Tag: 2nd amendment

The Left Is Using Kids As A Trojan Horse For Total Online Surveillance

It is the oldest trick in the authoritarian playbook. Anytime a Democrat politician looks into a television camera and declares a new policy is “for the kids,” history tells us it is time to do three things: grab your Bill of Rights, lock your wallet, and check your firearms.

The political left has mastered the art of semantic camouflage. Because leftists’ true intentions – total state control and the systematic dismantling of individual liberty – are entirely unpalatable to the average citizen, they must cloak their radical agendas in the warm blanket of public safety.

We are seeing this exact misdirection play out today across two seemingly different battlefronts: the push for Universal Background Checks (UBCs) on firearms, and the sudden, “bipartisan” stampede to pass online child safety legislation. Under the microscope, however, they share the exact same DNA. They were never about protecting children. They are about building lists to target political opponents. Period.

Currently making waves in Congress are the Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) in the Senate and the Kids Internet and Digital Safety Act (KIDS) in the House. On paper, the marketing pitch is flawless. Proponents claim these bills will shield innocent children from online predators, groomers, and illicit adult content.

At face value, it sounds reasonable. Who could possibly oppose protecting children?

The answer lies in the structural mechanics of the legislation. Just as gun control advocates use “safety” to pierce the veil of constitutional privacy, digital regulators are using children as human shields to bypass the First Amendment.

To understand the trap being set online, one must first look at the ongoing battle over Universal Background Checks. Under current federal law, licensed firearm dealers must maintain physical ATF Form 4473. Crucially, under the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) and the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) regulations, the federal government is strictly prohibited from centralizing these forms into a master database. If a firearm is used in a crime, investigators must work backward – from manufacturer to dealer to buyer. It is a localized, investigative process that protects law-abiding gun owners from mass government discovery.

Enter the left’s obsession with Universal Background Checks for private transfers. Proponents claim this keeps weapons out of the hands of criminals – ignoring the obvious reality that criminals, by definition, do not obtain weapons through legal channels.

The real objective is structural. A Universal Background Check law is completely unenforceable unless the state knows who owns every firearm in the country beforehand. The law has no teeth without a mandatory, centralized gun registry. It is the ultimate camel’s nose under the liberty tent.

This brings us back to the digital arena. Changing the law would mean de facto digital ID for every American. The database concept that makes UBCs so dangerous is the exact same mechanism driving KOSA and KIDS.

To enforce age restrictions online and block youth from specific platforms, websites cannot simply rely on the honor system. Platforms must mandate strict age verification. To prove your age, you must verify your legal identity. Proponents make it sound like it’s just the kids who must register.

However, they conveniently fail to mention the rest of the action. In order to prove they are not children, adults will be forced to upload government-issued identification simply to access standard political commentary, religious forums, or independent news sites. Platforms will choose the path of least resistance, implementing blanket identity checks to avoid massive federal fines. The immediate casualty of this regime will be political anonymity.

The author has personally witnessed this phenomenon, having friends in the UK with whom we’ve corresponded for many years. They have become extremely guarded in answering certain political-type questions in the past couple of years, basically avoiding commenting. And we all read now about British subjects being arrested for making comments in public or posting online viewpoints that oppose official positions.

Independent outlets like American Thinker rely heavily on robust, pseudonymous comment sections. Thousands of everyday Americans utilize digital pen names to engage in fierce partisan debates. They do not do this out of cowardice; they do it to protect their careers, their livelihoods, and their families from targeted harassment campaigns by the radical Left. KOSA and KIDS would mean the end of the dissident commenter.

If KOSA and KIDS become law, the era of the pseudonymous internet is dead. Email providers, forums, and social platforms will require positive legal identification just to open an account.

When you strip away the emotional appeals, the underlying architecture becomes clear:

  • Step 1: Force the population into centralized databases (whether via gun registries or digital IDs) under the guise of public safety.
  • Step 2: Eliminate the anonymity that allows for free, uninhibited political dissent.
  • Step 3: Weaponize those databases when political fortunes shift.

If progressive Marxists secure unchecked power over the administrative state and the judiciary, they will no longer need to hunt for dissidents. The compliance architecture currently being built in Washington will hand them a pre-verified list of their political opponents on a silver platter. And since they would have already emptied all the prisons, they’d have plenty of beds to hold us all.

Keep reading

Slate: 3rd Circuit Ruling Gives SCOTUS ‘Cover’ to Find Constitutional Protection for AR-15s

Slate lamented in a column on July 24 the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit striking down New Jersey’s “assault weapons” ban and claimed it gives SCOTUS “cover” to strike down such bans more broadly.

Breitbart News reported that the Third Circuit’s ruling was handed down on July 17, 2026. In that ruling, the majority made clear that the state’s ban failed to survive the Bruen (2022) test, which is a two-tiered test examining the historicity and tradition of firearms and firearms regulation in America.

The majority opinion for the 3rd Circuit decision was written by Judge Ariana Freeman, a Biden appointee. This fact was not lost on Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern, as the astounded duo noted that Freeman is a “progressive appointee” who ruled that the millions of AR-15s in circulation prove they are in “common use for self-defense” and therefore protected by the Second Amendment.

Keep reading

Federal appeals court upholds controversial Illinois ban on semiautomatic guns

A federal appeals court upheld a controversial Illinois gun control law that largely bans assault weapons.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit decision issued on Thursday slapped down a district court decision that declared the ban unconstitutional.

“Among other things, the Act criminalizes the manufacture, sale, delivery, purchase, and possession of assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. A grandfather clause permits preexisting lawful owners of the regulated items to continue possessing them,” the Thursday decision noted.

“For reasons that follow, we focus on the Act’s application to AR-15s and thirty-round rifle magazines. The Act’s restrictions on these items, we hold, are consistent with the principles that underpin our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation. Whether to adopt them is thus a decision reposed in our elected representatives, and we reverse,” the decision declared.

Chief Judge Michael Brennan dissented from the panel’s decision.

“Our Nation’s enduring traditions forbid governments from prohibiting firearms commonly owned for self-defense. Because the people have overwhelmingly chosen the AR-15 rifle and its magazine as their weapon of choice, they are protected by the Second Amendment,” Brennan wrote.

“Illinois’s ban goes too far and should be enjoined as unconstitutional. I respectfully dissent,” he noted.

Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, a Democrat who signed the controversial law in early 2023, hailed the court’s decision.

Keep reading

Huge Win for Second Amendment — Federal Appeals Court Strikes Down New Jersey’s Unconstitutional Semi-Automatic Rifle Ban and Magazine Limit

The anti-gun agenda suffered a major legal defeat on Friday after the full U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey’s ban on semi-automatic rifles and its prohibition on magazines holding more than 10 rounds violate the Second Amendment.

In a sweeping 10-5 en banc decision, the Third Circuit held that New Jersey’s so-called “assault firearm” ban cannot survive the constitutional test established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its landmark 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen decision. The court also struck down the state’s 10-round magazine limit.

The 192-page opinion concluded that New Jersey’s prohibition on semi-automatic rifles, including the popular AR-15 platform, and its restrictions on so-called “large-capacity magazines” infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Writing for the majority, the court declared:

“Applying the framework announced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), we agree with the District Court that New Jersey’s ban on Colt AR-15s violates the Second Amendment. However, because the record supports the same result for all semi-automatic rifles—not only Colt AR-15s—we will MODIFY the District Court’s order so that it deems the Assault Firearm Provisions unconstitutional with respect to the full class of semi-automatic rifles.

We will AFFIRM that part of the order as modified. The LCM Provisions also violate the Second Amendment, so we will REVERSE the District Court’s order with respect to those. Because the LCM Provisions violate the Second Amendment, we need not address the Takings Clause challenge.”

Keep reading

House Passes Bill Preventing Credit Card Companies from Tracking Gun Sales

On July 14, 2026, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill to block credit card companies from tracking gun and ammunition sales.

The bill, H.R. 1181, passed on a vote of 221 to 201. Two-hundred-and-fifteen Republicans voted for the bill, along with five Democrats and one Independent.

H.R. 1181 is sponsored by Riley Moore (R-WV).

Breitbart News reported Moore’s introduction of the bill on February 12, 2025, noting that he titled it the “Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act.”

He introduced it after major credit card companies succumbed to the gun control lobby during the Biden Administration and made plans to track the sales of guns and ammo.

For example, on September 11, 2022, Breitbart News pointed out Visa caved to pressure from gun control groups and New York Democrats, agreeing to flag gun and ammo purchases via a merchant code. The Associated Press observed that Mastercard and other major credit card companies also agreed to flag gun sales. On March 2, 2023, Breitbart News noted Discover was slated to begin tracking gun and ammunition purchases with the new MCC in April 2023.

Keep reading

California bans Glock-style handguns from commercial sale

Assembly Bill 1127 fundamentally shifts firearm regulations by prohibiting licensed dealers from selling some of the most popular semiautomatic handguns on the market. 

By focusing on how certain handguns are built, lawmakers want to stop people from easily turning standard pistols into fully automatic weapons.

What we know:

The legislation specifically introduces a new legal classification: “machinegun-convertible pistols.” 

Lawmakers drafted this category to address handguns, most notably Glock-style pistols, that feature trigger mechanisms capable of being converted into fully automatic firearms with relatively simple, aftermarket modifications.

For consumers, the immediate impact is restricted to retail environments.

Licensed firearm dealers must cease all sales of new inventory that falls under this classification. 

Keep reading

On 250th Anniversary, A Look Back At Gun Ownership In America

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees what may be the most uniquely American of all rights. Those 27 words have inspired millions of words in thousands of debates over the Amendment’s meaning and what, if any, limits may apply.

There is no question that firearms played a pivotal role in the birth and growth of the United States of America.

From the Pilgrims’ matchlock muskets and the six shooters carried by cowboys, to the modern semiautomatic rifles wielded by Korean business owners in the Los Angeles riots of 1992, guns are an integral part of American culture.

The right to keep and bear arms is unique, says Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow with Advancing American Freedom and Second Amendment scholar.

“It’s an incredibly short list [of countries that recognize the right to own guns], and there are none of them have anything in theory or practice that is what I would say [is] a true equivalent of the American right to keep and bear arms,” Swearer told The Epoch Times.

Based on sales data, permit applications, background checks and other factors, there are an estimated 400 million to 500 million firearms in civilian hands in the United States, according to the Sixguns Fraternity. This is an average of two firearms for every person over age 18.

Yet, while America celebrates 250 years as a society that honors the individual right to keep and bear arms, gun ownership remains one of the nation’s most divisive issues.

Gun control groups did not respond to emails seeking comment for this article, but many have posted their concerns online. Gun control advocates say violence intervention strategies, strict gun control – including bans – and tighter regulation of the firearms industry are elements of common-sense gun laws.

They point to high-profile stories of mass shootings, school shootings, and violent crime involving firearms.

“The gun homicide rate in the U.S. is 26 times higher than that of other developed countries, but research shows that common-sense public safety laws can reduce gun violence and save lives,” Everytown for Gun Safety, states on its website.

The group, along with others, say gunshots are the number one cause of death for American children.

The Centers for Disease Prevention and Control reports that the top cause of death for children between 1- and 17-years-old are “unintentional injuries.” Matthew Garnett with the CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics, defines unintentional injury as, deaths from fatal injuries that were “unintended, unplanned, and did not occur on purpose.”

“Unintentional injury deaths include a wide array of mechanisms, with the four most common being: poisoning, motor vehicle crashes, drowning, and falls,” Garnett wrote.

Keep reading

DOJ Opens New Front in Second Amendment Fight Against California

It’s a pretty grand time to be a Second Amendment advocate. The right to keep and bear arms has been boosted by several recent court decisions, key among them being New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which changed the landscape of legal matters concerning the Second Amendment for good.

As a result of Bruen, several anti-gun laws and proposed laws have been, one might say, shot down. Now, in the latest, Harmeet Dhillon, United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, has announced a new lawsuit by the Justice Department (DOJ) challenging California’s Glock ban and handgun roster law.

The official press release, found here, states in part:

“The Civil Rights Division will defend law-abiding citizens from states that seek to disarm them illegally,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. “This lawsuit is yet another example of this Justice Department enforcing the Second Amendment by protecting citizens against unconstitutional state regulation of firearms.”

California’s new law would ban the retail purchase of common handguns manufactured by Glock and guns with similar firing mechanisms. The state’s existing “Handgun Roster” further limits the types of handguns citizens can lawfully purchase in California. The United States Supreme Court recently reaffirmed that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry handguns outside the home for self-defense in Wolford v. Lopez. The Court reiterated that states cannot prevent citizens from using commonly used firearms for self-defense.

Yes, the right to keep and bear arms properly falls to the Civil Rights Division. People on the left, most of whom lack even a nodding acquaintance with the Bill of Rights, don’t get that, but the right to keep and bear arms, acknowledged (not granted) by the Second Amendment, is a fundamental civil right.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Grants Cert In Grant v. Higgins: A Major Challenge To Connecticut’s Assault Weapon Ban

In a significant development for gun rights advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court on June 30, 2026, granted certiorari in Grant v. Higgins, a challenge to Connecticut’s post-Sandy Hook assault weapon ban. The Court consolidated the case with the parallel Illinois case Viramontes v. Cook County.

The justices will now directly address whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right of law-abiding Americans to possess AR-15 platform rifles and other commonly owned semiautomatic firearms.

This is the breakthrough Second Amendment advocates have long awaited. Connecticut’s “assault weapons” ban — and similar laws nationwide — represent a direct challenge to the core right to keep and bear arms “in common use” for lawful purposes.

Grant v. Higgins (originally filed as Grant v. Rovella/Lamont) is brought by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the Connecticut Citizens Defense League (CCDL), and individual plaintiffs including Eddie Grant Jr. It challenges Connecticut’s ban on semiautomatic rifles, which prohibits firearms by specific name and by a list of arbitrary “features” such as pistol grips, folding stocks, and flash suppressors.

The lower courts, including the Second Circuit, upheld the ban. Petitioners argue this ruling defies Supreme Court precedent by treating the most popular rifle in America — the AR-15 platform — as somehow outside constitutional protection. The question presented is clear: Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess semiautomatic rifles that are in common use for lawful purposes, including the AR-15.

Keep reading

In the Nick of Time: NRA Secures Injunction Against Virginia ‘Assault Weapons’ and Magazine Ban

On Monday, the NRA secured a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Virginia’s “assault weapons” and 15-plus rounds magazine ban.

The case, Santolla v. Katz, was heard by Judge Jeffrey Campbell, a former Republican member of Virginia’s House of Delegates.

The NRA announced the filing of the lawsuit on May 14, 2026, noting that plaintiffs included the Virginia Shooting Sports Association (VSSA), Middletown Firearms, Middletown Training, Virginia Pride Ltd., and VSSA members Joseph Santolla, and Reagan Adams.

Virginia Scope reporter Brandon Jarvis published Campbell’s ruling, wherein he wrote, “…the Motion for Preliminary Injunction enjoining the Defendants from enforcing the subject Firearms Ban and Magazine Bans as contemplated by the recently enacted Senate Bill 749 and House Bill 217 is GRANTED.”

Judge Campbell noted, “This injunction shall remain in effect until further Order of this Court or no later than July 1, 2027, consistent with the Governor’s recently passed budget amendment, and this matter is continued on the docket of this Court for any additional proceedings as the parties may so advise.”

The “assault weapons” and 15-plus rounds magazine ban was set to take effect July 1, 2026.

Keep reading