Tag: 2nd amendment

Why Is The Trump DOJ Still Enforcing The Biden Pistol Brace Rule?

The current Department of Justice is choosing to continue enforcing an unconstitutional legal theory being weaponized against gun owners by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

According to a recent statement in GOA’s Texas et al. v. ATF case, DOJ claims that ATF “continue[s] to enforce the NFA’s and the GCA’s regulation of short-barreled rifles against some brace-equipped pistols, even though the Rule has been universally vacated.”

For those who are unfamiliar, in 2022 the Biden Administration issued an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to ban pistol braces, a popular firearm accessory designed to allow shooters with disabilities to “brace” their firearms against their forearm.

The Biden DOJ used this rule to effectively outlaw firearms equipped with stabilizing braces, by regulating them as short-barreled firearms under the National Firearms Act. This move turned the law-abiding owners of upwards of 40 million pistol braces  into felons practically overnight, unless they destroyed their firearm or registered it with the federal government.

GOA and other pro-gun groups challenged this pistol brace rule in multiple courts across the country, culminating with a total elimination of the rule in court.

Keep reading

This Democrat Claims To Be Moderate, But Backs Huge Firearms Crackdowns on Law-Abiding Americans

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington’s Third District has portrayed herself as a working class moderate Democrat. Recent stories have shown that the congresswoman is anything but, with former acquaintances claiming that she is “cosplaying as a poor person.” Her history on the Second Amendment has shown that cosplay has ventured into her policy stances as well.

During a 2022 candidate debate, Gluesenkamp Perez laid out the first steps toward restricting gun ownership for constituents by preventing adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from exercising their constitutional rights.

“I’m a pragmatist,” Gluesenkamp Perez stated. “I think the first reasonable thing is to increase the age of purchase to 21, because kids are just not as old as they used to be.”

Gluesenkamp Perez’s statements echo the 2020 Washington State Democrat Party platform that the congresswoman adopted. Some “reasonable” measures that Democrats proposed include: ending open carry in Washington, a mandatory waiting period on firearms purchases, mandatory registration and licensing, a volume limit on firearms and ammunition ownership, a sweeping “assault weapons” ban, a ban on magazines with a capacity greater than 10, mandatory liability insurance for firearms owners, the criminalization of 3-D printed firearms, and ending reciprocity for concealed carry licenses for states who wouldn’t adopt these radical restrictions.

Keep reading

Federal Appeals Court Seems Skeptical of Reciprocity Argument

A three-judge panel on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be skeptical of the arguments used by an over-the-road truck driver challenging Minnesota’s refusal to recognize his Florida and Georgia carry permits. During oral arguments on Wednesday, at least two of the three judges on the panel seemed to have a hard time with Jeffrey Johnson Sr.’s contention that requiring him to get a non-resident permit before he can carry in Minnesota is an unreasonable burden on his Second Amendment rights. 

From Courthouse News:

“If Minnesota can require all of its residents to get a permit, why would it violate the Second Amendment by requiring others to?” U.S. Circuit Judge Steven Grasz, a Donald Trump appointee, asked.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson agreed, piling on to the questioning against Johnson’s attorney, Ryan Morrison.

“Is it your position that, having conceded that the Minnesota permitting process is appropriate for Minnesota residents … that Minnesota must enact a statute that allows reciprocity, or else they’re in violation of the Second Amendment?” Erickson asked. “Do you have a case that says that anywhere in the world?”

The George W. Bush appointee continued with his concern about Morrison’s argument, finding it absurd that those outside of Minnesota shouldn’t be held to the same standard as residents.

“So you have greater rights as a nonresident than as a resident?” Erickson asked. “It just says, if you want to go into Minnesota, you just got to follow the Minnesota permitting process.”

The answer to Erickson’s question is arguably “yes”; non-residents do have greater rights, or at least more leeway, than residents of a particular state. Attorneys Chuck Michel, Anna Barvir, and Kostas Moros raised that point in an amicus brief filed in Gardner v. Maryland, which is another case dealing with the lack of reciprocity.

As the three noted, there’s a national tradition of exempting “travelers” from carry restrictions that states impose on residents that dates back to at least the late 1600’s. 

Keep reading

Democrats Love Gun Control And Violent Criminals Because Both Can Punish You

While at a gun store recently, I was inundated with warnings against illegally buying a gun for someone else. The counter even had signs threatening up to 15 years in prison. 

They don’t mean it. This was proven a few days beforehand, when a convicted ISIS terrorist opened fire at Old Dominion University, killing an ROTC instructor before the cadets heroically took him out. Not only had this terrorist been set free in the United States after only a brief prison term, but he had bought a stolen gun from a man whom the Biden administration had declined to charge for allegedly repeatedly and illegally buying guns for other people; instead, they had him write an apology letter. So much for 15 years.

Meanwhile, I was at the gun store because Democrats, having taken full control of the state government, are rushing through a radical gun-control agenda, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” by which they mean various popular semiautomatic rifles and even handguns. We may hope the courts will do their duty and strike down these blatantly unconstitutional laws, but many Virginians are stocking up in case they don’t. 

A criminal who admitted to illegally buying guns (one of which showed up at a murder scene) got off with a “sorry,” but if a store were to keep selling “assault weapons” after the deadline, Democrats would undoubtedly demand the maximum penalty. Democrats are not actually trying to reduce crime or save lives with their gun-control schemes. If that were what they cared about, they would insist on enforcing the law (including existing gun laws) against actual criminals rather than finding new ways to harass ordinary, law-abiding gun owners. 

Just look around Virginia. The first act of the new Democrat governor was to make the entire state a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. The far-left Fairfax County prosecutor let a particularly dangerous illegal immigrant off the hook again and again, despite police objections, until he allegedly murdered a woman. Also in Fairfax County, public schools allowed an adult illegal immigrant to enroll as a high school student; he then allegedly sexually assaulted girls at least a dozen times — and the county is refusing to hand him over to ICE to be deported.

Part of the left’s obsession with gun control is that actually dealing with crime would mean slaughtering their sacred cows. Hating on some imagined Bubba the southern hick and Chad the suburban gun collector is encouraged, but leftists are not permitted to worry about the crazy homeless guy on the subway, the panhandling junkie outside their door, or thuggish young men loitering around the corner. Expressing those concerns will get Democrats denounced as hateful bigots by their own side.

A recent New York Times piece illustrated how leftists pretend away the obvious about crime. Titled “We Study Mass Shooters. Something Terrifying Is Happening Online,” the column constantly referred to trans-identified killers by their preferred pronouns, and its search for root causes ignored that these murderers were men pretending to be women. This is a perfect example of how left-wing pieties prevent Democrats from actually facing problems and offering real solutions.

This is repeated again and again. Leftists are told not to worry about family breakdown and the evils of fatherlessness, or how mass immigration encourages factionalism and damages social trust and capital. They are not even allowed to notice when massive government spending is an obvious grift (e.g., hundreds of millions spent on homeless programs that don’t fix anything but do keep a lot of NGOs flush with cash). And when welfare money is stolen by the billions, they leap into action to defend the imported criminal gangs systematically defrauding the American government.

But Democrats are allowed to hate guns and gun owners, especially those who are white, male, and Christian. And they are allowed to redirect all their legitimate fears and concerns onto gun owners, who thereby become a scapegoat for all the problems that left-wing ideology prevents leftists from even confronting. 

Keep reading

Virginia Democrats Exempt Legislators From Their Own Gun Law

The 2026 legislative session has come to a close in Virginia, but not without some last minute changes to several gun control laws that are now on their way to Gov. Abigail Spanberger. 

None of the changes benefit gun owners, except for one… and with that bill only a very select number of Virginians will qualify. 

It reads to me like Virginia Democrats did exempt lawmakers from facing misdemeanor charges if they leave one of their guns where it’s visible in their car, so long as it’s in the parking garage reserved for them. 

This isn’t just hypocrisy. This is a taunt from the anti-gun caucus in Richmond, a reminder to Second Amendment advocates that, no matter how many of them might rally on the statehouse grounds in opposition, they have the power to both pass any gun control bill they want and exempt themselves in the process. 

I asked on X whether this would be the one gun bill that Spanberger vetoes in an attempt to look moderate, but I’m not holding my breath. 2A folks are already complaining about her, so what are they going to do about one more legislative middle finger? If she vetoes the bill, though, she’s going against the gun control lobby who spent a lot of money getting her elected and the Democrat majority in the General Assembly. Maybe she lets the bill become law without her signature, but I think the law.. and the exemption for lawmakers, is going into effect later this year. 

***UPDATE***

As it turns out, while the House of Delegates did approve the language exempting lawmakers from the gun storage bill, that language did not make it in to the version that was sent to the governor. Here’s what happened: 

The Senate and House couldn’t agree on the language of HB 110, so it was assigned to a conference committee to hammer out the differences. The substitute bill that emerged on Saturday morning contained the exemption for lawmakers, and was adopted by the House on a 60-36 vote. The Senate, however, asked for a second conference committee (instead of rejecting the compromise bill outright), and the House agreed, apparently on a voice vote. HB 110 was sent back to the drafting table, and when it emerged for the second time, the lawmaker exemption was gone. The Senate quickly passed the bill and the House concurred a short time later. The bill sent to the governor can be found here. 

Keep reading

Decentralizing Defense: A $96 Guided Rocket Just Put Precision Warfare into the Hands of the People

In a world where the State spends trillions of dollars on bloated defense contracts to build “smart” weapons that often end up incinerating wedding parties or schools in the Middle East, a single individual with a 3D printer and $96 just shattered the monopoly on high-tech violence. A video, along with the plans, has recently surfaced showcasing “Project Canard,” an open-source, 3D-printed guided rocket system that recalculates its trajectory mid-air using a $5 sensor and some piano wire. The creator, operating under the GitHub handle novatic14, has essentially handed the keys to advanced surface-to-air defense to anyone with an internet connection and a spool of plastic filament.

The technical specifications of the build are a direct slap in the face to the military-industrial complex. The entire launcher and interceptor frame are printed in standard PLA and run off an off-the-shelf ESP32 microcontroller, proving that the barrier to entry for precision hardware has not just been lowered—it has been obliterated. The system even creates its own local Wi-Fi network, allowing the operator to monitor live telemetry and arm the “MANPADS” (Man-Portable Air-Defense System) prototype from a laptop. It uses a distributed camera node network to triangulate targets and update flight paths in real-time, a capability that, until about ten minutes ago, was the exclusive domain of governments with the power to tax their citizens into poverty.

Of course, the usual suspects in D.C. and the corporate press are likely already clutching their pearls, preparing the “public safety” scripts they use every time the people reclaim a sliver of their natural rights. We’ve seen this play out before with pioneers like Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed, who fought the State to a standstill over the right to share files for 3D-printed firearms. The reality is that this technology is about the decentralization of power. When a “precision weapon” costs less than a pair of designer sneakers, the era of the State using air superiority to crush dissent or occupy foreign lands is nearing its expiration date.

Indeed, the state has already begun mobilizing its legislative machinery to ensure that the “Project Canard” breakthrough remains a fleeting moment of defiance rather than a permanent shift in power. As we move through 2026, the regulatory landscape is shifting from targeting just the finished product to criminalizing the very tools and information that make decentralized defense possible. In a move that mirrors the most dystopian science fiction, lawmakers in states like California and New York are currently pushing bills that would force 3D printer manufacturers to install “firearm blocking technology” directly into the hardware.

Take California’s Assembly Bill 2047, for instance. This proposal would effectively turn every 3D printer into a government-monitored device, requiring mandatory “blueprint detection algorithms” to stop the production of “unlawful” parts. It’s not just about the plastic; it’s about the code. Under similar legislation like Colorado’s HB26-1144, the mere possession of digital instructions for a firearm or “firearm component” can now be classified as a crime if “intent to manufacture” is suspected. When a “component” can be as simple as a 3D-printed fin or a motor casing, the state has essentially granted itself the power to arrest you for having the wrong files on your hard drive.

Keep reading

Gun Control’s Endgame: No Guns For Anyone

Gun control advocates do not just oppose civilian gun ownership; they also argue that guns in the hands of police make people less safe.

In January, a Border Patrol agent in Portland shot and wounded two Venezuelan nationals who belonged to the violent Tren de Aragua gang after they allegedly tried to run agents over with their vehicle. In response, Kris Brown, president of Brady United, tweeted the following:

“We don’t know the details behind the shootings of 2 people by a Border Patrol agent in Portland. But I know one thing for certain: whether in the hands of federal officers or everyday Americans, guns do not make us safer. Yet Trump is reshaping our country based on this lie.”

What were the Border Patrol agents supposed to do when an illegal alien with a criminal record tries to run over an agent? How are unarmed agents supposed to apprehend and detain violent gang members?

Currently on its website, Brady United explains: “Why Police violence is gun violence … As we work to tackle the gun violence epidemic in America, we cannot ignore police violence or its devastating effects.”

The same claim is made repeatedly by other gun control groups.

“Police violence is gun violence and that’s why our movement must be responsive as well,” declares Shannon Watts, president for Moms Demand Action.

“Police violence is gun violence,” proclaims Gabby Giffords, with the Giffords Law Center.

These last two statements are from 2021 and 2020, so their opposition to police having guns isn’t a new focus.

Gun control groups sometimes openly acknowledge their goal of banning all guns. In a 2023 interview with Time magazine, for example, Gabby Giffords – who heads the Giffords Law Center – answered a question about her goal by saying: “No more guns.” When the interviewer asked whether she meant no more gun violence, Giffords clarified: “No, no, no. Lord, no. Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

Time magazine itself treated the remark as significant enough to place Giffords’ line – “No more guns, Gone” – in the headline.

If firearms are bad per se, it should be easy to find places where either all guns or all handguns have been banned and murder/homicide rates have gone down. One would think out of randomness there should be at least one place where murder rates have gone down or at least stayed the same, but every single time, even for island nations, murder rates have gone up immediately after the ban.

A simple logic is at play here: Who is most likely to obey the law? While such statutes may take a few guns from criminals, they primarily disarm the most law-abiding citizens, making it easier for criminals to commit crimes.

Similar problems exist for police. Taking away the guns that both civilians and police have doesn’t mean that criminals will readily forfeit their weapons. Criminals have strong incentives to keep and obtain weapons. Drug gangs can’t go to the police and ask for help to get their drugs back when another gang steals their drugs. The gangs have set up their own little paramilitaries to protect their valuable stash.

Keep reading

Gun Control’s Endgame: No Guns for Anyone

Gun control advocates do not just oppose civilian gun ownership; they also argue that guns in the hands of police make people less safe.

In January, a Border Patrol agent in Portland shot and wounded two Venezuelan nationals who belonged to the violent Tren de Aragua gang after they allegedly tried to run agents over with their vehicle. In response, Kris Brown, president of Brady United, tweeted the following:

“We don’t know the details behind the shootings of 2 people by a Border Patrol agent in Portland. But I know one thing for certain: whether in the hands of federal officers or everyday Americans, guns do not make us safer. Yet Trump is reshaping our country based on this lie.”

What were the Border Patrol agents supposed to do when an illegal alien with a criminal record tries to run over an agent? How are unarmed agents supposed to apprehend and detain violent gang members?

Currently on its website, Brady United explains: “Why Police violence is gun violence … As we work to tackle the gun violence epidemic in America, we cannot ignore police violence or its devastating effects.”

The same claim is made repeatedly by other gun control groups.

“Police violence is gun violence and that’s why our movement must be responsive as well,” declares Shannon Watts, president for Moms Demand Action.

“Police violence is gun violence,” proclaims Gabby Giffords, with the Giffords Law Center.

These last two statements are from 2021 and 2020, so their opposition to police having guns isn’t a new focus.

Keep reading

Democrats Advance Gun Control Blitz In Virginia With Abigail Spanberger Now In Office

Democratic lawmakers in Virginia moved forward Monday with a broad package of firearm restrictions, reviving proposals that had previously been blocked under former Gov. Glenn Youngkin as they test whether the state’s new governor, Abigail Spanberger, will support the measures.

During a nearly four-hour meeting, the Democratic-controlled Senate Courts of Justice Committee approved more than half a dozen gun-related bills addressing assault-style firearms, gun storage requirements, concealed carry reciprocity, ghost guns and firearms carried in public places.

The committee rejected the lone Republican-backed proposal, which would have increased mandatory minimum penalties for repeat firearm offenses.

All votes taken during the meeting followed party lines.

The legislative push comes amid heightened political attention surrounding gun policy in Virginia.

Keep reading

Rhode Island Bill Could Turn Gun Owners Into Criminals for Keeping the Firearms They Legally Bought

Two new bills introduced in the Rhode Island legislature are taking aim at legal gun owners, and one of them could easily turn lawful gun owners into criminals overnight, simply for maintaining possession of the firearms they legally purchased. 

Each of these bills, by themselves, represent a major infringement on the right to keep and bear arms, but taken together they pose an existential threat to the Second Amendment rights of Rhode Island residents. 

Any gun or magazine ban that allows existing owners to maintain possession of their arms can be amended in the future to remove those protections, and that’s exactly what H8073 does with so-called assault weapons. The state’s ban on the sale and transfer of modern sporting rifles, which was only adopted a year ago, would be expanded to prohibit the possession of those arms beginning July 1 of this year. Simply keeping the gun you lawfully purchased could result in a ten-year prison sentence and/or a fine of up to $10,000.

Then there’s H7755, which would expand the state’s “Responsible Firearm Purchasing Act.” Under the current law, anyone purchasing a handgun must provide the seller with a valid “training certificate” issued by the Rhode Island Attorney General, and after the sale has been approved they’re subjected to a 7-day waiting period before they can take possession of their handgun. 

H7755 would expand that requirement (and waiting period) to all gun sales in the state. In order to simply purchase a gun to keep in the home you’d have to take an 8-hour training course complete with a live-fire requirement, and then pass a written test developed by the Attorney General’s office. 

Keep reading