Tag: 2nd amendment

Gov. Abbott Signs Bill Removing Short-Barrel Rifles from Texas Prohibited Weapons List

Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed legislation Saturday to remove short-barrel rifles and shotguns from Texas prohibited weapons list.

On May 29, 2025, Breitbart News reported that the legislation, Senate Bill 1596, had passed the Texas legislature and was headed to Gov. Abbott’s desk.

Now that the bill has been signed, KVUE noted  it will take effect September 1, 2025.

It should be noted that SB 1596 removes short-barrel firearms from the prohibited firearms list in Texas, but does not remove them from National Firearms Act (NFA) oversight.

“1o1.9 The Bull” reported:

Senate Bill 1596 will remove short-barrel firearms from the list of illegal weapons in Texas law.  Texans would be able to own these guns as long as the proper federal rules are followed:

1) A background check

2) To register the gun with the ATF

3)To pay a $200 tax.

Would-be purchasers of short-barrel firearms will also still have to be fingerprinted and photographed per NFA requirements.

Keep reading

Letting Marijuana Users Have Guns Poses ‘A Clear Danger,’ Trump’s Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

In a recent filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) is doubling down on arguments made under former President Joe Biden that users of illegal drugs—including marijuana—”pose a clear danger of misusing firearms.”

That risk, DOJ contends, justifies the longstanding federal prohibition on gun ownership by drug consumers—known as Section 922(g)(3)—despite the Constitution’s broad Second Amendment protections.

In a petition for review by the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that despite recent appeals court decisions calling the constitutionality of the firearms ban into question, the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

“Section 922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment,” the government’s June 2 filing in the case, U.S. v. Hemani, says. “That provision targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs.”

Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

But in the appeal petition in Hemani, Trump’s solicitor general said the ban is necessary and narrowly tailored enough to survive the legal challenge.

The federal statute “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms.”

Notably, while the government mentions “habitual” users of illegal drugs 40 times in its filing, that word does not itself appear in 922(g)(3). The language of the statute prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.

A reply brief from Hemani’s lawyers is due to the Supreme Court by July 21.

While DOJ is asking the high court to take up the Hemani case, at least two other, similar cases are waiting in the wings: U.S. v. Cooper and U.S. v. Baxter both of which also hinge on the constitutionality of 922(g)(3).

In Cooper, an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

“Nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,” their ruling said.

In Baxter, the Eighth Circuit ruled 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to the facts in the case.

Judges in that case wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.” Nevertheless, the they wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Keep reading

Rhode Island Democrats Ban Sale, Manufacture of ‘Assault Weapons’

Rhode Island’s Democrat-run legislature passed a bill Friday banning the instate sale and manufacture of “assault weapons.”

The measure now heads to Gov. Dan McKee’s (D) desk.

The Associated Press reported that state Rep. Rebecca Kislak (D) contended for the ban, suggesting it is “an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states.”

The ban “only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession.”

Gov. McKee reacted to Friday’s passage of the ban with an X post, saying: I’m proud that Rhode Island took an important step forward in protecting our communities from gun violence. I included an assault weapons ban in my budget for this very reason — and as a result, tonight we saw progress.

Keep reading

Ninth Circuit Unanimously Upholds Second Amendment Foundation Victory Over California’s Unconstitutional “One-Gun‑Per‑Month” Rationing Law

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a resounding victory for individual rights, unanimously reaffirming a lower court’s judgment that California’s “one‑gun‑per‑month” law is firmly unconstitutional.

The case—Nguyen v. Bonta—was brought by a coalition of individual plaintiffs and pro-Second Amendment organizations, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The plaintiffs challenged California’s draconian law, which prohibits law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period, according to Breitbart.

Judge Danielle J. Forrest, joined by Bridget S. Bade and John B. Owens, delivered a plain-text, history-grounded dismissal of the law.

Writing for the majority, Judge Forrest stated:

California has a “one-gun-a-month” law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period. The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm. California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.

The court concluded that the government cannot limit the frequency of a citizen’s right to acquire firearms—comparing it to limiting free speech to one protest per month or religious freedom to one worship service a month.

The opinion rejected California’s typical defense that its law was meant to prevent so-called “straw purchases” and illegal gun trafficking.

The court found that there is “no historical cousin” to California’s one-gun-a-month scheme. The decision emphasized that nothing in America’s constitutional tradition justifies this kind of blanket limitation.

Keep reading

Government finally recognizes the Second Amendment

How far has America fallen when the DOJ’s Civil Rights division files an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting the Second Amendment against Illinois, and that filing is unusual? How can it be that the DOJ defending a fundamental, unalienable, express constitutional right should be rare, so rare as to be surprising, even astonishing?

If Democrats and their media propaganda arm are to be believed, Donald Trump is a dictator bent on destroying “our democracy.” Ironically, they’re right. He is determined to destroy “our—their—democracy,” which is a tyranny of the majority. That’s why Dems are so desperate to keep every illegal in the country. They want that 50.0000001%, which in a democracy rules. In “our democracy” the majority can deprive the minority of property, rights, liberty, even life. Thus did Biden’s Handler’s Forestry Service try to imprison South Dakota ranchers Charles and Heather Maude over a fence built before they were born. Under “our democracy” they would have gone to jail for ten years leaving their children without their parents. Under our constitutional, representative republic, the charges were dropped.

Such is the tyranny of Donald Trump who ordered his Administration to protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans. “Our Democracy,” like all would-be tyrants, wants to disarm all Americans. Trump, the dictator, wants American’s Second Amendment rights protected.

The issue in this case is Illinois’ violation of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision by banning “assault weapons,” primarily AR-15s, the most popular rifle in America, and “high capacity” magazines—actually, standard capacity magazines.  Thus are Illinois’ Democrat rulers part of “our democracy” rather than America’s representative republic.

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Files Amicus Brief Supporting Challenge to Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

On June 13, 2025, the Civil Rights Division of President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice announced the filing of an amicus brief supporting an NRA lawsuit against Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban.

The brief was announced by Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon. In a post to X, Dhillon noted, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. See you in court, Illinois.”

The amicus brief’s introduction points to Bruen (2022) and says in part:

Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision meant to break a habit developed by some States of treating the Second Amendment as “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other” constitutional rights. …[Bruen] (2022).

Regrettably, not every State got the message. Just a few months after Bruen, Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America via a so-called “assault weapons” ban. In doing so,  Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are “in common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. …[Heller] (2008).

Keep reading

ATF to Return Legal Gun Parts, Leaving 16 Blue State AGs to Suffer a Collective Meltdown

The whole “bump stock” hooraw has been settled, for the time being, following the Trump administration’s settling of a lawsuit brought by the National Association for Gun Rights. These devices, more properly called “forced-reset triggers,” allow for firing a semi-automatic rifle more quickly, at the cost of some accuracy. In the interests of complete reporting, we should note that the action of one of these devices can be duplicated with such readily available things as rubber bands or belt loops. Following the settlement, the ATF has been ordered to return some 100,000 seized devices to their rightful owners.

To summarize, 100,000 pieces of legally owned private property are being returned to their owners.

So, of course, 16 blue state attorneys general are screeching and soiling themselves in terror. They are demanding that these people not be given back their property, and as is typical, they don’t even know what they’re talking about. Consider this, from Colorado’s AG, Phil Weiser:

“The law is clear: Machine guns, and devices that turn a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun, are illegal,” Weiser said in a statement. “We’re suing to stop the ATF and the administration from making our communities more dangerous by distributing thousands of devices that turn firearms into weapons of war.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. These are not machine guns, and they cannot turn a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun. With or without a forced-reset trigger, the weapon functions the same: One shot for each trigger pull. The device makes it easier to fire more quickly, but so can a thumb thrust through a belt loop. 

Furthermore, machine guns are not illegal. The supply is restricted, they are very expensive, and one has to go through a defined process to own one, including a background check and payment of a “transfer tax.” But they are not illegal. Given money and patience, any law-abiding citizen can legally own one. Like this guy does.

Keep reading

Michigan Senate Dems Pass Bump Stock Ban, ‘Ghost Gun’ Regulations

Michigan Senate Democrats in the Judiciary Committee passed bills Thursday that will ban bump stocks and require serialization on so-called “ghost guns.”

WVNEWS reported that state Sen. Dayna Polehanki (D) sponsored SB 224, which is the bump stock ban.

Polehanki described bump stocks as “destructive weapons of war,” adding, “And let me be clear: these are not tools for sport or self-defense. Bump stocks are used to inflict maximum harm in seconds, and their continued availability puts every one of our communities at risk. That’s unacceptable, and it’s time for a change.”

The bills related to so-called “ghost guns” were sponsored by state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D). These pieces of legislation ban “the purchase, possession and distribution of firearms without valid serial numbers.”

McMorrow contended that gun control laws must change as quickly as does the technology to build guns, saying, “Just as rapidly as new weapon production methods emerge and evolve, so too must our laws and public safety efforts. Our communities deserve nothing less.”

More gun control, pushed by state Sen. Rosemary Bayer (D), would ban open and concealed carry on Michigan Capitol grounds and in the Anderson House Office Building.

Keep reading

Justice Elena Kagan: AR-15s and AK-47s Are ‘Widely Legal and Bought by Many Ordinary Consumers’

Justice Elena Kagan wrote the opinion in the Supreme Court’s decision striking down Mexico’s lawsuit and described AR-15s and AK-47s as “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.”

Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS pointed to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) in striking down Mexico’s lawsuit in a unanimous June 5, 2025, decision.

In the  opinion, Kagan noted how Mexico tried to point to the way certain guns were marketed and designed in hopes of getting traction with their lawsuit. She explained why the court rejected this approach and while so doing, highlighted how popular and “widely” owned AR-15s, AK-47s, and other similar rifles have become.

Keep reading

Major bank announces end of de-banking policies on guns and political affiliation

After years of criticism from the right about unfair “de-banking” practices, a major U.S. bank announced the end of the policy as it relates to political affiliation and gun sales.

Citigroup announced that they changed their firearms policies, which had been instituted after the heinous 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida.

“We appreciate the concerns that are being raised regarding ‘fair access’ to banking services, and we are following regulatory developments, recent executive orders and federal legislation that impact this area,” the bank said in a statement.

The statement said Citigroup had updated its employee code of conduct to ensure that no one was discriminated against on the basis of their political affiliation.

Among those who claimed they were the targets of political de-banking were first lady Melania Trump and Eric Trump, who said the Trump Organization had been negatively affected.

In October, the first lady recalled in an interview the shock she felt on finding out a bank had “suddenly informed me they will not be able to do business with me anymore.”

She also said that a university returned her money when she tried to contribute to a philanthropic effort to fund scholarships for foster kids.

“They didn’t want to do business with me because of political affiliation, my political beliefs,” she added.

Keep reading