Tag: gun free zones

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

The Moral Problem With Most Gun Free Zones

Let’s start with a thought experiment. Suppose I push you into deep water as part of a swimming lesson. Because you do not know how to swim, you start desperately trying to keep yourself afloat, but to no avail. Now suppose further that I do nothing to rescue you, and as a result, you drown. My actions in this scenario are tantamount to murder. I intentionally placed you in a situation of great vulnerability and then refused to provide for you. Your rights were egregiously violated by my refusal to do anything.

The moral principle behind this thought experiment is the following: if I knowingly cause you to exist in a state of great need or vulnerability, then I am responsible for providing for you. If I do not, then I am negligent. If my negligence leads to your death, then I am guilty of murder.

This principle is enshrined in the legal system as part of the state-created danger doctrine. If the government does something that puts someone into a position of danger, it bears a special responsibility to provide for that individual’s safety. If it fails to do this, then it may be held liable for any harms that result.

What’s This Got to Do with Gun-Free Zones?

This principle has direct relevance for so-called “gun-free zones.” These are locations in which the government has declared, using the threat of punishment to force compliance, that carrying firearms is prohibited. In coercively requiring us to disarm, the government intentionally handicaps our ability to effectively and reasonably protect ourselves.

Keep reading

Wisconsin Democrats Fight to End Campus Carry for Self-Defense

Wisconsin Democrats, led by state Sen. Kelda Roys (D), are pushing a ban that would end licensed concealed carriers’ ability to be armed for self-defense on college campuses.

On September 4, 2025, the University of Wisconsin-Madison’s Daily Cardinal reported on Roys’ proposed ban, noting that it would “make it illegal for anyone — including those who have concealed carry licenses — to possess a firearm anywhere on university or college property.”

Roys commented on the ban, saying, “When people have unfettered access to firearms, we can’t live free from the fear of gun violence.”

She did not point to any gun crime committed on campus by a licensed concealed carrier.

It is worth noting that the ban would exempt police officers, although police have historically been convicted of gun crimes at a higher rate than concealed carry permit holders.

On May 27, 2017, Breitbart News pointed to data John Lott drew from concealed carry permit revocations and quoted him: “Permits have been revoked for firearms-related violations at rates of thousandths of one percentage point. Civilian permit holders are less likely than police officers to be convicted of a firearms violation.”

Keep reading

Thomas Massie Introduces Repeal of Gun-Free School Zones Act

Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) is pushing a repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990) in order to make it easier for law-abiding teachers, faculty, and others, to be armed to fend off would-be attackers on school campuses.

The Gun-Free School Zones Act was put in place by President George H.W. Bush (R), barring the possession of a firearm in a “school zone” and thereby creating myriad gun-free soft targets in places filled with defenseless children, teachers, and school staff.

Massie wants to see the Gun-Free School Zones Act repealed as a way of removing the soft target moniker from schools around the country.

Gun Owners of America praised Massie’s push, saying, “Congress needs to abandon the failed federal gun-free schools policy & arm willing teachers instead!”

Keep reading

Gun-Free Zones Like Fort Stewart Invite Mass Shootings

On Wednesday, another mass shooting unfolded — this time at Fort Stewart military base in Georgia. A male Army sergeant, who illegally carried a gun on the base, wounded five soldiers before others tackled and disarmed him.

Typically, only authorized designated security forces such as MPs are armed on duty. Any other soldier caught carrying a firearm faces severe consequences, ranging from a rank reduction, court-martial, potential criminal convictions, dishonorable discharge, forfeiture of pay, and even imprisonment.

So why would a soldier risk such harsh penalties? Because if you’re the attacker, planning to murder fellow soldiers, gun control laws won’t stop you. If you expect to die in the assault, as most mass public shooters do, extra years added to your sentence mean nothing. Even if you survive, you already anticipate multiple life sentences or the death penalty.

But for law-abiding soldiers, those same rules carry enormous weight. Carrying a gun for self-defense could turn them into felons and destroy their futures. These gun control policies disarm the innocent while encouraging a determined killer to attack there as they will know that they are the only ones who will be armed.

Yes, military police guard entrances, but like civilian police, they can’t be everywhere. Military bases function like cities, and MPs face the same limitations as police responding to off-base mass shootings.

Consider the attacks at the Navy Yard, both Fort Hood shootings, and the Chattanooga recruiting station. In each case, unarmed JAG officers, Marines, and soldiers had no choice but to hide while the attacker fired shot after shot.

Army Chief of Staff General Mark Milley, then commander of Third Corps stationed at Fort Hood, testified to Congress about the second attack there: “We have adequate law enforcement on those bases to respond … those police responded within eight minutes and that guy was dead.” But eight minutes was simply too long for the three soldiers who were murdered and the 12 others who were wounded.

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

FSU Students Lobbied for Gun Control Before Mass Shooting and Completely Missed the Point

Days before the mass shooting at Florida State University in Tallahassee, students at the school advocated against a Senate bill that would introduce temporary sales tax cuts on firearms and ammunition from September 8 until December 31.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced the bill earlier this year when he declared there would be a “Second Amendment Summer.”

The South Florida Sun Sentinel documented testimony from some of the students.

Dakota Bages, 20, is a college sophomore from Weston and one of many young people from Broward and Palm Beach counties who attend Florida State University, where the latest school shooting occurred Thursday.

She and others went to the Capitol last Tuesday to register their strong opposition to a Senate bill whose purpose is to get more people to buy guns.

As part of an array of tax cuts, Senate Bill 7034 exempts guns and ammunition from the 6% statewide sales tax for four months this year, from Sept. 8 until Dec. 31.

Bages said she believes in responsible gun ownership, and that her boyfriend’s stepfather, a retired Broward firefighter, safely owns and maintains firearms.

The students do not believe that it’s a good idea to put more guns into more and more hands in Florida.

“Until serious mental health reform is made in our state, we cannot make weapons any more accessible to people who seek to use them for the wrong reasons,” Bages told members of the Senate Finance & Tax Committee.

Bages said rural Putnam County near Jacksonville, which declared itself a “Second Amendment sanctuary,” had four times as many gun-related suicides as the state average in 2022 (the data is from the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at Johns Hopkins University).

Keep reading

Red Flag Law, Gun-Free Zones, Increased Minimum Firearm Purchase Age Fail to Prevent FSU Shooting

Florida’s red flag law, gun-free college/university campus zones, and increased minimum purchase age for long guns failed to prevent Thursday’s FSU shooting.

Breitbart News reported at least six people were injured in the shooting and a suspect is under arrest.

He was reportedly armed with a shotgun and a handgun. CNN noted that the shotgun was found in the FSU student union and the handgun was still in the suspect’s possession when law enforcement apprehended him.

The shooting occurred despite Florida’s red flag law, university gun-free zones, increased minimum purchase age for long guns, and waiting period for handgun purchases.

Keep reading

Colorado legislators to consider banning guns from ‘sensitive spaces’

Colorado lawmakers are considering a bill that would ban guns — whether they’re carried openly or concealed — from “sensitive spaces” such as public parks, community centers, churches and adjacent parking areas.

Senate Bill 24-131 was filed this week by a group of Democratic lawmakers.

It’s the latest sign lawmakers are gearing up for another gun control debate in the state legislature. Only a handful of gun bills have been introduced so far this year, but more are expected.

Behind the scenes, lawmakers are said to be discussing anywhere from 10 to 17 different pieces of legislation. All of them likely won’t be introduced, but people on both sides of the debate are keeping a close eye on developments.

As executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a gun rights group, Taylor Rhodes is a busy man.

“It’s gonna be a marathon this year,” Rhodes said.

His group has spent millions of dollars in court fighting gun control laws passed by Colorado lawmakers.

Keep reading