Tag: gun control

Unhinged Tennessee Democrat Lunges at GOP Colleague After Gun Control Bill Fails

Chaos erupted in a Tennessee House Criminal Justice Subcommittee meeting Wednesday when far-left State Representative Justin J. Pearson (D-Memphis) lunged at a Republican colleague in a fit of rage, hurling insults and pointing fingers—literally—after his anti-gun bill went down in flames.

The showdown started when Pearson pushed his latest gun-grabbing scheme, HB 1392, a bill that would’ve gutted Tennessee’s permitless carry law—a hard-won victory for Second Amendment patriots.

Under current law, law-abiding Tennesseans can carry firearms without jumping through bureaucratic hoops, a right Pearson wanted to strip away.

Thankfully, the committee saw through the nonsense and crushed the bill in a 7-2 vote, according to NBC39.

“We have a responsibility to protect our kids and our communities,” Pearson whined from the podium, trotting out tired liberal talking points about “gun violence.” But when State Representative Andrew Farmer (R-Sevierville) dared to call him out, all hell broke loose.

Farmer said, “I know every member in this committee has been here this year, working, during committee, during session, voting on bills. And I know that you may have some things going on, but you have not. So, I don’t think it’s fair for you to come here before this committee and lecture us on hard work and convictions and hard work for our committee.

Farmer continued, “So, while I understand where you’re at and what you’re doing and why, but at the end of the day, we’ve been here working. We’ve been on the House floor voting on bills. We’ve taken the tough questions. We’ve taken the tough votes, and we’re doing so. So I just don’t think it’s fair for you to come in here and lecture this committee on hard work when we’ve been up here doing the hard work.”

That’s when Pearson lost it. Pearson said that Farmer’s remarks made him “very, very angry.” The Memphis Democrat then explained that he had been absent because his brother died by suicide last December.

Keep reading

“Not Today, Satan!”: Ex-FBI Agent Finds Possible ATF Honeypot Website Operation Selling Glock Switches

Ex-FBI agent and federal whistleblower Kyle Seraphin has uncovered a fake Polymer80 website selling illegal Glock Switches (devices that convert pistols into machine guns), which he describes as a likely honeypot operation set up by the ATF. 

“Have you ever wanted to buy an illegal MACHINE Gun DIRECTLY from @ATFHQ ?” Seraphin wrote on X. 

If this is a honeypot operation run by the federal government—whether the ATF or another agency—its web developers should refine the website’s rough appearance; it looks rushed and clumsily mimics the now-defunct Polymer80 site. Notice how “Glock Switch” product is number one on the list, which tells you all you need to know about intentions here: entrapment.

Keep reading

What Hunters Should Know About Colorado’s First-in-the-Nation Gun Ban

Colorado is poised to become the first state in the nation to ban entire categories of rifles, pistols, and shotguns based solely on their operating systems and without regard for cosmetic features like collapsible stocks or pistol grips.

However, recent amendments to the legislation have created loopholes that would make it easier for hunters to continue owning these now-banned types of firearms. These amendments earned the support of Governor Jared Polis and passed the state Senate on a narrow 19-15 vote.

Now, the bill heads to the state House of Representatives, where the Democrats supermajority all but assures the bill’s passage.

Sportsmen’s groups have decried the legislation as an attack on Second Amendment rights and warn it could impact conservation funding moving forward.

“Modern sporting rifles and semi-automatic shotguns are not only important to our hunting heritage but are highly popular in the recreational shooting community which is widely credited as the source of roughly 80% of conservation funding generated through the Pittman-Robertson Act,” said the Congressional Sportsmen’s Foundation. “This legislation would severely undermine our hunting heritage, firearm rights, and would negatively impact the American System of Conservation Funding.”

The bill’s supporters argue that the legislation is necessary to prevent mass shootings, and they refuse to characterize the bill as a “ban.”

Keep reading

Mel Gibson Controversy Highlights a Bigger Scandal: Many Americans Lose Their Gun Rights for No Good Reason

Elizabeth Oyer, a former public defender who was appointed as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney in April 2022, says she was fired last Friday because she refused to sign off on a recommendation to restore Mel Gibson’s gun rights. The movie star and director, who supported Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election and was recently designated as one of the administration’s three “ambassadors” to Hollywood along with Jon Voight and Sylvester Stallone, lost the right to own firearms because of a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction.

Oyer presents the episode as a conflict between public safety and political favoritism, and The New York Times framed the story the same way. But the incident also illustrates how difficult it is for people who have lost their Second Amendment rights as a result of criminal convictions—a category that includes the president himself—to regain those rights, even when there are no grounds to think they pose a threat to public safety.

In March 2011, Gibson pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor battery charge involving his girlfriend, and Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Stephanie Sautner sentenced him to 36 months of probation. Although Gibson’s deal with prosecutors allowed him to avoid jail time, his plea triggered an ancillary penalty under 18 USC 922(g)(9), which makes it a felony for anyone who “has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence” to receive or possess a firearm. Another provision of the same law, Section 922(g)(1), sweeps more broadly, imposing the same lifelong disability on anyone who has been convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year of incarceration, no matter how long ago it was committed and whether or not it involved violence.

As Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted in an opinion she wrote as an appeals court judge, the constitutionality of the latter prohibition is doubtful. Barrett dissented from a 2019 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit upheld the application of Section 922(g)(1) to a manufacturer of therapeutic shoes and footwear inserts who had pleaded guilty to mail fraud. History “demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns,” she wrote. “But that power extends only to people who are dangerous.”

The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen added heft to that argument by clarifying that gun control laws must be “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation” when they impinge on conduct covered by the “plain text” of the Second Amendment. In 2023, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit ruled that Section 922(g)(1) failed that test as applied to Bryan Range, a Pennsylvania man who had pleaded guilty to food stamp fraud, a state misdemeanor that was notionally punishable by up to five years in prison. Based on similar reasoning, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit last year overturned the Section 992(g)(1) conviction of Steven Duarte, a California man who had lost his gun rights because of a nonviolent criminal record.

Without such judicial intervention, “prohibited persons” like Range and Duarte have little recourse. Under 18 USC 925(c), they theoretically can ask the attorney general to restore their Second Amendment rights. The attorney general has the discretion to do that based on a determination that “the circumstances regarding the disability, and the applicant’s record and reputation, are such that the applicant will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief would not be contrary to the public interest.” But that responsibility has been delegated to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which Congress has barred from considering such applications.

“Although federal law provides a means for the relief of firearms disabilities,” the agency explains, “ATF’s annual appropriation since October 1992 has prohibited the expending of any funds to investigate or act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals. As long as this provision is included in current ATF appropriations, ATF cannot act upon applications for relief from federal firearms disabilities submitted by individuals.”

If the ATF cannot act on such applications, can people with disqualifying criminal records seek relief in federal court? No, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled in the 2002 case United States v. Bean.

Keep reading

Gun Owners Take DC Magazine Restrictions To Supreme Court

Gun owners in the nation’s capital are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the District of Columbia’s ban on magazines with more than 10 rounds of ammunition.

The petition in Hanson v. District of Columbia was docketed, or officially accepted for filing, by the court on Feb. 28. The respondent, the District of Columbia, was directed to file a response by March 31.

The district enacted the Firearms Registration Amendment Act of 2008 after the Supreme Court invalidated the city’s sweeping restrictions on gun ownership in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008). In Heller, the nation’s highest court determined that individuals have a right to possess firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense at home.

The statute made it a felony-level offense to have a magazine that could hold more than 10 rounds. A violation can result in a prison term of three years and a fine of $12,500. District officials say the law is needed to protect the public.

Lead petitioner Andrew Hanson and co-petitioners Tyler Yzaguirre, Nathan Chaney, and Eric Klun, who all have concealed carry pistol licenses in the District of Columbia, possessed magazines holding more than 10 rounds outside D.C. and said they would use their magazines for lawful purposes in the district if the 10-round limit did not apply.

Hanson argues in the petition that the district’s magazine cap is unconstitutional according to a test the Supreme Court articulated in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which recognized a right to bear arms in public for self-defense.

Weeks after Bruen was decided, the petitioners sued the District of Columbia, asking for a declaration from a federal district court that the magazine cap ran afoul of the Second and Fifth Amendments.

U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras issued an April 2023 decision that denied Hanson’s request to block the law on constitutional grounds. Contreras found that the local law adheres to the U.S. Constitution.

The judge found that the District’s ammo limitation, which was aimed at promoting public safety, was justified. The ban constituted “an attempt to mitigate the carnage of mass shootings in this country.”

Keep reading

We Caught FBI Using “Minority Report Style” Secret Form Pressuring Gun Owners To Forfeit Their Rights

Gun Owners of America just caught the FBI coercing more people into giving up their Second Amendment rights!

Thanks to a FOIA request by GOA’s lawyers, we uncovered even more evidence on the FBI’s unconstitutional and unlawful NICS Indices program.

In 2019, it was discovered that the FBI was using a document titled “NICS Indices Self-Submission Form” that purported to allow American citizens to “voluntarily” waive their Second Amendment rights. 

By completing this FBI form, law-abiding Americans allegedly “consent” for the FBI to enter their names into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, marking them as permanently prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.  And as the form warns, once an individual waives their rights, it’s impossible to get them back.

Now, the mere existence of this form was troubling, and it clearly violates the Second Amendment and even the Gun Control Act. But at that point, we weren’t sure how extensively the FBI was using the form, if in fact it was being used at all.

Fast-forward a few years to 2022.

GOA published our initial findings that the FBI had provided these forms to agents for use on American gun owners, who were pressured into signing and therefore “voluntarily” relinquished their rights to purchase, possess, and use firearms.

These FOIA records painted a vivid picture of FBI agents showing up to people’s homes, place of work, etc., presenting to them these forms, and “asking” them to declare themselves to be a “danger” to themselves or others, or lacking the “mental capacity to adequately contract or manage” their lives.

You can imagine how coercive these sorts of FBI visits must have been.  The FBI’s use of this secret form has occurred during recent years when the bureau has become increasingly politicized and weaponized against Americans, including gun owners.

Keep reading

Oklahoma Senators Approve Bill To Protect Second Amendment Rights Of Medical Marijuana Patients

Lawmakers in Oklahoma this week advanced a bill aimed at protecting gun rights of state-registered medical marijuana patients, although federal law still bars cannabis users from owning firearms regardless of their patient status.

The Senate Committee on Public Safety unanimously passed the measure, SB 39, from Sen. Julie Daniels (R), on Wednesday with a vote of 6-0. If it’s enacted, the legislation would specify that applicants for state-issued handgun licenses would not be disqualified merely for being a medical marijuana patient.

It states that “an applicant shall not be considered ineligible solely on the basis of being a lawful holder of a medical marijuana patient license” and also makes a medical marijuana exception around disqualifications for “any violation relating to illegal drug use or possession.”

Yet another provision in the bill says that “nothing in this section shall be construed to allow the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation to deny an otherwise qualified applicant from obtaining a handgun license pursuant to the Oklahoma Self-Defense Act solely on the basis of the applicant being a lawful holder of a medical marijuana patient license.”

Ahead of the vote at Wednesday’s hearing, Daniels pointed out that courts across the nation are increasingly pushing back against the notion that merely using marijuana should deny them their Second Amendment rights.

“In recent years, the courts have all come down on the side that someone should not be denied a firearm license or be prosecuted for possession of a firearm solely because they use marijuana,” she told colleagues. “And in Oklahoma, of course, we have a medical marijuana program. So the point of this bill is to make clear that solely because you have a medical marijuana patient card does not mean that you should be automatically denied a firearm license.”

Carrying or using a shotgun, rifle or pistol while under the influence of marijuana—even if it was “obtained pursuant to a valid medical marijuana patient license”—would remain illegal if the drug affects someone “to a degree that would result in abnormal behavior,” the bill says.

The Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigations, for its part, said in a statement on Wednesday that it will abide by the new rules, if adopted.

“We respect the right of Oklahomans to legally have firearms,” the agency said, according to local ABC affiliate KOCO News 5, which first reported the committee’s passage of the bill. “We will work with new laws passed by the legislature.”

As for the federal law against gun ownership by marijuana users, a federal appeals court panel earlier this month dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana, ruling that the federal government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said in the opinion that while not all disarmament of drug users violates the Second Amendment, it nevertheless sometimes can.

Keep reading

AfD-Supporting Lawyer Fined €3,000 For Criticizing German Govt, Has Gun License Revoked, Faces Disbarment

The debate over free speech in Germany has taken a new turn following the case of Markus Roscher, a 61-year-old lawyer from Braunschweig, who was fined €3,000 for criticizing the government’s heating law.

Roscher described Vice Chancellor Robert Habeck, Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as “malicious failures” in a post on X back in 2021. He was subsequently issued a penalty notice under the controversial Paragraph 188 of the German Criminal Code, which criminalized defamation against individuals engaged in public political life.

Roscher, who has been active on X for over 14 years and is well accustomed to the legal boundaries surrounding political debate, insists that his post was within the bounds of political criticism.

“I actually know myself to be quite well within the red lines,” he told Bild. 

“You have to formulate things pointedly to be heard. The lines of freedom of opinion have slipped with the red-green government (ed. the coalition of Social Democrats and Greens).” 

He further described his hefty fine as a “scandal for freedom of expression.”

Paragraph 188, introduced in April 2021, criminalizes insults against politicians if they significantly hinder their public work. It was initially passed under a coalition government of the CDU and SPD but has been increasingly enforced under the current administration. The law has led to numerous prosecutions against individuals who have criticized government officials online.

In Roscher’s case, the penalty order claimed that his statements portrayed politicians as “corrupt, stupid, and arrogant,” constituting “abusive criticism” that allegedly impeded their political activity. 

Keep reading

Circuit Court Judge Strikes Down Illinois FOID Card Requirement for Guns in the Home

On Monday, White County Resident Circuit Judge T. Scott Webb ruled against a requirement that Illinois residents must obtain a Firearm Owners Identification (FOID) card in order to possess a gun in the home for self-defense.

The case, State of Illinois v. Vivian Claudine Brown, which was supported by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Illinois State Rifle Association, centered on Brown’s possession of a .22 rifle in the home for self-defense on March 18, 2017, without an accompanying (required) FOID card.

She was charged due to her lack of a FOID card, and a suit was subsequently filed. The suit challenged not only the FOID card requirement but also the fee to obtain such a card, which is $10. Brown argued that the fee “suppresses a fundamental right that is recognized to be enjoyed in the most private areas, such as the home.”

Webb weighed the case in light of Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022), ultimately found that “the defendant’s possession of a .22 caliber rifle within the confines of her own home, even without a valid FOID card falls squarely within the protections afforded her by the Second Amendment.”

Keep reading

Trump Dismantles Biden’s Gun Control Actions, Signs Executive Order to Protect Gun Owners

President Trump on Friday signed an Executive Order dismantling Joe Biden’s gun control actions.

“The Second Amendment is an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty. It has preserved the right of the American people to protect ourselves, our families, and our freedoms since the founding of our great Nation. Because it is foundational to maintaining all other rights held by Americans, the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed,” President Trump’s Executive Order said.

Trump ordered US Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all of Joe Biden’s unconstitutional gun control Executive Orders to assess ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment.

“Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall examine all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies (agencies) to assess any ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens, and present a proposed plan of action to the President, through the Domestic Policy Advisor, to protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans,” Trump’s EO said.

Pam Bondi will review “All Presidential and agencies’ actions from January 2021 through January 2025 that purport to promote safety but may have impinged on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens,” the EO said.

Keep reading