waiting for the standard en banc request, where the rest of the 9th circus can express it’s normal idiocy on RKBA….

California ammunition background checks declared unconstitutional by US appeals court

July 24 (Reuters) – A divided federal appeals court on Thursday said California’s first-of-its-kind law requiring firearm owners to undergo background checks to buy ammunition is unconstitutional, violating the Second Amendment right to bear arms.
In a 2-1 vote, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Pasadena, California upheld a lower court judge’s permanent injunction against enforcing the law.

Jumpstart your morning with the latest legal news delivered straight to your inbox from The Daily Docket newsletter. Sign up here.

Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta said the law “meaningfully constrains” people’s right to keep and bear arms.
She also said California failed to show the law was consistent with the country’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as required under a 2022 landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.
“By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” Ikuta wrote.
The office of California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat who defended the law, was disappointed by the decision.
“Our families, schools, and neighborhoods deserve nothing less than the most basic protection against preventable gun violence, and we are looking into our legal options,” a spokesperson said.

Continue reading “”

Pro Forma Kabuki Theater

Democrat Senator Pushes for $4,700 Tax Stamps

A leading anti-gun firebrand on Capitol Hill this week introduced a measure that would skyrocket the federal tax on NFA items, like suppressors and short-barreled firearms.

U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who has signed on to just about every wandering gun ban and restriction that has come through Congress in the past two decades, on Tuesday suggested new tax rates on NFA items.

His proposed amendment to a Republican military spending bill would set the typical $200 making and transfer tax on most items to $4,709 and move the $5 tax on AOWs to $55.

“If we want to save lives in this country, we have to find a way, come hell or high water, to stop mass legalization of silencers in this country,” said Murphy in a press conference last month on the eve of potential NFA reform in the Republican reconciliation bill, H.R.1, better known as President Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill.”

While H.R.1 did not include “mass legalization” of suppressors (they have never been illegal, just taxed since 1934), it did drop the tax rate to $0, effective in January 2026.

National gun control groups quickly welcomed Murphy’s move, with Brady saying, “Thank you, Chris Murphy, for introducing this critical amendment to strike the provision in the big UGLY bill that removed taxes on deadly silencers & other uniquely lethal weapons, and instead adjust taxes to reflect inflation today.”

The likelihood of Murphy’s proposal sticking to the spending bill and making it into law is slim in the Republican-controlled Senate. Still, it signals one of the priorities that Dems will pursue when the polarity of Congress switches.

Fifth Circuit Issues Another Common Sense Decision on Guns

When it comes to deciding Second Amendment cases, there’s probably no appellate court more cognizant of the fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms than the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judges on the court have, among other things; ruled several ATF rules out of bounds, upheld the right of “unlawful” users of marijuana to possess firearms (so long as they’re not actively under the influence), and declared that adults under the age of 21 have a Second Amendment right to purchase handguns from firearm retailers.

Now the court has issued another common sense decision in favor of our right to keep and bear arms: police don’t have the authority to stop and search someone just because they were carrying a gun.

That ruling came from a three-judge panel in a case called U.S. v. Wilson. From the decision:

On March 16, 2022, federal agents stopped Damion Wilson pursuant to Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968). As he was approaching Wilson, Deputy U.S. Marshal Michael Atkins “noticed a bulge in [Wilson’s] waist area” that seemed like “a hard object.” ROA.252 (alteration in original).

Based on his training, Deputy Atkins believed the object was a concealed firearm. Atkins and other federal agents then ordered Wilson to stop and put his hands up. Wilson complied. The agents asked Wilson if he was armed, and he replied that he was. The agents ordered Wilson to drop the backpack he was wearing, to turn around, and to place his hands behind his back. The agents handcuffed him. While Wilson was being cuffed, Deputy Atkins asked him if he had a concealed weapons permit. Wilson admitted that he did not.

The agents took the gun—which was loaded with an extended magazine—from Wilson.Deputy Atkins told Wilson that he was not under arrest and that agents wanted to talk to him about Wilson’s friend—a federal fugitive named Malik Fernandez. Wilson denied having seen or spoken to Fernandez in six years. However, on Wilson’s public Instagram account, officers found a photo of Wilson and Fernandez together that had been posted approximately four months earlier.

Local police then arrested Wilson for carrying a firearm without a permit. Incident to that arrest, officers searched Wilson’s backpack and found marijuana. Officers then obtained a search warrant for Wilson’s apartment and found more marijuana, drug paraphernalia, and approximately$1,700.

Wilson ended up being charged by DOJ with several crimes, but he moved to suppress all physical evidence and statements stemming from his stop and arrest. While a district court judge rejected his argument, the Fifth Circuit found it more persuasive… though in the end their decision didn’t help his case. The key takeaway for gun owners, though, is this:

Undoubtedly, obtaining a driver’s license is more difficult than acquiring a concealed carry permit in a shall-issue State. Based solely on the observation that someone is driving a car, does an officer have reasonable suspicion that the driver is unlicensed?

Obviously, no: “[S]topping an automobile and detaining the driver in order to check his driver’s license and the registration of the automobile are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment” without “articulable and reasonable suspicion that a motorist is unlicensed or that an automobile is not registered.” This was true even though driving, like carrying a firearm, is “subject to state regulation.”

… Put differently, officers cannot assume that citizens engaging in an activity subject to licensing are unlicensed. Without more facts, it is “[in]sufficiently probable that the observed conduct suggests unlawful activity.”

… If anything, the Constitution’s prohibition on presuming illegality should be stronger for gun owners than for car drivers. Unlike driving on public highways, which is a State-created and State-regulated privilege, “the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home.”

So regardless of how States’ permitting schemes are set up, keeping and bearing arms is preemptively lawful nationwide. We therefore refuse to “single out the Second Amendment for disfavor,” ), and we reject the district court’s categorical rule that presumes Louisiana gun owners are committing crimes.

The panel, though, concluded that Wilson’s stop was justified under Terry because there were other factors that created a “reasonable suspicion that criminal activity may be afoot”; primarily his relationship with Fernandez, who was a federal fugitive allegedly involved in a shootout related to drug trafficking.

For those of us who don’t regularly pal around with drug traffickers or violent offenders, the Fifth Circuit’s decision offers real protection against unlawful searches just because we’re exercising our Second Amendment rights… at least in those states under the court’s jurisdiction. It’s unclear whether Wilson will appeal the decision to the Supreme Court, but even if he does the Court will most likely be able to respond without discussing the Second Amendment implications of the appellate court’s decision.

To paraphrase a quote:

You have a group that would rather see a woman raped and strangled with her own pantyhose, than have her standing over the dead body of her attacker with a smoking handgun.

The Misogyny of the Anti-Gun Movement

A couple of days ago my colleague Tom Knighton wrote about some examples of misogyny in Second Amendment spaces, but the issue is perhaps even more pronounced among gun control advocates.

As Paige Pearson writes at the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s blog, many gun control groups have institutionalized their opposition to women exercising their Second Amendment rights… and they have become more vocal as more women are becoming gun owners.

The Smoking Gun is Everytown for Gun Safety’s media arm that describes itself as “the online resource committed to exposing the gun industry’s” role “in our gun violence epidemic.” Apparently that includes exposing the evils of marketing and advertising in a manner that attracts 50 percent of your possible customer base.

Enter Greg Lickenbrock, who spoke with three marketing and sociology professors from Oregon State University about their observations in advertising towards American women from firearm manufacturers and retailers.

“The fact that we now see women in these ads, and portraying different ‘characters,’ demonstrates the industry’s efforts to increase ownership among women,” Dr. Brett Burkhardt said.

“After a few years of experimenting with sexualized ads that didn’t correlate with increased sales to women, the industry now seems to have landed on an advertising idea that works: showing women as competent and serious gun owners,” added Dr. Michelle Barnhardt.

Dr. Aimee Dinnin Huff offered her thoughts as well. “There isn’t yet an established female American gun owner identity or image that consumers can latch onto. Many ads still rely on gendered assumptions rather than a nuanced understanding of the different types of relationships women have with firearms,” she said.

Dr. Burkhardt added another thought, stating, “These new and more common depictions of women and firearms are examples of how the industry is seeking to naturalize women’s gun ownership.”

Why shouldn’t gun ownership be considered natural for women? Or, to put it another way, why do anti-gunners want to denormalize half the population exercising a fundamental constitutional right?

To be fair, groups like Everytown are just as opposed to guys owning guns as they are with women exercising their 2A rights. But the anti-gunners can’t stand the fact that more women are choosing to purchase a firearm; whether for self-defense, hunting, competitive shooting, or just because it’s fun to spend time at the range. And they absolutely hate that the firearms industry has recognized that a growing number of women are making up their customer base.

Media still widely misrepresents American gun owners as old, white guys but recent trends in firearm purchasing couldn’t put this caricature to rest any better. Over the past five years, the surge of new first-time buyers has made the gun-owning community the most diverse population of gun owners ever. That’s a good thing – as the Second Amendment is for everyone. And that includes women.

Women are featured more prominently today in advertising because more women are buying firearms for any number of reasons – all good ones – and the industry is listening to them. Women’s nights at neighborhood shooting ranges, women-only firearm training classes and even friend groups choosing to go to the range together are all increasingly more popular activities as women choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights in any safe way they choose.

Marketing has changed over the last few decades to follow the customer. For Lickenbrock and others, that means seeing a lot more women with guns. And that’s a good thing.

I certainly think so, and if you’re reading this I’m relatively sure you’re in agreement with Pearson too. The gun control lobby, on the other hand, isn’t just going to clutch its collective pearls. They too will be targeting women with anti-gun messaging and campaigns designed to discourage them from keeping and bearing arms; portraying it as something that’s far too dangerous for ladies to engage in… and ignoring stories about women saving their own lives thanks to their decision to become a gun owner.

NC Senate will vote to override Stein’s vetoes on concealed guns, DEI and immigration next week

Republicans in the North Carolina Senate will vote to override Gov. Josh Stein’s vetoes next week, Senate leader Phil Berger (R-Rockingham) said Monday.

The governor, a Democrat, has issued seven vetoes on bills that originated in the Senate. Among them are one to allow permitless carry of handguns, two new immigration enforcement measures, two banning diversity, equity and inclusion practices in schools and a rollback of an emissions goal for Duke Energy.

Berger, in a news release, said Stein’s vetoes indicate “that he is out of touch with the people of North Carolina.”

“I look forward to leading Senate Republicans in overriding these harmful vetoes and putting North Carolina families first,” Berger said.

Veto overrides require approval from three-fifths of members in both chambers. Senate Republicans, who hold a 30-20 veto-proof supermajority, will meet that threshold if all members are present and voting.

The vote counting is more precarious in the House, where the GOP holds a 71-49 advantage. Speaker Destin Hall (R-Caldwell) has said the override motions can be called up at any time when the House is in session. But all Republicans, as well as one Democrat, will need to vote yes to confirm an override, if all members are present and voting.

Stein has also vetoed several prominent House bills. Those include a ban on DEI within state agencies and a bill that recognizes exclusively male and female sexes and restricts changes to birth certificates for transgender people. If the House overrides Stein’s vetoes on those bills, they will go to the Senate for final action.

Both chambers are set to come into session next week.

Special Taxes on Firearms are Unconstitutional.

1. The Tax Law That Now Finds Itself Without a Tax

In the recent discourse around the potential removal of suppressors and short barrel rifles from the provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) and its tax and registration requirements, a point made repeatedly was that if the tax was repealed but the registration stayed, the latter would be illegal as it was only ever justified by the former.

This is indeed correct, as from its inception, the NFA was justified as a tax, with the registration being incidental to that tax and only existing ostensibly to ensure the tax was properly paid for each NFA item sold. Then-Attorney General Cummings was clear about this in his testimony to Congress during the debates over the bill in 1934:

Courts have consistently upheld the NFA, and its registration provision, on the grounds that it was a tax. Some who tried to challenge the law even argued that the tax was a pretext, with the real aim being to unconstitutionally restrict the arms included in the NFA. The Supreme Court rejected this argument in 1937, just a few years after the NFA was first enacted in Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U.S. 506, 512-514 (1937):

“Petitioner. . .insists that the present levy is not a true tax, but a penalty imposed for the purpose of suppressing traffic in a certain noxious type of firearms, the local regulation of which is reserved to the states because not granted to the national government. . . But a tax is not any the less a tax because it has a regulatory effect. . . Here the annual tax of $200 is productive of some revenue. We are not free to speculate as to the motives which moved Congress to impose it, or as to the extent to which it may operate to restrict the activities taxed. As it is not attended by an offensive regulation, and since it operates as a tax, it is within the national taxing power.”
Ever since then, dozens of rulings have upheld the NFA on those same grounds. For example, in 2018 the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals explained that “the NFA is a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power, as well as its authority to enact any laws “necessary and proper” to carry out that power.” United States v. Cox, 906 F.3d 1170, 1179 (10th Cir. 2018).

Continue reading “”

DOJ Officially Publishes Proposed Rule on Firearm Rights Restoration

The Department of Justice has officially published its proposed rule re-establishing a process for those prohibited from possessing a firearm to regain their Second Amendment rights; a program that exists on paper but has been defunded by Congress for the past several decades.

The rule can be found here, and folks can comment on the proposal until mid-October. The DOJ estimates as many as 1 million people could apply for relief in the first year the rule is in place, at a cost of about $20 million. DOJ wants to offset that expense by charging a $20 application fee; a substantial savings compared to hiring an attorney and suing to have rights restored.

DOJ isn’t making a secret of the desire to cut down on the number of prohibited persons cases in the federal courts.

Since the Bruen decision, there have been many challenges to section 922(g)’s constitutionality under the Second Amendment, with a particularly large volume focusing on section 922(g)(1)’s prohibition on firearm possession by felons. Some of those challenges are declaratory judgment actions brought by felons who have not themselves violated section 922(g)(1) and who maintain that their prior convictions for non-violent offenses do not indicate that they pose an ongoing danger to others. Some of these plaintiffs have had success in challenging section 922(g)(1), as courts have found that the statute is unconstitutional as applied to them. At the same time, some courts have expressly recognized that section 925(c) would alleviate any such constitutional concerns, absent the proviso prohibiting ATF from carrying it out.

As recognized by courts, a functional section 925(c) process would render much of this litigation unnecessary and ensure that individuals meeting the relevant criteria may possess firearms under federal law in a manner consistent with the Second Amendment, while still protecting public safety.

Even more broadly, the Supreme Court has been clear that the rights of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to keep and bear arms is foundational. This rulemaking reflects the Department’s commitment to the Second Amendment as an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty and a policy decision that the Department must find a way to both advance public safety and ensure that the rights of the people enshrined in the Constitution are not infringed.

Even before the rule was formally published today, the Department of Justice has been arguing that section 925(c) precludes at least some legal challenges to 922(g)(1), including a case heard by the Third Circuit on Monday.

Continue reading “”

Cynical Publius

Dear Democrats:

Hey. How’ve you been?

It’s been a rough 25 years. It feels like ever since that hanging chad election in 2000, we have been at each others’ throats. Mostly this is because we’ve let the hyperbole and the wild conspiracy theories control us on both sides. Now I say that is 80% you and 20% us (because you control the media), and we’ve done our fair share with Birthers and Big Mikers, but the bottom line is that neither side trusts what the other side says.

That’s a shame.

I get why you may not trust us. But you are going to have to on what we are about to tell you. Sometimes objective truths need to be said, and we’re about to say them.

Buckle up Buttercups. What you are about to read is 100%, verifiably true:

1. In the 2016 presidential election, the Hillary Clinton campaign fabricated out of the ether a wholly fictional “dossier” alleging that Donald Trump was an agent of the Russian Federation.

2. This “dossier” was shared with intelligence and law enforcement agencies in the friendly Obama Administration, and treated as reliable intelligence even though those agencies knew it was highly suspect.

3. This wholly-fabricated “dossier” was then used as a legal basis for surveillance and wiretaps on members of the Trump Team before and after the election, and the communications equipment in the Trump Transition Team HQ in New York was in fact wiretapped by the Obama Administration.

4. After the election was over and Trump had won, the intelligence community determined that there was no material Russian interference in the election. Barack Obama directed them to reverse that finding.

5. This new, false finding, coupled with the ongoing concerns regarding the dossier became the bases for a concerted effort by the Obama Administration to prevent Donald Trump from ever taking office, even though the American people had just elected him. The ongoing Potemkin Villages of the dossier and the IC report were the bases for numerous unlawful warrants on the Trump team, the creation of interview traps where Trump members might incriminate themselves by making a false statement to the FBI, and generally encircling the entire Trump transition team via subterfuge and placing them in a public aura of an illegal enterprise and not a validly-elected administration.

6. With the Obama plan unable to prevent Trump from taking office, his loyalists who remained in the new Trump Administration did their very best to work towards removing Trump via scandal, with James Comey being the chief bagman via the bogus dossier.

7. While everything described above was happening, it was all being leaked to the media in an effort to discredit and cripple the Trump Administration. Often bogus information would be fed to a media source, the source would report it, and then the fact that the media reported the bogus information was used by Democrat operatives as a basis for legitimizing it, i.e. “the wrap up smear.”

8. All of the above became such a burden on the new Trump Administration that a special prosecutor, Robert Mueller, was appointed to cut through to the truth. Unfortunately Mueller was relying on the same fake dossier and bogus IC reports, so bogus data led to a bogus investigation that served no other purpose than to cripple the Trump Administration for two years.

9. To summarize points #1 through #8 above, the Obama/Hillary plan had three steps: (i) spread Russia lies so Trump loses the election; (ii) if Trump wins the election, spread Russia lies so he is never inaugurated; and (iii) if he is inaugurated, spread Russia lies to cripple his ability to govern.

10. After Trump lost in 2020 and he started indicating that he would run again, the Obama team, now with Biden installed in the White House as a puppet, knew they could not let him win as he would unravel what they had done, make it public, and potentially cause a bunch of them to end up in prison. So they coordinated lawfare attacks on Trump across the nation using Democrat operatives, thinking that Trump would end up in prison or his reputation would be in such tatters that he could never be elected. That backfired.

11. Trump got elected in 2024.

12. On July 18, 2025, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a treasure trove of heretofore hidden information which, alongside already-public information about the fake dossier, shows that everything we say above is 100%, inarguably, reliably, factually, objectively accurate.

We repeat, everything written above is VERIFIABLY, OBJECTIVELY TRUE.

We know you love to say how much you “love democracy.”

Do you? Do you REALLY “love democracy”?

What is described above is the most undemocratic thing imaginable.

Forget any arguments about whether something was criminal or the statute of limitations or whatever other technicality distractor gets thrown out there, we have a very simple question for you:

HOW CAN YOU TOLERATE THIS?

Please consider this letter a peace offering. If you are willing to acknowledge what transpired and offer an apology, we might be able to begin to trust each just a teeny bit. We are all Americans, after all.

Sincerely,

The American Coalition of Non-Smoothbrained Conservatives