Tag: 2nd amendment

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

County Sheriff Vows He Won’t Enforce Washington Permit-To-Purchase Law

The new Washington state law requiring lawful citizens to jump through a number of government hoops and acquire a permit before purchasing a firearm is considered to be unconstitutional by many observers, including at least one county sheriff in the Evergreen State.

The measure, House Bill 1163, created a permit-to-purchase scheme that requires government permission to purchase or transfer a firearm, adds a live-fire training component and establishes an illegal government registry of firearm owners and their personal information.

Washington’s Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson signed the arguably unconstitutional bill into law on May 20. The new law even requires extensive live-fire training before purchasing a gun, along with a $32 fee to acquire the permit.

The law states: “In addition to the other requirements of this chapter, no dealer may deliver a firearm to the purchaser or transferee thereof until: (a) The purchaser provides proof of completion of a recognized firearm safety training program within the last five years that complies with the requirements in RCW 9.41.1132, or proof that the purchaser is exempt from the training requirement or transferee produces a valid permit to purchase firearms under section 2 of this act.”

Things aren’t all rosy for Gov. Ferguson and Washington’s anti-gun Democrats, though. Now, one county sheriff is speaking out about the measure, saying he won’t be enforcing the new law in his county.

“This ‘law’ is unconstitutional,” Pierce County Sheriff Keith Swank posted on X. “PCSO will not enforce it. Join me and fight for our rights.”

Keep reading

Gun control activist fabricates story of surviving Dallas high school shooting that ‘never happened’

A former Texas student has been accused of fabricating a mass shooting during a speech advocating for stricter gun control measures at the Kentucky State Capitol earlier this year. Calvin Polacheck delivered a harrowing account of surviving a 2017 active shooter situation at Dallas High School that killed his brother, best friend, and nine others; however, authorities said it never happened and shamed Polacheck for his false claims.

“A week later, I had to go back to that school, and that was the worst part because you had to walk past that spot where I saw my best friend and pretend it was all normal. It was not normal,” Polacheck said in February at the Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America rally. “Folks, that’s been eight years, and I’ve been talking about this every single day since then for eight years. Eight years of talking about this, and there’s been nothing that’s changed.”

Kentucky local news networks quoted Polacheck’s remarks in their articles regarding the rally. After the falsehoods surfaced on Wednesday, several of the outlets, such as WDKY and Kentucky Lantern, removed the story from their websites, Citizens Voice reported.

The Dallas school district issued a statement on Wednesday refuting Polacheck’s allegations, saying, “Thankfully, that never happened.”

“The discussion on the clip about Dallas and school violence is not factually accurate. Our district solicitor is supporting an investigation and communication regarding the circulating clip,” the statement continued.

Polacheck’s comments also garnered the attention of the Dallas Township police chief and the Luzerne County district attorney.

“The widespread sharing of a fabricated tragedy is not only reckless, it is harmful. It fuels unnecessary fear, disrespects the experiences of real victims of school violence, and misleads the public with a narrative that has no basis in truth,” said police chief Doug Higgins, who noted that there has never been a shooting at Dallas High School. “The false claims,” he continued, “are deeply troubling. They undermine the integrity of our school district, erode public trust, and cause real harm to a community that takes great pride in protecting its residents, especially its children.”

Keep reading

Trump’s ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ Strips Al Capone-Era Tax On Suppressors

Gun rights groups celebrated Thursday morning after the House narrowly passed President Trump’s “Big, Beautiful Bill” in a 215–214 vote. Organizations like Gun Owners of America praised the legislation for including the Constitutional Hearing Protection Act (CHPA), which eliminates both the federal registration requirement and the $200 tax on firearm suppressors. The provision drew sharp criticism from anti-gunners and leftist media outlets as the bill now heads to the Senate. 

“The House of Representatives passes GOA-backed language 215-214 to ELIMINATE the unconstitutional taxation & registration of suppressors under the NFA,” GOA wrote on X, adding, “The bill heads to the Senate, where GOA will fight to include protections for short-barreled firearms too.” 

GOA’s Deputy Director of Federal Affairs, Benjamin Sanderson, said in a short video posted on X that the organization has been working on a budget reconciliation strategy to deregulate suppressors for the past year. He thanked the millions of GOA members who have supported their efforts.

Since being classified under the Al Capone-era National Firearms Act, suppressors have been subject to a $200 tax stamp imposed by the ATF. If President Trump signs the Senate version of the “Big, Beautiful Bill,” purchasers only need to pass an FBI background check to acquire a suppressor.

“Shall not be infringed—or taxed. I’m proud that we secured the elimination of taxation and registration of suppressors in budget reconciliation. It’s past time we restore our constitutional 2A rights,” stated Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-GA), who originally introduced CHPA.

Keep reading