Tag: 2nd amendment

Minneapolis Man’s Conviction Really Proof Gun Control Is Useless

Gun control advocates insist on arguing that gun control works. They go to great pains to “prove” it works, too, which means garbage studies, ridiculous claims, and correlation lacking causation except when it works against them.

One of my all-time favorite arguments was one where someone tried arguing that the NFA was proof that gun control works because there are so few crimes carried out with machine guns since it passed. Never mind that it wasn’t sold to the public as gun control; it was proof. Especially with the 1986 ban preventing new weapons from being registered.

In fairness, it wasn’t as easy to offer a rebuttal as some might like to think, because crimes with NFA weapons were pretty low, and this was after the full-auto drive-bys of the 1990s. It wasn’t common.

Now, it was clear that wasn’t the case, but it was harder to argue against than a lot of other anti-gun claims.

But these days, it’s not difficult at all to show just how idiotic the whole thing is, especially now. I mean, if the NFA worked as that guy claimed, then how did this guy get in a position to be convicted in the first place?

A federal jury in the District of Minnesota convicted a Minnesota man today of possessing a machine gun created by attaching an illegal machine gun conversion device to a semi-automatic firearm.

According to court documents and evidence presented at trial, Amiir Mawlid Ali, 19, of Minneapolis, was arrested after officers found a machine gun in his possession during a routine traffic stop as he was on the way to a high school graduation. Mr. Ali tried to flee the scene during the traffic stop but officers apprehended him before he could get away. The firearm was equipped with a machine gun conversion device and an extended magazine, which was loaded with over 30 rounds of ammunition. A firearm expert testified at trial that the machine gun possessed by Ali test fired 15 bullets in 2 seconds.

“This defendant possessed an extremely dangerous weapon – a machine gun created by the application of a device known as a switch that converts a legal firearm to an illegal one,” said Assistant Attorney General A. Tysen Duva of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division. “Illegal weapons like this are unduly dangerous and offer nothing legitimate in a law abiding society. The Criminal Division will continue to prosecute illegal firearms offenses like this one to keep communities safe.”

“The verdict announced today makes clear that possession of a firearm modified to function as a machine gun will not be tolerated,” said Special Agent in Charge Christopher D. Dotson of the FBI Minneapolis Field Office. “The FBI is proud of our work on this case, and we thank our Local, State and Federal law enforcement partners for their assistance. Together we will work to stop those who put innocent lives in our community at risk.”

The rise of the 3D printer has done something that cannot be undone. It has made it so people can make things for themselves, even if the authorities don’t approve.

Keep reading

Gun Control Activist Calling on Fellow Travelers to Say Quiet Part Out Loud

We all know it’s gun control, even if they use phrases like “gun safety” or “gun violence prevention.” We know because their solutions are always about restricting the right to keep and bear arms. Always.

Oh, they might offer some kind of education, but even that generally boils down to, “You’re too incompetent to be trusted with a gun, so you really shouldn’t get one, and if you do, the only way to be safe with it is to make it useless for self-defense, so here’s how.”

It’s stupid.

But Po Murray, co-founder and chairwoman of Newtown Action Alliance, thinks it’s time to take the euphemisms and toss them.

In the years that followed, I embraced the language many in our movement adopted. I spoke about “gun safety” and “gun violence prevention” because we were told these terms would resonate more broadly, reduce polarization, and help us reach people who might otherwise shut down when they heard “gun control”. That strategy had value. It opened doors and helped grow the movement, but it did not change the fundamental political reality we are up against, and it has not been enough to meet the scale of this crisis. I strongly believed in that approach, and for many years, I used that language intentionally. I even castigated my husband for using “gun control” during the first year of my advocacy journey.

But as I reflect on where we are today, I no longer believe this is a choice between one set of words or another. I believe we need all of them, and we need to use them more intentionally.

At the same time, we need to be clear about what this work is ultimately about. It is about freedom. Not abstract freedom, but the freedom to live our daily lives without fear. The freedom to send our children to school, to gather in our communities, to worship, to work, and to simply exist without the constant threat of gun violence. When that fear shapes how we move through the world, our freedoms are no longer fully ours.

Of course, me being disarmed would mean I have to live in fear, which never seems to factor into their equations. It seems their fears are the only ones that matter. Strange, isn’t it?

I’m also trying to figure out how gun rights are “abstract freedom,” but freedom from someone that you’re probably never going to experience anyway isn’t abstract.

Anyway, I get that Murray wants to be safe. She even talks a bit about the benefits of “gun safety” and “gun violence prevention,” then she gets to the money shot, the one where it’s clear what this is all about, and it’s about how she doesn’t want gun control activists to keep the quiet part quiet.

Keep reading

You’ll Roll Your Eyes When You Find Out What New York Democrats Want to Ban Next

Democratic lawmakers in New York are championing an innovative new piece of legislation that would protect residents by banning BB guns.

You read that right. Democrats think preventing people from using BB guns and other imitation firearms will somehow keep people safe.

New York Senate Bill S9212 was introduced in February, and it would amend the state’s General Business Law to expand regulations around airguns and other imitation weapons. It updates the legal definition of “imitation weapon” to include air rifles and pellet guns. Under the updated language, “Imitation weapon” refers to any device or object, “including an air rifle, pellet gun, or ‘B-B’ gun,” made of plastic, wood, metal or any other material which can be perceived as a firearm. 

The measure would also impose more severe restrictions on who can purchase certain types of air guns. It prohibits companies from selling these products to anyone under 18. Currently, one has to be at least 16 to purchase these products. 

The bill also toughens enforcement by increasing the financial penalty for violators. Anyone who breaks this law “shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more than one thousand dollars for each violation,” an increase from the previous cap of $500.

Keep reading

Virginia Governor Signs Law Banning ‘Ghost Guns’

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a bill to ban so-called “ghost guns,” another making it easier to sue gunmakers and sellers, and two other bills concerning possession of firearms by persons under court orders.

The bills – signed on April 10 – are among more than two dozen gun control and gun safety bills that the Virginia General Assembly sent to Spanberger after its regular session ended on March 24.

“Preventing gun violence is an issue of public safety – both for the officers who protect our streets and the children and families they work to keep safe,” the governor said in a statement.

Spanberger signed Senate Bill 323, which bans the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms without serial numbers.

The new law also outlaws any gun that “after removal of all parts other than a major component, … is not detectable as a firearm when subjected to inspection by the types of detection devices, including X-ray machines, commonly used at airports, government buildings, schools, correctional facilities, and other locations for security screening.”

Senate Bill 27, which Spanberger also signed, sets standards of “responsible conduct” for firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.

It calls for “reasonable controls” over the manufacture, sale, distribution, use, and marketing of firearm-related products.

It also allows the attorney general, local government attorneys, or private citizens to sue firearm businesses for injunctions, damages, and costs.

Spanberger also signed two bills concerning the possession of firearms by those under court orders.

According to Spanberger’s office, Senate Bill 160 closes an “intimate partner loophole” by prohibiting intimate partners convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes from possessing a firearm.

The law adds to the definition of “family or household member,” an individual who, “within the previous 12 months, was in a romantic, dating, or sexual relationship with the person.”

Senate Bill 38 allows a person subject to a protective order or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and prohibited from possessing a firearm, to transfer their firearm to a person who is age 21 or older, who does not live in their home, and can legally own a gun.

These bills are the first of a slate of gun control and gun safety laws to be signed after the most recent session.

Keep reading

New ATF Rule Should Dismantle Billion-Record Gun Registry

The Trump administration will soon release a rule dealing with ATF’s illegal registry. It will change the Biden-era requirement that gun dealers permanently keep all firearm transaction records. 

Ending the permanent retention of these records is could be a huge step in the right direction, since the Biden ATF’s entire plan was to use these forms to continue building their illegal gun registry.  

So how does GOA know this?  

Well in case you missed our video on it, the Trump administration’s proposed new director of the ATF, Robert Cekada, answered questions from Senators following his hearing.  

These “Questions for the Record” or QFRs, are questions that could not be asked during hearings because of time constraints. Nominees submit their answers creating a via a public legal record that is published before their confirmation vote.

These answers can be enlightening where a nominee stands on particularly complex issues.

Specifically, Senator Ted Cruz asked about ATF’s 920 million-record illegal registry and how many documents they’ve added in the 4-year gap since the ATF last updated those figures.  

In his response, Deputy Director Cekada said  

“Consistent with the President’s Executive Order on the Second Amendment, ATF is also undertaking a review of how long firearm transaction records should be maintained.” 

In another question from Senator Cruz, he asks what’s the point in maintaining infinite or even more than 10 years of records when the average national time to crime is less than 10 years, and there are few traces that use records older than 20 years. 

In Cekada’s response to this question, he says:  

“Further, in accordance with the President’s Executive Order, Protecting Second Amendment Rights, ATF has been working with the Department to conduct a thorough review of existing regulations to assess whether they infringe on Second Amendment rights. As part of this review, we are examining the law enforcement value of older firearm transaction records. The results of that review should be forthcoming shortly.”  “ 

Thanks to these public records, we KNOW the ATF is looking into ending the Biden era Rule that made all gun transaction records or ATF Form 4473s into permanent records. And this is “coming soon.”

Ending the Biden era rule is good news. Permanent record retention was a crucial step in the anti-gun lobby’s plan to build a complete registry of all guns and gun owners in the United States to be used eventually for confiscation.

But before the permanent record retention rule, Federal Firearms Licensees only needed to keep their records for 20 years; afterwards they could destroy them.

So right now, the ATF and FFLs nationwide have every single dealer sale record since 2002. That’s a pretty significant number of records, which the ATF is attempting to turn into a registry as you read this article.

There is no public information outside of Cekada’s responses to Senator Cruz about what the rule will look like. But, in light of this information, the GOA’s Legal and Federal Affairs teams have put together a proposal to the DOJ, ATF, and the Trump administration on what a “No Compromise” rule would look like.  

And don’t worry, we’re still lobbying Congress to delete the registry with Rep. Michael Cloud’s No REGISTRY Rights Act and some appropriations language that Rep. Andrew Clyde has been introducing the last couple of years.

And of course, we’re continuing our lawsuit against the Biden-era rule that made these records permanent. But there’s a path here for President Trump to really restore our Second Amendment rights and dismantle this registry.

Ideally, ATF’s record retention period should be zero years.

Keep reading

RI State Rep: Banning AR-15s Not Enough; We Should Use ‘Police Power’ to Ensure Owners Dispose of Them

On Wednesday, Rhode Island state Rep. Teresa Tanzi (D) spoke in support of efforts to repeal a legislative grandfather clause and use “police power” to force AR-15 owners to dispose of their rifles.

Breitbart News noted in March that Democrats in Rhode Island’s state legislature were trying to remove the grandfather clause that was contained in the “assault weapons” ban passed last year. The grandfather clause allowed those who owned newly prohibited firearms to retain possession of them. But now, the Democrats are pushing to remove the grandfathered aspect of the ban and implement a prison sentence for merely possessing an AR-15. The legislation through which they are attempting this is H8073.

Tanzi spoke in favor of H8703 on Wednesday, saying, “Last year, we as a body, banned the sale, manufacture, and transfer, of certain ‘assault weapons’ as defined in that law. That was an important step, but it was only a partial one. We should be honest about that.”

She continued:

Right now our law draws an arbitrary line. We have said that these firearms cannot enter the market place going forward, but we continue to allow them to remain in circulation indefinitely. … If these weapons are too dangerous to be sold in Rhode Island then we really should have addressed possession at the same time. We didn’t, and this bill [H8073] corrects that.”

Tanzi explained that H8073 will force current AR-15 owners “to come into compliance by selling or transferring them lawfully.”

Keep reading

Rogue ATF Defies Federal Courts, Continues To Target Law-Abiding Gun Owners Over ‘Illegal’ Pistol Brace Rule

The federal government is now being accused of continuing to enforce the same pistol brace interpretation that federal courts have already struck down, exposing law-abiding Americans to potential felony charges carrying up to 10 years in prison.

The Biden-era pistol brace rule, which reclassified millions of braced pistols as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA), was vacated by federal courts and deemed unlawful.

Following that defeat, the Department of Justice quietly dropped its appeal, effectively leaving the rule dead and unenforceable nationwide.

Last year, the firearm community celebrated a definitive victory.

According to FFL Guard, in cases like Mock v. Bondi (formerly Mock v. Garland), federal judges slammed the Biden-era rule that overnight reclassified millions of braced pistols as “short-barreled rifles” (SBRs).

The courts found the ATF’s move was “arbitrary and capricious,” a blatant violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and a direct assault on the Second Amendment.

Even the DOJ seemed to wave the white flag, dropping its appeal in 2025. But according to a March 2026 court filing in Texas v. ATF, the agency is now claiming that, while the rule is gone, its interpretation remains.

Keep reading

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