Tag: gun control

Ninth Circuit Overturns California’s ‘One-Gun-Per-Month’ Restriction

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a mandate Thursday overturning California’s “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

The case is Nguyen v. Bonta and the plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, the Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc., San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, two FFL gun dealers, and six private citizens including Michelle Nguyen.

The Second Amendment Foundation noted the “one-gun-a-month” restriction allows law-abiding citizens to purchase only one handgun or semi-automatic centerfire rifle (or combination thereof), from a licensed dealer within a 30-day period.

The August 14th mandate overturning the restriction follows a June 20, 2025, Ninth Circuit three-judge panel decision which affirmed a lower court ruling against the “one-gun-a-month” restriction.

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Asks Supreme Court To Uphold Ban On Marijuana Users Owning Guns

Amid a series of legal challenges, the Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a case on the federal government’s ban on users of marijuana and other illegal drugs from owning firearms and uphold the prohibition, saying it is consistent with the 2nd Amendment.

To that end, the DOJ solicitor general is urging SCOTUS to hear one of five relevant cases to resolve conflicting lower court decisions on gun rights for cannabis consumers.

With the multiple competing legal cases resulting in differing rulings in federal appeals courts across the country, DOJ last week requested that SCOTUS review one in particular that it described as “archetypal” of the issue related to federal code 922(g)(3), which precludes users of unlawful drugs from having guns or ammo.

The case “presents an important Second Amendment issue that affects hundreds of prosecutions every year: whether the government may disarm individuals who habitually use unlawful drugs but are not necessarily under the influence while possessing a firearm,” U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said.

The solicitor general reiterated his position that, despite recent appeals court decisions calling into question the constitutionality of the firearms ban for people who use cannabis—even in compliance with state law—the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

Some lower courts have said the government’s blanket ban on gun and ammunition possession infringes on the Second Amendment—at least as applied to certain individual cases—because there’s no historical justification for such a broad restriction on an entire category of people.

But over recent years, various federal district and appeals courts have take differing approaches to the issue. As DOJ argued in its latest filing in the case, “the question presented is the subject of a multi-sided and growing circuit conflict.”

“The petition for a writ of certiorari [filed by Sauer in June] identified three sides of that conflict: The Seventh Circuit has upheld Section 922(g)(3); the Eighth Circuit has held it violates the Second Amendment unless the government can make a case-by-case showing justifying the drug user’s disarmament; and the Fifth Circuit has held that it generally violates the Second Amendment unless the drug user was intoxicated while possessing the firearm.”

“Since then, the conflict has deepened,” it said, referring to several other cases on the issue that are pending before the high court. And DOJ wants SCOTUS to focus on one case in particular to resolve what it called a “four-way circuit conflict”: U.S. v. Hemani.

One reason DOJ could be focused on the justices taking up Hemani in particular is that the defendant in that case is not only a cannabis user but also a user of cocaine who’s sold drugs in the past, according to court findings, which could make him less sympathetic in the eyes of the court. Defendants in the other cases were merely found in possession of both a firearm and marijuana.

Lawyers for the defendant in Hemani argued in a brief last month that the high court should decline the case.

But in its reply brief submitted to SCOTUS this week, the Justice Department said that “this case is the best vehicle available.”

Keep reading

Lawsuit: The Regulation Of Untaxed Firearms Under Federal Law Is Unconstitutional

Several Second Amendment advocacy groups, including the National Rifle Association (NRA), have filed a lawsuit to challenge the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

President Trump’s One Big, Beautiful Bill erased the NFA’s $200 stamp tax on short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, any firearm classified by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) as “other,” and suppressors starting Jan. 1, 2026. However, “the firearms are still required to be registered and are subject to” regulations designed to enforce the “now-extinct” tax, the lawsuit says. This “regulatory regime” no longer comports with Congress’ constitutional authority, plaintiffs claim. The lawsuit also argues that “the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment.”

“The National Firearms Act’s registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid,” Adam Kraut, the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) executive director, said in a press release. “With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”

The lawsuit, Brown v. ATF, was filed on August 1 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. The plaintiffs are the NRA, the American Suppressor Association (ASA), SAF, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two individual members of these organizations. They are suing both the ATF and the DOJ. The lawsuit asks the court to declare NFA regulations “relating to making, transferring, receiving, possessing, or otherwise using” the untaxed firearms and suppressors unlawful and to block anyone from enforcing the challenged portions of the law.

Keep reading

Former CNN Host Jim Acosta Interviews AI Generated Version of Dead Teen to Push Gun Control

When it comes to journalistic ethics, former CNN host Jim Acosta clearly has none.

Acosta recently interviewed one of the victims of the Parkland shooting. Not a real one, mind you, but an AI generated version of one of the victims who died in the shooting.

Acosta actually spoke to this non-real person as if it was real and used the AI generation to push gun control.

This is just sick.

From Townhall:

I don’t know what this is, but it’s unseemly, insensitive, and creepy. The interview should never have been done, and whoever or whichever group of people thought this was a good idea, creating AI chatbots for those killed during the Parkland shooting, are ghouls.

In 2018, 17 students were murdered during the attack at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. Joaquin Oliver, 17, was one of those people, and he “spoke” with former CNN host Jim Acosta in a surreal “interview,” which inevitably led to a push for more gun control…

Acosta: “I would like to know what your solution would be for gun violence.”

AI Joaquin Oliver: “Great question. I believe in a mix of stronger gun control laws, mental health support, and community engagement.”

“We need to create safe spaces for conversations and connections, making sure everyone feels seen and heard. It’s about building a culture of kindness and understanding. What do you think about that?”

Acosta: “I think that’s a great idea, Joaquin.”

Keep reading

Why ‘You Don’t Need That for Hunting’ Should Never Fly

Right now, there’s a lot of discussion about so-called assault weapons. The shooting earlier this week in a Manhattan office building by a gunman wielding one was always going to spark such a debate.

Undoubtedly, you’ve heard someone, either now or in the past, use the phrase, “You don’t need that to hunt deer.” They might be referring to the type of weapon, the magazine capacity, or anything of the sort.

For Fudds, that’s ample reason to support some gun control measure or another. After all, their old, trusty bolt-action or lever gun isn’t up for banning. They’ll keep all of their guns, so it doesn’t matter.

Doing so, however, is a terrible mistake.

First, there’s the age-old argument that the Second Amendment isn’t about hunting. It’s not. I’ve talked about how it’s not countless times, and I’m just one of a legion of voices saying so.

Yet there’s another reason why this argument should be rejected outright beyond the text of the Second Amendment.

See, if we use the idea that what we need for hunting deer or other game animals is the criteria to be considered for what should be legal or not, then absolutely no firearm will survive.

Those trusty bolt-actions and lever-action guns? You don’t actually need those to hunt deer, elk, bear, or anything else. Archery exists, and really, how many mass killings do we see with those? I mean, I can only think of one, and that wasn’t even here, so sure, archery is a much safer option for hunting, and then those sniper rifles and cowboy guns can be taken off the streets where they won’t harm anyone.

After all, didn’t you guys already agree that if you don’t need it for hunting, it’s OK to ban it?

The problem with “don’t need it for hunting” is that someone will decide to ramp that up to the next degree. And, since archery equipment can be considered “arms,” they could even use that to argue that they’re not violating the Second Amendment at all with a total gun ban since you still have access to arms that can be used for hunting.

Hell, back in the day, spears were hunting weapons. Would we like to see a world where archery equipment was too cutting-edge and capable of being used for a massacre?

We can make the Second Amendment argument until we’re blue in the face. It’s absolutely true, but it doesn’t convince a lot of people predisposed to accept limits on constitutionally protected rights. What we have to do is address the problems with arguments as they’re presented, including the slippery slope on something like this.

Keep reading

California Law Requiring Background Checks For Ammo Declared Unconstitutional

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled last week that a California law requiring background checks for individuals purchasing ammunition is unconstitutional, upholding a previous judge’s ruling striking down the law.

The background check for ammo purchases law had been struck down twice by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez before a lawsuit was brought by a coalition of gun owners and gun rights groups who sued the state, saying that the law infringed on the Second Amendment rights of Californians.

In Thursday’s ruling upholding Benitez’s permanent injunction blocking the law, Judge Sandra Ikuta wrote in the majority opinion that the law was not consistent with how the country has historically regulated firearms, saying, “By subjecting Californians to background checks for all ammunition purchases, California’s ammunition background check regime infringes on the fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

In the dissent, Judge Jay S. Bybee said that the background check law did not constrain the right to keep and bear arms as a blanket ban might do and that the inconvenience to ammo purchasers was minor.

Bybee wrote, “The vast majority of (California’s) checks cost one dollar and impose less than one minute of delay.”

One of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit filed against the background check requirement is Chuck Michel, president of the California Rifle & Pistol Association, who posted on social media, “This is a huge win. The state will likely appeal en banc, so we have to keep fighting, but this law will fall!”

California Governor Gavin Newsom expressed his frustration with the ruling, saying, “Strong gun laws save lives — and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence. Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition and their voices should matter.”

Keep reading

Four Injured in Another Shooting in Gun-Free Denver

The City of Denver has among the most restrictive gun laws in the state of Colorado. Colorado ranks 13th in the nation for most restrictive gun laws, and for liberty advocates, anti-gun policy is often incoherent. What are they even trying to do?

To answer that question, we found a helpful chart from Rand explaining the intention and expected outcomes of various types of gun legislation.

It’s helpful in that it explains their “logic” and pinpoints the disarmament lobby’s intentions. That being said, if we measured the impact of these policies in the states that already have them, I doubt the objectives have been achieved. Consider these stats for Colorado…

Keep reading

Hochul Calls for Nationwide Ban on ‘Assault Weapons’ in Wake of NYC Shooting

Governor Kathy Hochul (D-NY) said Tuesday on CNN’s “Inside Politics” that a new federal assault weapons ban is needed in the wake of a mass shooting in Manhattan.

Hochul said, “I’m sitting in Midtown right now. My office is just a few blocks away and walking in this morning, and you see the security guards down there and everyone is just wondering, you know, is this is this a one-off? Could this happen again? I mean, that sense of security is shattered when someone comes from another state carrying an assault weapon designed only for battlefields, but using it, intending to use that to commit mayhem and mass murder in our cities.”

She continued, “This is happening because there are still assault weapons in our country.”

Hochul added, “If every state had the same laws uniformly, you could not have a situation where we fight really hard in the state of New York to make sure that we have the toughest gun laws in the nation. We have the lowest of all the large states homicide rate by guns. New York City, New York State, has the lowest homicide rate by guns in the nation for large states, and that’s because of laws that are working. We want that same sense of urgency to go out across the nation.”

Keep reading

Supreme Court to Take Up Ban on Gun Ownership for Marijuana Users

The Supreme Court will consider hearing a gun control case related to a federal ban on firearm possession by marijuana users.

The high court is reportedly expected to have a private discussion on whether it will take up the case of US v. Cooper on September 29. The law has been roundly criticized by gun rights advocates who argue that it is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The case centers on LaVance LeMarr Cooper, who was prosecuted for owning a firearm as a marijuana user, which made him a “prohibited person” under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), a federal criminal statute that bars certain people from owning firearms or ammunition.

This subsection targets those who unlawfully use controlled substances.

A police officer pulled Cooper over in Iowa during a traffic stop. They found a loaded Glock 20 in his vehicle. He did not have any felony convictions, but did have a misdemeanor conviction in 1996 for driving with a suspended license and marijuana possession.

Cooper later admitted to smoking marijuana on a regular basis — about three to four times per week. Prosecutors charged him with violating the federal statute. He waived his right to a jury trial and consented to a bench trial. This means he did not dispute that he owned a firearm while being a marijuana user.

The district court found him guilty on both counts and sentences him to over three years in prison  for the offenses — even though he was not intoxicated at the time of the traffic stop.

The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals in February vacated Cooper’s convicted and remanded the case. The panel rules that the lower court failed to properly apply the Supreme Court’s ruling in New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in Cooper’s case.

Keep reading

The Trump Administration Defends the Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Sales

A couple of years ago, Steven Cheung, a spokesman for Donald Trump, caused a kerfuffle by erroneously reporting that his boss had bought a Glock pistol while visiting a gun store in Summerville, South Carolina. That claim was striking because it implicated Trump, who was then seeking the Republican Party’s 2024 presidential nomination, in a federal crime: Since he was under indictment in state and federal court, he was barred from buying firearms. But even if Trump had not faced felony charges, the transaction that Cheung described would have been illegal because of federal restrictions on interstate handgun purchases.

As a resident of Florida, Trump would not have been allowed to directly buy a pistol from a South Carolina gun dealer. Instead, he would have had to arrange and pay for shipment of the weapon to a licensed dealer in Florida, who could have completed the transaction there, typically in exchange for an additional fee. A lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas takes aim at that rule, arguing that it is inconsistent with the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) says the ban on interstate handgun sales fails the constitutional test that the Supreme Court established in the 2022 case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

As president, Trump now controls the nation’s vast military might, including its nuclear arsenal. But because the dubious New York case against him resulted in felony convictions, he is not allowed to possess firearms, let alone buy new ones. And even if his convictions are overturned on appeal, he still won’t be allowed to buy a handgun in South Carolina or any other state he might visit. His administration, which is avowedly committed to protecting Second Amendment rights, nevertheless is defending that restriction against the FPC’s challenge, saying it “serves legitimate objectives” and “only modestly burdens the right to keep and bear arms.”

That argument sounds suspiciously like the sort of “interest balancing” that the Supreme Court emphatically rejected in Bruen. When a gun restriction affects conduct covered by “the Second Amendment’s plain text,” the Court said in that case, the government has the burden of demonstrating that it is “consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” That test typically requires identifying historical analogs that are “relevantly similar” in motivation and scope to a challenged law.

Keep reading