Tag: 2nd amendment

Trump Signs Executive Order To Protect Gun Owners

President Donald Trump has signed an executive order to re-establish the full rights of American gun owners under the Second Amendment.

“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty,” the order states.

“It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation. Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.”

The order states that, within 30 days, Attorney General Pam Bondi “shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.”

Former President Joe Biden issued a raft of measures designed to restrict gun owners’ rights. In April 2021, for example, he signed six executive orders which included measures to combat the production of so-called “ghost guns,” new red-flag measures and new rules about stabilizing braces for pistols.

In one of his final executive orders, Biden put in place new background checks for private sellers. He continued to promise to ban “assault weapons” and high-capacity magazines.

Keep reading

Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home

On Monday, White County Resident Circuit Judge T. Scott Webb ruled against a requirement that Illinois residents must obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card in order to possess a gun in the home for self-defense.

The case, State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown, which was supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, centered on Brown’s possession of a .22 rifle in the home for self-defense on March 18, 2017, without an accompanying (required) FOID card.

She was charged due to her lack of a FOID card, and a suit was subsequently filed. The suit challenged not only the FOID card requirement but also the fee to obtain such a card, which is $10. Brown argued that the fee “suppresses a fundamental right that is recognized to be enjoyed in the most private areas, such as the home.”

Webb weighed the case in light of Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022), ultimately found that “the defendant’s possession of a .22 caliber rifle within the confines of her own home, even without a valid FOID card falls squarely within the protections afforded her by the Second Amendment.”

Keep reading

Trump Dismantles Biden’s Gun Control Actions, Signs Executive Order to Protect Gun Owners

President Trump on Friday signed an Executive Order dismantling Joe Biden’s gun control actions.

“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty. It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation. Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed,” President Trump’s Executive Order said.

Trump ordered US Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all of Joe Biden’s unconstitutional gun control Executive Orders to assess ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment.

“Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” Trump’s EO said.

Pam Bondi will review “All Presidential and agencies’ actions from January 2021 through January 2025 that purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” the EO said.

Keep reading

Federal appeals court rules handgun ban on adults under 21 is ‘unconstitutional’

Afederal appeals court on Thursday struck down a handgun ban on adults under the age of 21, ruling that the current age-based restriction violated the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment.

The ruling is the latest since the Supreme Court established a new test for assessing modern firearms laws in 2022. The conservative-led Supreme Court determined in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, that current gun restrictions were required to be “consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The New Orleans based Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that 18- 20-year-olds are among those whose “right to keep and bear arms is protected.”

“The federal government has presented scant evidence that eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds’ firearm rights during the founding-era were restricted in a similar manner to the contemporary federal handgun purchase ban, and its 19th century evidence ‘cannot provide much insight into the meaning of the Second Amendment when it contradicts earlier evidence,'” the judges wrote in their decision, per CNN.

The ruling is in response to a federal ban on handgun sales to people under 21, which was first adopted by Congress in 1968 as part of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act, Reuters reported.

Keep reading

Colorado Republicans Warn New Gun Control Legislation Would Ban ‘Majority of Guns’ in the State

New gun control measures being considered in Colorado would effectively ban the ‘majority of guns’ in the state, according to the Colorado GOP.

This is a reminder that the left will never stop pushing for greater gun control, even after an election like the one we just had in November.

It also does not matter to them that people want to be able to protect themselves from crime, no matter how bad it gets, thanks largely to progressive governance.

From Just the News:

Colorado GOP concerned as committee considers ban on ‘majority of guns’ in the state

A bill further restricting firearm access in the state will appear before a committee Tuesday in the Colorado General Assembly.

Colorado Senate Republicans labeled Senate Bill 3 “one of the most extreme gun control bills in Colorado’s history.”

“If passed, SB-003 will ban the sale of the majority of guns in our state,” a statement from Republicans said.

The bill would prohibit the purchase, manufacturing, distributing, or transferring of a semiautomatic rifle or semiautomatic shotgun with a detachable magazine.

Democrats introduced the bill on the first day of legislative session and it has received support since then, with 17 of the state’s 35 senators already joining in sponsoring the bill.

With Democrats holding a trifecta in the state, it is likely that Republicans will be able to do little to stop the passage of the bill, which would take effect Sept. 1, 2025

What part of ‘shall not be infringed’ do these people just not get?

Keep reading

Rep. Mann Introduces Bill Putting ATF’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ Policy in Check

Rep. Tracey Mann (R-KS) is introducing legislation to put the ATF’s ‘zero tolerance’ policy in check, halting the agency’s seemingly unchecked FFL closures under former President Biden.

The legislation is titled the Reining In Federal Licensing Enforcement (RIFLE) Act.

According to Mann’s office:

Under the Biden Administration, ATF’s zero tolerance policy forced small and mid-sized gun stores out of business. The agency revoked Federal Firearm Licenses due to minor clerical errors like missing a customer’s middle initial or using a state’s abbreviation rather than the state’s full name. In 2024 alone, ATF saw the highest levels of gun store license revocations in 20 years—the third consecutive year of increased license revocations under President Biden’s leadership. Last week, the Biden Administration claimed it reversed its zero tolerance policy. Upon further review of the updated enforcement guidance, it appears to remain fully in effect.

Rep. Mann told Breitbart News, “President Biden did everything in his power to weaponize the federal government against gun store owners in the Big First District of Kansas and across the country. His zero tolerance policy undermined the Second Amendment and trampled on the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Since day one, I have rigorously pushed back against this unconstitutional policy and fought for more oversight to rein in ATF’s abuse.”

He added, “On November 5, 2024, the country made it clear—our constitutional rights are not up for grabs. My bill makes that crystal clear by fortifying the Second Amendment rights of local gun stores and seeking to restore a degree of wholeness to individuals whose livelihoods were destroyed by this federal abuse. I look forward to working with President Trump to further strengthen the protection of the Second Amendment, deliver justice for our FFLs, and get our country back on track.”

The RIFLE Act “ensures that ATF works with FFLs, giving FFLs a chance to comply before ATF moves to revoke a license,” “clearly defines and strengthens what constitutes a willful violation, imposing a presumption that there is no willful violation absent clear and convincing evidence,” “allows FFLs to review and appeal ATF determinations before an administrative law judge and reimburses FFLs for legal fees incurred while the zero tolerance policy is in effect,” and automatically reinstates and approves licenses suspended, revoked, or denied while ATF’s zero tolerance policy is in effect.”

The Act also reimburses FFLs who were victims of the ATF’s ‘Zero Tolerance’ policy.

Keep reading

Federal Judge In Texas Rules That Ban On Gun Ownership By Marijuana User Is Unconstitutional As Applied

A federal judge in El Paso has ruled that the U.S. government’s ongoing ban on gun ownership by habitual marijuana users is unconstitutional in the case of a defendant who earlier pleaded guilty to the criminal charge. The court this week allowed the man to withdraw the plea and ordered that the indictment against him be dismissed.

The new ruling stops short of declaring that the law against firearm ownership by cannabis users—18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)—is itself unconstitutional. As applied to the defendant in the case, however, it says that government lawyers failed to demonstrate that the restriction aligns with the nation’s history of regulating gun ownership, noting that that they did “nothing in the way of proving that Defendant was intoxicated by marijuana at the time of this incident.”

David Briones, a senior U.S. District Court judge for the Western District of Texas, also acknowledged in the decision that the legal landscape around marijuana and the Second Amendment had evolved since the court first accepted the guilty plea. In the interim, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas, ruled that while “some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon” may be constitutional, “disarming a sober person based on past substance usage” is not.

That case, U.S. v. Daniels, was set to be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court earlier this year but was among a number of firearms-related cases remanded back to lower courts following a separate Supreme Court decision about firearms and domestic violence.

“In the past two years alone,” Briones, a Clinton appointee, wrote in the new ruling, “the Fifth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court have heard and considered the following cases: Daniels, Rahimi, and Bruen. These cases have changed the law when it comes to the Second Amendment, and in the case of Daniels, have challenged the constitutionality of the very statute under which Defendant is charged.”

In the case, the El Paso Police Department responded to a 2021 call at the defendant’s home, entered the house and found two bags of marijuana. A search also found multiple guns inside the home. The defendant allegedly told officers that he’d used marijuana regularly for years and understood it was illegal to have both a medical marijuana card and a gun.

After the guilty plea, the defendant appealed his case to the Fifth Circuit, which later remanded it back to the district court in light of the recent precedent-setting opinions.

“This court now has a fuller picture of the Second Amendment jurisprudence as it stands today,” the order says, “and has reconsidered its position.”

Keep reading

Kentucky Residents Who Participate In State’s New Medical Marijuana Program Will Be Ineligible To Own Guns, Feds Warn

The federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is warning Kentucky residents that, if they choose to participate in the state’s medical marijuana program that’s set to launch imminently, they will be prohibited from buying or possessing firearms under federal law.

As Kentucky prepares to implement the medical cannabis law that Gov. Andy Beshear (D) signed last year, ATF has put residents on notice about the ongoing federal ban on gun ownership by people who use marijuana, regardless of individual state policies.

“You cannot possess firearms and ammunition and also be a user of marijuana,” ATF Special Agent AJ Gibes told WDRB this month, referring to a statute requiring gun purchasers to fill out a form that includes a question about whether they are an active marijuana consumer. If they check yes, they’re disqualified from owning the firearm.

Notably, Gibes said that while people who already own a gun aren’t “expected to” turn them over if they become state-legal cannabis patients, those who “wish to follow federal law and not be in violation of it” must “make the decision to divest themselves of those firearms.”

He added that ATF is “not actively seeking and working solely on investigations involving just the possession of firearms and marijuana because of our finite resources,” but that doesn’t change the law, and people will still be at risk of prosecution if they violate it.

ATF has also weighed in on other recent state cannabis policy developments.

Keep reading

Many Preppers and 2nd Amendment Proponents Believe That the Arms Trade Treaty Will First Lead to Registration of All Firearms

The UN’s Arms Trade Treaty which covers everything from small arms to battle tanks, combat aircraft and warships – came into force on 24 December 2014. This treaty has not been ratified by our Congress but had the support of our Secretary of State, John Kerry who signed it and Our president at that time, who without expressly mentioning the treaty, said in a speech at the UN that all nations “must meet our responsibility to observe and enforce international norms.” The problem with that statement and this treaty is that we the people aren’t in control of what those ‘international norms’ are and as we have seen time and time again, those international norms might be detrimental to our country.

Many preppers and 2nd Amendment proponents believe that the Arms Trade Treaty will first lead to registration of all firearms and when that happens, historically the next step is confiscation through some means. Technically, no treaty can be put into action in the United States unless it has been ratified by a 2/3 majority of the senate. This fact is what most people cite when they are trying to refute any legitimate concerns about the UN Arms Trade Treaty or any other treaty’s potential effect on our country. This sounds well and good and serves to placate some, but for this fail-safe to have any weight you would first need to have a government that followed the letter of the constitution and additionally, that government would need to follow the wishes of the citizens they are representing.

Our government has proven time and time again that following the constitution is simply not something they feel they have to do when it stands in their way. For example, the senate has never voted on the Kyoto Protocol but that hasn’t stopped the EPA from enacting rules complying with the main goals of that treaty. Coal plants are being shut down left and right while the US and China agreed in 2014 to let China keep growing their output of carbon emissions (with coal power plants) until 2030. There are many examples of policies that are enacted that fall well outside the bounds of Constitutional limits on power but that doesn’t stop our representatives does it? On any issue there is more brainpower spent on finding ways around the Constitution than actually following it with the seeming goal of every single facet of law being finally decided by the Supreme Court. It’s as if in our society, the rules we decided long ago to set for ourselves are only as good as the interpretations of people today and if every single thing can be challenged (and in some cases changed), we don’t really have a Constitution at all. What we have is a framework for legal arguments that only establishes a baseline which can be over ruled completely by a simple majority of ideology on the bench.

As for a government that listens to their constituents, that long gone relic of thought is promised by every single person running for office. “I feel your pain” The truth of the matter is that in this day and age, every politician is a benefactor of the same special interests. There are no democrat and republican sides whenever both are receiving money from the same companies. The elected politicians, by overwhelming majority do not care what you say or want because they don’t answer to you. Their actions directly contradict election results, polls and public outcry. The 2014 mid-term elections  held should have sent a very strong signal to the leadership of both parties that the country wasn’t on-board with the policies of the current administration and the direction of affairs with the Congress, however; Obamacare and Amnesty both remain intact without so much as a whimper from our newly elected majority who promised for years to repeal it as soon as they were ‘in power’. To add insult to injury, the Republicans just released a 1 trillion budget proposal just over 24 hours before a procedural vote on it knowing that nobody would have time to read it. Same tricks but a different face is behind the podium. Why should we expect anything different from what we have been seeing?

Keep reading

Facebook Fails to Silence Smith & Wesson

One can always count on social media to carry out the regime’s anti-American agenda.

Social media giant Facebook has long been a thorn in the side of gun owners ever since Donald Trump was first elected in 2016. Since that period, Big Tech has taken it upon itself to become the private enforcement arm of the managerial state. In effect, Big Tech companies have functioned as Pinkerton-style law enforcement agencies who do the regime’s dirty work of censoring any individuals or organizations who voice explicitly right-wing views on issues ranging from immigration to gun rights.

Facebook’s privatized tyranny was on full display when the social media giant indefinitely suspended the account of legendary firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson on Nov. 22, 2024. Smith & Wesson was founded by gunmakers Horace Smith and Daniel B. Wesson by 1852 and has remained one of the U.S.’ flagship gun manufacturers. Smith & Wesson has a large social media following with over 1.6 million users. Facebook’s act of censorship against Smith & Wesson was not by accident and was certainly done to send a message.

Keep reading