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.”

Continue reading “”

2A Rights Face a New Threat: Ideological Gatekeeping by Crypto Companies
By Larry Keane

Congress recently passed the GENIUS Act, a measure designed to bring stability and accountability to the digital asset market by providing a legal framework for U.S. dollar–backed stablecoins. Lawmakers wanted to encourage innovation while protecting consumers and reinforcing America’s leadership in financial technology. While Congress debated how to make stablecoins safer and more transparent, one of the industry’s largest players was quietly writing its own rules, creating a system that treats lawful firearm purchases as a prohibited activity.

Circle Internet Group, issuer of the U.S. Dollar Coin (USDC), hid a clause deep in its published terms of service that bans consumers from using USDC to purchase “weapons of any kind, including but not limited to firearms, ammunition, knives, explosives, or related accessories.”

This is not consumer protection; it’s ideological enforcement. This is the same sort of financial discrimination that NSSF has fought against and is finally seeing changes with the Trump administration. For America’s firearm owners and retailers, Circle’s rules about how their cryptocurrency can be used should sound alarm bells.

Firearm ownership is a constitutional right. By imposing this blanket prohibition, Circle is effectively inserting its own political views into the marketplace and restricting lawful consumers and businesses from exercising their rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment. This isn’t a question of public safety or financial integrity; it’s a matter of principle. And in this case, those decisions reflect clear political leanings. Circle’s Chief Executive Officer, Jeremy Allaire, is a major donor to Democratic candidates and causes. Federal Election Commission records show that Allaire has contributed thousands of dollars to Democratic state parties and members of Congress, including U.S. Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), a staunch supporter of gun control legislation. While private citizens are entitled to their political opinions, those opinions should not dictate whether Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights within the digital economy.

Circle Responds

Circle provided NSSF with a statement attempting to clarify their position. It appears to [have] been a rushed statement given the grammatical error in the first sentence. Their statement came shortly after NSSF posted on X about Circle’s policy.

While it appears that Circle is willing to revisit its policies, as former President Ronald Reagan wisely said, “Trust, but verify.” The firearm industry has seen far too many examples of financial institutions and payment processors quietly introducing “risk management” policies that end up discriminating against lawful firearm businesses and owners. Circle’s statement is encouraging, but words alone are not enough. The proof will be in the policy changes – and in whether those changes ensure that Second Amendment commerce is treated fairly within the digital economy.

Continue reading “”

Written down ages ago, yet the purported intellectuals believe they’ve discovered something new………

Genesis 9:2
And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea; into your hand are they delivered.

There’s One Super Predator in Africa That Instills More Fear Than Lions.

With their bladed paws, wielded by a rippling mass of pure muscle, sharp eyes, agile reflexes, and crushing fanged jaws, lions are certainly not a predator most animals have any interest in messing with. Especially seeing as they also have the smarts to hunt in packs.

“Lions are the biggest group-hunting land predator on the planet, and thus ought to be the scariest,” conservation biologist Michael Clinchy from Western University in Canada said in 2023.

But in over 10,000 recordings of wildlife on the African savannah, 95 percent of the species observed responded with far more terror to the sound of an entirely different beast. This animal isn’t even technically an apex predator. It’s us: humans.

We’re the monsters lurking under other mammals’ beds.

“The fear of humans is ingrained and pervasive,” said Clinchy. “There’s this idea that the animals are going to habituate to humans if they’re not hunted. But we’ve shown that this isn’t the case.”

In research published last year, Western University ecologist Liana Zanette and colleagues played a series of vocalizations and sounds to animals at waterholes in South Africa’s Greater Kruger National Park and recorded their response.

Continue reading “”

Anti-2A Activists in Wisconsin Swear They’re Not Anti-2A

If we’ve learned anything from Everytown’s internal kerfuffle, it’s that no matter how much anti-gunners claim they’re not anti-gun, they’re really anti-gun. Everytown decided to offer gun safety training, and some of its members are losing their ever-loving minds, even though they’ve all claimed they didn’t want to eliminate the Second Amendment.

They just don’t want anyone getting training while also wanting everyone to have training.

No, it doesn’t make sense.

However, in Wisconsin, a group of gun control advocates took to the state capitol to push for gun control. They claim, though, that they’re not anti-gun at all.

Gun safety advocates arrived at the State Capitol on Tuesday morning in droves, eager not only to hear from community leaders, peers and lawmakers, but to urge elected officials to support a new raft of gun violence prevention bills aimed at gun trafficking.

They heard from people like UW-Madison student Nessa Bleill, who three years ago survived the Highland Park parade shooting in Illinois, and Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway, who survived deadly gun violence in high school and presided as mayor during the Abundant Life Christian School shooting, the deadliest in Wisconsin’s history.

Speakers on Oct. 21 also included Rep. Joan Fitzgerald, D-Fort Atkinson; Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of the national Moms Demand Action organization; Nick Matuszewski, associate executive director of WAVE (Wisconsin Anti-Violence Effort) Educational Fund; and Lindsey Buscher, volunteer leader with Wisconsin Moms Demand Action.
…

The bills would target illegal gun trafficking taking place in Wisconsin, and are intended to give law enforcement the tools to go after corrupt gun dealers, trace illegal gun purchases and shut down illegal gun trafficking rings. They would also close loopholes that allow dealers to funnel weapons into the illegal market, and crack down on bulk purchases of firearms, a known indicator of illegal gun trafficking.

Their fight, emphasized Ferrell-Zabala, is not with the Second Amendment. It’s with the “reckless” practices of selling guns before background checks are complete, and with bulk firearm purchases.

“We do not have to choose between our rights and our safety,” chanted Rhodes-Conway to rousing applause.

That last line really pisses me off, because they pretend that’s what it’s about.

My Second Amendment rights are about my safety. Taking them away in any manner doesn’t make me safer. It does the contrary, because criminals aren’t exactly tripping over themselves to follow the law.

Continue reading “”

Woman shoots, kills groping suspect inside Compton beauty supply store

An investigation is underway after a customer shot and killed a man inside a Compton store who was reportedly threatening customers after groping a female victim, officials announced.

The Oct. 19 incident, according to a news release from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, occurred just before 3:30 p.m. in the 1300 block of Alondra Boulevard, near the intersection of Poinsettia Avenue.

A preliminary investigation revealed that an unidentified man followed a female customer into a beauty supply store and groped her, prompting employees at the establishment to demand he leave the premises.

“The male became increasingly verbally assaultive toward employees and customers, “the release noted. “He started throwing and damaging merchandise in the store. The incident escalated rapidly.”

While the man was reportedly threatening to kill and harm customers and employees, witnesses told investigators that they believed he was armed with a knife.

“A second customer in the store, fearing for the store employees, herself and other customers, retrieved a personal firearm and fired a warning at the male,” investigators said. “The male turned toward that customer, fearing she was going to be attacked, fired a second shot striking the male.”

L.A. deputies and personnel with the Compton Fire Department responded to the scene where the man was pronounced dead by paramedics.

In footage of the investigation posted to the Citizen App, a large presence of deputies could be seen at the location, which was cordoned off with yellow crime scene tape, well into the evening hours.

Based on video evidence viewed by authorities, they believe there were additional witnesses inside the store and in the parking lot when the ordeal happened and asking anyone who may have information to come forward and contact LASD’s Homicide Bureau at 323-890-5500.

Authorities did not provide any information on the customer who shot the man, nor did they report any arrests, though they said the investigation is ongoing.

Say Goodbye to Glock, Say Hello to Glock V

It’s official, Glock is relaunching most of its pistol lineup before the end of the year. I received an email this morning from Glock stating the following:

The GLOCK V Series is Coming

Yesterday, a retailer NOT affiliated with GLOCK Inc. made premature statements concerning the availability of certain GLOCK pistols.

The individuals making these representations are not authorized to speak for GLOCK.As part of GLOCK’s commitment to future innovations, we are making necessary updates to our product line to align with upcoming offerings.

Our dedication continues to be with maintaining the highest level of quality, reliability, and accessibility that you expect from GLOCK. The GLOCK V Series is here to establish a baseline of products while simplifying our processes.

Commercial models of the Glock V will include:

  • G17 V
  • G19 V
  • G19X V
  • G45 V
  • G26 V
  • G20 V MOS
  • G23 V
  • G23 V MOS
  • G21 V MOS
  • G44 V

And then there will be some that are distributor-exclusive:

  • G19C V
  • G45C V
  • G17C V
  • G19X V MOS TB

Note that compact models, such as the Glock 43, 43X, and 48 seem to be excluded from this relaunch. There is also no mention of many of the existing MOS models or of the recently released COA models.

Continue reading “”