Tag: gun control

American with ‘CIA’ credentials and variety of weapons arrested in Mexico

An American national with credentials that read “CIA” has been arrested in Mexico on weapons charges, Mexican authorities said Saturday. 

The unidentified man was arrested “for his probable involvement in the crimes of disturbing the peace and possession of weapons designated for exclusive use by the Army,” according to the Secretariat of Security of the State of Mexico.

Authorities found six firearms, magazines, live ammunition and tactical equipment, the agency said.

“The individual was carrying a credential with the inscription ‘CIA’,” authorities wrote on X.

Images posted by the security agency showed rifles, handguns, tactical vests, helmets, pocket knives and ammunition. 

The State Department told Fox News that it was aware of reports of the man’s arrest. 

An agency spokesperson said it has no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens abroad.

​’When a U.S. citizen is detained abroad, the department works to provide consular assistance,” the spokesperson said.

Mexican authorities have not disclosed any additional details about the man’s arrest or why he was in the country. 

Keep reading

Senate GOP focuses on law enforcement to stop Mexican cartels, Democrats blame U.S. gun industry

Senate Democrats and Republicans are taking a widely different view of the issue of Mexican cartels’ smuggling and gun violence and how to stop it – with Democrats appearing to continue to focus on the U.S. firearms industry while Republicans focus on investigative efforts and the dangers that cartel members pose to law enforcement and other Americans.

The largely disparate views were recently highlighted during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing titled “The Thin Blue Line Protecting America from the Cartels.”

“Today’s hearing focuses on the very real threat of Mexican drug cartels and the lengths law enforcement goes to defend Americans,” Iowa Sen. Chuck Grassly, the committee’s top Republican, said at the June hearing. 

“These are the folks who enforce the law at great personal cost. As of late, they’ve been pelted with rocks, assaulted with homemade explosives … . And yet, they continue to hold the line against one of the greatest national security threats to America – Mexican drug cartels.”

Among the three federal law enforcement officials to testify at the June 17 hearing was the Drug Enforcement Administration’s Matthew Allen.

“In my 22 years-plus in the DEA … . I’ve experienced several instances of cartels and criminal organizations surveilling our people, both in Mexico and the United States,” said Allen the special agent in charge of the agency’s Los Angeles Field Division. “I’ve personally lost several friends on this job – two of them, very close friends of mine. It’s a dangerous job.”

Grassley also warned about the dangers of cartel members infiltrating the United States, citing the son-in-law of Ruben Oseguera Cervantes – known as “El Mencho” and the leader of Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generacion, a major drug-trafficking organization in Mexico – living in Southern California under a fake name until his arrest last year. 

Prosecutors say the son-in-law, Cristian Fernando Gutierrez Ocho, faked his own death and fled to the U.S. to avoid Mexican authorities after kidnapping two members of the Mexican Navy in 2021. He is also accused of conspiring to import thousands of kilograms of methamphetamine and cocaine into the U.S.

Allen said agents working on a tip arrested him in a gated community, “just down the street from the chief of police.”

Grassley also hammered away at Democrats on the committee as they appeared to zero-in on U.S. gun dealers as a major factor in cartel violence. 

“It was Democrats who threw open our southern border,” he argued. 

Illegal border crossings surged during the previous Biden administration, with at least 7.2 million migrants purportedly encountered from January 2021 to January 2024.

Keep reading

New Jersey Democrats Unleash Onslaught of Gun Control Bills

At this point, you’d think that New Jersey lawmakers would have run out of ways to harass gun owners, but sadly, that is not the case. In fact, the Senate Law & Public Safety Committee is meeting today to consider a whopping 18 different gun control bills.

Keep in mind that the state already requires a permit to purchase a firearm, and a separate permit to carry. There’s a 7-day waiting period on all firearm transfers, and person-to-person sales are now allowed. New Jersey has a ban on so-called assault weapons and magazines that can hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Those gun owners who do possess a valid carry permit are barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights in scores of locations, though the state’s “gun-free zones” are the subject of ongoing litigation in federal court. 

Despite all those laws, Democrats still have an appetite for more. From NRA-ILA:

Some of the worst bills on the agenda include:

S.1558 makes it a first-degree crime (up to 20 years in jail) to transport, ship, or even dispose of a firearm without a serial number. There is no exception for previously owned historical firearms that were lawfully manufactured and lawfully acquired without a serial number.

S.3893 prescribes penalties for the sale and possession of “machine gun conversion devices.” Such devices are already banned at both the state and federal levels.

S.3894 creates a crime for possession of digital instructions to illegally manufacture firearms or firearm components. This legislation creates a crime even if someone never produces a gun or component—simply possessing a digital file for a component makes you a criminal.

S.3895 expands the crime of reckless discharge. Discharging a firearm in New Jersey is already illegal unless done “for a lawful purpose,” which is an affirmative defense. Now, every time a firearm is used—even in legitimate self-defense situations, prosecutors will have more tools to harass law-abiding gun owners. 

S.3706 mandates the use of Merchant Category Codes. This is nothing more than government-sanctioned snooping that can be used to create a firearms registry or discriminate against gun owners and lawful businesses.

S.3896 attempts to criminalize lawful self-defense with a firearm. Though cloaked in language focusing on criminal misconduct by bad actors, the operative portion of the bill is not limited to bad actors and allows prosecution for self-defense where a firearm is discharged.

S.3900 allows imprisonment before trial for an unlimited amount of time when someone is merely accused of a firearms offense. If someone is accused of a gun crime, the government gets to lock them up and throw away the key while they await trial.

S.3894, is an assault on our First Amendment rights as well as our right to keep and bear arms. It’s never been a federal crime to manufacture your own firearm, and New Jersey’s criminalization of that act is already constitutionally suspect. Making it a crime to possess a digital file or lines of code that can aid in that manufacture is at least as egregious. Code is speech, whether New Jersey Democrats want to acknowledge that or not, and prohibiting the possession or dissemination of a code that can create a constitutionally-protected item (with the help of a 3D printer or CNC machine) is an act of authoritarianism overreach. 

Keep reading

Letting Marijuana Users Have Guns Poses ‘A Clear Danger,’ Trump’s Solicitor General Tells Supreme Court

In a recent filing with the U.S. Supreme Court, the Trump-led Department of Justice (DOJ) is doubling down on arguments made under former President Joe Biden that users of illegal drugs—including marijuana—”pose a clear danger of misusing firearms.”

That risk, DOJ contends, justifies the longstanding federal prohibition on gun ownership by drug consumers—known as Section 922(g)(3)—despite the Constitution’s broad Second Amendment protections.

In a petition for review by the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argues that despite recent appeals court decisions calling the constitutionality of the firearms ban into question, the restriction is nevertheless lawful.

“Section 922(g)(3) complies with the Second Amendment,” the government’s June 2 filing in the case, U.S. v. Hemani, says. “That provision targets a category of persons who pose a clear danger of misusing firearms: habitual users of unlawful drugs.”

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 in the appeal petition in Hemani, Trump’s solicitor general said the ban is necessary and narrowly tailored enough to survive the legal challenge.

The federal statute “bars their possession of firearms only temporarily and leaves it within their power to lift the restriction at any time; anyone who stops habitually using illegal drugs can resume possessing firearms.”

Notably, while the government mentions “habitual” users of illegal drugs 40 times in its filing, that word does not itself appear in 922(g)(3). The language of the statute prohibits anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from purchasing or possessing firearms or ammunition.

A reply brief from Hemani’s lawyers is due to the Supreme Court by July 21.

While DOJ is asking the high court to take up the Hemani case, at least two other, similar cases are waiting in the wings: U.S. v. Cooper and U.S. v. Baxter both of which also hinge on the constitutionality of 922(g)(3).

In Cooper, an Eighth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals panel dismissed a three-year prison sentence against a person convicted for possession of a firearm while being an active user of marijuana. Judges in that case ruled that government’s prohibition on gun ownership by drug users is justified only in certain circumstances—not always.

“Nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [the defendant] belongs to a category of people, drug users, that Congress has categorically deemed dangerous,” their ruling said.

In Baxter, the Eighth Circuit ruled 922(g)(3) unconstitutional as applied to the facts in the case.

Judges in that case wrote that there were insufficient factual findings in the record “for this Court to review Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge.” Nevertheless, the they wrote, “We reverse the district court’s ruling on Baxter’s as-applied Second Amendment challenge and remand to the district court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”

Keep reading

Rhode Island Democrats Ban Sale, Manufacture of ‘Assault Weapons’

Rhode Island’s Democrat-run legislature passed a bill Friday banning the instate sale and manufacture of “assault weapons.”

The measure now heads to Gov. Dan McKee’s (D) desk.

The Associated Press reported that state Rep. Rebecca Kislak (D) contended for the ban, suggesting it is “an incremental move that brings Rhode Island in line with neighboring states.”

The ban “only applies to the sale and manufacturing of assault weapons and not possession.”

Gov. McKee reacted to Friday’s passage of the ban with an X post, saying: I’m proud that Rhode Island took an important step forward in protecting our communities from gun violence. I included an assault weapons ban in my budget for this very reason — and as a result, tonight we saw progress.

Keep reading

Ninth Circuit Unanimously Upholds Second Amendment Foundation Victory Over California’s Unconstitutional “One-Gun‑Per‑Month” Rationing Law

In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delivered a resounding victory for individual rights, unanimously reaffirming a lower court’s judgment that California’s “one‑gun‑per‑month” law is firmly unconstitutional.

The case—Nguyen v. Bonta—was brought by a coalition of individual plaintiffs and pro-Second Amendment organizations, including the Firearms Policy Coalition and the Second Amendment Foundation.

The plaintiffs challenged California’s draconian law, which prohibits law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one firearm within any 30-day period, according to Breitbart.

Judge Danielle J. Forrest, joined by Bridget S. Bade and John B. Owens, delivered a plain-text, history-grounded dismissal of the law.

Writing for the majority, Judge Forrest stated:

California has a “one-gun-a-month” law that prohibits most people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period. The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm. California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.

The court concluded that the government cannot limit the frequency of a citizen’s right to acquire firearms—comparing it to limiting free speech to one protest per month or religious freedom to one worship service a month.

The opinion rejected California’s typical defense that its law was meant to prevent so-called “straw purchases” and illegal gun trafficking.

The court found that there is “no historical cousin” to California’s one-gun-a-month scheme. The decision emphasized that nothing in America’s constitutional tradition justifies this kind of blanket limitation.

Keep reading

Government finally recognizes the Second Amendment

How far has America fallen when the DOJ’s Civil Rights division files an amicus brief with the Supreme Court supporting the Second Amendment against Illinois, and that filing is unusual? How can it be that the DOJ defending a fundamental, unalienable, express constitutional right should be rare, so rare as to be surprising, even astonishing?

If Democrats and their media propaganda arm are to be believed, Donald Trump is a dictator bent on destroying “our democracy.” Ironically, they’re right. He is determined to destroy “our—their—democracy,” which is a tyranny of the majority. That’s why Dems are so desperate to keep every illegal in the country. They want that 50.0000001%, which in a democracy rules. In “our democracy” the majority can deprive the minority of property, rights, liberty, even life. Thus did Biden’s Handler’s Forestry Service try to imprison South Dakota ranchers Charles and Heather Maude over a fence built before they were born. Under “our democracy” they would have gone to jail for ten years leaving their children without their parents. Under our constitutional, representative republic, the charges were dropped.

Such is the tyranny of Donald Trump who ordered his Administration to protect the Second Amendment rights of Americans. “Our Democracy,” like all would-be tyrants, wants to disarm all Americans. Trump, the dictator, wants American’s Second Amendment rights protected.

The issue in this case is Illinois’ violation of the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision by banning “assault weapons,” primarily AR-15s, the most popular rifle in America, and “high capacity” magazines—actually, standard capacity magazines.  Thus are Illinois’ Democrat rulers part of “our democracy” rather than America’s representative republic.

Keep reading

Trump DOJ Files Amicus Brief Supporting Challenge to Illinois ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban

On June 13, 2025, the Civil Rights Division of President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice announced the filing of an amicus brief supporting an NRA lawsuit against Illinois’ “assault weapons” ban.

The brief was announced by Assistant Attorney General for DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Harmeet Dhillon. In a post to X, Dhillon noted, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right. See you in court, Illinois.”

The amicus brief’s introduction points to Bruen (2022) and says in part:

Three years ago, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision meant to break a habit developed by some States of treating the Second Amendment as “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other” constitutional rights. …[Bruen] (2022).

Regrettably, not every State got the message. Just a few months after Bruen, Illinois outlawed some of the most commonly used rifles and magazines in America via a so-called “assault weapons” ban. In doing so,  Illinois violated the Supreme Court’s clear directive that States cannot prohibit arms that are “in common use” by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. …[Heller] (2008).

Keep reading

ATF to Return Legal Gun Parts, Leaving 16 Blue State AGs to Suffer a Collective Meltdown

The whole “bump stock” hooraw has been settled, for the time being, following the Trump administration’s settling of a lawsuit brought by the National Association for Gun Rights. These devices, more properly called “forced-reset triggers,” allow for firing a semi-automatic rifle more quickly, at the cost of some accuracy. In the interests of complete reporting, we should note that the action of one of these devices can be duplicated with such readily available things as rubber bands or belt loops. Following the settlement, the ATF has been ordered to return some 100,000 seized devices to their rightful owners.

To summarize, 100,000 pieces of legally owned private property are being returned to their owners.

So, of course, 16 blue state attorneys general are screeching and soiling themselves in terror. They are demanding that these people not be given back their property, and as is typical, they don’t even know what they’re talking about. Consider this, from Colorado’s AG, Phil Weiser:

“The law is clear: Machine guns, and devices that turn a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun, are illegal,” Weiser said in a statement. “We’re suing to stop the ATF and the administration from making our communities more dangerous by distributing thousands of devices that turn firearms into weapons of war.”

Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. These are not machine guns, and they cannot turn a semi-automatic weapon into a machine gun. With or without a forced-reset trigger, the weapon functions the same: One shot for each trigger pull. The device makes it easier to fire more quickly, but so can a thumb thrust through a belt loop. 

Furthermore, machine guns are not illegal. The supply is restricted, they are very expensive, and one has to go through a defined process to own one, including a background check and payment of a “transfer tax.” But they are not illegal. Given money and patience, any law-abiding citizen can legally own one. Like this guy does.

Keep reading

Michigan Senate Dems Pass Bump Stock Ban, ‘Ghost Gun’ Regulations

Michigan Senate Democrats in the Judiciary Committee passed bills Thursday that will ban bump stocks and require serialization on so-called “ghost guns.”

WVNEWS reported that state Sen. Dayna Polehanki (D) sponsored SB 224, which is the bump stock ban.

Polehanki described bump stocks as “destructive weapons of war,” adding, “And let me be clear: these are not tools for sport or self-defense. Bump stocks are used to inflict maximum harm in seconds, and their continued availability puts every one of our communities at risk. That’s unacceptable, and it’s time for a change.”

The bills related to so-called “ghost guns” were sponsored by state Sen. Mallory McMorrow (D). These pieces of legislation ban “the purchase, possession and distribution of firearms without valid serial numbers.”

McMorrow contended that gun control laws must change as quickly as does the technology to build guns, saying, “Just as rapidly as new weapon production methods emerge and evolve, so too must our laws and public safety efforts. Our communities deserve nothing less.”

More gun control, pushed by state Sen. Rosemary Bayer (D), would ban open and concealed carry on Michigan Capitol grounds and in the Anderson House Office Building.

Keep reading