I'd love to hear those words come out of one of the SCOTUS jurist's mouth.

Sheriff refuses to return guns.
6th circuit rules that 2nd Amendment right of people to “keep” arms applies and requires application of Bruen methodology.

https://www.opn.ca6.uscourts.gov/opi...5a0162p-06.pdf

The biggest issue I can see with the “Zero Tax” on these NFA items is that congress didn’t eliminate the tax, they set it to zero. The courts will likely say something along the lines of “there is still a tax, even if it’s ’zero dollars’ so the NFA restrictions WRT ownership and registration are still valid IAW the tax-powers”……

I wish it was different, but this is how I see this turning out.

ETA: My biggest concern is now that the seal has been broken on the almost century’s old $200 stamp, and the spotlight brought on this nominal amount in current dollars, when (not if) the left regains control of the leavers of power, they can / will set the tax to ~$5,000 (the approximate inflation corrected number from 1934 to 2025) or more……

ALL gun laws are infringements, including taxing the right to keep (own) and bear (carry) arms (guns, knives, swords). ATF should be a convenience store on every major intersection, not a government agency!

Given the opportunity, the Communist Party-D & -R factions will probably raise the "tax" so high no one can afford to buy any NFA items.

That suppressors and SBR's weren't completely removed from the NFA is completely the fault of spineless Republicans who allowed a Democrat appointed parliamentarian to alter the bill.

!!
 

I read all about the parliamentarian (this particular one and the position in general)
This one is "liked" by both sides; not much surprise there. She rulled on the Byrd Rule that this part could not be included
https://epicforamerica.org/federal-b...the-byrd-rule/

The President of the Senate, JD Vance, can override the parliamentarian

Needless to say I'm pissed at the whole senate!!

That was absolutely the original intent. Like others, I'm surprised no one ever crafted a statute that "adjusts for inflation." But it was meant to be prohibitive plain & simple.

5th circuit rules that carrying a concealed firearm is presumptively lawful:

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinion...-30777-CR0.pdf

At the top of the decision:

The principal question presented is whether police can Terry stop a
citizen based solely on the fact that he is carrying a concealed firearm. The
answer is emphatically “no.”

I'm not smart.

How can a Terry stop justification be based on "the fact" that I am carrying a concealed firearm when you can't determine that "fact" until I am stopped and searched ??
...could have been a phone
...or a taser
...or a hunting knife
...or a collapsible baton
...or a steel dildo - who knows

My follow on question is just as quizzical to me...
Now that we have established that Terry stops based on "the fact" (or in Boxes world, the assumption) that I am carrying a firearm are not presumptively lawful, how does that impact "me the people" in as much as I don't normally carry a backpack full of whacky weed that might also get me arrest for drug possession.

My confusion is this:

I read the ruling until I could feel my eyes starting to bleed and can't figure out how this ruling impacts a law abiding citizen.
Does this inherently imply that constitutional carry is indirectly a thing now - because you cant search me if you "fact" that I have a concealed firearm?

It sounds like this is a really great ruling for the local street thugs - but how does it make the lives of "me the people" better?

The carrying of a pistol, concealed or unconcealed, has become “the new normal” in many states.

A police officer may progress from “reasonable suspicion” to “probable cause” and therefore progress from “stop and talk” to “stop and frisk” (Terry stop) only upon observing evidence that a reasonable person would believe disclosed a violation of the law.

When the simple possession of a pistol is no longer a violation of the law, it will be more difficult for a police officer to justify a “frisk” (a pat down to discover weapons), much less a search (go into pockets, backpacks, shopping bags, etc.).

All of which is an interesting exercise in 4th Amendment / 5th Amendment law, but in my opinion …

… has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment, or the topic of this thread.

The 2nd Amendment has been raised in self-defense cases, in defense of home cases, in protection from criminals.

I WILL SPEAK BLUNTLY:

None of those have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment.

When John Hinkley shot President Reagen, when Lee Harvey Oswald shot President Kennedy, there was a massive outcry that “more gun control” was needed.

And I argued with my liberal friends, who boldly proclaimed to me:

“Well, the 2nd Amendment was never designed to allow citizens to be able to shoot at the President.”

And I tactlessly replied:

“You idiot, that EXACTLY why the 2nd Amendment was passed. It was passed so that We The People can, should the need arise, shoot the President. And the FBI, and the Army/Navy, CIA, etc.”

Then I asked them: “At whom did George Washington assemble an Army, load weapons, and open fire.?”

They say: “The British.”

And I reply: “You need to study your history. George Washington WAS British.”
In the eyes of the law, he was a British as Lord Cornwallis. A British citizen, under the authority of the King.

No, Paul Revere et al. did not call out “The British are coming.” Paul Revere was equally British, too.

Revere's warning, according to eyewitness accounts of the ride and Revere's own descriptions, was "The Regulars are coming out."

Who?

The Regular Army of his Majesty, of the legitimate government.

When the colonists lowered their rifles and opened fire, who were they shooting at?

Their own government! The 18th century version of the legitimate: Army, the Navy, the FBI, the CIA, the Secret Service, the BATFE, etc.

And when the revolutionaries won their revolution, they passed a constitution.

Soon after, realizing that the only reason they were able to create The United States of America was because they had possession of weapons (including cannon, in addition to pistols and rifles). So added, as the Number Two Amendment to what is commonly called the Bill of Rights, our founding fathers made clear – in the second amendment – that the right of “the people” to have firearms is necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be infringed.

The Second Amendment is intended to ensure that we, the people, the body of the citizenry armed (also known as the militia) have the ability to remove a dictator and refute tyranny. It presupposes that we -- the militia -- are persons of sound judgment and are law abiding.

Anyway, that's my opinion, and it ought to be yours.

9th circuit affirms permanent injunction against California law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto.../24/24-542.pdf

CSB - spot-effing-on.

Remember, a "Terry" stop is NOT authority to stop someone. That's circular logic. You must have a reason to interact with someone to stop them and engage. THEN, you may do pat down to ensure the lack of weapons or the like for Officer safety.

Reminds me of a story a former Operator told me when he went to work for the Air Marshals: He was presenting his creds at the entrance to the gates as he was required to and the agent wanted him to walk through the metal detector. He explained again who he was, why he was there, and showed his creds again. They still wanted him to walk through the detector.

He asked: "what is it you are looking for?"

answer: "Weapons."

He then pulls out his weapons and places them on the table and says "now what?"

They STILL had him go through the metal detector.


We were howling.

THAT is what I was hoping a smart person would tell me.

Part of my unlegal brain assumed that everything you just said was true - he other part just wondered because I don't know ALL of the laws.

I DO however - often argue with those around me - all of the same things you brought up. Taking my guns isn't just a 2nd amendment thing it is a MULTI amendment thing...
...guns aren't just for hunting, they are for shooting tyrannical power grabbers, bullies, rouge agents, etc etc

Thank you for that.

How does the law in many states, including NC, require that concealed weapons permit holders, announce upon initial contact with law enforcement that they are permit holders and that they are armed?

Isn't there a Constitutional issue here, particularly 5th Amendment?

Is it Constitutional for the prohibited person (felon) in possession of a weapon to be forced to admit the concealed carry violation to the LEO before even being questioned?

TR

So - its been quite some time since I did my CCW class - but I went again and sat with my daughter when she went through the course that a friend of mine runs.
It's neat to say "officer, have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and I have my firearm with me in the car" to show that you are a law abiding citizen "playing the game"
...but why

When he runs your DL he is going to KNOW that you have CCW.

Why play the game if they will know as soon as they run your license?
Running the license of a CCW holder that was decent enough to pay the government required extortion money required to "legally" carry your own property on your person seems like a low threat...
...you've got my fucking finger prints on file
...you KNOW that I've probably got a gun on me
...as opposed to some fucking smelly thug with a dank cloud of smoke drifting from his window

It's because the government demands that law abiding citizens bend a knee.
Meanwhile lifetime criminal drug addicts are celebrated as heroes.



I dont want to sound like a hater - but lawfare is such bullshit - and those who play lawfare games are even more bullshit.

I knew I liked you for a reason!

There's a blue team too, you know . . . I was just with a bunch of them in DC and they are doing great things.

I dont doubt that - I just they were a little more visible - to the moderately uninformed (like myself) they seem to do a lot of hibernating. The undesirables certainly seem to be more active in the public eye.

It would be nice to see the good guys smack somebody across the lips every so often.

Hear! Hear! Those are the most vital historical facts that most people are either ignorant of or incapable of grasping. Then there's the group that understands it, but chooses to argue for "hunting".

Another lawsuit targeting the NFA:

https://assets.nationbuilder.com/fir...pdf?1754092754

Chippin' away... Thanks for posting.

Cert for Duncan v. Bonta filed:
(California magazine ban)

https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedi...t-petition.pdf

The case was already GVR’d once.
This is a good vehicle to address magazine bans, and may help with other weapons ban cases.

The 9th circuit was openly defiant of SCOTUS in their ruling.
Good chance cert will be granted, and the issue settled.

Yeah, there we go. That's the 9th Circuit I know & loathe.
:cool:

SCOTUS took this up 4 years ago today.
Thanks to Trump’s appointments, it became THE critical 2nd Amendment victory.

Still bearing fruit.
It’s scary to imagine what would’ve happened had the decision gone the other way.

Gun-Rights Groups Chafe at DC Takeover Tactics, Gun Arrests
 

Being at a higher level than for the State/Local thread thought I'd put this here. Interesting take on the goings-on in Mordor on the Potomac. From The Reload, linked here.
------
Gun-Rights Groups Chafe at DC Takeover Tactics, Gun Arrests
Stephen Gutowski August 22, 2025 5:05 am


Gun-rights activists are upset with some of the stories coming out of the nation’s capital during the federal takeover of local policing.

The Trump Administration’s deployment of dozens of ATF agents to Washington, DC, neighborhoods and its touting of certain gun arrests have garnered backlash among a key constituency. All of the gun groups that spoke to The Reload raised concerns around some of the tactics and charges being employed during the federal takeover.

“It is deeply troubling that any administration would deploy federal agents that should not exist to enforce immoral and unconstitutional laws that should not exist, on behalf of an agency that should not exist,” Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs told The Reload. “If the Trump Administration is serious about protecting Second Amendment rights then it should start actually doing it.”

“The National Association for Gun Rights has serious concerns about what we’re seeing in Washington, DC right now,” Taylor Rhodes, the group’s director of communications, told The Reload. “ATF agents have no business doing neighborhood patrols, stopping citizens over cigarettes or a case of beer in the back seat. This is the same agency that gave us Ruby Ridge, Waco, and have fought against law-abiding gun owners every chance they have, and now they’re walking the streets of our nation’s capital like a domestic police force.”

The complaints follow the Trump administration’s order for at least 30 ATF agents to patrol DC as part of its takeover of the city’s police department and mobilization of its National Guard. They could dampen gun owners’ support for the administration, despite some of the pro-gun initiatives it has undertaken in other areas. That prospect may restrain some of the administration’s plans for expanding the operation inside DC or, as President Trump has previously suggested, to other American cities.

Last Monday, Trump ordered hundreds of federal law enforcement agents to begin patrolling DC after an assault against a former DOGE staffer. He soon bolstered that effort with National Guard troops and used emergency powers to implement a takeover of the Metropolitan Police Department, despite city statistics showing the city is experiencing a similar crime decline as the rest of the country. The administration agreed to back off on some of its attempted policy and personnel changes after city officials pushed back in court, though.

The White House and ATF have consistently highlighted the seizure of guns in the District as evidence that its operation is working.

A spokesperson, who said the White House is only giving background comments on the DC operation since it involves ongoing investigations, touted the seizure of what they described as “86 illegal firearms” since August 7th. They told The Reload that “legal guns from law-abiding citizens are not being seized” as part of the operation.

However, many gun-rights activists are unsatisfied with that explanation. Luis Valdes, a Gun Owners of America (GOA) spokesman and director of its Florida chapter, said some of the laws the administration is using to seize guns are unconstitutional.

“These single charge violations of people carrying without a permit or possessing an unregistered firearm, those are charges and crimes that shouldn’t exist to begin with,” he told The Reload.

Valdes, a former law enforcement officer, said GOA didn’t object to arrests of people who are accused of using guns to carry out violent crimes. But he said ATF agents doing street patrols and law enforcement arresting residents for mere gun possession crimes raise alarm bells.

“Proactive patrols are good, but the danger here, especially with ATF, is the unlawful and unconstitutional actions that they’re taking, like arresting people for simply carrying a firearm without a permit,” he said. “Right now, in over half of the country, that’s not even a crime. You don’t need a permit to carry a firearm. So, the fact that they are still pressing that in our nation’s capital is a disservice to the American public. These law enforcement resources should actually be tasked toward more serious matters at hand, like legitimate gang activity, drug distribution, violent crime, carjacking–things of that sort.”

Rhodes echoed that sentiment and said the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) opposes the administration’s plans to expand the operation.

“If the President truly wants to fight crime, he should focus on prosecuting violent criminals, not using federal gun cops to intimidate ordinary Americans,” he said. “NAGR will oppose any effort to normalize this kind of federal occupation, whether in D.C. or any other city.”

The White House wouldn’t say how many of the gun arrests were standalone gun possession charges against people without previous records and how many were connected to other crimes. However, it did provide a short list of suspected gun crimes for which people have been arrested during the operation.

It said officers seized two firearms over an outstanding warrant for assault with a deadly weapon, they confiscated a Glock 21 with “a high-capacity magazine” from somebody carrying without a permit who they also charged with possession of a controlled substance, and took one from somebody they arrested for an outstanding warrant for possession of a firearm and theft. The other gun seizure examples the White House gave were for charges the gun-rights advocates objected to. Those include an outstanding warrant for unregistered firearms and carrying a “Smith and Wesson Handgun with 10 rounds of ammunition” without a license.

“Simply stopping someone on the street, doing a Terry pat on them, seeing that they have a firearm, and then arresting them?” Valdes said. “That’s wrong.”

The White House also pointed to its efforts to reduce gun-carry permitting hurdles and US Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s directive not to prosecute residents for carrying rifles or shotguns as part of its efforts to protect gun rights in the city. Valdes said he appreciated those moves, but said they don’t overcome concerns raised by the administration’s other actions.

“That’s a step in the right direction, but the US Attorney in DC should go a step further and just say we’re not going to prosecute law-abiding Americans for carrying a firearm without a permit, period,” he said.

Some gun-rights activists also questioned the use of National Guard troops during the operation. Lara Smith, national spokesperson for The Liberal Gun Club, agreed the ATF’s involvement in neighborhood patrolling is “really problematic and makes no sense.” But she said her group is equally worried about troops being used for civil law enforcement–even if, as The Dispatch reports, they haven’t yet been involved in any direct police action.

“There’s no evidence that there’s actually a crime surge necessitating the National Guard,” she told The Reload. “That’s wildly problematic. It feels like a test run of what are people going to let us do? Not like a technical test run, but ‘what can we get away with’?”

She said her members are concerned the troops, some of whom are set to start carrying guns during the DC deployment, could eventually be turned on gun owners the administration doesn’t like.

“I would say our membership is horrified about the militarization of DC,” Smith said. “They see it as overreach. They’re concerned that it means the administration is going to start coming after lawful gun owners who are on the left.”

Valdes, who said he worked with National Guard troops during his time in law enforcement, said he hadn’t seen any signs that the DC deployment was out of the ordinary for the Guard. He said that aspect of the operation didn’t concern him.

“Personally, I’ve seen the National Guard deployed in law enforcement roles in numerous parts of the US, including even Puerto Rico,” he said. “So it’s, it’s not uncommon to see National Guard assets being used. I mean, I can tell you, from a law enforcement perspective, every time there was a major event in the state of Florida, whether it’s the Super Bowl, whether it’s a political campaign rally, the Daytona 500, the National Guard is deployed for that. And it’s not a riot, it’s not looting, it’s not crime. So, they’re deployed because they have assets and they have resources that local law enforcement doesn’t have.”

Other gun-rights groups haven’t signaled any concern with the DC operation to date.

The National Rifle Association didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment on the ATF or National Guard deployments. However, it posted a supportive piece on its website at the start of the operation. The group, which still has by far the most dues-paying members of any gun group, described the operation as a necessary outgrowth of local DC leadership’s failure to curtail crime.

“Fed up with a violent crime problem that has long been tolerated, and perhaps obfuscated, by D.C. officials, President Trump chose to exert his considerable federal authority to try to address the situation,” the NRA wrote on its Institute for Legislative Action website. “Since its existence, undermining Second Amendment rights has been a priority for the District’s local government. What the DC local government hasn’t done is take violent crime, and the criminals who commit it, seriously.”
[Some NRA-ILA comments follow and can be found at the link above.]
----------------

Appeals court sides with medical marijuana patients in Florida over gun restrictions
 

https://www.wusf.org/courts-law/2025...striction-case
Another chip off the infringement block.

Second Amendment Foundation pulls no punches calling out the 9th circuit on their obvious bias against the 2nd Amendment in amicus brief:

https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2...icus-Filed.pdf

3rd circuit ruling on New Jersey concealed carry law:
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...5newjersey.pdf

For the most part, a loss.
But it had a critical win.

The $50 tax was found unconstitutional due to Murdock v. Pennsylvania.
This creates a circuit split because the 5th circuit ruled the NFA tax constitutional.

This increases the chances of one of these going to SCOTUS.
A win consistent with Murdock v. Pennsylvania means the NFA is likely toast.

Murdock should've kicked NFA to the curb a long time ago.

California’s ban on open carry ruled unconstitutional by 9th circuit:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datasto.../02/24-565.pdf

We’ll see whether it’s reheard en banc.


The opinion notes how it differs from other circuits in how it applies Bruen.
The differing methods of how Bruen is applied may eventually result in SCOTUS revisiting and giving further clarification.

The decision also cuts through the “level of abstraction” tactic that many states are using to find historical traditions to justify restrictions on the 2nd Amendment.

A very good win.

Trump withdraws from UN Register of Conventional Arms:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/president...united-states/

A quick review of their website shows that the usual suspects (Russia, China, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc) are either not reporting or significantly under-reporting their exports, so why make all the Foreign Intelligence Entities' jobs easier for them by continuing to report our exports?

DOJ will no longer enforce prohibition on mailing handguns:

https://foundation.gunowners.org/wp-...s-OLC-memo.pdf

Veteran's Affairs to end reporting Vets to NICS for using fiduuciary
 

Courtesy of Breitbart link here.

:cool:

West Virginia considering a law to introduce new machine guns into the civilian market:

https://www.gunowners.org/goa-backed...gun-transfers/

NFA targeted in another lawsuit:
https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedi...-complaint.pdf

Good on 'em! Meanwhile, CO tries to regulate pretty much anything that could possibly be used as a gun barrel.

District of Columbia magazine ban struck down:

https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/defau...41%20FINAL.pdf

Good deal. The dissent was tough to read so begged off part way through, being the usual statist crap of "I want the argument to fail, therefore I determine that it fails." Too bad, Lord Farquardt.

Until the lawmakers themselves and the entities that elect/appoint them who knowingly pass these clearly unconstitutional laws are taken to task, citizens access this land will continue to be oppressed.

Make Tar & Feathering Great Again!