Tag: gun control

New Zealand will remove police from gun licensing but near-total semiautomatics ban to remain

New Zealand’s government will end the involvement of police officers in regulating gun ownership, an official said Tuesday as she announced sweeping firearms law reforms.

The move is intended to ease tensions between the gun regulator and firearms owners, which have been fraught since the agency’s creation following a shooting massacre at two New Zealand mosques.

The Firearms Safety Authority has overseen gun ownership since 2022 after an inquiry underlined the way the white supremacist attacker legally acquired numerous weapons without attracting law enforcement scrutiny.

Near-total ban on semiautomatics to stay

The changes unveiled in Wellington by Associate Justice Minister Nicole McKee stopped short of what the police union and those bereaved in the Christchurch massacre feared: a reversal of the near-complete ban on semiautomatic firearms passed after the attacker killed 51 Muslims at prayer on March 15, 2019.

McKee, a lobbyist for gun owners before she entered parliament in 2020, told reporters her bid to relax the semiautomatic weapons ban for some sports shooters wasn’t approved by the Cabinet. Her government had refused to rule out reversing the ban before.

Instead, her changes focused on removing uniformed officers from the regulatory body and altering its oversight. Once McKee’s law passes, the authority will report directly to the government, rather than the head of the New Zealand Police.

Law will remove police from gun licensing

“There will be no blue shirts in the Firearms Safety Authority,” McKee said, referring to police uniforms. The 15 officers who worked at the authority would return to police duties, which will still include enforcing gun crime laws.

“We need to rebuild the trust and confidence between the regulator and the licensed firearms community that has diminished severely over the past six years,” said McKee. She said “a lot of the blame” for the Christchurch attack was directed at gun owners, who say police should be focusing on law enforcement, not on regulation compliance or licensing.

The regulator is currently a unit within the police department. The law change would create a more independent legal structure that would only share corporate services with the law enforcement agency.

The body couldn’t be entirely separated from the police department due to a reliance on law enforcement databases, McKee said.

Keep reading

UK Man Arrested for Possessing Gunpowder Recipe

Here in the United States, we have a serious DIY culture. People will make their own anything if they think it’s cool enough. Despite being the wealthiest nation on the planet, people build their own furniture, make their own clothes, make pottery, take up blacksmithing, or any number of activities that they could just pay for, but would rather do it themselves.

And we celebrate this.

Yes, that also includes people making their own guns and ammunition. I get that not everyone feels the same way we do about the right to keep and bear arms, but it seems the UK is even more down on it than I thought.

After all, some words on paper are too much for them, apparently.

A 49-year-old man from Leeds has been sentenced to three years and nine months in prison for possessing a handwritten recipe for gunpowder.

…

He will serve an additional four years on extended licence and will be subject to a Serious Crime Prevention Order for five years, along with terrorism notification requirements for ten years.

[Martin Paul] Gilleard admitted possessing information likely to be useful to someone committing or preparing an act of terrorism under Section 58 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The document was discovered at his home during an intelligence-led search by West Yorkshire Police on May 28 and referred to Counter Terrorism Policing North East for investigation.

Now, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that he did anything with the recipe. He just happened to have it.

As a result of those words on a piece of paper, though, he’s being treated like a terrorist in his home country, even as actual acts of terrorism keep being dismissed as nothing to be concerned about.

That entire country has lost its ever-loving mind, and that’s a shame because that’s where my roots are from, for the most part, and I’d love to visit someday. I just don’t know that I’d be safe there based on everything I see.

Especially since defending myself would be virtually impossible there.

And before anyone tries the “it can’t happen here” thing, remember that some states have tried making it illegal to possess 3D printer files for making your own firearm. That’s still just information that is harmless on its own. How long before some ninny here in the States tries to ban reloading your own ammo, followed by banning information pertaining to reloading?

We’re not as far away from something like this as we might like to believe.

That’s especially true as this was folded under anti-terrorism laws. The specter of terrorism has made our own lawmakers opt for some stupid things in the past, and to forget that freedom is and remains the guiding principle of this great nation, so it’s not hard to see this happening here.

Keep reading

Giffords: Increase in Defensive Gun Uses ‘Must Be Stopped’

When I covered the WSJ’s hit piece on Stand Your Ground laws on Wednesday, I wondered if the reporters had any behind-the-scenes help from gun control activists. 

It’s not proof of anything, but since the story appeared online only one gun control group has promoted the story on X or Bluesk

The premise of the WSJ story is that Stand Your Ground laws have led to a 59% increase in the number of justifiable homicides in some states between 2019 and 2024, and that the law is allowing some folks to literally get away with murder. 

As we discussed yesterday, though, none of the anecdotal cases cited by WSJ in support of that premise are slam dunk examples of murders that were deemed justified as a result of SYG laws. The data set used by the paper is also suspect, since it did not include the significant number of states where Stand Your Ground exists in common law but not specifically in statute. 

There are only 11 states that impose a general duty to retreat before acting in self-defense. The vast majority of states don’t require you to present your back as a target to your attacker while you try to run away; instead, they allow you to act in self-defense so long as you have a reasonable belief of imminent death or great bodily harm. 

Stand Your Ground laws also aren’t really a new thing. Florida’s statute, for instance, has been in place for two decades. If the law automatically led to more unjustified shootings being deemed justifiable homicides by the courts, we would have expected to see that phenomenon occur long before 2020, but there’s no evidence that’s the case. 

We saw a huge spike in violent crime in 2020, along with a big spike in new gun owners. That’s the most likely reason for an increase in justifiable homicides since then; with more crimes being committed and more people carrying for self-defense, there are more occasions when legally armed citizens will use a firearm to defend themselves. That doesn’t mean, however, that people are getting away with murder just because they tell police that they were in fear for their lives. Every time a life is taken a police investigation is going to take place, and charges may very well be filed even when there’s evidence of self-defense. 

Even using the WSJ’s own flawed dataset, the percentage of homicides deemed justified in SYG states has climbed from about 2.8% in 2019 to 3.8% in 2024. We don’t know how many self-defense claims were raised in the 96.2% of homicides that were deemed murder, but we know the number isn’t “zero.” Stand Your Ground laws aren’t a “get-out-of-jail free” card for armed citizens, despite the slanted reporting from the WSJ and Gifffords’ wild suggestion that many or all of these justifiable homicides are actually murder.

Keep reading

Father and Son Arrested for Attempting to Smuggle Over 300 Firearms to Mexico

Two men from Alabama have been charged with trafficking more than 300 weapons with ammunition and magazines, announced Attorney General Pamela Bondi and U.S. Attorney Nicholas J. Ganjei.

Emilio Ramirez Cortes, 48, a Mexican citizen who legally resides in the United States, and his son, Edgar Emilio Ramirez Diaz, have made their initial appearances in Laredo federal court and will remain in custody pending a detention hearing set for Oct. 31.

Both are charged with smuggling firearms, ammunition, magazines and other firearms accessories as well as trafficking of firearms.

“Disrupting the illegal flow of weapons into Mexico is a key part of our whole-of-government approach to dismantling the cartels,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “This significant seizure represents our commitment to protecting Americans from brutal cartel violence.”

On Oct. 23, two vehicles appeared to be driving in tandem and approached the Juarez-Lincoln Port of Entry in Laredo, according to the complaint. 

The charges allege Ramirez Diaz was driving a Chevrolet Tahoe with Alabama license plates followed by his father in a Chevrolet Silverado with Mexican license plates. Both vehicles were allegedly hauling enclosed white box utility trailers.

“Those that illegally traffic guns to Mexico empower cartels to terrorize the innocent,” said Ganjei. “This seizure of an immense quantity of firearms illustrates the Southern District of Texas’s full-spectrum approach to fighting the cartels. We will attack every facet of their operations until they are wiped off the face of the earth.”

Keep reading

Zohran Mamdani Brandished Handgun in Music Video—Then Called To Ban Them

As the rapper formerly known as Young Cardamom, Zohran Mamdani donned fatigues and brandished a handgun in a music video for a song glorifying militant violence. As a politician, the socialist has called for a ban on “all guns” to remedy the “scourge of gun violence.”

The video for the 2016 song “Wabula Naawe” is “set in the Luwero Triangle in 1981 during the days leading up to the Ugandan Bush War,” our Jon Levine reports. It “opens with a spray of gunfire” before depicting “armed militants shooting firearms from the back of a truck—to the words ‘let’s get together and settle this thing once and forever.’ It later portrays a man being shot in the head at point-blank range as Mamdani raps lyrics like, ‘I’ll finish you like food on a plate,’ ‘You are about to run like a chicken,’ and, ‘You’ll pray for death.’”

“Mamdani has taken a more critical stance on firearms since entering politics,” writes Levine. As a state assemblyman, he called to “ban all guns” and voted for a bill placing restrictions on firearms marketing. He has since pledged to spearhead a “nationwide ban on assault rifles.”

Keep reading

SCOTUS Will Consider the Constitutionality of the Federal Ban on Gun Possession by Illegal Drug Users

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to consider the constitutionality of the federal ban on gun possession by illegal drug users. The Trump administration is urging the justices to overturn a ruling in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit deemed prosecutions under that law inconsistent with the Second Amendment unless there is evidence that the defendant handled firearms while intoxicated. Contrary to what the 5th Circuit held, the government’s petition argues that categorically disarming drug users is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation”—the constitutional test established by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The case, United States v. Hemani, involves a Texas man who was charged with violating 18 USC 922(g)(3), which makes it a felony for an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” to receive or possess a firearm. The defendant, Ali Hemani, was the subject of a terrorism investigation that included two searches of the Lewiston, Texas, home he shared with his parents. During the second search, in August 2022, FBI agents found a Glock 19 pistol that belonged to Hemani, along with less than a gram of cocaine and about two ounces of marijuana.

As Amel Ahmed explained in a Reason story about the case last year, the FBI was unable to substantiate its suspicion that Hemani, a native-born U.S. citizen whose parents are from Pakistan, was implicated in financial crimes involving Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. The government’s petition nevertheless implies that Hemani is a dangerous character for reasons that extend beyond his recreational drug use. But that allegation is not relevant to the constitutional question raised by the Supreme Court case.

The law that Hemani was charged with violating applies to millions of Americans who pose no plausible threat to public safety, including cannabis consumers, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use. The 5th Circuit first questioned the constitutionality of Section 922(g)(3) prosecutions in 2023, when it overturned the conviction of Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr., who was sentenced to nearly four years in federal prison after he was caught with two guns and the remains of a few joints during a routine traffic stop in Hancock County, Mississippi.

Keep reading

NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’

The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.

AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.

Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”

Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”

The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”

He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”

Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”

Keep reading

Winners Not Happy With Judgment in Lawsuit Against Under 21 Handgun Sales Ban

A U.S. District Court in Louisiana handed three Second Amendment advocacy groups and three individual plaintiffs what they said was an empty victory and a possibly unconstitutional order.

The plaintiffs intend to appeal the judgment.

Meanwhile, a constitutional lawyer and Second Amendment social media influencer said their concerns may be unfounded.

In November 2020, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Firearms Policy Coalition, Louisiana Shooting Association, along with individuals Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, and Emily Naquin, sued the federal government over its prohibition on sales of handguns to those between 18 and 21.

In 2022, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana upheld the ban.

The plaintiffs appealed to a three-judge panel of the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled the ban unconstitutional and sent the case back to the district court for a final judgment.

On Oct. 7, District Court Judge Robert R. Summerhays issued a narrow judgment limiting relief to people who were members of the plaintiff organizations on Nov. 6, 2020, and are located in Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana, the states in the Fifth Circuit.

The judge also ruled that the organizations create a list of those members within 21 days.

The plaintiffs said that affected members of the named organizations would have been in their early teens at the time of the filing. Leaders of the plaintiff groups said they would refuse to disclose membership information.

Keep reading

US Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to Hawaii’s Gun Law

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Oct. 3 to take up a new Second Amendment case related to a Hawaii law that bars the carrying of handguns on private property open to the public, such as restaurants, malls, and many businesses.

The nine justices took up an appeal by three Hawaii residents who have concealed carry licenses, and a state-based gun rights advocacy group challenging Hawaii’s law while seeking to reverse a lower court’s determination that the state law complies with the Second Amendment.

Hawaii’s gun law bans firearms on private property unless the owner has specifically allowed them on the premises. It also blocks firearms in places such as beaches, parks, bars, and restaurants that serve alcohol.

Hawaii’s measure was challenged by state residents Jason Wolford, Alison Wolford, and Atom Kasprzycki—who own firearms and have concealed carry licenses—along with the Hawaii Firearms Coalition, a gun rights organization. The defendant is listed as Hawaii Attorney General Anne E. Lopez.

In a petition to the high court submitted earlier this year, the plaintiffs ask whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the state law, “erred in holding … that Hawaii may presumptively prohibit the carry of handguns by licensed concealed carry permit holders on private property open to the public.”

A judge blocked the Hawaii law after it was challenged in court by the gun rights group and the three Maui residents. The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, however, largely reversed that decision and allowed Hawaii to enforce the law.

Keep reading

Federal Court Rules Bans on Carrying Firearms in Post Offices Are Unconstitutional, Democrats Hardest Hit

In a win for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners across America, a federal court has ruled that bans on carrying firearms in U.S. Post Offices are unconstitutional.

And, yes, as I wrote in the headline, “Democrats hardest hit,” given that the gun-grabbing Democrat Party never saw a firearm it didn’t want to control, restrict, or outright ban.

As reported by RedState’s sister site, “Bearing Arms,” on Wednesday, Chief United States District Judge Reed O’Connor handed down an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC was joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in challenging the federal law.

The ruling also applies to carrying firearms on property surrounding post offices.

Here’s more, via Bearing Arms:

O’Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs’ (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms inside of an ordinary United States Post Office or the surrounding Post Office property.” There’s nothing in the order limiting it to Texas and applies to all members of the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

The complaint was originally filed in June 2024 and the named defendant was then-Attorney General Garland. “So if the government seeks to restrict firearms in a particular location as a ‘sensitive place,’ it must prove that its current restriction is sufficiently analogous to a ‘well-established and representative historical analogue,’” the complaint said.

This order in Texas comes at the heels of the Department of Justice dropping a bid for an appeal in a criminal matter involving carriage on U.S. Postal Service property. U.S. v. Ayala in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involved defendant Ayala’s possession of a firearm on postal grounds. District Court Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle wrote that: “The United States fails to meet its burden of pointing to a historical tradition of firearms regulation justifying Ayala’s indictment under § 930(a).”

Judge O’Connor struck down both the federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 930(a)) and USPS regulation (39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l)) that prohibited firearm possession and carry at ordinary post offices — not those situated on military bases or within multi-use federal complexes.

Such rulings, whether favorable to Second Amendment rights or against, highlight the decades-old debate between the left, which absurdly blames “gun violence” — as if firearms themselves committed crimes — and the right, which correctly asserts that “the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.”

Keep reading