Tag: gun control

Virginia: At Least 10 Commonwealth Attorneys Refuse to Enforce ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

At least ten Commonwealth’s Attorneys have made clear that they will not enforce the “assault weapons” ban scheduled to take effect in Virginia on July 1, 2026.

On May 27, 2026, Breitbart News pointed to a WAVY 10 report showing that three Commonwealth’s Attorneys had made clear they would not be enforcing the ban.

Over the weekend, Virginia state Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim (D), the “assault weapons” ban sponsor, told the prosecutors to quit “tough guy posturing.”

Salim used an X post to address prosecutors who are standing against his ban, saying, “I know these Republican prosecutors see this as an opportunity for tough guy posturing and amateur constitutional lawyering, but ending the sale of assault weapons in Virginia isn’t something an individual prosecutor can do anything about.”

But the number of Commonwealth’s Attorneys who are adamant about not enforcing the ban continued to grow until, on June 1, 2026, WJLA noted the number of Commonwealth’s Attorneys refusing to enforce it had reached ten.

One of those prosecutors is Clarke County Commonwealth Attorney Matthew E. Bass. Moreover, Breitbart News explained that Clarke County Sheriff Travis Sumption also made clear his office will not be enforcing the ban either.

In a joint statement, both Bass and Sumption made clear there will be no enforcement of the new controls against “non-violent offenders.”

Keep reading

Government unable to say if criminals are participating in gun confiscation program

The federal government says it cannot provide basic information about who is participating in its firearm confiscation compensation scheme, including whether any participants have criminal records or how many are members of the military, RCMP, federal public service or Indigenous communities.

The admission came in response to an Order Paper Question submitted by Conservative MP Alex Ruff, who asked for a breakdown of participants in the federal government’s so-called Assault-Style Firearms Compensation Program.

Ruff sought information on how many registered participants had criminal records, how many held restricted firearms licences, how many were first-time versus renewed licence holders, and how many participants were members of the Canadian Armed Forces, RCMP, veterans or federal public servants. He also asked how many participants were Indigenous and licensed under the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada Adaptations Regulations.

In its response, Public Safety Canada said the information is “not systematically tracked in a centralized database” and that producing a comprehensive answer would require a manual review that could not be completed within the time allotted for responding to parliamentary questions. Officials warned that attempting to do so could result in “incomplete and misleading information.”

The department used the same explanation when asked whether any participants in the compensation program had criminal records and when asked how many participants were members of the military, RCMP, veterans or federal public service.

The RCMP provided a similar response, stating that the information requested is split between Public Safety Canada’s compensation program and the Canadian Firearms Program’s licensing records. The force said producing a complete answer would require collecting data from Public Safety Canada and cross-referencing it with the Canadian Firearms Information System, a process it said could not be completed within the allotted time.

The RCMP also said it could not provide figures on how many participants were Indigenous firearm owners because the required information is not maintained in a single centralized database and would require extensive cross-referencing of records.

The response raises questions about the government’s ability to track who is participating in a program that is expected to cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Despite requiring participants to register firearms for compensation, federal officials say they are unable to readily determine whether participants have criminal records, belong to law enforcement agencies, serve in the military, are veterans, or qualify under Indigenous firearms licensing provisions.

The government’s response was tabled on May 29 by the Public Safety Minister’s office through Parliamentary Secretary Jacques Ramsay.

Keep reading

Three Stories You Missed While The White House Parades The UFC On The Front Lawn

The second century Roman satirical poet Decimus Junius Juvenalus once famously said “Give them bread and circuses, and they will never revolt”. An astute observation of how the Roman populace became complacent in the face of abuses by their government, placated with free grain and spectacles rather than exercising their civic duties.

This phrase has been oft repeated in the centuries since, applied to numerous governments across the world. But perhaps nowhere is it more prevalent than in present-day America.

In the lead up to the much anticipated 250th anniversary of the founding of our nation, and in the midst of a wave of the worst presidential scandals in over 100 years, the Trump administration is doing everything in its power to shift attention away from the disastrous Iran War and the fact that The sitting president of the United States is implicated hundreds of times in the sexual exploitation and abuse of minors.

Whether it be by continuing the limited hangout of selective UFO disclosure, or by hosting the Ultimate Fighting Championship on the White House front lawn in some sort of weird hyper-masculine MAGA charade, the political theatrics only continue to intensify.

That being said, here are a few worthwhile stories that actually matter.

Pro-2A Pushback In Virginia

In March, the Free Thought Project reported on a massive anti gun crusade being pushed by legislators in Virginia under the new Democrat administration of former CIA analyst Abigail Spanberger. Among the myriad of infringements to Virginia’s Second Amendment rights were proposals seeking civil liability for firearms manufacturers, expansions of the already blatantly unconstitutional red flag laws, attempts to prohibit 3D printed firearms, the implementation of gun buyback programs, ending the right to open carry, and an outright ban on so-called “assault weapons”.

The most egregious of these, the “assault weapons” ban, was signed into law on May 14th, 2026. 

Thankfully, however, this callous disregard for the Constitution was immediately challenged, with several gun rights groups including the Second Amendment Foundation as well as the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and the Virginia Citizens Defense League have all filed lawsuits in response to the new legislation.

Additionally, at least four Virginia prosecutors have publicly come out in opposition to the new legislation, signaling their intent to refuse to enforce the law. According to the Washington Times:

Prosecutors in Spotsylvania, Smyth, Powhatan and Pulaski counties argued that it violates Second Amendment protections, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008 and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022.

Keep reading

Spotsylvania’s top prosecutor tells why he won’t enforce tighter gun laws

New Virginia laws banning the sale and transfer of assault weapons go into effect in about five weeks. But at least five conservative prosecutors say they won’t enforce them.

Spotsylvania County Commonwealth’s Attorney Ryan Mehaffey said he believes the laws violate the Constitution.

“The Second Amendment is alive and well in Spotsylvania County,” he told News4.

The commonwealth will ban the sale and manufacture of certain semi-automatic weapons, shifting gun laws to more closely align with states such as California and Illinois. But as Virginia teeters from purple to blue and back again, some elected officials are making clear that the new laws won’t be enforced in their counties.

Attorney General Jay Jones said in a statement: “Commonwealth’s Attorneys are elected to enforce our laws, which is what we expect them to do when these laws take effect on July 1.”

The law will make it a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a year in jail and a $2,500 fine for people to buy, sell, transfer, import, or manufacture an assault firearm.

Mehaffey said the law is in direct conflict with the Second Amendment.

“It’s fundamentally opposed to a free society, a society where liberty reigns. And this is the moment in time where the Second Amendment was drafted and enacted, where the government couldn’t take the right of the people to defend themselves away,” he said.

Keep reading

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore Signs Glock Ban Into Law

Governor Wes Moore (D) signed legislation Tuesday banning the sale Glocks and Glock-clones into law, making Maryland the second state to enact such a ban.

On April 9, 2026, Breitbart News reported that Maryland’s House followed the state Senate’s lead and passed a ban on Glocks and other handguns Democrats describe as “machine gun convertible.”

California led the way with such a ban, and as the Golden State did this, Breitbart News pointed out that the Democrat-sponsored legislation was fashioned as a response to the use of “Glock Switches,” which are already illegal. “Glock switches” are federally prohibited plastic pieces that can be affixed to the rear of a Glock slide to make the pistol shoot full auto.

“Glock switches” are popular with gangs and street criminals, therefore California Democrats banned new sales of one the most popular handguns ever made, the Glock pistol.

Keep reading

Defending The Fourth Amendment To Protect Gun Owners

All gun owners fully understand the vital importance of preserving the Second Amendment. But right behind that Constitutional Amendment in importance is the need to uphold the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.

After all, without robust Fourth Amendment rights, we will never have much of a Second Amendment right. For that reason, both Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation have regularly filed amicus briefs to guard against erosion of Fourth Amendment rights. We recently filed such an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the High Court to ensure that law enforcement not abuse the investigative technique known as “knock and talk.”

As more and more states seek to ban more and more classes of previously legal firearms, gun confiscation has become an ever-greater threat. Historically, the Fourth Amendment’s protections have been greatest when applied to the home, which also happens to be where most guns are kept. The Supreme Court has discussed the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.

However, the courts have recognized that police have the right to “knock” on the door of your home, and “talk” to you – if you agree to speak. In Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1 (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that all visitors – including the police – have an “implicit license” to “[i] approach the home by the front path, [ii] knock promptly, [iii] wait briefly to be received, and then (absent invitation to linger longer) [iv] leave.” That rule seems entirely reasonable – but it is astonishing how police have come to abuse that “implicit license.”

In a recently decided case from North Carolina, State v. Reel, 297 N.C. App. 205 (N.C. Ct. App. 2024), the police broke every one of the rules, but the search was upheld. The officers suspected drug dealing was going on at a house, so they parked on a side street and crossed the defendant’s side yard – not the front yard. They followed a visitor to the front door, and when the defendant opened the door for the visitor, tried to force their way in behind her. The police never actually knocked. And, they never actually talked – except to demand the door be opened so they could rush in, claiming to have smelled marijuana. When the defendant refused and shut the door, another officer kicked in the door, searching for and seizing drugs. Thus, “knock and talk” was used as a pretext to conduct a warrantless search and seizure in a home. Nevertheless, North Carolina’s two highest courts approved.

GOA’s amicus brief urged the U.S. Supreme Court to impose a “bright-line” rule for law enforcement, so officers would know their limits, and judges would have a clear rule to enforce. We argue that since the “implied license” was based on the fact that any visitor – such as trick-or-treaters or girl scouts – to a house could “knock and talk,” the police could do the same. So we took that justification and suggested it be made the rule – a clear limitation on what the police could do. We proposed the rule to be:

The right of a police officer to conduct a “knock-and-talk” is no greater than a Girl Scout has to approach a house to sell cookies.

Since a Girl Scout cannot walk around your house to the back yard to the back door, neither can the police. Since a Girl Scout cannot come to your house in the middle of the night, neither can uninvited police. No peering through windows. No forcible entry. No hanging around without invitation from the occupant. No repeated trips back to harass the occupant. No surveillance devices. And, the occupant must have the right to refuse to talk, and to revoke the “implied license” for the police to remain and talk whenever he chooses.

The police have a tough enough job. Fuzzy rules of procedure not only jeopardizes the peoples’ liberties, but also law enforcement safety.

Keep reading

The Left Seems to be Waking Up to Racist Gun Control Laws

What does one’s race have to do with one’s right to keep and bear arms? Well, nothing. The Second Amendment covers all American citizens and legal immigrants. Asking race is, at most, an identifier to help differentiate a black John Smith from a white one, and that’s about it.

Unfortunately for us all, that wasn’t how many people viewed it back in the day. They thought anyone who wasn’t white was someone who needed to be disarmed. Whether it was because they didn’t want to be overthrown or they just thought non-whites (and Catholics, for some reason) were particularly dangerous isn’t relevant. The truth was, they did.

Luckily, we’re more enlightened these days, right?

Not really.

We’ve talked a fair bit about the issues in New Jersey, particularly with racial disparity in permit issuance. Our own John Petrolino, who unfortunately lives there, has done a lot of work bringing this issue to light.

But let’s be real here. None of the people who need to be outraged are probably reading pro-gun sits like Bearing Arms. They’re reading Slate, and what are the odds of Slate covering this?

Well, better than I thought they were. Aymann Ismail’s firsthand account of the exhausting process of becoming a New Jersey gun owner may be eye-opening to the website’s more progressive readers. 

So in 2020, I applied for a Firearm Purchaser Identification, a permit to purchase a firearm that is required in New Jersey. After fingerprints, references, application fees, and months of waiting, I was told over the phone that I had no choice but to withdraw my application. The issue was a misdemeanor trespassing charge in New York from my street-photographer days. Under New Jersey law, that should not have disqualified me from owning a gun. I had never been convicted of a felony. No domestic violence charges. No mental health issues. It didn’t matter. The Newark Police Department’s firearm permitting office told me my application was being withdrawn. They insisted they were doing me a favor, and that a denial would bar me from reapplying if I got my record expunged.

Again, I wasn’t even sure I wanted a gun. But the interaction was curious. It didn’t matter that I pointed out I met the legal requirements. Again and again, I was unsuccessful. It had me thinking about who is presumed “safe” to own a gun, and who isn’t. I began speaking with Black and brown gun owners across northern New Jersey, particularly in cities where violence, policing, and race overlap in complicated ways. An Afro-Cuban neighborhood friend I went to high school with in Newark told me he had applied for his own permit and received it in just two weeks. When I explained that I tried multiple times and was still waiting months after my latest application, he looked genuinely confused. Then he asked what race I’d listed on the paperwork. “Other,” I told him. He burst out laughing. “You idiot,” he said. “You’re supposed to put white.”

The more people I spoke to, the more I learned I was far from alone in making that “mistake.” The greater question of who gets to, and should, own a gun turned out to far more complicated than I knew. Few people—on the left or the right—want to talk about it. The ending of my own story helps explain why.

Oh, on this side of the right, we’re more than willing to talk about it. It’s just that no one on the left seems interested in listening.

Now, the author did, finally, get his license and didn’t have to lie about his race on his application, which is good news, but the fact that New Jersey did that in the first place is a major issue. It’s one that does need to be talked about because it clearly illustrates the bright string from the racist gun laws of the old days, and how little has changed.

Here in Georgia, many of our now dead gun control laws could be similarly linked. The prohibition of carrying a firearm at a “public gathering” was a reaction to armed black men and women responding to a violent attack that’s now called the Camilla Massacre. It wasn’t the shooting itself, but the fact that marchers, after being attacked, went home and got their own guns to fight back.

So it’s unsurprising that New Jersey didn’t have a law in place forbidding black gun ownership or concealed carry, but the application wasn’t much different than if they did.

It’s why subjective gun laws are always going to be an issue, and largely an issue for minorities. It’s part of why Bruen stuck them down. Anything that can be misused to cause harm to a particular group–any particular group–will be used or misused to cause harm to some group or another for no reason other than the people impacted are part of that group.

Keep reading

Outrage as Indiana police chief is accused of stealing confiscated guns and RESELLING them onto the streets of his crime-ridden city

A small town Indiana police chief has been arrested and charged with allegedly stealing guns from criminal investigations and selling the weapons to a pawn shop.

Earl Mayo, 45, who is the boss of the New Chicago Police Department in Lake County, Indiana, was arrested in Ohio on Friday and is accused of evading arrest.

He has been charged with theft, official misconduct, attempted obstruction of justice and unlawful possession of anabolic steroids.

Mayo, who is also the son of Democrat Lake County Sheriff candidate Jerry Williams, allegedly sold multiple guns to a pawn shop in April 2025, according to court documents obtained by WGN.

The investigation into Mayo began when a prosecutor ran a firearm trace on a handgun associated with a pending 2023 criminal case for a woman accused of unlawfully carrying a handgun with a prior felony conviction.

The trace revealed that the gun was sold at Mega Cash Pawn in Hobart on April 29, 2025, according to the filing.

Investigators alleged that Mayo, who was the arresting officer in the original case, sold the gun to the shop. 

The pawn shop manager allegedly told police that the store had purchased 12 firearms from Mayo for a total of $2,610 in April 2025.

Prosecutors claim that Mayo attempted to get the gun bought back by multiple people.

An officer at the New Chicago Police Department told investigators that Mayo asked him to buy back the gun, and claimed that the chief ordered him to go to his home and retrieve suppressors or suppressed firearms from a safe, according to the filing.

Mayo allegedly told the officer he had ‘things inside his residence that the feds would never find,’ the court document stated.

Mayo, who was appointed chief in 2023, was placed on administrative leave, and Lake County police have taken over policing duties in the town of approximately 2,000 residents.

According to CrimeGrade.org, the crime rate in New Chicago is 36.32 per 1,000 residents. A majority of the crime is property crime and theft, and violent crime is very low.  

Mayo, who also authored a novel called When Lines Are Crossed, is being held for extradition at the Clark County Jail in Ohio.

It is unclear when he will be sent back to Indiana.

His father, who is also an Indiana State Police Major, issued a statement to the Chicago Tribune on Saturday.

Keep reading

Lawsuits Challenging Spanberger’s Virginia ‘Assault Firearms’ Gun Grab Pour In

Multiple Second Amendment rights advocates are suing Virginia’s police superintendent after Gov. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., signed into law legislation banning many semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines.

The new law, effective July 1, “criminalizes the purchase, sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of a wide range of commonly owned semiautomatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles — including the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America,” said the National Rifle Association (NRA), one of the plaintiffs suing Virginia. It also “prohibits the purchase, barter, transfer, and importation” of any magazine that holds more than 15 rounds, the organization noted.

Democrat state Sen. Saddam Azlan Salim, a politician from Bangladesh who is a driving force behind efforts to strip constitutional rights away from Americans, authored the bill.

The NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and two NRA members filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging the law; the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed a lawsuit in a Virginia county court; multiple firearm retailers, gun ranges, and other organizations filed a lawsuit in state court, and U.S. Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon promised the Department of Justice would file one as well.

All lawsuits name Jeffrey S. Katz, superintendent of the Virginia State Police, as the defendant. The NRA lawsuit also names Goochland County Commonwealth Attorney John L. Lumpkins Jr. and Sheriff Steven Creasey, along with Prince William County Commonwealth Attorney Amy Ashworth and Sheriff Glendell Hill. Justin McDonald and Anthony Groeneveld, plaintiffs in the NRA suit, are residents of Goochland and Prince William, respectively, and are also members of the NRA, FPC, and SAF.

The NRA lawsuit appeals to U.S. Supreme Court precedent in both New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen and District of Columbia v. Heller (as applied to the states through McDonald v. City of Chicago) to argue the gun and magazine bans are unconstitutional. “By prohibiting Plaintiffs from acquiring common semiautomatic firearms and ammunition magazines,” the suit argues, “Virginia has prevented them from ‘keeping and bearing Arms’ within the meaning of the Amendment’s text. As a result, ‘[t]o justify its regulation, the government … must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.’”

Because ownership of the kinds of firearms and magazines banned by the new bill is widespread in Virginia, the new legislation necessarily cannot meet the standards set by historical practice, which, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, requires that the banned weapon be “both dangerous and unusual,” according to the lawsuit (emphasis original).

Keep reading

US Secret Service and Press Get Into Tense 30-Minute Standoff with Chinese Agents During Trump’s Visit

An armed Secret Service agent and members of the press got into a tense, 30-minute standoff with Chinese agents on Thursday during Trump’s visit.

President Trump on Wednesday evening arrived in Beijing for a state visit.

China rolled out the red carpet for President Trump – literally.

President Trump shook hands with Xi Jinping ahead of their high-stakes bilateral meeting.

On Thursday, however, there was a tense standoff after Chinese security stopped an armed US Secret Service agent from entering Beijing’s Temple of Heaven with their firearm.

“Chinese security officials allegedly blocked an armed U.S. Secret Service agent from entering an event on Thursday during President Donald Trump’s visit to the country, according to media members on the ground,” Fox News reported.

“A Secret Service agent was reportedly blocked from entering Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping’s visit to Beijing’s Temple of Heaven with their weapon on Thursday, according to reporters. The incident triggered an alleged “intense standoff” that delayed entry to the venue for over a half-hour due to heated discussions,” Fox News said.

Keep reading