Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Good. It is a stupid rule anyway.

I remain convinced that it should be possible to simply swap out the Fifth Circuit for the SCOTUS. I have long advocated for that.

🚨BREAKING🚨

The Fifth Circuit just struck down the unconstitutional federal ban on purchasing handguns across state lines.

“The Ban sullies the plain text of the 2A & is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation, dating back to the founding era.” pic.twitter.com/1yLcSokXNT

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 18, 2026

James is always fun to watch. Hey, what is that saying about “First thing we do is kill all the lawyers?”

Source.

The consolidated cases in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins will deal with whether assault weapons bans, which typically outlaw the purchase of AR-15 and similar semiautomatic rifles, are constitutional under the Second and 14th amendments. The two cases are over laws in Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut, but are similar to laws in various other states that will be affected by the high court’s eventual ruling. A brief filed to the Supreme Court arguing the laws are unconstitutional warns that broadly banning popular modern firearms, such as AR-15 style guns, would be incompatible with federal law and set Second Amendment rights back hundreds of years.

“Advances in firearms have always been part of the American experience,” said the brief filed by the National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association, and Independence Institute, noting how modern semiautomatic firearms are the latest iteration of weapons the founders wanted to protect with the Second Amendment.

“To hold that Americans’ most popular firearm is in fact not an ‘Arm’ at all defies reason,” a brief filed by several pro-gun groups, led by Gun Owners of America, said. “AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles ‘fall squarely’ within the Second Amendment’s basic definition of ‘Arms.’ That is all that is needed for the bans under review to be ‘presumptively unconstitutional.’”

The Trump administration threw its weight behind the bid to strike down “assault weapons” bans, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer arguing that the laws are flatly unconstitutional. The Department of Justice brief asserts that the bans do not comport with the country’s history and tradition of firearm regulation and violate the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“The AR-15 rifle is unquestionably in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” Sauer wrote. “Today, AR-15s are lawful at the federal level and in 40 States. The overwhelming majority of AR-15 owners possess those rifles for the lawful purposes to which they are adapted, such as self-defense in the home, hunting, and target shooting. A ban on possessing such rifles thus violates the Second Amendment.”

There it is again, that phrase: “In Common Use.” I don’t care if there’s only a single AR-15 extant in the world. The 2A forbids the banning of it.

And leave it to the FedGov to use that argument rather than the militia argument we’ve discussed before. Finally, the article doesn’t even bring up that issue – I don’t think Jack Birle did a very good job with this article.

Lol. The Roman Catholic Church weighs in asking the court to inveigh against these weapons. As if I have some reason to care what the RCC says about anything. However, a lot of the justices are catholic so there’s that. Hopefully they’ll see through this. The RCC has also weighed in on AI. That’s like asking me what I think about colorectal surgery. Can’t they just shut up?

"…we trusted the Attorney General’s litigation statement 'disavow[ing] prosecuting [NSSF] or its members just for participating in "lawful commerce," which is all [NSSF] has said it wants to do'." pic.twitter.com/ruLMWwxOix

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) September 8, 2026

Source.

“This is a tremendous legal hurdle that has been cleared to permit our challenge to be heard in court. This law clearly violates the bipartisan Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act and is unconstitutional in many respects,” NSSF Senior Vice President & General Counsel Lawrence G. Keane said in a Tuesday release. “The challenge to this law has been tortured and the previous frustrations to demonstrate that this state law attempts to circumvent federal law can now move forward. We are confident that New Jersey’s naked attempt to undermine the will of Congress and bankrupt firearm manufacturers and sellers through frivolous lawsuits will not stand legal review.”

“This procedural ruling does not address the merits of NSSF’s challenge to our state’s gun industry accountability law, a spokesperson for Democratic Attorney General Jennifer Davenport told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “Our Statewide Affirmative Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) office will continue its important work to protect our state from gun violence, and we look forward to continuing to defend against this lawsuit in court.

As I’ve said before, this is easy if firearms manufacturers have the balls and scruples to do it. Refuse to sell firearms to any New Jersey law enforcement agency.

This just lets the lawsuit proceed. It doesn’t address the merits of the case. The case has merits and New Jersey is out on a limb. But the issue is far easier to solve if firearms manufacturers are willing to strip guns from New Jersey LEOs.

David Codrea.

“Arms that bear a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia…  lie at the core of the Second Amendment’s protection, and a State may not prohibit them,” the brief concludes. “A prohibition imposed because those arms are useful for the common defense is contrary to the Second Amendment’s text, purpose, and history.”

Yes. Exactly. The entire premise that they get to regulate arms because they too much resemble military weapons turns the second amendment on its head. It is precisely those arms which are protected by the 2A.

Besides, not only is the above correct, but I have previously pointed out the subterfuge of trying to distinguish between military and civilian weapons.

This notion of military style weapons is and always has been a misdirect and a bald and stupid emotional appeal. There is no such thing as a non-military style weapon. Every weapon was at one time a military style weapon, from rocks to spears and then to knives and swords and then on to bows and then to muskets, bolt action rifles, and semiautomatic and fully automatic rifles.

The U.S. Marine Corps used Benelli shotguns for room clearing in Now Zad, Afghanistan, and I can prove it …

Door gunners used revolvers in Vietnam, and I can prove it …

MACV-SOG used revolvers and Marlin .444 lever action rifles in Laos, and I can prove it.

And bolt action rifles are still in use today with snipers …

This is about disarmament. This isn’t about military versus civilian weapons. There is no distinction.

I proved my case. The correct answer is not in doubt. I am right. Everybody knows I’m right. I enjoy being right. I am so right that there is no further purpose in arguing about it.

But being right doesn’t necessarily mean much when the politics of the court gets in the way.

David Codrea.

“The government, through the ATF, has a strong interest in promoting the safe use of firearms by the public, and in this particular case, in discouraging unregulated manufacture of forced reset triggers that allegedly infringe Rare Breed’s patents,” the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives asserted in a Monday filing in United States District Court.

Following this up, Len Savage wrote to the head of the ATF. You can see his memo here.

The answer to this is simple. They have no legal and legitimate interest. But here’s what’s happening if I remember correctly.

They got RBT to agree to maintain records of sales (individuals, names, bank accounts, etc.) in perpetuity. That means they know exactly where to go to claim the triggers as their own. EDIT: That agreement doesn’t exist with any other manufacturer. Thus, in order to track who has them and where they are, they need for FRT to be the only vendor allowed by law to manufacture them.

They still don’t like forced reset triggers. They never will because it assists rate of fire. Unfortunately for them, the law says nothing about rate of fire.

Source.

Why do Americans protected by the 2nd Amendment still need to get permission and approval from the ATF to have a rifle with a barrel under 16 inches, or a particular brand of stock, or a suppressor that, in most cases, doesn’t silence a firearm at all but simply makes shooting it easier on a person’s hearing?  Why, for 92 years, have citizens had to pay for a tax stamp and send their fingerprints to the government for guns that should be considered a constitutional right?

This is largely due to the National Firearms Act of 1934, passed under the highly overrated Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration.  The law became a permanent annoyance to every gun owner in the US and a lucrative revenue stream for federal agencies; at least, until now.

Finally, after nearly a century, the law is being erased.  But how?

The legality of the NFA relies heavily on the existence of a $200 tax stamp.  The government did not ban covered items outright in order to avoid a clash with 2nd Amendment protections.  Instead, they added a tax to various firearms and related accessories, then made the processing of the tax and approval on the purchases an arduous affair.  Until the Trump Administration stepped in, NFA approval on any particular item could take up to a year.

This clunky process was deliberately designed to dissuade citizens from purchasing certain firearms and attachments.  For people suspicious of government lists, the fingerprinting and applications made them not want to bother.  Possession of any of the items covered under the NFA is considered a serious federal crime with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

However, when Congress passed Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” in 2025, this included a provision which lowered the NFA transfer tax to $0.  With the tax stamp gone, the legal loophole which made the NFA possible was eliminated.  Now, an army of legal challengers have brought their case to federal courts to remove the NFA entirely, and they have succeeded (for the most part).

Expectations within the gun community were reserved (gun rights advocates have long waited for this moment and remain anxious that the DOJ will try to ruin the party with an appeal).  But, this does not seem to be the case.  Trump’s DOJ missed the first 7-day deadline for an appeal.  They also have another 60-day deadline, but reports suggest that the DOJ has no intention of interfering with the court’s ruling.

Rumors are swirling that Trump was personally involved in the DOJ decision to support the removal of the NFA by refusing to appeal.  Reportedly, according to Rep. Andrew Clyde who has been leading the charge on the legal fight, Trump has confirmed that there will be no further DOJ challenges to the NFA decision.

So what does this mean?  The federal government will be issuing guidance over the next 60 days on how FFL holders and gun shops can proceed with the transfer of items listed in the NFA.  At first, coverage is limited to the plaintiffs involved in the court ruling (and their customers), however, the DOJ has the power to nationalize the court’s decision, effectively making the NFA null and void for everyone everywhere (this is now a likely outcome).

This means, suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and other items could be purchased without tax stamps, fingerprinting and wait times.  A basic background check (Form 4473) will remain in place.  It may take another couple of months, but it appears that the NFA is effectively dead thanks to the Trump Administration.  Gun owners had to suffer for nearly a century, but the long battle is ending.

Meanwhile, the Hughes Amendment is still a problem, preventing the sale or transfer of machine guns made after 1986.  But it’s all about winning one fight and moving on to the next, and the end to the NFA is an epic accomplishment; one which most gun owners never thought they would see in their lifetime.

This is good news but I live in a non-free state where there has to be a Form 4 to purchase a suppressor. So we’ll see if the DOJ does away with such a form for suppressors or if my state undoes this requirement.

As for the Hughes Amendment abomination, I think FRTs have largely made that irrelevant.

Stephen Halbrook.

Jonathan Goldstein, Adjunct Professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School, has published a comprehensive analysis of the power of Congress to “grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water,” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 11.  Historically, this meant that private citizens could possess cannon and ships and could wage war at sea on enemies approved by Congress.

“You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed,” President Joe Biden quipped in 2022.  Well, actually you could, and you still can.  Cannon were never restricted until included in the revision of the National Firearms Act in 1968, which taxes and requires registration of “destructive devices,” defined as weapons that expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel of which has a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, excluding sporting arms.

According to Heller, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”  The Marque and Reprisal Clause was adopted in the original Constitution prior to ratification of the Second Amendment, and it has an interesting history of its own.

For fresh insights into the obscure Marque and Reprisal Clause, see Prof. Goldstein’s new article “The Militia of the Sea: The Marque and Reprisal Clause as Textual Proof of Private Heavy-Arms Ownership at the Founding.”  Here’s the Abstract:

Courts and litigants increasingly say the Second Amendment reaches only the weapons one person can carry. The Constitution refutes that twice, in a single Article.

Article I, § 8, cl. 11 lets Congress “grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” That is a license to send a private citizen to war at sea in his own ship, with his own cannon, for profit. A license presupposes what it licenses. The Clause takes a privately owned, cannon-armed fleet as given; nothing in the Constitution creates it. Two clauses later, Article I, § 10 forbids a state to “keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace” without the consent of Congress. The Framers made a sovereign ask permission to keep a warship. They made the shipowner ask no one.

Under Article I, the only power over private armed force at sea that Congress received was power over the commissioning of that private force on behalf of the United States. Congress did not give permission for the ship owner to arm the ship with cannon. The Founders who ratified the Constitution’s Article I in 1788 and the Second Amendment three years later in 1791 did not appear troubled that private parties owned heavily armed ships. Indeed, they took the widespread ownership of such heavily armed ships as a given, so much so that Congress principally concerned itself not with the private ownership of significant armaments, but rather with the transformation of that private ownership into a lawful use on behalf of the federal government itself.

With textual support from a documented record of roughly 1,700 Revolutionary-era privateering commissions — granted per voyage, in the years before the Constitution was ratified — this Article refutes the modern categorical claim that heavy arms were never “arms.”

This idiotic legislation (the NFA) is the reason I know an FFL who was contracted by the U.S. Navy to build a precision 20mm rifle for use at sea. As if 50 caliber is the only think the founders would have ever allowed a citizen to own.

It’s disgusting to me, and it should be to you too.

Source.

Kathy Hochul didn’t hide the goal. New York’s left-wing Democrat governor praised the Supreme Court after the justices declined to hear a challenge to her state’s gun industry lawsuit law. Gun makers didn’t lose a ruling on the merits, but New York kept its legal weapon alive.

Gun owners should clearly see the threat.

The case is National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James, Attorney General of New York. The Supreme Court declined review yesterday, leaving a Second Circuit ruling in place.

For now. From Just the News:

The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning for rejecting the case. The decision comes the same day the highest court also declined to take up over a dozen cases as it winds down the term, including an appeal from a 98-year-old federal judge who had been suspended amid mental fitness concerns.

“NSSF sincerely believes that those criminals who illegally misuse lawful products should be held responsible for the harms they ‌cause when they commit their crimes,” ‌Mark Oliva, a spokesperson for NSSF told Reuters. “Holding the firearm industry responsible for the criminal misuse of a firearm is akin to holding Anheuser-Busch and Ford Motor Company ‌responsible for damages from drunk-driving crimes.”

And this, when there is a federal law in place that prohibits this behavior by plaintiffs. Just amazing, the lack of courage by the high court.

I’m telling you, there is an answer to all of this. If gun manufacturers want to stop this dead in its tracks, pull legal ownership of their weapons from LEOs in states where this legal warfare is allowed. They can do this through distributors like Sports South, Lipsey’s and other major warehouses.

Source.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Firearms Act (NFA) no longer applies to suppressors and other items whose taxes were reduced to $0 in July 2025.

United States District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas, a Trump appointee, granted a motion for summary judgement from attorneys representing the Silencer Shop Foundation Wednesday. In the 66-page opinion, Hendrix said that because taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and other items had been reduced to $0 by legislation signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025, the registration and paperwork imposed by the NFA exceeded Congress’ authority under the taxation power.

I suspect that the fifth circuit will uphold this ruling and then it will go to the SCOTUS. With Ms. Barrett and Ms. Roberts on the court, it’s anyone’s guess what they do.