Tag: 2nd amendment

Making the World Freer with Homemade Guns

Recently, while touting gun seizures in a city that has some of the most authoritarian gun laws in the United States, Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch lamented, “the number of illegal guns that we’ve seen used in New York City has exploded since 3D technology has come about.” She’s not alone. Homemade guns are increasingly sophisticated and available almost everywhere. That’s a good thing.

Americans, Armed and Scary

American dedication to privately owned weapons alarms observers from more restrictive countries—much to the amusement of many Americans, it should be noted, whose ancestors fled those places in search of greater freedom and found it, in part, in the ability to arm themselves and to generally flip the bird to government. That means that from the foundation of the U.S., privately owned weapons and their protection by the Second Amendment have had a strong ideological component. Now, innovators around the world are embracing private arms as expressions of liberty and creating simple designs that can be built in home workshops with commonly available tools and parts.

Critics argue that 3D-printed DIY firearms and their enthusiasts are spreading libertarianism around the world. Let’s hope they’re right.

Summarizing events at June’s MoneroKon conference in Prague, an annual meeting devoted to “privacy-enhancing technologies and distributed systems,” security expert Zoltán Füredi described a presentation by the pseudonymous Zé Carioca, designer of the recently unveiled Urutau, a 9mm select-fire firearm designed to be constructed with a 3D printer and components purchased at any hardware store. Rather than focus on his creation, Zé Carioca instead championed 3D-printed firearms as companions to cryptocurrency in challenging the power and reach of governments.

“His speech blurred the lines between technology, ideology, and extreme libertarian politics,” commented Füredi. He added of the speakers’ message, “Just as the freedom to transact (via cryptocurrency) is now seen as a fundamental human right, so too should be the right to bear arms—worldwide.”

Keep reading

Lawsuit: The Regulation Of Untaxed Firearms Under Federal Law Is Unconstitutional

Several Second Amendment advocacy groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), have filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

President Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill erased the NFA’s $200 stamp tax on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, any firearm classified by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) as “other,” and suppressors starting Jan. 1, 2026. However, “the firearms are still required to be registered and are subject to” regulations designed to enforce the “now-extinct” tax, the lawsuit says. This “regulatory regime” no longer comports with Congress’ constitutional authority, plaintiffs claim. The lawsuit also argues that “the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment.”

“The National Firearms Act’s registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid,” Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) executive director, said in a press release. “With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

The lawsuit, Brown v. ATF, was filed on August 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs are the NRA, the American Suppressor Association (ASA), SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two individual members of these organizations. They are suing both the ATF and the DOJ. The lawsuit asks the court to declare NFA regulations “relating to making, transferring, receiving, possessing, or otherwise using” the untaxed firearms and suppressors unlawful and to block anyone from enforcing the challenged portions of the law.

Keep reading

Why ‘You Don’t Need That for Hunting’ Should Never Fly

Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about so-called assault weapons. The shooting earlier this week in a Manhattan office building by a gunman wielding one was always going to spark such a debate.

Undoubtedly, you’ve heard someone, either now or in the past, use the phrase, “You don’t need that to hunt deer.” They might be referring to the type of weapon, the magazine capacity, or anything of the sort.

For Fudds, that’s ample reason to support some gun control measure or another. After all, their old, trusty bolt-action or lever gun isn’t up for banning. They’ll keep all of their guns, so it doesn’t matter.

Doing so, however, is a terrible mistake.

First, there’s the age-old argument that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. It’s not. I’ve talked about how it’s not countless times, and I’m just one of a legion of voices saying so.

Yet there’s another reason why this argument should be rejected outright beyond the text of the Second Amendment.

See, if we use the idea that what we need for hunting deer or other game animals is the criteria to be considered for what should be legal or not, then absolutely no firearm will survive.

Those trusty bolt-actions and lever-action guns? You don’t actually need those to hunt deer, elk, bear, or anything else. Archery exists, and really, how many mass killings do we see with those? I mean, I can only think of one, and that wasn’t even here, so sure, archery is a much safer option for hunting, and then those sniper rifles and cowboy guns can be taken off the streets where they won’t harm anyone.

After all, didn’t you guys already agree that if you don’t need it for hunting, it’s OK to ban it?

The problem with “don’t need it for hunting” is that someone will decide to ramp that up to the next degree. And, since archery equipment can be considered “arms,” they could even use that to argue that they’re not violating the Second Amendment at all with a total gun ban since you still have access to arms that can be used for hunting.

Hell, back in the day, spears were hunting weapons. Would we like to see a world where archery equipment was too cutting-edge and capable of being used for a massacre?

We can make the Second Amendment argument until we’re blue in the face. It’s absolutely true, but it doesn’t convince a lot of people predisposed to accept limits on constitutionally protected rights. What we have to do is address the problems with arguments as they’re presented, including the slippery slope on something like this.

Keep reading

California Law Requiring Background Checks For Ammo Declared Unconstitutional

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that a California law requiring background checks for individuals purchasing ammunition is unconstitutional, upholding a previous judge’s ruling striking down the law.

The background check for ammo purchases law had been struck down twice by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez before a lawsuit was brought by a coalition of gun owners and gun rights groups who sued the state, saying that the law infringed on the Second Amendment rights of Californians.

In Thursday’s ruling upholding Benitez’s permanent injunction blocking the law, Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote in the majority opinion that the law was not consistent with how the country has historically regulated firearms, saying, “By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

In the dissent, Judge Jay S. Bybee said that the background check law did not constrain the right to keep and bear arms as a blanket ban might do and that the inconvenience to ammo purchasers was minor.

Bybee wrote, “The vast majority of (California’s) checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay.”

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the background check requirement is Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, who posted on social media, “This is a huge win. The state will likely appeal en banc, so we have to keep fighting, but this law will fall!”

California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed his frustration with the ruling, saying, “Strong gun laws save lives — and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence. Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”

Keep reading

Four Injured in Another Shooting in Gun-Free Denver

The City of Denver has among the most restrictive gun laws in the state of Colorado. Colorado ranks 13th in the nation for most restrictive gun laws, and for liberty advocates, anti-gun policy is often incoherent. What are they even trying to do?

To answer that question, we found a helpful chart from Rand explaining the intention and expected outcomes of various types of gun legislation.

It’s helpful in that it explains their “logic” and pinpoints the disarmament lobby’s intentions. That being said, if we measured the impact of these policies in the states that already have them, I doubt the objectives have been achieved. Consider these stats for Colorado…

Keep reading

Hochul Calls for Nationwide Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ in Wake of NYC Shooting

Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) said Tuesday on CNN’s “Inside Politics” that a new federal assault weapons ban is needed in the wake of a mass shooting in Manhattan.

Hochul said, “I’m sitting in Midtown right now. My office is just a few blocks away and walking in this morning, and you see the security guards down there and everyone is just wondering, you know, is this is this a one-off? Could this happen again? I mean, that sense of security is shattered when someone comes from another state carrying an assault weapon designed only for battlefields, but using it, intending to use that to commit mayhem and mass murder in our cities.”

She continued, “This is happening because there are still assault weapons in our country.”

Hochul added, “If every state had the same laws uniformly, you could not have a situation where we fight really hard in the state of New York to make sure that we have the toughest gun laws in the nation. We have the lowest of all the large states homicide rate by guns. New York City, New York State, has the lowest homicide rate by guns in the nation for large states, and that’s because of laws that are working. We want that same sense of urgency to go out across the nation.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court to Take Up Ban on Gun Ownership for Marijuana Users

The Supreme Court will consider hearing a gun control case related to a federal ban on firearm possession by marijuana users.

The high court is reportedly expected to have a private discussion on whether it will take up the case of US v. Cooper on September 29. The law has been roundly criticized by gun rights advocates who argue that it is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The case centers on LaVance LeMarr Cooper, who was prosecuted for owning a firearm as a marijuana user, which made him a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal criminal statute that bars certain people from owning firearms or ammunition.

This subsection targets those who unlawfully use controlled substances.

A police officer pulled Cooper over in Iowa during a traffic stop. They found a loaded Glock 20 in his vehicle. He did not have any felony convictions, but did have a misdemeanor conviction in 1996 for driving with a suspended license and marijuana possession.

Cooper later admitted to smoking marijuana on a regular basis — about three to four times per week. Prosecutors charged him with violating the federal statute. He waived his right to a jury trial and consented to a bench trial. This means he did not dispute that he owned a firearm while being a marijuana user.

The district court found him guilty on both counts and sentences him to over three years in prison  for the offenses — even though he was not intoxicated at the time of the traffic stop.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in February vacated Cooper’s convicted and remanded the case. The panel rules that the lower court failed to properly apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in Cooper’s case.

Keep reading

The Trump Administration Defends the Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales

A couple of years ago, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Donald Trump, caused a kerfuffle by erroneously reporting that his boss had bought a Glock pistol while visiting a gun store in Summerville, South Carolina. That claim was striking because it implicated Trump, who was then seeking the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination, in a federal crime: Since he was under indictment in state and federal court, he was barred from buying firearms. But even if Trump had not faced felony charges, the transaction that Cheung described would have been illegal because of federal restrictions on interstate handgun purchases.

As a resident of Florida, Trump would not have been allowed to directly buy a pistol from a South Carolina gun dealer. Instead, he would have had to arrange and pay for shipment of the weapon to a licensed dealer in Florida, who could have completed the transaction there, typically in exchange for an additional fee. A lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas takes aim at that rule, arguing that it is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) says the ban on interstate handgun sales fails the constitutional test that the Supreme Court established in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

As president, Trump now controls the nation’s vast military might, including its nuclear arsenal. But because the dubious New York case against him resulted in felony convictions, he is not allowed to possess firearms, let alone buy new ones. And even if his convictions are overturned on appeal, he still won’t be allowed to buy a handgun in South Carolina or any other state he might visit. His administration, which is avowedly committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, nevertheless is defending that restriction against the FPC’s challenge, saying it “serves legitimate objectives” and “only modestly burdens the right to keep and bear arms.”

That argument sounds suspiciously like the sort of “interest balancing” that the Supreme Court emphatically rejected in Bruen. When a gun restriction affects conduct covered by “the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the Court said in that case, the government has the burden of demonstrating that it is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That test typically requires identifying historical analogs that are “relevantly similar” in motivation and scope to a challenged law.

Keep reading

We’re Learning More About That Attempted Church Massacre in Michigan

It’s a sad fact of life and an awful commentary on our broken culture that churches need to have armed security guards.

But thank God that several men at CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Mich., were armed and trained to respond to an attack. Their training and skills were put to the ultimate test on June 22, when Brian Anthony Browning, who was heavily armed and dressed in tactical gear, tried to enter the church. Their brave actions likely prevented the mass slaughter of Christians who were at the church that day to celebrate their annual Vacation Bible School program. 

In an episode of “The World and Everything in It” podcast this week, church members and witnesses discussed that harrowing day. 

Sound technician Dustin Fuoco said in the podcast, “This was following our Vacation Bible School program, and instead of doing our regular worship, we had the children up on stage doing some performances and songs and dance and stuff.” 

As the performance was unfolding, Richard Pryor, a deacon at the church, was arriving late that day in his F-150 pickup truck. 

Jay Trombley, a member of the church security team, described what happened next: Browning “had some tactical gear on and some camouflage, mostly all camouflage. And he proceeded to put on more tactical gear, some sound protection over his ears, and then grabbed a large rifle.”

In fact, police say 31-year-old Browning, whose mother attended the church and who had attended himself several times, was armed with an AR-15-style rifle, a semi-automatic handgun with an extended magazine, more than a dozen loaded magazines, and hundreds of rounds of ammunition. 

Pryor realized something wasn’t right and asked the man if he needed something. 

According to Trombley, “The man looked at him and smirked, and walked away and started walking down the sidewalk, towards the main lobby entrance.” 

That’s when Pryor realized what Browning’s intentions were. With no time to waste, he jumped back into his truck and barreled toward the would-be assassin. After being hit by the truck, Browning somehow managed to get off a barrage of shots and disable the truck. He fired into the windshield, but Pryor, thank God, wasn’t struck. 

Keep reading

New Jersey Democrats Unleash Onslaught of Gun Control Bills

At this point, you’d think that New Jersey lawmakers would have run out of ways to harass gun owners, but sadly, that is not the case. In fact, the Senate Law & Public Safety Committee is meeting today to consider a whopping 18 different gun control bills.

Keep in mind that the state already requires a permit to purchase a firearm, and a separate permit to carry. There’s a 7-day waiting period on all firearm transfers, and person-to-person sales are now allowed. New Jersey has a ban on so-called assault weapons and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Those gun owners who do possess a valid carry permit are barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights in scores of locations, though the state’s “gun-free zones” are the subject of ongoing litigation in federal court. 

Despite all those laws, Democrats still have an appetite for more. From NRA-ILA:

Some of the worst bills on the agenda include:

S.1558 makes it a first-degree crime (up to 20 years in jail) to transport, ship, or even dispose of a firearm without a serial number. There is no exception for previously owned historical firearms that were lawfully manufactured and lawfully acquired without a serial number.

S.3893 prescribes penalties for the sale and possession of “machine gun conversion devices.” Such devices are already banned at both the state and federal levels.

S.3894 creates a crime for possession of digital instructions to illegally manufacture firearms or firearm components. This legislation creates a crime even if someone never produces a gun or component—simply possessing a digital file for a component makes you a criminal.

S.3895 expands the crime of reckless discharge. Discharging a firearm in New Jersey is already illegal unless done “for a lawful purpose,” which is an affirmative defense. Now, every time a firearm is used—even in legitimate self-defense situations, prosecutors will have more tools to harass law-abiding gun owners. 

S.3706 mandates the use of Merchant Category Codes. This is nothing more than government-sanctioned snooping that can be used to create a firearms registry or discriminate against gun owners and lawful businesses.

S.3896 attempts to criminalize lawful self-defense with a firearm. Though cloaked in language focusing on criminal misconduct by bad actors, the operative portion of the bill is not limited to bad actors and allows prosecution for self-defense where a firearm is discharged.

S.3900 allows imprisonment before trial for an unlimited amount of time when someone is merely accused of a firearms offense. If someone is accused of a gun crime, the government gets to lock them up and throw away the key while they await trial.

S.3894, is an assault on our First Amendment rights as well as our right to keep and bear arms. It’s never been a federal crime to manufacture your own firearm, and New Jersey’s criminalization of that act is already constitutionally suspect. Making it a crime to possess a digital file or lines of code that can aid in that manufacture is at least as egregious. Code is speech, whether New Jersey Democrats want to acknowledge that or not, and prohibiting the possession or dissemination of a code that can create a constitutionally-protected item (with the help of a 3D printer or CNC machine) is an act of authoritarianism overreach. 

Keep reading