Tag: gun control

Former DOJ Official Ed Martin Launches Gun Rights Group

Former U.S. Pardon Attorney Ed Martin is launching a new gun rights group aimed at restoring firearm access to Americans convicted of nonviolent crimes, an initiative that seeks to boost conservative turnout in this fall’s midterm elections.

Martin, who left the Justice Department last week, said the group, Firearm Rights for Americans, was an idea encouraged by President Donald Trump during their final Oval Office meeting.

Trump told Martin he wanted to make sure his administration received “credit” for expanding gun access, Martin added.

“When you turn out Second Amendment voters, they vote right,” Martin said, referring to the Republican Party. “You gotta go sell that message.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Martin said the group planned to produce and distribute written and video testimonials from individuals seeking to regain gun ownership.

The strategy aims to mobilize single-issue Second Amendment voters in competitive congressional swing districts who may feel the administration has not acted quickly enough on gun rights.

He hopes the effort could help Republicans preserve their House majority this year and build momentum toward the 2028 presidential election.

In August, Attorney General Todd Blanche and Martin announced the finalizing of a federal regulation allowing individuals disqualified from gun ownership to petition for the restoration of their rights.

The collaboration between the two senior officials followed more than 30 other proposed rule changes to ease gun access, many backed by gun rights groups.

Through Firearm Rights for Americans, Martin said he hopes to ensure potential applicants and Second Amendment supporters know about the change, and as a result sway disaffected voters to go to the polls.

The group will also produce guides for eligible individuals to navigate state and federal regulations.

Keep reading

Third Circuit Allows Lawsuit Against NJ’s Gun Industry Liability Law to Continue

On Tuesday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled that the National Shooting Sports Foundation’s (NSSF) lawsuit against New Jersey’s gun industry liability law can continue.

The law is A1765, which NSSF contends is in violation of the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005).

The lawsuit, NSSF v. Platkin, was initially filed in February 2025 but dismissed on the grounds that NSSF lacked standing because the lawsuit was filed prematurely – filed before the law was enforced against any industry member companies. However, after the dismissal, New Jersey’s then-AG Matthew Platkin brought lawsuits against a number of industry members, including GLOCK, Inc.

NSSF noted that Platkin “[alleged that Glock] is responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms when criminals modify and alter well-designed and lawfully-sold GLOCK pistols by illegally obtaining, possessing and installing a ‘switch’ into the handgun.” NSSF responded by filing a motion to reopen their lawsuit against the New Jersey gun control.

New Jersey contended that NSSF still lacks the standing necessary to bring the lawsuit, but the Third Circuit noted, “NSSF’s members’ intended actions are arguably precluded by A1765 and affected with constitutional interests. NSSF argues A1765 enforcement actions against its members for otherwise lawful commerce would be an attempt to ‘hold [its members] liable for the acts of third parties who use their legal products to commit heinous crimes.’”

The Third Circuit ruled to grant NSSF’s motion, allowing the lawsuit to move forward.

NSSF general counsel Lawrence Keane observed, “The challenge to this law has been tortured and the previous frustrations to demonstrate that this state law attempts to circumvent federal law can now move forward. We are confident that New Jersey’s naked attempt to undermine the will of Congress and bankrupt firearm manufacturers and sellers through frivolous lawsuits will not stand legal review.”

Keep reading

Federal Government Backs Supreme Court Challenge To AR-15 Bans

The federal government is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to side with gun owners challenging state and local bans on AR-15-style rifles.

In a brief filed Friday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to overturn rulings from the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second and Seventh Circuits, which upheld AR-15 bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, respectively.

“The AR-15 rifle is unquestionably in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” the federal government argued.

The cases, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, have been consolidated for Supreme Court review.

Connecticut has prohibited what it deemed “assault weapons” since 1993. It significantly expanded the ban after the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School, describing AR-15-style rifles as particularly dangerous and preferred by mass shooters.

Cook County, which covers the city of Chicago, adopted its current firearm ordinance in 2006, prohibiting the possession, sale, and transfer of a list of semiautomatic weapons.

The ‘Common Use’ Debate

At the center of the dispute is whether AR-15-style rifles qualify as weapons “in common use” for lawful purposes and therefore fall under Second Amendment protection.

The idea dates back to the Supreme Court’s 1939 decision upholding a federal ban on short-barreled shotguns because those weapons were not “in common use.”

The Court relied on the same concept in 2008 to invalidate a ban on handguns in the nation’s capital, affirming that they are “the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home.”

Most recently, the Court referred to the common-use test in 2022 when it struck down a New York law requiring people to show a special need before receiving a license to carry a handgun in public.

Connecticut argues that AR-15-style rifles do not meet the Supreme Court’s legal standard.

“Americans do not commonly own assault weapons for self-defense,” state lawyers argued in an earlier Supreme Court filing, adding that the weapons are “neither used nor useful for that purpose.”

The gun owners challenging the bans, however, argue that AR-15s easily pass the common-use test.

“If the most popular rifle in the country is not in common use,” the challengers said in their petition, “it is hard to see what that phrase could possibly mean.”

The Justice Department is siding with challengers in the debate.

“Today, AR-15s are lawful at the federal level and in 40 States, with law-abiding citizens using them for lawful purposes such as self-defense, target shooting, and hunting,” the government said.

“Legislatures may not ban arms in common use among law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”

Keep reading

Gun Survey Data Surprises Activists, Bolsters Defensive Gun Use

Gun control activists wanted better numbers, and the latest survey handed them something far more uncomfortable. New findings from Georgetown professor William English’s updated National Firearms Survey deepen the case that defensive gun use is more common than critics admit, that so-called “assault weapons” are widely owned, and that gun ownership is spreading across a broader slice of America.

That is exactly why the new results sting. The 2021 version of the survey already rattled the anti-gun crowd by showing large numbers of Americans owning AR-15-style rifles, high-capacity magazines and firearms for self-defense, but critics insisted the data was flawed and overstated the reality.

Instead of folding, English tightened up the design and ran the survey again in 2026. The updated version did not rescue the gun control argument. It made the picture sharper, and for activists, a lot worse.

One of the biggest takeaways is that ownership of AR-15-style rifles is not some fringe habit. The new survey estimates that 26.4 million American adults now own an AR-15 or a similar semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip, which undercuts the familiar claim that these firearms are rare or outside ordinary lawful use.

High-capacity magazines show the same pattern. The latest data estimates 44.5 million Americans currently own one, and gun owners are now slightly more likely to own one than not. That is a big problem for activists who still rely on the phrase “weapons of war” as if repetition can erase common ownership.

The findings on defensive gun use may be even more awkward for the anti-gun side. English’s original survey estimated that adults use firearms for protection about 1.67 million times a year, and critics mocked that number as unbelievable.

The redesigned survey pushed the estimate higher, not lower. It now places annual defensive gun use at about 2.2 million incidents, with some of the increase tied to reported protection against animal attacks, which makes the real-world picture look even more grounded in lived experience.

That matters because the debate over gun rights often gets flattened into slogans. People who carry and people who keep firearms for protection are not talking about fantasy scenarios, but about the daily reality of crime, danger and the right to respond when trouble shows up fast.

Keep reading

MSNOW Pushes Tired Liberal Talking Point That Second Amendment Only Applies to Guns Available When it Was Written

MSNOW host Melissa Murray and a liberal guest who clearly advocates for gun control, recently pushed the tired talking point that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to modern firearms, only the guns that were available when the Constitution was written.

Mind you, they said this on TELEVISION, which certainly wasn’t available when the First Amendment was written.

This is what the left flatly refuses to acknowledge about the Second Amendment. As they take full advantage of every new tool available for the advancement of free speech.

Partial transcript via NewsBusters:

MELISSA MURRAY, FILL-IN HOST: This consolidated set of cases has really captured the attention of many Second Amendment enthusiasts. The Second Amendment, as you know, involves the right to keep and bear arms. What do we know from the court in their most recent rulings about how the justices are likely to respond to this challenge to bans on semi-automatic weapons?

LEAH LITMAN, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN LAW SCHOOL: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court, or at least the Republican appointees, have shown they have a ton of zeal for basically cannibalizing and eliminating common sense gun control regulation because they’ve adopted an interpretation of the Second Amendment that maintains firearms that didn’t exist at the time the Second Amendment was ratified — those are still constitutionally protected.

And yet governments have to show that the regulation of those firearms that’s used today resembles the kind of regulations that were applied to firearms that looked substantially different than firearms do today. That is, the government would have to show that it is regulating AR-15’s in the same way that the government’s regulated especially dangerous weapons that existed in the 1700s and 1800s — like, I don’t know, muskets or bayonets. And based on that logic, the court last term struck down two gun control regulations, one at the federal level and one at the state level. So I think it’s very concerning that the court took up this particular case.

Keep reading

Nigeria: Military Confiscates Homemade Muzzleloaders from Christian Communities

Nigerian troops arrested 24-year-old hunter Emmanuel Daniel on August 22 after residents of the DTV area in Bassa Local Government Area, Plateau State, reported hearing gunshots. Upon arriving at the scene, soldiers found Daniel in possession of a Dane gun, a homemade, single-shot muzzle-loader commonly used for hunting.

He told them he had fired the weapon while hunting. Photos from the scene show Daniel holding a dead pigeon alongside the confiscated muzzle-loader, consistent with his account. He and the weapon remain in military custody.

Two days after a Fulani attack killed at least 24 residents of Bin-Per, a Christian village in Mangu LGA, soldiers moved against a community leader in nearby Chakfem, according to Mathias Sokden, director of the Cultural Mogavul Development Association.

Fulani gunmen attacked the Bin-Per community in Kombun District between 11:30 p.m. on August 17 and the early hours of August 18, 2026. They opened fire on local vigilantes before splitting into groups and moving from house to house. The attackers also burned homes and farmland.

During a plenary session of the Plateau House of Assembly, the member representing Mangu South, Dr. Matthew Sylvester Kwarpo, said more than 25 people were killed in Bin-Per and one more in nearby Jwak and Murish. He said 38 houses were burned and grain stores and farmland were destroyed.

Following the victims’ mass burial, dozens of women staged a protest demanding government protection. The rights group PIDAN said in a statement that “condolences are no substitute for security,” calling the recurring pattern of attacks “intolerable.”

Among the dead were the wife and three sons of Shadrach Ayuba, a village watchman who was on vigilante duty when the attack began. Ayuba escaped with a gunshot wound to the leg after swimming across a river to reach a neighboring village, according to an interview published by The Gateway Pundit days after the attack.

Keep reading

DOJ Opens Path For Some To Restore Gun Rights

Attorney General Todd Blanche has kicked off a new federal path for certain people who lost their gun rights to ask for them back. The move gives applicants a formal way to argue that their circumstances have changed and that they no longer pose a threat to the public.

Under the final rule, the bar is not low. People seeking relief have to explain why they were prohibited in the first place and show that restoring those rights would not put anyone at risk. In other words, this is not a shortcut, and it is not meant for anyone still tied to dangerous behavior.

Blanche framed the policy as a basic constitutional correction. “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” he said. “This rule establishes a rigorous, commonsense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”

The Justice Department said it will look at more than just the original prohibition. An applicant’s record, reputation and conduct after the disqualifying event will also matter, which gives the agency a wider lens for judging whether the person is truly fit to have those rights back.

There are still hard lines built into the rule. Violent felons, registered sex offenders, illegal immigrants and others who present an ongoing danger are presumed to be off-limits unless extraordinary circumstances exist. Even when relief is granted, it only affects federal firearms restrictions and does not wipe away any separate state-level limits.

That detail matters because the federal government is not the only player in the room. Someone who gets relief from Washington could still face restrictions under state law, which keeps the process narrower than a full clean slate.

Keep reading

Governor Hochul plans new law to block ATF proposal allowing guns to be shipped directly to homes; local experts weigh in

A recent proposal from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms aims to allow people to buy a gun online and have it shipped directly to their homes, but Gov. Kathy Hochul is pushing back.

News10NBC’s Tom Kowalski spoke with gun and legal experts to find out what this means for New York’s law-abiding gun owners. Brandon Lewis, owner of the Firing Pin gun shop in Bergen, said he believes consumers should have more choices and less regulation.

The deregulation argument

“If we permit adults to purchase alcohol or have prescription medications delivered to their door, I think we can accommodate this as well with the same overall safety mechanisms in place,” Lewis said.

Currently, New York residents who buy guns online must have them shipped to a Federal Firearms Licensee like the Firing Pin.

“You would buy it like any other product that you would buy. You put your credit card in and you pay for it, and then they ship it to us,” continued Lewis.

“Once it arrives, you come in, and it would be like if you just walked in off the street and say, ‘I want to buy that gun off the rack.’ And we fill out the paperwork and then, as long as the background check clears, you take possession of it.”

Hochul takes fire at the ATF

In response to the ATF’s plan, Hochul says she intends to introduce a law requiring the final sale to be done in person, continuing the process of buying a gun online, before picking it up from an FFL.

Anthony Kuhn with the law firm Tully Rinckey said New York’s plan is likely legal.

“That’s one of those restrictions that is likely not going to be something that Second Amendment would successfully challenge,” Kuhn said. “Most likely a limitation like that isn’t strict enough that it violates an individual’s Second Amendment rights.”

Paul Adell Jr. with Rochester African American Firearms Association says he doesn’t see a problem with direct-to-home shipping if proper checks are in place.

“If the current and proper checks are in place to make sure that people are still passing the ATF background check and getting it sent to their directly to their home, I don’t think I see a problem with that at all,” Adell said.

Keep reading

Guns could be shipped directly to homes under major rule change

A major rule change proposed by the Trump administration would allow licensed dealers to ship guns directly to people’s homes. 

If approved, the new Bureau of Alcohol, ​Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives policy would be one of the biggest changes to gun regulations in recent history, and could lead to a huge jump in online gun sales, according to Reuters. Critics say the proposal is unsafe and will put small gun shops out of business. 

What is the new ATF gun rule? 

The backstory:

Under current rules, people who buy guns online have to pick them up at physical stores and submit to in-person background checks if they don’t already have a permit. The new rule would allow licensed firearms dealers to ship guns directly to in-state residents after online identity verification and a background check. There would also be a seven-day waiting period and local law enforcement would have to be notified of the purchase.

RELATED: Service members can now carry personal weapons on military bases, Hegseth says

By the numbers:

The ATF predicts that half of all gun buyers, nearly 3.3 million people a year,  ​would order guns for home delivery, though industry leaders say that number could actually be far higher. The change could save consumers $103.7 million annually in travel and other processing costs, according to ATF. 

What they’re saying:

ATF chief counsel Robert Leider told Reuters the rule is an effort to bring the gun industry in line with the modern economy. It’s one of 34 measures proposed by ATF following a February 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump to expand gun access.

RELATED: About 19 million people in the US have thought about shooting someone in their lifetime: Study

What’s next:

The proposed rule is still in a public comment period that closes in early August. If approved, it may not take effect until late this year or early next year. 

Safety concerns

The other side:

Some gun shop owners and gun control advocates find themselves on the same side, as both have brought up safety concerns about the new rule. 

Marianna Mitchem, a senior firearms industry advisor at Everytown for Gun Safety who worked at ATF for more than 20 years, said gun stores play a big role in vetting potential gun owners. 

“ATF always says the gun store is the first line of defense in gun safety,” Mitchem told Reuters. “But now they are flipping it.”

Gun control groups say the rule would make it easier to traffick illegal guns and allow for straw purchases, or when someone buys a gun for someone else who’s not allowed to own one. 

“Even with the most robust ​virtual sales and background check process, there is no way for a gun store that is selling a gun over the internet to know if the person making the purchase is funneling the firearms to others,” ​Giffords spokesperson Aneesa McMillan said in a statement.

ATF’s Leider argued that the online verification ​system is more secure than traditional retail.

“The people who are concerned about this being susceptible to straw purchases have an idealized view of what an in-store purchase is,” Leider said. 

Keep reading

Nevada man pleads guilty to providing 140 firearms to drug trafficking organizations in Mexico

From April 1, 2020, to September 17, 2025, Osorio conspired with co-defendants to purchase firearms, magazines and ammunition on behalf of people affiliated with drug trafficking organizations in Mexico.

The 140 firearms purchased by Osorio included multiple large-caliber and long-range firearms.

Osorio also admitted to harboring people who unlawfully resided in the United States to employ them at a Nevada mining company, according to the DOJ.

“Trafficking military-style firearms and ammunition to drug trafficking organizations in Mexico fuels violence, strengthens criminal networks and threatens communities on both sides of the border,” said Jonathan Sherwin, Deputy Special Agent in Charge for Homeland Security Investigation (HSI) Las Vegas.

“In the world of organized crime and drug trafficking, guns and drugs go hand-in-hand,” said David S. Olesky, Special Agent in Charge of the Drug Enforcement Administration Los Angeles Field Division, which also covers Nevada.

“Firearms trafficking networks feed the violent cartels that terrorize border communities and pump illicit drugs into our neighborhoods,” said First Assistant United States Attorney Sigal Chattah for the District of Nevada. “By cutting off this supply chain and holding this defendant accountable, we are directly disrupting the operational capabilities of these dangerous criminal organizations.”

Keep reading