Tag: 2nd amendment

Virginia Governor Signs Law Banning ‘Ghost Guns’

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed a bill to ban so-called “ghost guns,” another making it easier to sue gunmakers and sellers, and two other bills concerning possession of firearms by persons under court orders.

The bills – signed on April 10 – are among more than two dozen gun control and gun safety bills that the Virginia General Assembly sent to Spanberger after its regular session ended on March 24.

“Preventing gun violence is an issue of public safety – both for the officers who protect our streets and the children and families they work to keep safe,” the governor said in a statement.

Spanberger signed Senate Bill 323, which bans the manufacture, sale, and possession of firearms without serial numbers.

The new law also outlaws any gun that “after removal of all parts other than a major component, … is not detectable as a firearm when subjected to inspection by the types of detection devices, including X-ray machines, commonly used at airports, government buildings, schools, correctional facilities, and other locations for security screening.”

Senate Bill 27, which Spanberger also signed, sets standards of “responsible conduct” for firearm manufacturers, distributors, and retailers.

It calls for “reasonable controls” over the manufacture, sale, distribution, use, and marketing of firearm-related products.

It also allows the attorney general, local government attorneys, or private citizens to sue firearm businesses for injunctions, damages, and costs.

Spanberger also signed two bills concerning the possession of firearms by those under court orders.

According to Spanberger’s office, Senate Bill 160 closes an “intimate partner loophole” by prohibiting intimate partners convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence crimes from possessing a firearm.

The law adds to the definition of “family or household member,” an individual who, “within the previous 12 months, was in a romantic, dating, or sexual relationship with the person.”

Senate Bill 38 allows a person subject to a protective order or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence and prohibited from possessing a firearm, to transfer their firearm to a person who is age 21 or older, who does not live in their home, and can legally own a gun.

These bills are the first of a slate of gun control and gun safety laws to be signed after the most recent session.

Keep reading

New ATF Rule Should Dismantle Billion-Record Gun Registry

The Trump administration will soon release a rule dealing with ATF’s illegal registry. It will change the Biden-era requirement that gun dealers permanently keep all firearm transaction records. 

Ending the permanent retention of these records is could be a huge step in the right direction, since the Biden ATF’s entire plan was to use these forms to continue building their illegal gun registry.  

So how does GOA know this?  

Well in case you missed our video on it, the Trump administration’s proposed new director of the ATF, Robert Cekada, answered questions from Senators following his hearing.  

These “Questions for the Record” or QFRs, are questions that could not be asked during hearings because of time constraints. Nominees submit their answers creating a via a public legal record that is published before their confirmation vote.

These answers can be enlightening where a nominee stands on particularly complex issues.

Specifically, Senator Ted Cruz asked about ATF’s 920 million-record illegal registry and how many documents they’ve added in the 4-year gap since the ATF last updated those figures.  

In his response, Deputy Director Cekada said  

“Consistent with the President’s Executive Order on the Second Amendment, ATF is also undertaking a review of how long firearm transaction records should be maintained.” 

In another question from Senator Cruz, he asks what’s the point in maintaining infinite or even more than 10 years of records when the average national time to crime is less than 10 years, and there are few traces that use records older than 20 years. 

In Cekada’s response to this question, he says:  

“Further, in accordance with the President’s Executive Order, Protecting Second Amendment Rights, ATF has been working with the Department to conduct a thorough review of existing regulations to assess whether they infringe on Second Amendment rights. As part of this review, we are examining the law enforcement value of older firearm transaction records. The results of that review should be forthcoming shortly.”  “ 

Thanks to these public records, we KNOW the ATF is looking into ending the Biden era Rule that made all gun transaction records or ATF Form 4473s into permanent records. And this is “coming soon.”

Ending the Biden era rule is good news. Permanent record retention was a crucial step in the anti-gun lobby’s plan to build a complete registry of all guns and gun owners in the United States to be used eventually for confiscation.

But before the permanent record retention rule, Federal Firearms Licensees only needed to keep their records for 20 years; afterwards they could destroy them.

So right now, the ATF and FFLs nationwide have every single dealer sale record since 2002. That’s a pretty significant number of records, which the ATF is attempting to turn into a registry as you read this article.

There is no public information outside of Cekada’s responses to Senator Cruz about what the rule will look like. But, in light of this information, the GOA’s Legal and Federal Affairs teams have put together a proposal to the DOJ, ATF, and the Trump administration on what a “No Compromise” rule would look like.  

And don’t worry, we’re still lobbying Congress to delete the registry with Rep. Michael Cloud’s No REGISTRY Rights Act and some appropriations language that Rep. Andrew Clyde has been introducing the last couple of years.

And of course, we’re continuing our lawsuit against the Biden-era rule that made these records permanent. But there’s a path here for President Trump to really restore our Second Amendment rights and dismantle this registry.

Ideally, ATF’s record retention period should be zero years.

Keep reading

RI State Rep: Banning AR-15s Not Enough; We Should Use ‘Police Power’ to Ensure Owners Dispose of Them

On Wednesday, Rhode Island state Rep. Teresa Tanzi (D) spoke in support of efforts to repeal a legislative grandfather clause and use “police power” to force AR-15 owners to dispose of their rifles.

Breitbart News noted in March that Democrats in Rhode Island’s state legislature were trying to remove the grandfather clause that was contained in the “assault weapons” ban passed last year. The grandfather clause allowed those who owned newly prohibited firearms to retain possession of them. But now, the Democrats are pushing to remove the grandfathered aspect of the ban and implement a prison sentence for merely possessing an AR-15. The legislation through which they are attempting this is H8073.

Tanzi spoke in favor of H8703 on Wednesday, saying, “Last year, we as a body, banned the sale, manufacture, and transfer, of certain ‘assault weapons’ as defined in that law. That was an important step, but it was only a partial one. We should be honest about that.”

She continued:

Right now our law draws an arbitrary line. We have said that these firearms cannot enter the market place going forward, but we continue to allow them to remain in circulation indefinitely. … If these weapons are too dangerous to be sold in Rhode Island then we really should have addressed possession at the same time. We didn’t, and this bill [H8073] corrects that.”

Tanzi explained that H8073 will force current AR-15 owners “to come into compliance by selling or transferring them lawfully.”

Keep reading

Rogue ATF Defies Federal Courts, Continues To Target Law-Abiding Gun Owners Over ‘Illegal’ Pistol Brace Rule

The federal government is now being accused of continuing to enforce the same pistol brace interpretation that federal courts have already struck down, exposing law-abiding Americans to potential felony charges carrying up to 10 years in prison.

The Biden-era pistol brace rule, which reclassified millions of braced pistols as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA), was vacated by federal courts and deemed unlawful.

Following that defeat, the Department of Justice quietly dropped its appeal, effectively leaving the rule dead and unenforceable nationwide.

Last year, the firearm community celebrated a definitive victory.

According to FFL Guard, in cases like Mock v. Bondi (formerly Mock v. Garland), federal judges slammed the Biden-era rule that overnight reclassified millions of braced pistols as “short-barreled rifles” (SBRs).

The courts found the ATF’s move was “arbitrary and capricious,” a blatant violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, and a direct assault on the Second Amendment.

Even the DOJ seemed to wave the white flag, dropping its appeal in 2025. But according to a March 2026 court filing in Texas v. ATF, the agency is now claiming that, while the rule is gone, its interpretation remains.

Keep reading

Why Is The Trump DOJ Still Enforcing The Biden Pistol Brace Rule?

The current Department of Justice is choosing to continue enforcing an unconstitutional legal theory being weaponized against gun owners by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

According to a recent statement in GOA’s Texas et al. v. ATF case, DOJ claims that ATF “continue[s] to enforce the NFA’s and the GCA’s regulation of short-barreled rifles against some brace-equipped pistols, even though the Rule has been universally vacated.”

For those who are unfamiliar, in 2022 the Biden Administration issued an executive order instructing the Department of Justice to ban pistol braces, a popular firearm accessory designed to allow shooters with disabilities to “brace” their firearms against their forearm.

The Biden DOJ used this rule to effectively outlaw firearms equipped with stabilizing braces, by regulating them as short-barreled firearms under the National Firearms Act. This move turned the law-abiding owners of upwards of 40 million pistol braces  into felons practically overnight, unless they destroyed their firearm or registered it with the federal government.

GOA and other pro-gun groups challenged this pistol brace rule in multiple courts across the country, culminating with a total elimination of the rule in court.

Keep reading

This Democrat Claims To Be Moderate, But Backs Huge Firearms Crackdowns on Law-Abiding Americans

Rep. Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington’s Third District has portrayed herself as a working class moderate Democrat. Recent stories have shown that the congresswoman is anything but, with former acquaintances claiming that she is “cosplaying as a poor person.” Her history on the Second Amendment has shown that cosplay has ventured into her policy stances as well.

During a 2022 candidate debate, Gluesenkamp Perez laid out the first steps toward restricting gun ownership for constituents by preventing adults between the ages of 18 and 20 from exercising their constitutional rights.

“I’m a pragmatist,” Gluesenkamp Perez stated. “I think the first reasonable thing is to increase the age of purchase to 21, because kids are just not as old as they used to be.”

Gluesenkamp Perez’s statements echo the 2020 Washington State Democrat Party platform that the congresswoman adopted. Some “reasonable” measures that Democrats proposed include: ending open carry in Washington, a mandatory waiting period on firearms purchases, mandatory registration and licensing, a volume limit on firearms and ammunition ownership, a sweeping “assault weapons” ban, a ban on magazines with a capacity greater than 10, mandatory liability insurance for firearms owners, the criminalization of 3-D printed firearms, and ending reciprocity for concealed carry licenses for states who wouldn’t adopt these radical restrictions.

Keep reading

Federal Appeals Court Seems Skeptical of Reciprocity Argument

A three-judge panel on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals appears to be skeptical of the arguments used by an over-the-road truck driver challenging Minnesota’s refusal to recognize his Florida and Georgia carry permits. During oral arguments on Wednesday, at least two of the three judges on the panel seemed to have a hard time with Jeffrey Johnson Sr.’s contention that requiring him to get a non-resident permit before he can carry in Minnesota is an unreasonable burden on his Second Amendment rights. 

From Courthouse News:

“If Minnesota can require all of its residents to get a permit, why would it violate the Second Amendment by requiring others to?” U.S. Circuit Judge Steven Grasz, a Donald Trump appointee, asked.

U.S. Circuit Judge Ralph Erickson agreed, piling on to the questioning against Johnson’s attorney, Ryan Morrison.

“Is it your position that, having conceded that the Minnesota permitting process is appropriate for Minnesota residents … that Minnesota must enact a statute that allows reciprocity, or else they’re in violation of the Second Amendment?” Erickson asked. “Do you have a case that says that anywhere in the world?”

The George W. Bush appointee continued with his concern about Morrison’s argument, finding it absurd that those outside of Minnesota shouldn’t be held to the same standard as residents.

“So you have greater rights as a nonresident than as a resident?” Erickson asked. “It just says, if you want to go into Minnesota, you just got to follow the Minnesota permitting process.”

The answer to Erickson’s question is arguably “yes”; non-residents do have greater rights, or at least more leeway, than residents of a particular state. Attorneys Chuck Michel, Anna Barvir, and Kostas Moros raised that point in an amicus brief filed in Gardner v. Maryland, which is another case dealing with the lack of reciprocity.

As the three noted, there’s a national tradition of exempting “travelers” from carry restrictions that states impose on residents that dates back to at least the late 1600’s. 

Keep reading

Democrats Love Gun Control And Violent Criminals Because Both Can Punish You

While at a gun store recently, I was inundated with warnings against illegally buying a gun for someone else. The counter even had signs threatening up to 15 years in prison. 

They don’t mean it. This was proven a few days beforehand, when a convicted ISIS terrorist opened fire at Old Dominion University, killing an ROTC instructor before the cadets heroically took him out. Not only had this terrorist been set free in the United States after only a brief prison term, but he had bought a stolen gun from a man whom the Biden administration had declined to charge for allegedly repeatedly and illegally buying guns for other people; instead, they had him write an apology letter. So much for 15 years.

Meanwhile, I was at the gun store because Democrats, having taken full control of the state government, are rushing through a radical gun-control agenda, including a ban on so-called “assault weapons,” by which they mean various popular semiautomatic rifles and even handguns. We may hope the courts will do their duty and strike down these blatantly unconstitutional laws, but many Virginians are stocking up in case they don’t. 

A criminal who admitted to illegally buying guns (one of which showed up at a murder scene) got off with a “sorry,” but if a store were to keep selling “assault weapons” after the deadline, Democrats would undoubtedly demand the maximum penalty. Democrats are not actually trying to reduce crime or save lives with their gun-control schemes. If that were what they cared about, they would insist on enforcing the law (including existing gun laws) against actual criminals rather than finding new ways to harass ordinary, law-abiding gun owners. 

Just look around Virginia. The first act of the new Democrat governor was to make the entire state a sanctuary for illegal immigrants. The far-left Fairfax County prosecutor let a particularly dangerous illegal immigrant off the hook again and again, despite police objections, until he allegedly murdered a woman. Also in Fairfax County, public schools allowed an adult illegal immigrant to enroll as a high school student; he then allegedly sexually assaulted girls at least a dozen times — and the county is refusing to hand him over to ICE to be deported.

Part of the left’s obsession with gun control is that actually dealing with crime would mean slaughtering their sacred cows. Hating on some imagined Bubba the southern hick and Chad the suburban gun collector is encouraged, but leftists are not permitted to worry about the crazy homeless guy on the subway, the panhandling junkie outside their door, or thuggish young men loitering around the corner. Expressing those concerns will get Democrats denounced as hateful bigots by their own side.

A recent New York Times piece illustrated how leftists pretend away the obvious about crime. Titled “We Study Mass Shooters. Something Terrifying Is Happening Online,” the column constantly referred to trans-identified killers by their preferred pronouns, and its search for root causes ignored that these murderers were men pretending to be women. This is a perfect example of how left-wing pieties prevent Democrats from actually facing problems and offering real solutions.

This is repeated again and again. Leftists are told not to worry about family breakdown and the evils of fatherlessness, or how mass immigration encourages factionalism and damages social trust and capital. They are not even allowed to notice when massive government spending is an obvious grift (e.g., hundreds of millions spent on homeless programs that don’t fix anything but do keep a lot of NGOs flush with cash). And when welfare money is stolen by the billions, they leap into action to defend the imported criminal gangs systematically defrauding the American government.

But Democrats are allowed to hate guns and gun owners, especially those who are white, male, and Christian. And they are allowed to redirect all their legitimate fears and concerns onto gun owners, who thereby become a scapegoat for all the problems that left-wing ideology prevents leftists from even confronting. 

Keep reading

Virginia Democrats Exempt Legislators From Their Own Gun Law

The 2026 legislative session has come to a close in Virginia, but not without some last minute changes to several gun control laws that are now on their way to Gov. Abigail Spanberger. 

None of the changes benefit gun owners, except for one… and with that bill only a very select number of Virginians will qualify. 

It reads to me like Virginia Democrats did exempt lawmakers from facing misdemeanor charges if they leave one of their guns where it’s visible in their car, so long as it’s in the parking garage reserved for them. 

This isn’t just hypocrisy. This is a taunt from the anti-gun caucus in Richmond, a reminder to Second Amendment advocates that, no matter how many of them might rally on the statehouse grounds in opposition, they have the power to both pass any gun control bill they want and exempt themselves in the process. 

I asked on X whether this would be the one gun bill that Spanberger vetoes in an attempt to look moderate, but I’m not holding my breath. 2A folks are already complaining about her, so what are they going to do about one more legislative middle finger? If she vetoes the bill, though, she’s going against the gun control lobby who spent a lot of money getting her elected and the Democrat majority in the General Assembly. Maybe she lets the bill become law without her signature, but I think the law.. and the exemption for lawmakers, is going into effect later this year. 

***UPDATE***

As it turns out, while the House of Delegates did approve the language exempting lawmakers from the gun storage bill, that language did not make it in to the version that was sent to the governor. Here’s what happened: 

The Senate and House couldn’t agree on the language of HB 110, so it was assigned to a conference committee to hammer out the differences. The substitute bill that emerged on Saturday morning contained the exemption for lawmakers, and was adopted by the House on a 60-36 vote. The Senate, however, asked for a second conference committee (instead of rejecting the compromise bill outright), and the House agreed, apparently on a voice vote. HB 110 was sent back to the drafting table, and when it emerged for the second time, the lawmaker exemption was gone. The Senate quickly passed the bill and the House concurred a short time later. The bill sent to the governor can be found here. 

Keep reading

Decentralizing Defense: A $96 Guided Rocket Just Put Precision Warfare into the Hands of the People

In a world where the State spends trillions of dollars on bloated defense contracts to build “smart” weapons that often end up incinerating wedding parties or schools in the Middle East, a single individual with a 3D printer and $96 just shattered the monopoly on high-tech violence. A video, along with the plans, has recently surfaced showcasing “Project Canard,” an open-source, 3D-printed guided rocket system that recalculates its trajectory mid-air using a $5 sensor and some piano wire. The creator, operating under the GitHub handle novatic14, has essentially handed the keys to advanced surface-to-air defense to anyone with an internet connection and a spool of plastic filament.

The technical specifications of the build are a direct slap in the face to the military-industrial complex. The entire launcher and interceptor frame are printed in standard PLA and run off an off-the-shelf ESP32 microcontroller, proving that the barrier to entry for precision hardware has not just been lowered—it has been obliterated. The system even creates its own local Wi-Fi network, allowing the operator to monitor live telemetry and arm the “MANPADS” (Man-Portable Air-Defense System) prototype from a laptop. It uses a distributed camera node network to triangulate targets and update flight paths in real-time, a capability that, until about ten minutes ago, was the exclusive domain of governments with the power to tax their citizens into poverty.

Of course, the usual suspects in D.C. and the corporate press are likely already clutching their pearls, preparing the “public safety” scripts they use every time the people reclaim a sliver of their natural rights. We’ve seen this play out before with pioneers like Cody Wilson and Defense Distributed, who fought the State to a standstill over the right to share files for 3D-printed firearms. The reality is that this technology is about the decentralization of power. When a “precision weapon” costs less than a pair of designer sneakers, the era of the State using air superiority to crush dissent or occupy foreign lands is nearing its expiration date.

Indeed, the state has already begun mobilizing its legislative machinery to ensure that the “Project Canard” breakthrough remains a fleeting moment of defiance rather than a permanent shift in power. As we move through 2026, the regulatory landscape is shifting from targeting just the finished product to criminalizing the very tools and information that make decentralized defense possible. In a move that mirrors the most dystopian science fiction, lawmakers in states like California and New York are currently pushing bills that would force 3D printer manufacturers to install “firearm blocking technology” directly into the hardware.

Take California’s Assembly Bill 2047, for instance. This proposal would effectively turn every 3D printer into a government-monitored device, requiring mandatory “blueprint detection algorithms” to stop the production of “unlawful” parts. It’s not just about the plastic; it’s about the code. Under similar legislation like Colorado’s HB26-1144, the mere possession of digital instructions for a firearm or “firearm component” can now be classified as a crime if “intent to manufacture” is suspected. When a “component” can be as simple as a 3D-printed fin or a motor casing, the state has essentially granted itself the power to arrest you for having the wrong files on your hard drive.

Keep reading