Tag: gun control

DOJ Filing on Forced Reset Triggers Contradicts Pledges and Complicates Midterms

“@TheJusticeDept  just filed an anti-gun statement of interest in Rare Breed Triggers’ lawsuit against @HoffmanTactical,” Gun Owners of  America posted on X Monday. “It says @ATFHQ  has a “strong interest… in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs” or forced reset triggers.”

Read the full, anti-gun filing where @TheJusticeDept reveals its unconstitutional plans to hamstring ownership of forced reset triggers here,” GOA added, posting a copy of the “Statement of Interest of the United States of America” filed Monday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee.

That makes fair the question “Why?” since it’s not in the interests of the millions of gun owners who voted for a Trump administration based on promises he repeatedly made to roaring and adoring crowds:

“Right from the beginning, for four incredible years it was my honor to be the best friend gun owners have ever had in the White House, by far. Now I stand before you with a very simple promise: Your Second Amendment will always be safe with me as your president when I’m back in the Oval Office,” Trump promised to resulting exuberance. “No one will lay a finger on your firearms. It’s not going to happen…”

Inarguably the administration has been “better” on the Second Amendment than any in our lifetimes, as exemplified by positive actions like filing briefs against bans on so-called “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines, repealing “zero tolerance” of minor FFL errors, reviewing rules including “engaged in business” restrictions, supporting challenges to Hawaii’s restrictive carry laws, investigating “pattern or practice” by the Los Angeles County Sheriff for “slow walking” concealed carry permits, working on rights restoration and working to defund grants and foreign aid for gun control advocacy groups.

But it then turns around and in a seemingly bipolar move does things like backing NFA registration of untaxed firearms (to the exploitative delight of anti-gun groups).

Every infringement also contradicts the  promise made by AG Pam Bondi in her April 8 “all hands” memo from last year, where she pledged:

“For too long, the Second Amendment, which establishes the fundamental individual right of Americans to keep and bear arms, has been treated as a second-class right. No more. It is the policy of this Department of Justice to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

The purpose of that memorandum was to introduce the Second Amendment Task Force – an idea that seemed to have great political value at the time, until it became apparent that no gun owner representation meant everything would be decided by careerists with political stakes in the game. One wonders how many infringements would be advanced if groups like GOA or Firearms Policy Coalition had advisory seats at the table to help caution against missteps before they are made. You don’t have to contradict yourself and backtrack too often before people begin to suspect you’re insincere and will only tell voters what they want to hear long enough to secure their votes.

Keep reading

Justice Jackson Cites Racist ‘Black Codes’ As Precedent To Justify Gun Control In Hawaii

During oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested that the post-Civil War “Black Codes” – a set of openly racist laws enacted in the Democrat-controlled South to strip newly freed Black Americans of basic rights, including the right to possess firearms – could serve as legitimate historical precedent under the Supreme Court’s Bruen test. That test evaluates modern gun laws by asking whether similar restrictions were accepted in the nation’s historical tradition. The case concerns a Hawaii law that bars licensed gun owners from carrying firearms onto privately owned property open to the public. Jackson relying on the Black Codes for constitutional guidance is hilarious, as those laws were explicitly designed to deny civil rights to Black Americans in defiance of emancipation.

The exchange unfolded as Justice Jackson pressed U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris on why post–Civil War Black Codes should be excluded from consideration when courts examine modern-day gun control laws. Hawaii relied on a 1865 Louisiana statute as historical support for its law, a statute even Neal Katyal, the lawyer representing Hawaii, admitted was “undoubtedly a relic of a shameful portion of American history.”

“So, I guess I really don’t understand your response to Justice Gorsuch on the Black Codes,” Jackson began. She explained that, under Bruen, courts are required to look to history and tradition to assess constitutionality. “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined themselves to be unconstitutional doesn’t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make.”

Harris responded by emphasizing the fundamentally racist purpose of those laws. “Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”

Justice Jackson, a black woman, immediately pushed back. “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted,” she said. “They were part of the history and tradition of the country, and when we have a test now that’s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don’t understand why they should be excluded.”

Harris reiterated that point. “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional. They have always been unconstitutional.”

Jackson bizarrely remained unconvinced. “Found later, afterwards, not at the time,” she said, returning to the Bruen framework. “And if the test says what’s happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”

Harris responded by insisting the laws should be disregarded because they were aberrations and unconstitutional from their inception.

But Jackson rejected that framing. She argued that their unconstitutionality was determined later, not contemporaneously, making it a legitimate precedent. And, according to Jackson, if the test looks to historical practice at the time of enactment, she asked, why should those laws be left out?

Harris attempted to explain how a law could be unconstitutional from inception, while still accounting for historical analysis. Jackson claimed that Harris’s position effectively dismissed history altogether. When Harris denied that implication, Jackson underscored the contradiction by noting that history either matters under Bruen or it does not.

Harris then stressed that historical inquiry remains essential, though not indiscriminate. “We should deeply care about the history,” she said, adding that Bruen requires courts to identify a genuine national tradition by excluding aberrations. She described the Black Codes as precisely that — laws enacted “for the purpose of trying to reduce newly freed slaves back to conditions of servitude,” including measures that criminalized carrying arms on private property. “Those are obvious outliers which should not count under the whole point of Bruen.”

Keep reading

Australia Passes New Bills For Tougher Gun Control And Anti-Hate Speech Laws

The Australian Parliament has passed two new bills that will set up a national gun buyback scheme, and attempt to combat anti-Semitism and hate speech in response to the Bondi terror attack.

In Australia’s lower house, the gun buyback bill passed 96 to 45 with the Liberal-National Coalition opposing, while the hate and extremism-focused bill passed with amendments, securing 116 votes to just seven.

Later on the evening of Jan. 20, both bills made it through the Senate.

Prime Minister Anthony Albanese wrote on X that the government was “standing against hate and strengthening” national security.

New Gun Buyback Passes Lower House After 3 Hours

The Combatting Antisemitism, Hate and Extremism (Firearms and Customs Laws) Bill 2026 introduces not only the national gun buyback scheme, but new restrictions around background checks, the sale of firearm types, and new offences relating to accessing information online about firearms, ammunition, and accessories.

Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke told parliament that had such measures been in place earlier, the Bondi Beach attackers would not have been able to legally obtain weapons.

The father of the terrorist duo, Sajid Akram, owned six firearms, despite his son being interviewed and cleared by intelligence agencies over concerns of radicalisation.

The bill was debated for close to three hours, with several MPs proposing amendments.

Independent MP Zali Steggall sought to ensure firearms background checks explicitly included “criminal history or proceedings relating to domestic violence or AVOs issued in local courts.”

Bob Katter, the federal MP of Kennedy, moved an amendment that would automatically revoke a firearm licence for anyone placed on an ASIO watchlist. That amendment was defeated, 88 votes to 13.

Katter, who opposed the broader reforms, blamed the Bondi attack on failures in the immigration system and argued the legislation undermined gun ownership.

“If they get their way, then the only people that will have guns are the people in uniforms. And we know what sort of society that is, that the only people that have guns are the people in uniforms,” he said.

Keep reading

19 States That Legalized Marijuana Use Nevertheless Say It Should Disqualify People From Owning Guns

If you are a cannabis consumer who owns a gun, you are committing a federal felony right now, even if you live in one of the 40 states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. That perplexing situation is perfectly reasonable and constitutional, according to 19 of those states, which are urging the Supreme Court to uphold the federal ban on gun possession by “unlawful” users of “any controlled substance.”

That law is at the center of a case that the Court is scheduled to hear on March 2, which involves a Texas man, Ali Hemani, who was charged with illegal gun possession after an FBI search of his home discovered a Glock 19 pistol, two ounces of marijuana, and less than a gram of cocaine. The potential implications extend far beyond Hemani because this ban applies to millions of peaceful Americans who pose no plausible threat to public safety.

As I explain in my new book, Beyond Control, that policy authorizes severe criminal penalties for drug users who try to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Under the law that Hemani violated, it does not matter whether someone handles guns while intoxicated or otherwise endangers the public.

Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld a federal judge’s dismissal of the gun charge against Hemani. That outcome was dictated by a 2024 ruling in which the 5th Circuit held that the Second Amendment barred the government from prosecuting a gun-owning cannabis consumer “based solely on her ‘habitual or occasional drug use.'”

Such prosecutions, the 5th Circuit said, are not “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the Second Amendment test that the Supreme Court established in 2022. While “our history and tradition may support some limits on a presently intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon,” the appeals court said, “they do not support disarming a sober person based solely on past substance usage.”

The Trump administration wants the Supreme Court to reject that conclusion and reinstate the charge against Hemani. Solicitor General D. John Sauer implausibly argues that all “unlawful” drug users, including occasional cannabis consumers and state-registered patients who use marijuana for symptom relief, pose a danger that justifies disarming them.

Sauer likens drug users to “habitual drunkards,” who historically could be confined to workhouses as “vagrants.” But the law he is defending is more analogous to a categorical ban on gun possession by alcohol consumers, which would be clearly unconstitutional.

The Trump administration’s position, which echoes the Biden administration’s, seems inconsistent with the president’s avowed commitment to the Second Amendment. The states that have joined Sauer in asking the Supreme Court to overrule the 5th Circuit likewise seem to be contradicting their own policies.

Keep reading

DOJ: Ban on mailing concealable firearms unconstitutional, can’t be enforced

A nearly 100-year-old federal ban on mailing handguns through the U.S. Postal Service is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced, according to an opinion released Thursday by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

The 15-page opinion concluded that a 1927 law, which made it illegal to use the Postal Service to mail concealable firearms, such as pistols and revolvers, infringes on the Second Amendment.

“Section 1715 makes it difficult to travel with arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense, target shooting, and hunting,” wrote T. Elliot Gaiser, the assistant attorney general for the Office of Legal Counsel.

“The statute also imposes significant barriers to shipping constitutionally protected firearms as articles of commerce, which interferes with citizens’ incidental rights to acquire and maintain arms,” the opinion continued.

Postal Service policy mandates that nonmailable firearms found in the mail stream “must be immediately reported to the United States Postal Inspection Service,” and investigations are then referred to the relevant U.S. attorney’s office for prosecution.

The agency categorizes “pistols, revolvers, and other firearms capable of being concealed on a person,” including short-barreled shotguns and rifles, as handguns. It also notes that there are no restrictions on mailing rifles and shotguns between licensed dealers, manufacturers and importers.

Major private carriers, including UPS and FedEx, also restrict the shipping of firearms to only licensed dealers, which the opinion argued effectively creates a “complete ban” for unlicensed people.

The opinion acknowledged some limitations, finding that the law was only unconstitutional related to handguns but still applied to undetectable firearms, such as pen guns.

It also found that the Postal Service should not be required to carry ammunition or gunpowder, despite those being constitutionally protected, because the existing restriction on explosives “serves legitimate postal needs to prevent injury to postal employees and property.”

Still, the DOJ determined the restrictions on handguns are unenforceable because such firearms “fall within the core of the ‘arms’ protected by the Second Amendment.”

“Consequently, so long as Congress chooses to run a parcel service, the Second Amendment precludes it from refusing to ship constitutionally protected firearms to and from law-abiding citizens, even if they are not licensed manufacturers or dealers,” the opinion stated.

Keep reading

Virginia Democrats Move To Establish Limitless Abortion, Ban Guns, And Gerrymander Districts

The Republican-run government of Virginia has four days left in office, and Governor-elect Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., along with Democrat majorities in the Commonwealth’s legislature, are going to start the ball rolling with expanding abortion, making sure felons can vote, and implementing gun restrictions.

Responsible political leadership in Virginia might be focused on answering things like the housing affordability crisis, which has been made much more acute with the importation of foreigners to the most populous areas of the state.

Democrats coming into power in Virginia will hold a 21-19 majority in the state Senate and a 64-36 majority in the House of Delegates. Their top priorities include four proposed constitutional amendments: To expand abortion even later in the pregnancy and make it impossible to restrict (Virginia already allows most abortion up to 26 weeks — the most permissive in the entire South); to enshrine homosexual unions as a right; to automatically restore voting to felons who have completed their sentences; and to allow for mid-decade congressional redistricting ahead of the 2026 midterms, where Democrats could nuke up to four Republican-held seats through gerrymandering.

Keep reading

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Strikes Down California’s Ban on Open Carry – Trump Judge Issues Scathing Opinion

A US Appeals Court on Friday in a 2-1 decision struck down a California law banning people from openly carrying firearms.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals cited a 2022 Supreme Court ruling and said California’s ban on open carry is unconstitutional.

US Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke, a Trump appointee, wrote the majority opinion and blasted the state of California for banning open carry for 95% of its population.

California banned open carry on all counties with populations greater than 200,000 – which is 95% of the state.

In 2019, Mark Baid filed a lawsuit against the California Attorney General challenging the state’s ban on open carry.

Judge VanDyke, a known gun enthusiast, said California’ ban on open carry is unconstitutional.

“For most of American history, open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for firearms. It remains the norm across the country—more than thirty states generally allow open carry to this day, including states with significant urban populations,” VanDyke wrote.

VanDyke said many states allow open carry and California has a history of open carry.

“Similarly, for the first 162 years of its history open carry was a largely unremarkable part of daily life in California. From 1850, when California first became a state, until the Mulford Act of 1967, public carry of firearms in California (open or concealed) was entirely unregulated. And when California first deviated (or considered deviating) from this practice, its reasons for doing so were less than morally exemplary,” VanDyke wrote.

“In our Nation’s history and tradition, open carry was widely recognized as being central to the Second Amendment right,” VanDyke added. “A ban on that which is at the core of the Second Amendment is not a ‘minimal burden’ on the Second Amendment right.”

Last year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld California’s ban on large-capacity magazines.

The en banc panel of the Ninth Circuit Court (a decision from the court’s entire slate of judges) sided with California’s radical Marxist Attorney General Rob Bonta.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke, who grew up in Bozeman, Montana, angered a lefty judge on the court after he released a highly unusual video dissent demonstrating him handling several different firearms.

Keep reading

The Fearmongering of the NYPD Reaches Laughable Levels

The NYPD has a lot of presence on social media sites like Facebook. There, they will post about various busts they make, much like any other department. Because of the size of the NYPD, though, these posts are often made through accounts for individual precincts.

And sometimes, they post some outright silliness, especially when it comes to firearms.

It’s not a replica that could have been modified to fire live ammo. It’s not even a starter pistol that could, theoretically, be converted. It’s a cap gun wrapped in electrical tape to hide some of the more obviously plastic pieces.

And honestly, considering it was found during an arrest, that’s fine. They caught a couple of thieves in the act, and because of the way they’ve modified this toy to look more realistic, it’s entirely possible that this either has been used in an armed robbery or would have been used for one. Confiscating it is fine under the circumstances, I suppose.

What bothers me is that they called this an illegal gun.

It’s not. It’s not a gun. It’s a toy. It’s a toy that can’t even really be modified into a live firearm.

Keep reading

Everytown’s Defense of ‘Vampire Rule’ Renders the Second Amendment Meaningless

In less than a month from now, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, the challenge to Hawaii’s default ban on concealed carry on all private property (also known as the “vampire rule”, thanks to FPC’s Rob Romano) unless property owners specifically allow it. Amicus briefs in support of both the plaintiffs and defendants have now been filed with the Court, and over the next couple of days we’ll be taking a closer look at some of the arguments raised in defense of the gun control law… starting with the amicus brief filed by Everytown for Gun Safety. 

What makes this brief noteworthy is the audacity of the gun control group’s arguments, which fly in the face of the Court’s decisions in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen and would essentially turn the Second Amendment into a dead letter if adopted by the justices. 

The first argument raised by Everytown is that laws that are specifically designed to frustrate Second Amendment rights are presumptively constitutional, and that an “improper purpose” for a gun control statute is not reason enough for the courts to strike it down. 

This Court’s decisions in Bruen and Rahimi set forth the operative analytical framework for Second Amendment challenges. When a contemporary law regulates conduct that falls within the Amendment’s text, this framework points courts to historical evidence to determine whether the law is consistent with tradition. The United States and petitioners now ask the Court to distort that methodology by arguing for per se invalidation of any regulations that “restrict[] firearms simply to frustrate the exercise of Second Amendment rights”—a description they incorrectly ascribe to Hawai‘i’s statutory scheme. And they incorrectly claim that their freefloating improper-purpose test is grounded in the textual and historical understanding of the Second Amendment. Because neither precedent, text, nor history supports that novel test, the Court should reject it.

Now, it’s true that the Supreme Court has said that courts need to look to the text of the Second Amendment as well as the national tradition of gun ownership to determine if a modern gun control law is 2A-compliant, but there’s a good reason why the justices have never explicitly said that laws meant to chill the exercise of our right to keep and bear arms are unconstitutional: it’s self-evident. 

Rights exist for a reason, and any laws that are put in place with an eye towards curtailing that right are, by their very nature, constitutionally unsound. And despite Everytown’s claim to the contrary, Hawaii’s “vampire rule” is absolutely meant to stop people from exercising their right to bear arms. If it’s illegal to carry a gun in the vast majority of publicly accessible places, even with a concealed carry permit, then most people aren’t going to bother getting one… and those that do will be unable to carry except in a very limited number of locations. 

Keep reading

Disgraced Former Prince Andrew Stripped of His Gun License, Can Only Use Firearms Under Supervision

The hunter becomes the hunted.

For his long association with the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew Mountbatten Windsor is facing a long list of repercussions that seem to have no end.

Now, the avid hunter has surrendered his firearms license to the Met Police – the same police force who dropped the investigation into his alleged crimes.

The Telegraph reported:

“The former Duke of York, 65, agreed to give up his firearms and shotgun certificates last month after he was visited by the Metropolitan Police at Royal Lodge in Windsor.

Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor, who is a keen shot, will now only be able to use and transport his shotguns when accompanied by a licensed gun owner.”

When asked in his disastrous 2019 BBC interview about a 2000 weekend at Sandringham with Ghislaine Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, Andrew infamously described it as ‘a straightforward shooting weekend’.

“A photograph released by the US government last week showed Mr. Mountbatten-Windsor sprawled across the laps of five women during the visit.

Gun licenses are regularly reviewed and their surrender can be requested if a person is found to be ‘not fit to be entrusted with a firearm” or ‘a danger to public safety or to the peace’.”

Keep reading