers to the exercise of the Second Amendment. SAF is already a plaintiff in its own lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of these elements of the NFA, and now our sister organization the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is joining the fight as a plaintiff with our financial backing in this companion case.”
GOA, Partners Request Summary Judgement on NFA Provisions
We’re kind of in a special time right now. While the Hearing Protection Act and SHORT Act didn’t land quite like we wanted, with the new fiscal year, we can buy short-barreled rifles and suppressors without the $200 tax stamp.
The problem, though, is that we still need NFA paperwork, and those products will still be entered into the NFA database.
That’s a database whose stated existence isn’t about registering scary devices to keep them out of naughty hands. It’s about making sure whoever has them has paid the tax.
And the fact that there’s not a tax on these items anymore means there shouldn’t be a registration requirement.
While Congress insisted on leaving that in, unfortunately, Gun Owners of America and its partners have filed a lawsuit to try and fix the issue. Now, they’ve just filed a motion for summary judgment in the case.
From a press release:
Yesterday [October 7th], Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, together with a coalition of plaintiffs including Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, Brady Wetz, and fifteen states led by Texas, filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The motion seeks both a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional and an injunction to halt their enforcement as applied to newly “untaxed” firearms—including short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and so-called “any other weapons” (AOWs).
GOA’s coalition of plaintiffs challenged the NFA’s making, transfer, and possession restrictions on these “untaxed” firearms, arguing they are unconstitutional following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. No. 119-21) (“OBBB”), which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.
Effective January 1, 2026, the OBBB eliminates the NFA’s taxation requirements for these categories of firearms, leaving behind vestigial registration requirements that no longer serve as proof of payment of any tax. As a result, we argued that these excessive regulatory burdens go beyond Congress’s taxing power, cannot be defended under the Commerce Clause, and violate the Second Amendment.
With the filing of this motion for summary judgment, GOA and GOF now expect the Trump Administration to take an official position on untaxed firearm registration and file a response on or before November 6, 2025.
Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:
“The National Firearms Act’s onerous registration requirements for untaxed firearms are a relic of a taxing scheme that no longer exists. These provisions violate the Constitution by exceeding Congress’s authority and infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. We urge the Court to strike down these unconstitutional restrictions and protect the rights of our members, supporters, and millions of gun owners nationwide.”
John Velleco, GOF’s Executive Vice President, issued the following statement:
“The NFA is the strictest federal gun control law in the nation’s history. Even so, NFA-regulated weapons have proliferated in recent years, quickly becoming favored tools of the home defender, hunter, and hobbyist alike. This lawsuit takes aim at FDR-era restrictions that never should have been passed in the first place. We look forward to taking a big step towards restoring the Founders’ original vision for American gun owners.”
This is a bit of a test for the Trump administration.
They’ve already done more for the Second Amendment than any previous administration in my lifetime, but there have also been some cracks that I don’t like seeing. The DOJ has defended a few questionable gun control laws, for example. Here, they can make a clear position on the matter, and one that should make perfect sense in the long run. The registration is about a tax that no longer applies to suppressors and short-barreled firearms.
If the DOJ does the right thing here and agrees with GOA and its allies, then what we’ll see is a world where you can walk into a gun store, buy a suppressor with just a NICS check, then take it home without any further paperwork than you would buying a single-shot .22.
I’d say that’s how it should be, but it’s not. We shouldn’t even have to go through that, but it would at least be far more acceptable than the current status quo, where you go to the ATF with hat in hand and ask, “Mother, may I?”
That’s not how our rights should work. We should be able to buy what we want, when we want.
But this is just the first step in a process of getting to that point. The Department of Justice can help with that, but even if they don’t, there’s a long road ahead, and we can and should follow the process to the very end. We need this killed throughout the country and done so in a way that leaves no ambiguity, so states figure they can do their own registries on these devices.
Good luck to the plaintiffs on this one.