Tag: 2nd amendment

Dem Wash. Gov. Signs Bill Requiring Permit For Buying Gun

Washington Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson on Tuesday signed gun control legislation that requires those who want to purchase firearms in the state to pay for a new permit.

The permit system, set to take effect on May 1, 2027, will require those interested in purchasing guns to apply for a five-year permit through the Washington State Patrol. Applicants must pay a fee and have completed a certified firearms safety training program within the past five years, with limited exceptions.

“Gun violence in Washington state breaks apart too many families and kills too many children,” Ferguson said, the Washington State Standard reported. “We must put common sense reforms into place that save lives.”

The legislation goes beyond the state’s existing background checks, which also require proof of completion of a firearm safety course. The state also has a 10-day waiting period after a gun dealer requests a background check before a gun is turned over to the purchaser.

State authorities must approve a new permit as long as the applicant hasn’t been barred from having guns, including having an outstanding arrest warrant or being subject to a no-contact order. The state must issue the permit within 30 days, or 60 days if the applicant doesn’t have a state ID card. If an applicant feels the state wrongly denied them a permit, they can appeal in court.

“Bob Ferguson and Washington Democrats are creating roadblocks for law-abiding Washingtonians to be able to purchase firearms to defend themselves and their loved ones,” said John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, in a statement to Newsmax. “This new law also creates a clearly unconstitutional registry that can and will be abused to target lawful gun owners. Criminals in Washington State win again, while vulnerable citizens will be left defenseless.”

Keep reading

“It Was A War. We Won”: Rare Breed Triggers Scores Landmark Victory Over DOJ/ATF 

The Department of Justice announced a settlement with Rare Breed Triggers (RBT) on Friday, ending a multi-year legal battle over Forced Reset Triggers (FRTs). The agreement aligns with President Trump’s Executive Order protecting Second Amendment rights and follows guidance from the Attorney General’s Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force.

The legal settlement marks a significant reversal of the Biden administration’s efforts to weaponize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) in its crackdown on FRT-15s—a trigger mechanism for AR-platform rifles that increases the rate of fire.

Lawrence DeMonico, president of RBT, has explained countless times that the FRT-15 is not a “machine gun” because it does not fire more than one round per single function of the trigger—an essential distinction under the definitions outlined in the Gun Control Act and the National Firearms Act. As “Forced Reset” implies, spring tension and a mechanical assist reset the trigger after each shot.

Keep reading

Fact Check: NBC News Claims Machine Guns Have Been Illegal Since 1986

CLAIM: In a May 16, 2025, article, NBC News claimed, “Machine guns have been illegal in the United States since 1986.”

VERDICT: False. Machine guns are bought and sold regularly in states where the possession of machine guns is legal.

When NBC News references “1986,” they are referencing the year when the Firearm Owners Protection Act was signed into law. One aspect of FOPA banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the law’s effective date, which was May 19, 1986. However, FOPA did not (and does not) ban the sale of machine guns manufactured before May 19, 1986.

The ATF’s website makes clear that the machine guns that are legal are “those lawfully possessed before the effective date of the prohibition, May 19, 1986.”

Keep reading

Colorado now has one of the most restrictive gun laws in the country

Gov. Jared Polis on Thursday signed into law what may be the toughest gun control regulations in state history. Under the new law, it is illegal to buy, sell and make most semi-automatic firearms without background checks and training.

The governor was under heavy pressure to veto the bill from gun rights advocates, including Colorado’s Republican members of Congress. They say the new law is unconstitutional.

Bill sponsor state Rep. Tom Sullivan says it is lifesaving.

“We have been able to add to the safety of each and every Coloradan,” he said.

Sullivan’s son Alex was murdered in the Aurora theater shooting.

“My family made the decision that we would not be silent or (invisible). We would speak out and be present for all those who have been impacted by the public health crisis that is gun violence,” he said.

He has helped pass nearly two dozen gun laws since becoming a state lawmaker in 2019. The new law is the most far-reaching, although it doesn’t go as far as Sullivan would have liked. The original version banned so-called assault weapons. Polis negotiated several amendments, including an exemption for those who agree to an extensive vetting process.

“We can make sure the people who choose to buy guns, first of all, are able to choose the gun they want, but also that they’re properly trained,” Polis said at a bill signing ceremony.

Keep reading

Gun Owners Group Calls for Inquiry into Firearms Industry’s Secret Sharing of Customer Data

A coalition of firearm owners is pressing federal regulators to investigate whether the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the gun industry’s chief lobbying group, covertly exploited consumer data for political purposes, despite publicly promoting itself as a defender of privacy.

In a formal appeal submitted to three federal agencies, Gun Owners for Safety is demanding accountability over a long-running data-sharing operation first exposed by a ProPublica report.

That investigation revealed that for years, the NSSF quietly received personal details from gun buyers, collected by manufacturers, without informing those individuals that their information would be funneled into a political targeting effort.

The group’s letter, sent to the FBI, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), described the practice as “underhanded” and deceptive.

Malcolm Smith, a longtime gun owner and member of the group, underscored the nonpartisan stakes of the issue. “Gun owners’ privacy is not a partisan or ideological issue,” he wrote. “No matter the industry, exploiting customers’ private data like their underwear size and children’s ages in a secret scheme is reprehensible and cannot be permitted.”

Gun Owners for Safety, backed by the gun violence prevention group Giffords, operates across nine states and is composed of firearm owners who support tighter safeguards around gun ownership, including safety measures and enhanced background checks. The organization was launched in 2019 under the leadership of former Congresswoman Gabby Giffords, a gun violence survivor.

Regulatory responses to the complaint have been minimal so far. The ATF confirmed receipt of the letter but offered no additional comment. The FBI, FTC, and NSSF remained silent when approached by ProPublica for statements.

Though the NSSF is less widely known than the National Rifle Association, its influence spans the firearms business ecosystem, representing manufacturers, shooting ranges, ammunition retailers, and industry publishers.

Keep reading

Pro-gun Texas? The large print giveth and the small print taketh away

Actions speak louder than words. Put your money where your mouth is. I’ll believe it when I see it. A few common phrases that describe one idea: It doesn’t matter what you say if you don’t act accordingly — a concept that Texas state officials do not seem to understand.

Texas claims to be a bastion of liberty in the United States. Texas also claims to be unabashedly pro-gun — a state where people are free to exercise their right to keep and bear arms. But the state’s actions show those claims are just words.

In reality, Texas has several laws that prohibit individuals from carrying arms in certain locations. The most notable of these laws is a ban on carry in locations that derive 51% or more of their proceeds from the sale of alcohol. While some might immediately react that it seems like a good thing to keep guns out of bars, they miss the actual effect and application of the law.

First, the law applies to any and all businesses that derive 51% or more of their proceeds from the sale of alcohol — not just bars. This includes several other venues and restaurants within the state — places where people take their families and have a right to be able to protect them.

Keep reading

Supreme Court Gives Trump Administration More Time To Consider Challenging Marijuana And Gun Ownership Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has approved a request from the government’s top lawyer that sought more time to consider a challenge to a February appeals court ruling around the federal prohibition on gun ownership by people who consume marijuana.

An order by Justice Brett Kavanaugh last week granted government lawyers an extension until June 5 to decide whether to appeal a February ruling from the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer had previously requested the extension, telling the high court that the government needed more time to consider the case.

“The Solicitor General has not yet determined whether to file a petition for a writ of certiorari in this case,” said Sauer’s three-page filing. “The additional time sought in this application is needed to continue consultation within the government and to assess the legal and practical impact of the court of appeals’ ruling.”

The case concerns a defendant, Keshon Daveon Baxter, who was found in possession of both a firearm and a bag of marijuana. The government charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by “unlawful” users of controlled substances.

Baxter argued in district court that the prohibition was itself illegal, contending both that “unlawful” use was too vague in the statute to be enforceable and also that the government’s ban on drug users’ possession of firearms was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lower court rejected both arguments—a ruling Baxter appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

It a February opinion, an Eighth Circuit panel upheld the portion of the district court’s decision denying Baxter’s vagueness claim but reversed the lower court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the firearms ban. However, judges wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.”

Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit 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.”

Had the Supreme Court not granted the government’s extension, in the case, U.S. v. Baxter, a decision whether to appeal the Eighth Circuit ruling would have been due May 6.

Sauer, an appointee of President Donald Trump, formally assumed his role as solicitor general earlier this month. He previously helped represented Trump in his landmark case on presidential immunity.

Keep reading

Supreme Court’s “Ghost Gun” Ruling Accidentally Paves Way For Next-Gen 80% Firearms

In late March, the Supreme Court upheld a Biden administration rule regulating so-called ghost guns — unserialized firearms — delivering what initially appeared to be a victory for billionaire-funded gun control groups, anti-Second Amendment Democrats, and their allies in the corporate media. However, the ruling has inadvertently opened a new frontier for DIY firearm kits, alleges one ghost gun maker.

The high court’s ruling in Bondi v. VanDerStok (originally Garland v. VanDerStok, but renamed after a new Attorney General was appointed) was a 7–2 decision upholding the rule issued by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requiring ghost gun makers to include serial numbers on kits and conduct background checks on purchasers.

According to Defense Distributed’s Cody Wilson, the March 26th opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, was a master class in judicial hand-waving—a carefully worded evasion that accidentally set a new standard even stronger than Chevron for upholding administrative agency actions while quietly greenlighting the next evolution of DIY firearm kits.

In Wilson’s view, the high court’s ruling did not ban ghost guns but instead inadvertently provided a roadmap for how the industry can survive — and even thrive.

Parsing through Gorsuch’s opinion, Wilson cited a few lines from pages 11 and 12 that show the DIY firearm kit industry is far from dead:

On page 11:

In the same way and for the same reason, an ordinary speaker might well describe the “Buy Build Shoot” kit as a “weapon.” Yes, perhaps a half hour of work is required before anyone can fire a shot. But even as sold, the kit comes with all necessary components, and its in-tended function as an instrument of combat is obvious. Really, the kit’s name says it all: “Buy Build Shoot.”

On page 12:

That turns out to tell us all we need to know about the statute’s “ready conversion” test. As we have seen, a person without any specialized knowledge can convert a starter gun into a working firearm using everyday tools in less than an hour. Mullins, 446 F. 3d, at 755. And measured against that yardstick, the “Buy Build Shoot” kit can be “readily converted” into a firearm too, for it requires no more time, effort, expertise, or specialized tools to complete.

“Although the plain text in this opinion is intended more as an admonishment of Polymer80, which had become the ghost gun industry’s largest single success story, it also undermines the ATF’s purposely vague “tests” for determining when components have or have not become firearms,” Wilson said, adding that ghost gun kits are not dead after the ruling – just the high court saying kits must be:

  1. Require more than an hour of effort and work
  2. Involve uncommon tools to complete, and;
  3. Lack all necessary components to be built into a functioning weapon

On Saturday, Defense Distributed debuted the next iteration of DIY firearm kits that fit the new definitions of the high court’s ruling. The new ghost gun is called the “G80.”

Keep reading

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly Introduces New “Assault Weapons” Ban

Dubbed the “GOSAFE Act,” this unconstitutional bill would regulate the sale, transfer and manufacture of “gas-operated semi-automatic firearms by establishing a list and prevent modifications of so-called “prohibited firearms.”

Similar legislation has been introduced in state legislatures and has even been signed into law by Colorado Governor Jared Polis in recent weeks.

According to a press release from the bill sponsor U.S. Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) the GOSAFE Act would:

Regulate the sale, transfer, and manufacture of gas-operated semi-automatic firearms by:

  • Establishing a list of prohibited firearms;
  • Preventing modifications of permissible firearms;
  • Mandating that future gas-operated designs are approved before manufacture;
  • Preventing firearm self-assembly and manufacturing;
  • Prohibiting machinegun conversion devices;
  • Limit high-capacity ammunition devices;

This legislation is certainly more restrictive than what even California and New York have on the books regarding semi-automatic firearms.

Keep reading

Trump’s Solicitor General Asks Supreme Court For More Time To Weigh Challenge To Gun Ban For Marijuana Consumers

The government’s top lawyer is asking the Supreme Court for more time to consider whether to challenge a February appeals court ruling concerning the federal prohibition on gun ownership by people who consume marijuana. It’s the latest development in a series of recent cases around the constitutionality of the firearm restriction.

The new filing, from Solicitor General D. John Sauer, concerns a case in which the defendant, Keshon Daveon Baxter, was found in possession of both a firearm and a bag of marijuana. The government charged him under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which prohibits gun ownership by “unlawful” users of controlled substances.

Baxter argued in district court that the prohibition was itself illegal, contending both that “unlawful” use was too vague in the statute to be enforceable and also that the government’s ban on drug users’ possession of firearms was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.

The lower court rejected both arguments—a ruling Baxter appealed to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

It a February opinion, an Eighth Circuit panel upheld the portion of the district court’s decision denying Baxter’s vagueness claim but reversed the lower court’s ruling on the constitutionality of the firearms ban. However, judges wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.”

Nevertheless, the Eighth Circuit 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.”

The federal government currently has until May 6 to decide whether to file a writ of certiorari asking the Supreme Court to review the appeals court ruling. The new filing from Sauer asks for a 30-day extension on that deadline.

Keep reading