Tag: 2nd amendment

Spotsylvania’s top prosecutor tells why he won’t enforce tighter gun laws

New Virginia laws banning the sale and transfer of assault weapons go into effect in about five weeks. But at least five conservative prosecutors say they won’t enforce them.

Spotsylvania County Commonwealth’s Attorney Ryan Mehaffey said he believes the laws violate the Constitution.

“The Second Amendment is alive and well in Spotsylvania County,” he told News4.

The commonwealth will ban the sale and manufacture of certain semi-automatic weapons, shifting gun laws to more closely align with states such as California and Illinois. But as Virginia teeters from purple to blue and back again, some elected officials are making clear that the new laws won’t be enforced in their counties.

Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement: “Commonwealth’s Attorneys are elected to enforce our laws, which is what we expect them to do when these laws take effect on July 1.”

The law will make it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine for people to buy, sell, transfer, import, or manufacture an assault firearm.

Mehaffey said the law is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment.

“It’s fundamentally opposed to a free society, a society where liberty reigns. And this is the moment in time where the Second Amendment was drafted and enacted, where the government couldn’t take the right of the people to defend themselves away,” he said.

Keep reading

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore Signs Glock Ban Into Law

Governor Wes Moore (D) signed legislation Tuesday banning the sale Glocks and Glock-clones into law, making Maryland the second state to enact such a ban.

On April 9, 2026, Breitbart News reported that Maryland’s House followed the state Senate’s lead and passed a ban on Glocks and other handguns Democrats describe as “machine gun convertible.”

California led the way with such a ban, and as the Golden State did this, Breitbart News pointed out that the Democrat-sponsored legislation was fashioned as a response to the use of “Glock Switches,” which are already illegal. “Glock switches” are federally prohibited plastic pieces that can be affixed to the rear of a Glock slide to make the pistol shoot full auto.

“Glock switches” are popular with gangs and street criminals, therefore California Democrats banned new sales of one the most popular handguns ever made, the Glock pistol.

Keep reading

Defending The Fourth Amendment To Protect Gun Owners

All gun owners fully understand the vital importance of preserving the Second Amendment. But right behind that Constitutional Amendment in importance is the need to uphold the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

After all, without robust Fourth Amendment rights, we will never have much of a Second Amendment right. For that reason, both Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation have regularly filed amicus briefs to guard against erosion of Fourth Amendment rights. We recently filed such an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the High Court to ensure that law enforcement not abuse the investigative technique known as “knock and talk.”

As more and more states seek to ban more and more classes of previously legal firearms, gun confiscation has become an ever-greater threat. Historically, the Fourth Amendment’s protections have been greatest when applied to the home, which also happens to be where most guns are kept. The Supreme Court has discussed the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.

However, the courts have recognized that police have the right to “knock” on the door of your home, and “talk” to you – if you agree to speak. In Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all visitors – including the police – have an “implicit license” to “[i] approach the home by the front path, [ii] knock promptly, [iii] wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) [iv] leave.” That rule seems entirely reasonable – but it is astonishing how police have come to abuse that “implicit license.”

In a recently decided case from North Carolina, State v. Reel, 297 N.C. App. 205 (N.C. Ct. App. 2024), the police broke every one of the rules, but the search was upheld. The officers suspected drug dealing was going on at a house, so they parked on a side street and crossed the defendant’s side yard – not the front yard. They followed a visitor to the front door, and when the defendant opened the door for the visitor, tried to force their way in behind her. The police never actually knocked. And, they never actually talked – except to demand the door be opened so they could rush in, claiming to have smelled marijuana. When the defendant refused and shut the door, another officer kicked in the door, searching for and seizing drugs. Thus, “knock and talk” was used as a pretext to conduct a warrantless search and seizure in a home. Nevertheless, North Carolina’s two highest courts approved.

GOA’s amicus brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to impose a “bright-line” rule for law enforcement, so officers would know their limits, and judges would have a clear rule to enforce. We argue that since the “implied license” was based on the fact that any visitor – such as trick-or-treaters or girl scouts – to a house could “knock and talk,” the police could do the same. So we took that justification and suggested it be made the rule – a clear limitation on what the police could do. We proposed the rule to be:

The right of a police officer to conduct a “knock-and-talk” is no greater than a Girl Scout has to approach a house to sell cookies.

Since a Girl Scout cannot walk around your house to the back yard to the back door, neither can the police. Since a Girl Scout cannot come to your house in the middle of the night, neither can uninvited police. No peering through windows. No forcible entry. No hanging around without invitation from the occupant. No repeated trips back to harass the occupant. No surveillance devices. And, the occupant must have the right to refuse to talk, and to revoke the “implied license” for the police to remain and talk whenever he chooses.

The police have a tough enough job. Fuzzy rules of procedure not only jeopardizes the peoples’ liberties, but also law enforcement safety.

Keep reading

Lawsuits Challenging Spanberger’s Virginia ‘Assault Firearms’ Gun Grab Pour In

Multiple Second Amendment rights advocates are suing Virginia’s police superintendent after Gov. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., signed into law legislation banning many semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines.

The new law, effective July 1, “criminalizes the purchase, sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of a wide range of commonly owned semiautomatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles — including the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America,” said the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the plaintiffs suing Virginia. It also “prohibits the purchase, barter, transfer, and importation” of any magazine that holds more than 15 rounds, the organization noted.

Democrat state Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim, a politician from Bangladesh who is a driving force behind efforts to strip constitutional rights away from Americans, authored the bill.

The NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and two NRA members filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the law; the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit in a Virginia county court; multiple firearm retailers, gun ranges, and other organizations filed a lawsuit in state court, and U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon promised the Department of Justice would file one as well.

All lawsuits name Jeffrey S. Katz, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, as the defendant. The NRA lawsuit also names Goochland County Commonwealth Attorney John L. Lumpkins Jr. and Sheriff Steven Creasey, along with Prince William County Commonwealth Attorney Amy Ashworth and Sheriff Glendell Hill. Justin McDonald and Anthony Groeneveld, plaintiffs in the NRA suit, are residents of Goochland and Prince William, respectively, and are also members of the NRA, FPC, and SAF.

The NRA lawsuit appeals to U.S. Supreme Court precedent in both New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller (as applied to the states through McDonald v. City of Chicago) to argue the gun and magazine bans are unconstitutional. “By prohibiting Plaintiffs from acquiring common semiautomatic firearms and ammunition magazines,” the suit argues, “Virginia has prevented them from ‘keeping and bearing Arms’ within the meaning of the Amendment’s text. As a result, ‘[t]o justify its regulation, the government … must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”

Because ownership of the kinds of firearms and magazines banned by the new bill is widespread in Virginia, the new legislation necessarily cannot meet the standards set by historical practice, which, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, requires that the banned weapon be “both dangerous and unusual,” according to the lawsuit (emphasis original).

Keep reading

BEYOND PARODY: The Associated Press Floats Idea of Gun Control for… MUSKETS

Just in time for America’s 250th birthday celebrations, the liberal Associated Press is suddenly floating the idea of gun control for muskets.

They’re not coming right out and saying it, of course. What they have done is drop an article that basically says: Hey America, did you know that muskets are not regulated like other guns? Their purpose here is so obvious.

The liberal left has never heard of a form of gun control that they didn’t like.

The Daily Caller reports:

The Associated Press posted a short video that appeared to highlight what it called a lack of regulation of flintlock muskets Thursday morning.

Under federal law, flintlock muskets fall into the definition of “antique firearms” under the language of 18 USC 921(16), which exempts them from many of the regulations and laws at the federal level, as well as in most states. In a caption for the video posted on X Thursday morning, the AP noted that while a musket could fire a projectile at 1,000 feet per second, it was exempt from gun regulations under federal law.

“When you look at the Congressional Record from 1968, Senator John Tower’s rationale, which involved committee hearing testimonies from gun collectors and other historical organizations, spent a lot of care and effort into identifying that cut-off date,” firearms historian Ashley Hlebinsky told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “He clearly lays out not wanting to burden historians, collectors, gun owners, and museums and dives into a pretty thorough explanation for why he believes the year should be 1898.”

Modern firearms are typically breech-loading weapons that use self-contained metallic cartridges with smokeless powder (or modern propellants) developed primarily after the mid-to-late 19th century, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Black-powder muzzle-loading firearms (often classified as “antiques” under U.S. federal law) are older designs that load loose powder, projectile and wadding from the muzzle end, using ignition systems like flintlock, matchlock or percussion cap.

Keep reading

Minnesota Tax Committee Chair Rep. Aisha Gomez Screams at GOP Rep. to “Go F*cking Shoot Yourself” During Gun Control Meltdown – GOP Leaders Demand She Be Stripped of Power

Minnesota House Democrat Rep. Aisha Gomez (D-Minneapolis) verbally assaulted Republican Rep. Elliott Engen, telling him to “go f*cking shoot himself” right in the middle of a heated debate on gun control legislation.

Multiple members of the Minnesota House Republican Caucus have confirmed the disgusting outburst to Townhall reporter Dustin Grage, exposing yet another example of the toxic, violent rhetoric coming from the very Democrats who claim to want to “stop the violence” while pushing their anti-Second Amendment agenda.

The vile attack happened late Thursday night during a marathon session where Democrats staged a sit-in to force a vote on gun-grabbing legislation (HF 5140), mirroring a Senate bill that would ban so-called “assault weapons,” large-capacity magazines, and more. Republicans, led by Speaker Lisa Demuth, rightly insisted on proper committee review first.

After hours of emotional testimony about recent tragedies in Minnesota, including heartbreaking stories of loss from shootings like the one at Annunciation church, Gomez reportedly lost it and directed her filth directly at Rep. Engen.

Keep reading

Hochul Dragged on Social Media After Post Targeting Privately Made Firearms

I get that states like New York, and governors like Kathy Hochul aren’t fans of gun ownership in general, but especially when they don’t get to have some kind of control over who gets a gun and who doesn’t. They want to be able to peer into the industry and know everything, which is why anything that removes a gun from that paper trail is a bad thing. For them, 3D printers spell doom, which is why Hochul opted to go after them.

But the truth of the matter is that the internet is a strange place, and if you’re going to live by the tweet, you will also die by the tweet.

Hochul made a post about “ghost guns,” and unsurprisingly, the internet had thoughts.

Here are just a few of the responses Hochul’s post received:

  • “Democrats are the fastest-growing gun safety threat in the country.”
  • “People will just buy the printers in another State.”
  • “Have you considered banning basements and garages to stop the construction of these ghost guns?”
  • “Does she realize guns aren’t generally printed only certain components so good luck with ‘software’ that can determine what is exactly being printed.”
  • “Yay! Another way to control Americans…You. Are. So. Brave.”
  • “Why would NY expend any resources to prevent people from exercising their Second Amendment rights? Meanwhile, you release violent criminals without bond and they repeat their crimes harming more New Yorkers. You should be ashamed.”
  • “Eliminate the Gang Data Base. Handcuff Police. Provide Sanctuary to Illegal Aliens. Track 3d printers.”

And the backlash extends through post after post.

And it should.

See, the truth of the matter is that so-called ghost guns are certainly scary sounding, but the data doesn’t really back up the idea of them being some massive threat. When I wrote about Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s jihad against 3D printers, I noted how few of these guns turn up, even with this massive growth in their use, especially when compared to violent crime involving a firearm as a whole.

Keep reading

Top DOJ official predicts Supreme Court will declare AR-15 rifles legal everywhere in America

The Justice Department’s top civil rights lawyer believes the Trump administration’s lawsuit this week against the city of Denver’s gun ban will one day soon lead to a Supreme Court decision legalizing the AR-15 semiautomatic rifle – revered by gun owners and reviled by liberals – in every jurisdiction in America.

“We intend to make sure they do that,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in an interview set to be aired Wednesday night on the Just the News, No Noise television show.

Dhillon spoke just hours after her office filed a lawsuit against the city of Denver over its ban on “assault rifles,” arguing the ban violates residents’ Second Amendment rights. 

The ban covers AR-15-style rifles, which the complaint argues are owned by “tens of millions” of Americans, 

The complaint also describes the use of the term “assault rifle” in the Denver law’s language as a “rhetorically politically charged” term used by “anti-gun publicists.” 

In addition, the suit cites the 2008 Supreme Court decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, which held that the Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding citizens to possess weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes.

Keep reading

More Bad News From Virginia That Gives Another Major Blow Against The 2nd Amendment And Against Pardoned J6er.

The U.S. Fourth Circuit has Upheld Hatchet Speed’s Ridiculous Conviction for Possessing Three Firearm Silencers (which were actually Solvent Drip Containers).

The case originated with a search over January 6, so Speed should be pardoned anyway! But Speed’s case has been forgotten.

Hatchet Speed of Virginia holds several records among J6ers. He is the only J6er who was subjected to THREE (3) trials and the only remaining J6er whose J6 pardon has never been applied to his clearly related case outside Washington, D.C.

Now the U.S. Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals (which covers federal courts in Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia) has issued a disgraceful ruling against Speed, the Second Amendment, and common sense. The 4th Circuit has upheld Speed’s “silencer” conviction and ruled that the Second Amendment does not apply to silencer possession.

Speed’s case has profound impacts on the status of the Second Amendment and firearm regulation nationwide.

Prior to Speed’s case, Americans have been able to purchase gun-cleaning solvent containers which can be threaded onto the barrels of firearms to catch and filter gun-cleaning fluids. Several manufacturers make variations that resemble firearm silencers in appearance. A purchaser could, with enough tools and ingenuity, drill and convert such containers into firearm silencers. The BATFE under the Biden Administration issued an “open letter” proclaiming a new interpretation that many solvent traps qualify as “firearm silencers” in November 2023. This means that every similar device must be registered, or its possessor faces up to five years in federal prison.

Despite Hatchet Speed’s case, these solvent traps are still sold over the counter at gun stores and online. Untold thousands of them are certainly in people’s drawers and on people’s shelves today. Little do the owners know that they can now be imprisoned for up to five years under the Fourth Circuit’s new ruling.

Keep reading

DOJ Challenges Denver’s ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban and Colorado’s Magazine Limit

The Department of Justice this week filed two Second Amendment lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, challenging that state’s ban on “large capacity” magazines and Denver’s ban on “assault weapons.” Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s Civil Rights Division, argues that both laws are unconstitutional for the same reason: They ban arms in common use for lawful purposes, which the Supreme Court has said are covered by the Second Amendment, and there is no “historical tradition” that would justify such a policy, as required by the Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

“The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said on Tuesday after the lawsuit against Denver was filed. “Denver’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms. This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the liberties of law-abiding citizens nationwide.”

Denver’s ordinance was enacted in 1989, the same year that California became the first state to ban so-called assault weapons, a politically defined category that typically hinges on arbitrarily disfavored rifle features such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors. But Denver’s ordinance, which prohibits the sale, transfer, or possession of “assault weapons” within city limits, defines the term to include any semi-automatic pistol or center-fire rifle with a fixed or detachable magazine that holds more than 15 rounds. It therefore covers many of the most popular guns sold in the United States when they are equipped with standard-issue magazines, including AR-15-style rifles.

The complaint in United States v. Denver notes that “the term ‘assault weapon’ is not a technical term used in the firearms industry” but rather “a rhetorically charged political term developed by anti-gun publicists.” It adds that the guns banned in Denver “include ordinary semiautomatic rifles possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans.” For example, “Americans own literally tens of millions of AR-15 style rifles, the paradigmatic ‘assault weapon’ covered by the Ordinance.” In a case decided last year, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan noted that “the AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country.”

In January, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the gun industry’s trade association, reported that Americans own more than 32 million “modern sporting rifles,” the industry’s preferred term for the rifles usually covered by “assault weapon” bans. Survey data suggest that somewhere between 16 million and 25 million Americans have owned AR-15-style rifles. They commonly report using them for lawful purposes such as self-defense, hunting, and target shooting.

Such rifles are rarely used by criminals. In 2019, according to FBI data, “only 364 homicides were known to have been committed with rifles of any type, compared
to 6,368 with handguns, 1,476 with knives or other cutting instruments, 600 with personal weapons (hands, feet, etc.) and 397 with blunt objects,” Dhillon notes.

Keep reading