Tag: 2nd amendment

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

‘Deceptively Colored Firearm’ Bill Introduced by Equally Deceptive Michigan Democrats

“Democrats push ban on ‘deceptively colored firearms’ amid flurry of lame duck gun bills,” The Midwesterner reported Wednesday. “Designates illegal any firearm other than black, brown, dark grey, dark green, silver, steel, or nickel in color.”

Senate Bill 1134 would amend the Michigan penal code to make “An individual who violates this section or any rule promulgated under this section …  guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $500.00.”

This insulting and oppressively matriarchal assault on both the First Amendment right to expression and the Second Amendment right to arms is the “brainchild” of Democrat Senator Dayna Polehanski, who can get away with such tyrannical acts of legislative sabotage because she’s a “safe seat” Democrat. Per Ballotpedia, she won Michigan State Senate District 5 in 2022 by 61.1% to 38.9% over her Republican opponent, and she’ll be in office until 2027.

Forget that she’s inventing a “solution” in search of a problem, and a Google search for terms like “homicide with ‘colored firearms’” yields no relevant (but unintentionally racist) results from Google, and even if they did would not justify depriving gun owners of their rights under threat of a “law” enforcement response and punishment. Much like the Clinton “assault weapon” ban, it’s entirely cosmetic. And it’s not even an original idea, which, considering it comes from a Democrat Moms Demand Action endorsee is hardly surprising.

The impulse to ban them goes back years ago to then-New York City Mayor and perennial Everytown billionaire money man Michael Bloomberg holding a press conference where he denounced “red and yellow DuraCoat-painted guns … saying anyone who sold them was ‘sick’ and ‘twisted’.”  That, in turn, per a 2008 Daily News report, prompted Steve Lauer of Lauer Custom Weaponry to push back by “market[ing] a line of bright colors called the ‘Bloomberg Collection,’ …[and] introduce… a bright-red shade called ‘Furious Mike.’”

The bill is not without exemptions, notably for “an individual who owns or possesses it on the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section,” and, of course, for “Only Ones” of:

“The United States… This state or another state… A department, an agency, or a political subdivision of the United States, this state, or another state… A member of an entity or organization… while engaged in the course of that member’s duties with that entity or organization or while going to or returning from those duties.”

How the problem of “deceptively colored firearms” goes away when in the hands of someone with a badge is not explained. Neither is the rational basis for “grandfathering” colored guns for one group of citizens, but not providing equal protection for individuals who got theirs “after the effective date of the amendatory act that added this section,” but instead dictating that “no later than 14 days after receipt” they’ll be required to either surrender it “to the department of state police for disposal” or “Modif[y] the deceptively colored firearm or covert firearm so that it is no longer a deceptively colored firearm or covert firearm and cannot be readily converted into one.”

Keep reading

Ghost Guns and the Second Amendment

The latest boogeyman conjured up by the Biden administration is ghost guns.

In his September 26 executive order on “Combating Emerging Firearms Threats and Improving School-Based Active-Shooter Drills,” President Biden mentioned these ominous “ghost guns”:

One way to continue the progress on reducing gun violence is to stay ahead of emerging violent crime threats involving firearms.  My Administration has always taken these threats seriously.  In April 2021, one of my Administration’s first executive actions to reduce gun violence was directed at stopping the proliferation of firearms without serial numbers, often referred to as “ghost guns.”

The executive order goes on to describe these ghost guns as “unserialized, 3D printed firearms — which can be used for illicit purposes such as gun trafficking, possession by people convicted of felonies or subject to domestic violence restraining orders, or unlawful engagement in the business of manufacturing or selling firearms.” These ghost guns can’t be traced by law enforcement and they “can be rendered undetectable by magnetometers used to secure airports, courthouses, and certain events.” They are even “a significant risk to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States.”

So, what can the federal government do, constitutionally, about ghost guns?

Absolutely nothing.

Article II of the Constitution defines the powers of the president. It gives no authority to the president to ban or regulate firearms of any kind.

Article I of the Constitution grants all legislative powers to the Congress. But the Constitution is also clear that the legislative power of Congress is not absolute. There are about thirty enumerated congressional powers found in the Constitution, most of them in the eighteen paragraphs of Article I, Section 8. None of them give authority to the Congress to ban or regulate firearms of any kind.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The Second Amendment does not grant to any American the positive right to keep and bear arms. It recognizes a preexisting natural right. The Second Amendment is an additional limitation on federal power to infringe upon gun rights besides the fact that no authority is granted to the president or the federal government to infringe upon them in the first place.

So, all of this simply means that the federal government has no authority to ban or regulate firearms of any kind: no pistols, no revolvers, no rifles, no assault rifles, no shotguns, no sawed-off shotguns, no machine guns, and no ghost guns. It also has no authority to restrict how Americans manufacture or modify any of their firearms.

Keep reading

Federal Judge Enjoins Enforcement of the Illinois ‘Assault Weapon’ Ban

A federal judge in Illinois recently issued a permanent injunction against that state’s “assault weapon” ban, deeming it inconsistent with the Second Amendment. The Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA) “is an unconstitutional affront to the Second Amendment and must be enjoined,” U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn wrote in Barnett v. Raoul, which combines several challenges to the law, on Friday. “The Government may not deprive law-abiding citizens of their guaranteed right to self-defense as a means of offense.”

McGlynn imposed a 30-day stay on his injunction to allow an appeal that seems likely to succeed. Last year in Bevis v. City of Naperville, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction against PICA that McGlynn issued in April 2023. The 7th Circuit concluded that the state was likely to prevail in its defense of the law.

The 168-page opinion that McGlynn issued on Friday, which followed a bench trial, aims to reconcile the 7th Circuit’s reasoning, which was based on a distinction between “military” weapons and “Arms protected by the Second Amendment,” with the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment precedents. That’s a tall order. But the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which represents the plaintiffs in one of the PICA lawsuits, argues that the evidence presented at trial showed that “PICA fails even under the Seventh Circuit’s misguided test,” which it says “conflicts with binding Supreme Court precedent.”

Illinois legislators enacted PICA in January 2023, six months after a gunman used a Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle to kill seven people at an Independence Day parade in Highland Park. Among other things, the law bans a long list of specific rifle models, along with any semi-automatic rifle that accepts detachable magazines and has one or more of six listed features: a pistol grip or thumbhole stock, a protruding grip, a folding or adjustable stock, a flash suppressor, a grenade launcher, or a barrel shroud. PICA also bans “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” defined to include rifle magazines that hold more than 10 rounds and pistol magazines that hold more than 15 rounds.

Illinois House Speaker Chris Welch (D–Westchester) said the law was aimed at “weapons of war.” That phrase suggested that Welch was talking about selective-fire rifles like those carried by U.S. soldiers, which can shoot automatically.

That was clearly not true. Such rifles are strictly regulated under federal law, which has forbidden sales of newly manufactured machine guns to civilians since 1986. PICA does not deal with machine guns; it deals with semi-automatic firearms, which fire one round per trigger pull.

Keep reading