Lawsuits Inbound After Colorado Governor Signs Semi-Auto Ban

After the Colorado legislature amended SB 3 to better align with Gov. Jared Polis’s point of view, there was little doubt that the gun ban bill would be signed into law once it reached his desk, and on Thursday afternoon, Polis put pen to paper and enshrined the bill into law.

The original version of the semi-auto ban was pretty simple: gas-operated semi-automatic long guns capable of accepting a detachable magazine would be prohibited for sale and manufacture in the state of Colorado, and though residents who possessed one before the law could take effect could keep theirs, it would be a criminal offense for anyone else to acquire or keep on in their home.

Polis’s wanted to see a major change to the bill; allowing AR-15s and other modern sporting rifles to stay on store shelves and giving Colorado residents the ability to purchase and possess them going forward, but only if they undergo additional training and receive a Second Amendment permission slip from their local sheriff.

Polis said the measure would help push Colorado toward its goal of becoming one of the top 10 safest states. He also advocated for the legislators to look at creating scholarship opportunities for the training, which would be run through Colorado Parks and Wildlife, and permits would be maintained by county sheriff’s offices. He said the current goal is to ensure CPW’s firearm training costs are under $200.

He also advocated for legislators to find a way to ensure prior firearm training and experience, such as peace officer or military training, to allow that training to qualify the citizens for purchase.

Colorado’s violent crime rate has soared since 2012, when the state enacted its first real gun control measures, including a ban on “high capacity” magazines. Polis is deluding himself if he believes that SB 3 is going to make the state a safer place. Any criminal who wants to obtain a firearm for illicit or evil purposes can either steal one, go through the state-mandated training and be approved for purchase, or simply head out of state and buy a rifle or shotgun there.

It will be lawful residents who feel the brunt of SB 3s impact, with Polis essentially admitting that the permit-to-purchase process will add hundreds of dollars to the price of a modern sporting rifle. Firearm retailers will feel the pinch as well, since many Coloradans who want to purchase one of these guns will likely head to FFLs across the border in states like Wyoming and Kansas to do so.

Immediately following the signing on Thursday afternoon, the Colorado State Shooting Association, which is the official state association of the National Rifle Association, said it would be filing a lawsuit against the new law.

“This legislation, which imposes unprecedented restrictions on the purchase of semi-automatic firearms through a burdensome permit-to-purchase scheme, represents a direct assault on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Coloradans,” CSSA said in a release.

The group has contended that the measure will create a “de facto gun registry” that is maintained by state or local authorities. CSSA also noted that it had presented a petition with over 40,000 signatures urging Polis to veto the bill.

The NRA also vocalized its opposition to the bill.

“Behind closed doors, Governor Polis cowardly signed into law the most anti-gun, anti-freedom bill in Colorado’s history. Instead of respecting the individual liberties of gun owners and hunters in his state, he bent the knee to the radical gun control element of his party,” the NRA said in a release. “In Jared’s Colorado, you need a ‘Polis Permission Slip’ to exercise your constitutional rights. If this proposal was popular with his citizens, it would not need to be enacted in secret.”

The preparation for the inevitable lawsuits has already begun, but don’t be surprised if nothing is filed immediately. The law won’t take effect until August 1, 2026, and any litigation filed now might be dismissed because the issue isn’t ripe for court review.

That extended deadline also gives Coloradans more than a year to continue to purchase the most commonly sold and popular rifles in the country, and in the short term, Polis’s ban is likely to lead to a spike in sales for the rifles and shotguns he and gun control activists want to restrict.

Bill to bar giving guns to certain mental health patients stalls until 2026

A bill that would criminalize knowingly giving firearms to someone who recently received inpatient mental health treatment was pushed to 2026 on Wednesday  amid questions about its language.

Rep. Shaundelle Brooks, a Hermitage Democrat, named the bill “Akilah’s Law” in honor of her son Akilah Dasilva, who was killed in a mass shooting at a Nashville Waffle House in 2018.

The shooter, Travis Reinking of Morton, Illinois, had a history of schizophrenia and delusions. Prior to the shooting, Illinois State Police had revoked his firearm owner identification card, forcing him to surrender his guns to his father. His father then returned the guns to Reinking, breaking Illinois state law.

Tennessee bars giving firearms to juveniles or intoxicated people, but not those who have been committed for mental health evaluation.

Brooks said her bill intends to bring Tennessee in line with the Illinois law that prohibits someone from giving or selling a firearm to a person who has been a patient in a mental health institution within five years.

Brooks’ bill passed the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee in late March, but questions over the bill’s scope and language arose in the Senate Judiciary Committee on April 8. 

Sen. Paul Rose, a Southwest Tennessee Republican, asked for clarity on what the bill defines as a “mental health institution” and what it means to be “admitted.” Rose questioned whether a person who makes routine visits to a mental health provider for medication would be considered a patient of a mental health institution under the bill’s definition.

The bill’s Senate sponsor, Memphis Democrat Raumesh Akbari, said she did not believe the bill would apply in that case.

Elliot Pinsly, president and CEO of the Behavioral Health Foundation, said the way the legislation is written could have a “chilling effect on people’s willingness to seek mental health treatment in Tennessee.” Pinsly, a licensed clinical social worker, founded the policy-focused nonprofit in 2020.

“The actual bill makes it a crime punishable by up to one year imprisonment to sell, give or otherwise transfer a firearm to a person who has received just about any kind of mental health care or addiction treatment in the past five years, voluntary or involuntary, outpatient or inpatient,” Pinsly said.

Facing uncertainty on the outcome of a committee vote, Akbari chose to move the bill to the general subcommittee, essentially putting it on ice until it can be resurrected in 2026.

“I look forward to Representative Brooks continuing to move this through the House … I will be working with all members on this committee so that we can reach a solution so we can really protect folks in Tennessee,” Akbari said.

The New York Times’ Latest Anti-Gun News Story

Print journalism is pretty simple, really. At least it used to be. For decades there were basically two types of stories, news and opinion. Reporters wrote news stories. Columnists and a few others wrote opinion pieces.

But in recent years we’ve seen another type of journalism rise in prominence, the anti-gun story, which masquerades as a regular news piece but is chock-full of opinion and false claims. When reporters fill their anti-gun stories with their opinions their editors do nothing, because they often share their staffer’s opinions.

During my 20 years as a newspaperman, I would call out the authors of anti-gun stories whenever I saw them, but my criticisms were usually never addressed, even though we have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Nowadays, journalists talk constantly about the accuracy of their reporting. However, when they write anti-gun stories, the normal journalism standards are gone, and the editing is a complete joke. The size of the newspaper also makes a difference. Smaller newspapers are generally more accurate when writing about guns than the big ones.

Case in point: The New York Times.

On Monday, the Times published what is perhaps the most anti-gun news story seen in quite a while. It was written by reporter Glenn Thrush, who started at the newspaper in 2017 and claimed in his bio that his most “fulfilling assignment” was writing obituaries, which is odd. Writing about the recently departed is far from fulfilling.

Thrush’s story was titled “Trump Administration to Roll Back Array of Gun Control Measures.” The array was described as a reversal of the strict gun control rules Joe Biden ordered “to stem the flood of unregulated semiautomatic handguns and rifles.”

If you look closely at Thrush’s story, you will find factual errors and anti-gun hyperbole in nearly every paragraph. For example, Thrush wrote that gun dealers stripped of the Federal Firearm Licenses by Biden’s crazy zero-tolerance policy were “found to have repeatedly violated federal laws and regulations.”

This is far from the truth.

Biden’s insane policy stripped hundreds of gun dealers of their FFL’s solely because of extremely minor clerical errors. It is estimated to have increased the FFL revocation rate by 700 percent. Thrush never mentioned that, or that the ATF occasionally sent its poorly trained SWAT team to the gun dealers’ homes, or that the dealers were handcuffed and laying on their stomachs during their conversations with the ATF. In one case, the alleged suspect never got the chance to respond to any of the federal allegations, because ATF’s SWAT team shot and killed him in his own home before they had a chance to talk.

Thrush was not kind to Attorney General Pam Bondi or her plan to use the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to investigate the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department to determine whether it is “engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights.”

Even though this task is clearly covered by federal law, Thrush claimed that Bondi was “repurposing an investigative unit that had been used to expose racial discrimination and police violence by local enforcement agencies.”

Bondi’s decision didn’t involve any repurposing. The federal laws that govern the Civil Rights Division are very clear, unlike Biden’s ATF rules.

The author spoke to the executive director of Giffords, who falsely claimed Trump gave his seal of approval to “reckless dealers who are willing to sell guns to traffickers and criminals.” Over the years I have met more than a few gun dealers, but no one willing to sell arms to anyone with a criminal record. That this actually made it into a New York Times story is incredibly damning.

Thrush also claimed that the ATF took “an abrupt U-turn” from the schemes of Biden and ATF’s former director to “stem the flood of unregulated semiautomatic handguns and rifles that have contributed to mass shootings and exacerbated the violent crime wave that peaked after the coronavirus pandemic.”

A flood of unregulated handguns and rifles?

Remember that the next time you fill out an ATF Form 4473.

Armed intruder killed by resident at Fort Myers apartments

A person was shot and killed at a Fort Myers apartment complex while attempting a break-in.

Fort Myers police officers responded to a call at 11:40 p.m. Thursday in reference to a disturbance on Mahaffey Road in the Carlton of Fort Myers apartments, off Plantation Road.

The person who called 911 told police that they fired one shot at an armed intruder trying to enter their residence.

Officers and EMS attempted life-saving measures. However, the intruder was pronounced dead at the scene.

No one is in custody. The investigation is ongoing.

GSCC police set to host Advanced Women’s Self-Defense Class

The Gadsden State Community College Police Department will host a free Advanced Women’s Self-Defense Class on Saturday, April 19, at the Beck Conference Center on the Wallace Drive [Gadsden, Alabama] Campus.

This empowering and educational course is open to the public for women ages 13 and up and will run from 8 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. and resume after lunch from 12:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., for those wanting to attend the shooting range portion.

Designed to build confidence and equip participants with valuable tools to protect themselves, the class will include hands-on training and cover the following key topics:

  • Situational Awareness
  • Legal Insights
  • Hands-on Self-Defense Techniques
  • Firearm Awareness and Safety

An optional shooting range session will be available to participants from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m. for those who bring a functioning handgun and 50 rounds of ammunition.

The event is made possible through the support of our exceptional instructors from various agencies and local sponsors.

“This class is about more than just physical defense—it’s about empowering women with knowledge, confidence, and a strong sense of preparedness,” said Jay Freeman, Chief of Police at Gadsden State Community College. “We want every participant to leave feeling stronger, smarter, and more capable of protecting themselves and those around them.”

How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people.
-Walter Williams

Latest Moves to Reign In ATF Overreach are Welcome Blows Against the Anti-Gun Bureaucracy.

There really isn’t any line that anti-gun politicians won’t cross in order to undermine the Second Amendment. None. I remember several years ago when I was working for U.S. Senator Bill Roth (R-DE) – yeah, the Roth in Roth IRA – in his Wilmington office. There was a proposal to tax ammunition. This wasn’t the 11% excise tax we’re all familiar with, already pay, and never really see.

No, this was a tax designed to punish gun owners, to hurt them — significantly — right in their wallets. A couple of variations of this kind of tax were being considered or floated. If I remember correctly, the one at the time was either a 25% tax on handgun ammunition, or even a $0.25 per round tax.

I asked the Senator his opinion on an ammunition tax and his reply was quintessential Bill Roth. He looked at me and said, “It’s a tax. I’m against taxes.” He wasn’t concerned about the tax as an attack on the Second Amendment. He saw it as yet another attack on taxpayers.

Taxation is the primary weapon for politicians looking to take something away from citizens. The problem for them, however, is that new tax bills are harder and harder to pass as the majority of taxpayers are kind of tired of paying more and receiving little to nothing in return.

Knowing this, the Biden Administration sought to press its anti-gun agenda, in part, through overly aggressive enforcement by the federal firearm regulatory bureaucracy. By taking a zero tolerance approach to even the smallest clerical mistakes made by gun dealers, the Biden Administration would use ATF to strip retailers of their licenses to sell guns.

While this was pitched to the media and the public as zero tolerance, what they really should have called it was zero chance, as in there was virtually zero chance the agency wouldn’t be taking your FFL, because they were determined to find something. And that’s exactly how many retailers viewed it.

Fortunately, not every ATF agent doing FFL inspections was hellbent on pulling licenses and was willing to see simple clerical errors for what they were, unintentional minor mistakes that are easily rectified. In other words, they made a ‘no harm, no foul’ call.

Unfortunately, though, there were ATF agents who were more than willing to be weaponized by the agency’s leadership against FFLs lawfully conducting business. Maybe they saw this as a pathway to promotion within an administration that placed a lot of value on blindly following orders from the Autopen-in-Chief.

On Monday news came that the era of zero-tolerance was over. The National Shooting Sports Foundation heralded the announcement from the Trump Administration in Monday’s edition of Bullet Points.

NSSF praises the announcement today by the Department of Justice (DOJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) that the agencies are doing away with the Biden-era “zero-tolerance” policy that punished lawful and highly-regulated Federal Firearm Licensees (FFLs) for minor clerical errors.

The administration’s announcement also noted that the Biden-era regulatory policies on “engaged in the business” and pistol stabilizing braces would be reconsidered. Both of which were viewed – rightly – as regulatory overreach by the agency on issues that should have been addressed legislatively by Congress.

Where exactly we go from here is hard to predict, but Monday’s announcement is a very good sign that government of the people, by the people, for the people hasn’t succumbed to the Biden-era alternative of government of the bureaucrats, by the bureaucrats, for the bureaucrats.

For right now it’s good riddance to some pernicious antigun regulatory overreach. We all know, however, that bureaucrats are going to bureaucrat because that’s the only thing they know how to do. And their turn will no doubt come again. Here’s hoping Revenge of the Bureaucrats doesn’t hit theaters anytime soon.

 

How Did an Honors Student Who Says She Can’t Read or Write Get Into College?

Aleysha Ortiz, 19, alleges she cannot read or write yet says she graduated with honors from Hartford Public High School in 2024. She has since filed a lawsuit against the Hartford Board of Education and city officials, accusing them of negligence in failing to provide adequate special education services throughout her schooling, per reporting from Connecticut’s News 8 WTNH.

Ortiz, who is now enrolled at the University of Connecticut (UConn), said she relied heavily on assistive technology such as speech-to-text and text-to-speech programs to complete schoolwork, according to CNN.

Why It Matters

Ortiz’s lawsuit underscores broader concerns about systemic failures in public education, particularly in providing adequate support for students with learning disabilities. The case has drawn attention to how academic achievement is measured and whether special education students are truly receiving the skills they need to succeed beyond high school.

Additionally, it raises questions about how colleges assess applicants, especially those facing severe academic challenges.

Ortiz told CNN she was promoted through school without acquiring fundamental literacy skills. In a May 2024 city council meeting, she testified that after 12 years in Hartford Public Schools, she was unable to read or write, despite being awarded an honors diploma.

Days before her graduation, school officials reportedly offered her the option to defer her diploma to receive additional support, but she declined, according to CNN.

How Did She Get Into College?

Her admission to UConn was possible due to the school’s holistic application process, which does not require SAT scores. According to UConn admissions, the university evaluates applications based on GPA, coursework, extracurricular activities and essays.

Ortiz, who told CNN she used voice-to-text software to complete her application, also received financial aid and scholarships to support her education.

Once in college, Ortiz faced academic difficulties. She shared with CNN that while UConn has provided support services, she took a leave of absence starting in February 2025 for mental health reasons. She has stated she intends to return to her studies but has faced challenges in adapting to the rigor of college coursework.

Experts have pointed out that Ortiz’s case is not unique. Literacy advocates argue that disparities in educational resources disproportionately affect students in underfunded districts, contributing to cases where students graduate without essential skills.

Continue reading “”

Colorado Governor Signs Semi-Auto Permit-to-Purchase Scheme into Law

It will soon be much harder for Colorado gun owners to continue purchasing modern semi-automatic firearms.

In a closely guarded ceremony Thursday, Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D.) signed SB25-003 into law. The “Semiautomatic Firearms & Rapid-Fire Devices” bill criminalizes the manufacture, distribution, transfer, and purchase of any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, or gas-operated handgun that accepts a detachable magazine. The law also carves out an exception from the ban for those who undergo an extensive permitting and training process—the first of its kind for purchasing firearms in Colorado.

“This legislation builds on our commitment to improve public safety, reduce gun violence, uphold our freedom,” Polis said in a statement.

The bill enacts some of the most sweeping gun regulations ever considered in the Centennial State, even compared to the few dozen restrictions Colorado lawmakers have been stacking up over the last decade. It fulfills gun-control advocates’ longstanding goal of cracking down on the availability of certain semi-automatic firearms and is almost sure to draw legal challenges from gun-rights groups.

The Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA), the state’s NRA affiliate, threatened as much in a statement blasting the Governor’s decision to sign the bill.

“We are resolute in our response,” Ray Elliott, CSSA president, said. “The Colorado State Shooting Association is actively exploring every legal option to challenge this unconstitutional law. Our legal team is preparing to contest Senate Bill 3, and we are committed to pursuing justice through every available avenue.”

The group said it submitted 40,000 petition signatures to the Governor urging a veto earlier this week.

The bill’s controversial nature could explain its unceremonious entry into law. Polis, a Democrat with a libertarian streak, kept his opinions on the policy close to the vest throughout the legislative process. He did not publicly indicate whether he would sign the bill until Thursday, even as he faced immense outside pressure from groups on either side of the issue.

His office did not respond to a request for comment.

While he hesitated to increase public scrutiny of the measure, his office was heavily involved in making the final product less restrictive than its original form. As introduced, the bill envisioned an outright ban on semi-automatic firearms that did not have a permanently affixed magazine capable of holding 15 or fewer rounds—a policy even broader than typical “assault weapon” bans that Polis has expressed skepticism of in the past.

Working closely with the Governor’s office, the bill’s sponsors added several pages to its provisions to craft an entirely novel process for Coloradans to continue purchasing the weapons in question. It includes a prospective buyer having to first obtain a newly established “firearms safety course eligibility card” from their local sheriff, which requires paying a fee, submitting fingerprints, and going through a background check.

Once issued, a firearms safety course eligibility card would be valid for five years. The issuing sheriff would be required to submit cardholders’ data to a newly created “Firearms Safety and Training Course Record System” administered by the Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife, an agency that currently does not handle anything involving firearm sales.

With a valid eligibility card, a prospective buyer could enroll in either a “basic firearms safety course” or an “extended firearm safety course.” The basic firearms safety course is open to eligible cardholders with a hunter education certification and requires four hours of in-person instruction. Prospective buyers without hunter education training will be required to attend the extended firearm course, which must include at least 12 hours of in-person instruction spread across at least two days.

The bill requires both courses to include curricula on safe weapons handling, secure storage and child access prevention, firearms deaths and mental illness, extreme risk protection orders, and “victim awareness and empathy.” Completing each course would be contingent on receiving a score of at least 90% on a final test.

If a cardholder wants to continue buying the affected firearms, they must undergo the process again after five years.

In addition to restricting the availability of certain guns, the measure also contains provisions going after bump stocks, binary triggers, and similar accessories. It bans the possession of any “rapid-fire device,” defined broadly as any combination of parts that has the effect of “increasing the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm above the standard rate of fire.” It also codifies increased criminal penalties for violating the state’s twelve-year-old ammunition magazine ban, now a class 1 misdemeanor punishable by up to a year in jail.

The law’s provisions are set to go into effect on August 1, 2026.

Missouri House lawmakers vote to allow guns on public transit and lower concealed carry age

A bill passed by the Missouri House Thursday would make it legal to bring guns on public transportation and lower the minimum age for a concealed carry permit.

House Bill 328 passed the House 106-45. It now goes to the Senate.

Currently, it’s illegal to bring guns on public transit even with a concealed carry permit. Supporters of the bill say it would allow passengers to protect themselves and safeguard Second Amendment rights.

“It’s about time that we allow those people who use public transportation to exercise the same rights as everyone else in our state,” said bill sponsor Tim Taylor, R-Bunceton.

However, opponents say that the bill would only endanger passengers, not make them safer.

“More access to guns does nothing to improve public safety,” said Rep. Yolanda Young, D-Kansas City. “More access to guns doesn’t decrease gun deaths. It does the opposite.”

The bill would also lower the minimum age to acquire a concealed carry permit from 19 to 18. Currently, 18-year-olds can only get permits if they are members of the military.

“That means high school kids could legally carry concealed weapons,” said House Minority Leader Ashley Aune, D-Kansas City. “What could go wrong with that?”

For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution.
[Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822)]