Taxpayer-Funded Orgs Bankroll Ad Council “Children” and Firearms Propaganda

Opinion

Fact Checkers, Editorialists Resort to Fake News to Push Anti-Gun Propaganda. IMG NRA-ILA

The idiot box has been living up to the nickname.

In recent months television viewers have been subjected to a series of anti-gun propaganda pieces produced by the Ad Council. Dubbed the Agree to Agree campaign, the ads typically feature a misleading talking point about “children” and firearms followed by an invitation to go to the Ad Council effort’s website where visitors are bombarded with further gun control agitprop. The website even invites visitors to learn about how to secure red flag gun confiscation orders.

The name might suggest an effort to bridge political disagreements, but the campaign’s list of “stakeholder partners” shows it’s a gun control effort through and through. So-called “stakeholder partners” include: Brady: United Against Gun Violence (formerly Handgun Control, Inc.); Giffords (formerly Americans for Responsibly Solutions and the Second Amendment-denying Legal Community Against Violence); Everytown for Gun Safety; and the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Bloomberg School of Public Health (named for billionaire gun control financier Michael Bloomberg). Handgun prohibition organization Violence Policy Center is not listed, although their longtime benefactor the Joyce Foundation was involved.

The campaign’s headline factoid is the following: “Gun injuries are now the leading cause of death for children and teens ages 1‑17, surpassing car crashes for the first time in two decades.” To justify the claim, the Ad Council cites a report from the Bloomberg School of Public Health.

For decades, gun control advocates and their allies in “public health” have pushed misleading talking points about children and firearms and NRA-ILA has repeatedly called them out for it.

This is how the ploy works:

• Step one, acquire statistics on firearm-related deaths among actual children.
• Step two, combine that relatively low number with the far greater number of firearm-related deaths involving juveniles and young adults.
• Step three, present the resulting data as the shocking number of “children” or “children and teens” (ages 0-17, 0-19 or 0-24) who are subjected to “gun violence” each day/week/month/year.
• Step four, use the disingenuous statistic to advocate for pre-determined gun control policies by claiming “gun violence is the leading cause of death of children.”

Consider the data on those who may be properly defined as children – ages 0-14. For this cohort, firearm-related injuries are not the leading causes of death and are not higher than motor vehicle deaths. The number of motor vehicle deaths in this age group was more than 40-percent higher than firearm-related deaths in 2023.

This does shift when examining the cohorts ages 15-17, 15-19, or 15-24. Roughly 70-percent of the firearm-related deaths that occur in the 0-17 age group happened among the juveniles ages 15-17 in 2023. This disparity shouldn’t be surprising. The 15-17 cohort is far more often engaged in the type of street crime that can give rise to firearm-related violence and that many jurisdictions have decided to address in a more lenient manner in recent years. The conflation of this age group with young children is even more absurd when one considers that, in the vast majority of jurisdictions, those aged 15 and older can be prosecuted as adults.

The Ad Council’s claim proved so misleading that even the normally indifferent legacy press took notice.

On June 11, the Kansas City Star published the piece “I tried to solve the great gun mystery at the Bloomberg School of Public Health. It didn’t go well,” by David Mastio. The piece chronicles Mastio’s attempt to get a straight answer from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as to whether firearms are in fact the leading cause of death for children. The author explained:

While the school’s report, Gun Violence in the United States 2022, says over and over again that guns are the leading killer of children and teens age 1-17, it never says what the leading killer of children not including teens is.

After failing to receive an answer to his simple question from the Bloomberg school’s gun violence researchers via email, Mastio went to the Johns Hopkins campus in Baltimore for help. He was escorted out by security.

Mastio eventually received an answer to his question when he contacted the public health school’s Center on Injury Research and Policy (which does not focus narrowly on gun policy). The author explained:

Surely there is somebody else at the Bloomberg School who knows what kills kids ages 1-9. Sure enough, there was another research group, The Center on Injury Research and Policy. I emailed them, and in a matter of hours, they gave me the answer.

I’ll give you one guess what that is. You’re right – not guns. Not even close. Mishaps with things other than guns, such as drownings, falls and car accidents, are the big killers.

This was followed on June 18 by a piece on the Ad Council Campaign from Washington Post factchecker Glenn Kessler titled “Are guns the biggest killer of ‘children and teens’?”

Understanding the manipulation at work, Kessler wrote,

when older teens (15 to 17, as defined by Johns Hopkins) are removed from the calculations using the Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System (WISQARS), the numbers change dramatically, with almost 50 percent more deaths from vehicle crashes than firearms. Vehicle crashes exceed firearms deaths also for ages 1 to 15.

As for children, ages 1 to 9 as defined by Johns Hopkins, firearms deaths are so much lower that they don’t even make second place.

In his conclusion, Kessler suggested how the campaign’s misdirection actually stands in the way of effective responses:

Firearms are the leading cause of deaths among teens, especially older teens. That’s very clear, especially among Black teens. A more precise statement — highlighting the risk faced by teens — might help focus attention on who the horrible toll of gun violence harms most.

Taxpaying gun owners should know that the federal government routinely funds the Ad Council to the tune of tens of millions of dollars for various public service campaigns. Records from USASpending.gov show that in fiscal years 2022, 2023, 2024, and 2025 the federal government awarded the organization $16.4 million, $13.6 million, $14.3 million, and $12.8 million, respectively. While these awards were not related to firearm propaganda specifically, they provide lifelines to an organization whose messaging on firearms is not only misleading but potentially counterproductive to sound public policy.

Further, the Agree to Agree campaign website lists its “funding partners,” many of which are significant beneficiaries of government largesse.

This list includes professional associations the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics. In late 2024, the AMA was awarded $4.15 million as part of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention “U.S. public health infrastructure and workforce” project. According to USASpending.gov, over the two years 2024 and 2025 federal awards to the AMA totaled more than $10 million.

The AAP did even better. USASpending.gov reports that AAP was awarded $18 million in 2025; which is down from a whopping $29.4 million in 2022.

The taxpayer loot universities involved in this campaign received make those sums look like chump change. The University of Michigan/Michigan Medicine and Johns Hopkins Medicine are listed as funders. USASpending.gov reports that the Regents of the University of Michigan were awarded $1.1 billion in federal funding in 2025. A press release from the school reported, “The federal government consistently remains the largest sponsor of U-M research activity. In FY ‘24, the university reported $1.17 billion in federally sponsored research expenditures.”

In a report titled “How Much Federal Funding Do Colleges and Universities Receive?” the Urban Institute noted that “Johns Hopkins received more than $4 billion from federal sources in 2022–23, which made up 42 percent of the school’s total revenue that year.”

Then there are the members of the healthcare industry that funded the campaign. According to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, national health expenditure (the total amount spent in the U.S. on healthcare) was “$4.9 trillion in 2023… and accounted for 17.6% of Gross Domestic Product.” The government agency also noted that the federal government accounted for 32 percent of total health spending, with state and local governments making up another 16 percent. Somehow, even with healthcare costs exploding, these organizations still find the resources to pursue their boutique political causes.

As with the Ad Council, the federal funding these Agree to Agree “funding partners” enjoy isn’t gun control specific. However, taxpayers should be aware that organizations that receive significant federal resources are involved in propaganda to undermine their fundamental rights.

---

About NRA-ILA:

Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org

---

We are in dangerous times! We are SO CLOSE to our final funding goals! With your help we can make it!

from https://ift.tt/khS21o9
via IFTTT

Anti-Gun TRACE’s Article Proves No More Gun Laws Necessary

Opinion

file photo

BELLEVUE, WA – A remarkably candid article in The Trace, billionaire Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun news publication, titled “A Trace Analysis of 150 U.S. Cities Shows One of the Greatest Drops in Gun Violence“, declares “gun violence” is trending downward, a scenario which tells the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms that no further gun control laws are necessary.

“Look at the information provided in this article, and it leads to only one conclusion,” stated CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

“The Trace says violence involving firearms is ‘trending downward for more than three quarters of cities with the most shootings.’ This comes when more than 21 million Americans are licensed to carry, and in 29 states, no license is required, so the number of citizens going armed for personal protection is likely much higher.

“No doubt unintentionally,” Gottlieb observed, “The Trace article has literally put the lie to anti-gun propaganda which has festered for decades, that more law-abiding citizens carrying guns would result in widespread mayhem, more bloodshed and increased homicides. Yet, by its own admission, The Trace just told America—including anti-gunners on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures from coast to coast—their campaign of hysteria was, at a minimum, misguided and loaded with misinformation.

“Actually,” he said, “when you come right down to it, this revealing article in The Trace could easily be interpreted to support the argument that more legally-armed citizens have definitely contributed to this decline in so-called ‘gun violence,’ and may, indeed, be the key factor. The Trace’s own article provides strong evidence that law-abiding armed citizens are responsibly exercising their rights.

The only logical conclusion we can draw from this is that America doesn’t need any more gun control laws, and common sense suggests we can get along with even fewer restrictions.

“For a couple of generations,” Gottlieb noted, “we have seen one gun control myth after another used as excuses to restrict our Second Amendment rights. Yet here we are, at a time when those rights are being gradually restored, when states have adopted Constitutional Carry laws, more people own guns and more people are legally carrying them for personal protection, and The Trace acknowledges violent crime involving guns is declining.”

“Looks like we’ve been right all along, and the anti-gun media essentially just admitted it.”

---

Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

---

We are in dangerous times! We are SO CLOSE to our final funding goals! With your help we can make it!

from https://ift.tt/BSTIyh8
via IFTTT

National Rifle Association Announces Big Changes

National rifle Association Headquarters – Credit John Petrolino

FAIRFAX, Va. — (AmmoLand.com) — The National Rifle Association made an announcement concerning the restructuring of the organization; they said that changes are coming. NRA President Bill Bachenberg is at the helm of these moves.

NRA 2.0

After the fallout with New York’s lawsuit against the Association and the resignation of former Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre, the NRA had to change. So-called “reform” candidates got elected to the Board of Directors in 2024, with a sweep in 2025. In 2024, pro-NRA 2.0 Doug Hamlin assumed the seat vacated by LaPierre. The 2025 officers’ election found long-time Director Bill Bachenberg unseating former President Bob Barr.

There’s no doubt that there’s been a major shift in the leadership at the NRA. The shift has been one of transparency and of the best interests of the membership. The upcoming 2026 Board of Directors election looks like the reform-minded directors will hold a supermajority in controlling the Association.

Bachenberg Speaks Out

During an interview with NRA President Bill Bachenberg, he enthusiastically spoke about the direction of the Association.

“The board is now running the organization where, years ago with Wayne, it was the other way around,” Bachenberg said. “Wayne ran the Association, and the board was cannon fodder.”

Under the shakeup, Bachenberg says that they’re going to be streamlining operations. Too many divisions and programs stand as “silos” and that the group needs to take a more horizontal approach to how they do business. “We have too many divisions that are standalone …” he said.

What’s Going to Change?

According to the NRA’s statement, the “changes are aimed at maximizing member dollars, streamlining operations, and investing in critical programs that best serve NRA members and ensure the long-term strength of the organization.”

Some of the areas that Bachenberg said are being overhauled include:

• Increase in communications with members
• The hiring of a chief operating officer to assist in day-to-day functions
• An app is scheduled to be released to help facilitate those communication needs
• A refocus on core programs like clubs and associations, education and training, and competition
• Doing away with ineffective mailers and sending only quality messages to the members
• Membership benefits like discounts on firearms, ammunition, and accessories
• Putting resources into quality programming rather than quantity
• The merge of membership, marketing, and advancement divisions into a single department
• Changes to NRA publications (below)

NRA Publications now NRA Media

NRA Publications will be changing to NRA Media. Their four magazines will be streamlined down to two; American Rifleman and American Hunter. Those two publications will be running on a quarterly rather than monthly basis. The rest of their content will be digital.

“In the past 15 years, major publications have foregone print altogether and moved to digital-only models,” the NRA observed.

“The younger members are saying, ‘You’re backwards. You’re old.’ and my old members love their magazines,” Bachenberg explained. “So we had to come up with a compromise, because the cost of producing a magazine with printing paper (and) postage just keeps getting more and more expensive. With the postal rates going up, it’s not sustainable.”

Business Leaders at the Helm

Bachenberg is excited to lean on the many talents of his board and committee members. “We’ve got really great business people,” he said. “Our Finance Chairman, I think he’s turned around five different companies, right? So he’s acquired failing companies and turned them around.”

Through his own career, Bachenberg is a businessman himself. He’s held multiple companies over the years and said that his primary company, he’s “had to reinvent … five times in 33 years.” 

“Mark (Vaughan, the first vice president), you know, took a company public and started another company,” Bachenberg said. “Rocky (Marshall) was in the oil and gas industry that was feast or famine…

“So we’ve got business people here running the organization as it should be run, and (I’m) really excited about our future. Here we’re building a foundation for the next 154 years.”

Yes, A Reduction in Force is Forthcoming

“These necessary changes will, unfortunately, impact staff,” the NRA said in a statement. “The NRA’s leadership did not make these decisions lightly but must realign resources to ensure America’s largest and oldest gun rights organization remains strong and ready to address the fight ahead.”

Bachenberg did note that “there will be some furloughs involved with this” and they’ll be announced on Friday. “So it will have some pain, unfortunately, but we really need to prepare.”

Executive Vice President Doug Hamlin on the Changes

“It’s our duty to ensure the long-term strength of the Second Amendment and health of our critical organization,” Hamlin said in a statement. “The NRA has delivered on its promise to provide a pro-gun President, Congress, and Supreme Court for our members.

“These successes have not gone unnoticed by our adversaries, who are doubling down on election spending, lawfare, and new programs to push their radical gun-grabbing agenda.

“To ensure we are prepared for the fights ahead, we must create a leaner NRA that focuses on stretching every member dollar to best protect your right to keep and bear arms.”

Bachenberg’s Prepared Statement

“The NRA is listening and anticipating our members’ needs,” Bachenberg said. “NRA 2.0 is re-focusing on its core missions of protecting our God-given Second Amendment rights, gun safety and training, supporting our Clubs & Associations and shooting competitions.

“We are flattening the organizational structure, redeploying staff, and exploiting technology to better manage the day-to-day activities of the Association. By knocking down the current vertical silo’s and creating cross-functional teams, there will be less duplication, stronger member services, and better communications.”

Active or Activists?

Bachenberg credits the ability to make all these changes with a driven Board of Directors who are engaging in the governance of the Association. The reform movement, of which Bachenberg is a part of, has proved to be fruitful.

“Today, the board has taken its fiduciary responsibility. It’s using the bylaws to do what we need to do, and it’s a new way,” Bachenberg explained. “You know, the Association isn’t used to an active board, right? And it’s not an activist board —  it’s an active (board).”

NRA’s Promise

“NRA-ILA and General Operations are not affected by today’s announcement,” NRA stated. “The NRA is increasing its investments in its core missions of promoting and training the safe and lawful use of firearms as it fights for the Second Amendment rights of Americans in courthouses and state houses across the country, and in Washington, D.C.”

The Future of the Association

What’s going to come of the Association under these changes? With a leaner, more transparent, and more functional National Rifle Association, both the elected leadership and executives will be better able to serve the members. Bachenberg wants to get back to those core missions of the NRA: protecting rights, education and training, and marksmanship and competition.

“We’ve got an energized board that’s excited about what we’re doing and how we’re doing it,” Bachenberg said. “And then we’ll see how it goes. It’s like with any program — we’re change agents.”

---

About John Petrolino

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino, facebook at @thepenpatriot and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .

from https://ift.tt/jZ4XnIb
via IFTTT

Delaware’s Handgun Permit to Purchase Law Challenged as Deadline Approaches

Delaware’s Handgun Permit to Purchase Law Challenged as Deadline Approaches, iStock-884197836

When Delaware’s controversial handgun permit law takes effect on November 16, 2025, anyone seeking to purchase a handgun in the state will face an extensive gauntlet of requirements that gun rights advocates warn could temporarily block all legal handgun sales and violate fundamental constitutional protections.

The Permit to Purchase Law, signed by then Governor John Carney in May 2024 and passed entirely along party lines by Democratic legislators, requires prospective handgun buyers to complete an 11 component firearms training course, submit to fingerprinting at a cost of $85, undergo state and federal background checks, and wait up to 30 additional days for approval from a single state official.

Hours after Carney signed the measure last May, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association and Bridgeville Rifle & Pistol Club filed a federal lawsuit challenging what they characterize as an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights. The timing of implementation has emerged as a flashpoint. Delaware State Police only launched the online application portal on October 28, 2025, giving gun buyers barely three weeks to navigate the process before the law takes effect.

Attorney Thomas Neuberger, one of the plaintiffs, accused the state of fumbling “the ball in the 18 months” since enactment, warning that dealers may refuse to sell handguns without permits even if applications remain pending, effectively creating “a total gun ban on the 16th” of November.

State police attributed the roughly six-month delay in establishing the permitting system to waiting for federal government permission to run background investigations. Lieutenant India Sturgis said authorities anticipated the application process would open in late October. Bill Walters of 302 Tactical Operations Group, who plans to teach firearms safety courses for prospective buyers, noted that as of late October, no one had registered for his November 22 class, suggesting buyers hoped “some miracle stops the process from happening.”

Jeff Hague, president of the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, characterized the measure bluntly. “This is not common sense, gun safety, firearm legislation. It’s nothing more than gun control,” Hague said. “You have to ask a government official who is not elected, is appointed, for permission to exercise your right to purchase a firearm.”

The federal lawsuit alleges violations of the Second Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution, which recognizes citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms for defense, hunting, and recreational use. The NRA joined the legal challenge, with attorneys Joseph Greenlee and Erin Erhardt serving as counsel alongside Francis Pileggi. The complaint asserts the law was passed “in defiance of this established and unassailable authority” from both the U.S. Supreme Court and Delaware Supreme Court.

One aspect of the law particularly alarms gun rights advocates. The complaint states that if a handgun permit is revoked for any reason, state or local police would have “probable cause” to remove handguns from individuals’ homes without a warrant, violating both Second and Fourth Amendment protections. During legislative debate, Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security Secretary Nathanial McQueen testified that “all weapons in the home are to be removed” upon permit revocation, meaning confiscation would extend even to firearms not purchased under the permit system.

Delaware already maintains several gun control measures, including background checks on all gun purchases, a minimum age of 21 to buy handguns, prohibitions on sales to felons, and red flag laws preventing sales to those identified as threats to themselves or others. More than a dozen states have enacted permit-to-purchase laws, with approximately half requiring permits for any firearm and the balance applying only to handguns.

Whether this law transforms a fundamental right into a bureaucratic privilege remains a question that Delaware’s courts, and perhaps the nation’s highest court, will eventually answer.

DOJ Demands Members List of Gun Rights Groups…AGAIN

Ohio Guns in Bars Arguments Miss Larger Points

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/ClQZopn
via IFTTT

DOJ Considers Appeal in Montana Gun Free School Zone Case

DOJ Considers Appeal in Montana Gun Free School Zone Case iStock-1171419811

In the Billings, Montana, Gun Free School Zone (GFSZ) case of Gabriel Metcalf, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals published a split decision, which struck down the indictment against Gabriel Metcalf. Thomas K. Godfrey, the Assistant U.S. Attorney prosecuting the case, has filed a petition requesting an additional 45 days to consider whether to file a petition for rehearing. A petition for rehearing would ask for the original three-judge panel to rehear the case.

The United States of America moves the Court for an extension in which to file its petition for rehearing in this case. Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure specifies that a petition for rehearing must be filed within 14 days from the entry of judgment. Currently, the United States must submit any petition for rehearing on or before October 7, 2025.

The Solicitor General is still reviewing this matter and requires an additional 45 days to complete his review to determine whether a petition for rehearing will be sought.

If the Court grants this motion, the United States’ petition for rehearing would be due on or before November 21, 2025.

The United States has contacted Russell Hart, counsel for Metcalf. He advised that he does not oppose this motion.

Metcalf is currently in not in custody.

Metcalf has not opposed the petition. A rehearing could revive the issue of whether the Gun Free School Zone Act violates the rights protected by the Second Amendment in this case.  The reason given for the extension is to give the Solicitor General time to study the case and make a decision. The Solicitor General of the United States is D. John Sauer.

Mark W. Smith, on his YouTube channel, the Four Boxes Diner, sings the praises of Solicitor General Sauer as a strong originalist and a proponent of the Second Amendment.

This correspondent has argued that the Billings, Montana, GFSZ Act case is an excellent vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of the GFSZ. The potential challenge has been complicated by considering the implications of the Rahaif decision in the case.

If the Solicitor General decides to petition the three-judge panel to rehear the case, the path forward becomes a bit complicated. Here is a link to a chart of the process for a rehearing petition provided by Michellawyers.com. The process can take considerable time. The three-judge panel can decide to hear the case or not to hear the case. If they choose not to hear the case, the prosecution can ask for a hearing en banc. If the Ninth Circuit does not grant an en banc hearing, the prosecution can appeal the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has considerable discretion. They could decide to grant cert to hear the case; they could hear it on the narrow question of if the Rahaif decision applies; they might even be decide to hear it on the question of the constitutionality of the GFSZ act. If the Solicitor General asks the Supreme Court to hear a case, the possibility of the Supreme Court granting cert jumps up enormously. The Solicitor General reasonably has to consider all these implications before deciding whether or not to petition the three-judge panel for a rehearing.

Unfortunately, Gabriel Metcalf and his mother, Vivian, will continue to be punished by the process while this case is ongoing. One of the reasons Gabriel has undergone the many difficulties has been to challenge the Constitutionality of the GFSZ Act. This correspondent has spoken to Gabriel. He is a strong proponent of Second Amendment rights.

Gabriel’s mother, Vivian, has set up a GiveSendGo site for donations to help the family. Gabriel Metcalf and his mother are poor as church mice. The hardship of continuing this case has been very difficult for them. If you are willing to help out, here is a link to the GiveSendGo site.

DOJ Demands Members List of Gun Rights Groups…AGAIN

Serious vs Silly in Everyday Carry Weapons ~ Compromise Considerations

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/YLM4jcK
via IFTTT

ATF Drops CLEO Notification from Form 1 NFA Applications

ATF Drops CLEO Notification from Form 1 NFA Applications

The ATF just previewed a batch of housekeeping changes to Form 1 (ATF 5320.1)—the form gun owners use to make and register NFA items like SBRs and suppressors. Buried in the Federal Register notice is the big one: the agency plans to remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement for NFA registration.

The ATF’s filing also modernizes items in preparation for the upcoming changes to the NFA’s tax structure, as it will no longer collect a tax on SBRs and suppressors. It clarifies how you can pay the $200 tax for “machinegun(s) or destructive device” or $0 for “other types of firearms,” such as SBRs and suppressors.

There is also an update to accept additional types of digital signatures and let applicants attach a passport-style photo or ID copy instead of using a fixed photo box on the form. There’s also a cleanup of wording and new instructions for married couples registering as an “other legal entity.” All of that is in service of making the form easier to complete and aligning it with incoming tax changes.

The ATF says it is removing the CLEO notification requirement from NFA registration forms (among other changes): https://t.co/kXWi4XHPgb pic.twitter.com/bmNO2wOOqb

— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) October 29, 2025

“One Big Beautiful Bill” Reshapes the NFA Stamp

Remember a few months back when the Republican Party decided to let an unelected bureaucrat derail an attempt to remove short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and suppressors from the NFA? Well, because Republicans decided to display a stunning lack of backbone, we are left here with this update by the ATF.

Separate from ATF’s paperwork tweaks, Congress has already changed the NFA tax structure. Under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), the $200 tax is set to $0 for the making or transfer of all NFA firearms that are not machine guns or destructive devices, effective January 1, 2026. The law does not repeal the NFA itself—registration, background checks, and the rest of the process remain in place—but it zeroes out the stamp for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. Machine guns and destructive devices still carry the $200 tax.

This is why ATF’s Form 1 language is shifting. The new text explicitly calls out a $200 “Tax Paid” for machine guns and destructive devices, while reflecting $0 for the other NFA categories once the statute takes effect. Put together, the law cuts the tax; the form is being updated so the eForms pipeline matches reality on day one.

What It Means for Gun Owners

• Dropping the CLEO notification removes a legacy chore with no public-safety upside and no decision-making authority attached to it.
• Lower cost for most NFA items—soon. Starting Jan. 1, 2026, a suppressor or SBR won’t carry a federal tax stamp fee. That’s real money back in your pocket, especially for families building out multiple hosts or accessories.
  • Keep in mind: the NFA application, background check, and wait time still apply; the stamp fee goes to $0, the process doesn’t vanish.
• ATF eForms alignment. Expect ATF to lean further into eForms and Pay.gov. The notice specifically calls out digital payments and signatures—small tweaks that speed up submissions and reduce rejects for clerical errors.

A Few Practical Takeaways

None of this accomplishes what should have been an easy win for Republicans to make meaningful repeals to the NFA. However, if you plan to register an SBR or suppressor, you may want to wait until the new year.

• Time your builds. If you’re price-sensitive and not in a rush, the math favors filing after Jan. 1, 2026, for most NFA items (suppressors, SBR/SBS, AOW) so you avoid the $200 entirely. Machine guns and destructive devices don’t benefit.
• Expect revised forms. Watch for updated Form 1 instructions and field labels in eForms as ATF publishes final revisions. Using the correct version reduces delays.
• CLEO copy no more. Once the change is finalized on the form, you won’t need to mail that extra packet to your sheriff or chief. Check the current form instructions on filing day to be sure you’re using the latest rules.

Describing this as a win for gun owners should ring hollow to anyone who has followed this saga. Congress will repeal the tax on SBRs and suppressors in 2026, but the registration requirement will remain in place. Cleaning up the process and removing onerous steps, such as contacting a CLEO, is a welcome proposal. However, it still involves a process that delays the acquisition of items that are presumptively constitutionally protected.

This lowers the barrier to entry for owning SBRs and suppressors, but the barrier is still in effect, and entry still requires registration.

How One Supreme Court Case Is Reinforcing the 2nd Amendment & Returning Power to the States

DOJ Declares DC Magazine Ban Unconstitutional in Stunning Reversal

---

from https://ift.tt/M1Ljepq
via IFTTT

Ohio Guns in Bars Arguments Miss Larger Points

Ohio Guns in Bars Arguments Miss Larger Points

“Ohio Supreme Court to decide if state law regulating guns in bars is constitutional,” WCMH NBC4 Columbus reports. “At the center of the case is a longstanding state law that prohibits residents from carrying firearms in establishments with on-premises liquor permits, unless they have a valid concealed handgun license, are not intoxicated and do not consume drugs or alcohol while there.”

Notably, a CHL is a requirement for exemption. Citizens taking advantage of Ohio’s so-called “constitutional carry” law will be required to disarm in restaurants that serve adult beverages, even if they do not indulge. That’s not the constitutional challenge being mounted here, although it certainly seems like an argument that needs to be made since felony charges could result.

In the case now before the court, a CHL holder visited a bar while armed, ordered five drinks, and got in a fight in the men’s room, where he ended up shooting his opponent in the neck. It’s hardly a case that will raise sympathy, even among gun owners, and in this case, not only were there felony charges for the shooting, but also for having a gun in a bar and drinking in the first place.

The defendant’s challenge to that charge was to argue the Bruen standard of text, history, and tradition, noting “that the types of establishments that hold on-premises liquor permits would not have faced firearms prohibitions around the time the Second Amendment was ratified.”

The Muskingum County Prosecutor’s Office, headed by a Republican, has taken up the counterargument generally made by Democrats, that “mid-to-late 1800s [laws] in New Mexico and Oklahoma … allowed places that sold alcohol to prohibit guns. He argued that 1791, when the Second Amendment was ratified, should not be the only point in time considered.”

Why not? Is he saying the anti-federalists would have agreed to ratification if they knew that people would come by later and begin unraveling the protections they placed into the Constitution as a condition for accepting it? Does he have any authority he can cite to credibly make that argument, or is he just making stuff up and hoping no one will call him on it? And as far as those later laws go, another significant point no one is bringing up when they’re cited is a record that shows they were challenged on Second Amendment grounds and upheld by the Supreme Court. Because they know they can’t.

But let’s forget the laws for a moment and just rely on what the prohibitionists call “common sense” when they’re making demands that exhibit none. Let’s admit that the danger is when people do evil and stupid things with guns, like being under the influence and actually victimizing people.

Most of us are perfectly capable of coexisting with guns and alcohol and do it every day.  Right now, if I wanted to, I could avail myself of beer in the fridge, wine in the pantry, , some scotch and bourbon in the cabinet that I may indulge in tonight, tequila I’m saving for next summer when a cousin who makes killer margaritas will visit, and some rum reserved for and some rum reserved for Thanksgiving and Christmas holiday cheer to mix with seasonal eggnog.

Bottom line, the “Home Drinking While Armed Loophole” is something I exploit whenever I feel like it – and don’t when I don’t – and extend to dinner and party guests every time I host a gathering. We’ve been doing this for decades, and surprise, no one has ever gotten blotto, started a fight, pulled a gun, or even danced on a table, because we do things responsibly and hang out with friends and relatives who do the same.

And you’d better believe we show the same responsible restraint when we go out to dinner, and are more than capable of ordering some wine with dinner and shouldn’t have to worry that the “law” forces us to choose between leaving guns in cars (that can be broken into or stolen), or face life-shattering legal and financial consequences if caught defying infringements.

“A fundamental precept is that firearm rights are not unlimited in scope,” the prosecutor blathers on, making another argument straight out of the Everytown playbook. News flash, pal, victimizing others does not qualify as a “firearms right,” and that’s what you should be focused on. If you hurt someone you should be accountable for it. If you hurt someone while impaired, that accountability should be enhanced.

But if you’re minding your own business responsibly pursuing happiness and enjoying the blessings of liberty while retaining full possession of your rights, what’s the problem here, unless you’re an authoritarian  control freak and can’t stand to see people capable of handling themselves doing that? Why do we have to pay for the people who can’t?

Logically, if you’re going to ban guns and drinking in business establishments, why wouldn’t you preemptively demand the same controls in homes, the places where “domestic violence” can take place?

Believe me, the prohibitionists would if they thought for a second they could get away with it.

DOJ Declares DC Magazine Ban Unconstitutional in Stunning Reversal

Vehicle as Weapon, Shots Fired, No USCG Personnel Injured ~ VIDEO

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

from https://ift.tt/hDcvEur
via IFTTT

Administration Urging the SCOTUS to Uphold a Federal Law That Bars Illegal Drug Users From Owning Guns

Opinion
Trump, an Avowed Second Amendment Champion, Defends a Gun Ban With ‘No Historical Justification’..

Istock

A few weeks after taking office, President Donald Trump called the Second Amendment “an indispensable safeguard of security and liberty,” declaring that “the right to keep and bear arms must not be infringed.”

But in a case that the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear, the Trump administration is urging the justices to uphold one of the federal government’s most constitutionally dubious restrictions on that right.

Since 1968, Congress has prohibited gun possession by illegal drug users, a provision that affects millions of peaceful Americans who pose no plausible threat to public safety.

That gun ban is illogical, unjust and inconsistent with “this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation,” meaning it fails the constitutional test that the Supreme Court established in 2022.

Under federal law, it is a felony, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, for an “unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” to receive or possess a firearm. As I explain in my new book “Beyond Control,” that category encompasses many people with no history of violence, including cannabis consumers in states that have legalized marijuana for medical or recreational use.

Judging from survey data, something like 20 million Americans, mostly marijuana users, are violating this law right now. In addition to illegal gun possession, they can be charged with three related felonies, which means they theoretically could face nearly half a century behind bars, even if they never handle firearms while intoxicated.

Despite its avowed devotion to the Second Amendment, the Trump administration sees nothing wrong with that policy. It wants the Supreme Court to overrule a 2024 decision in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit found “no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”

Trump is taking the same position as former President Joe Biden, whose administration doggedly defended this gun ban against challenges by marijuana users. Biden even signed legislation that increased the potential penalties for drug users who obtain firearms.

Biden seemed to view that offense as a grave crime that merits stiff punishment. But he made an exception for his son, issuing a hypocritical pardon that shielded Hunter Biden from the penalties faced by defendants who are not lucky enough to have a father in the White House.

The Biden administration argued that disarming drug users had historical precedent, citing early laws against publicly carrying or firing guns while intoxicated. But as the 5th Circuit and other courts have recognized, those narrowly targeted laws are not “relevantly similar” to a categorical ban that applies in all settings and circumstances.

The Trump administration’s Supreme Court petition relies on a different, equally problematic analogy: “founding-era restrictions on habitual drunkards,” who could be confined to workhouses as “vagrants.” But unlike the ban that the government is defending, those restrictions required a judicial determination and did not involve the right to arms.

Another important distinction: The vagrancy laws applied only to a subcategory of alcohol consumers, not to drinkers in general. By invoking them, the government conflates occasional pot smokers with “habitual drunkards.”

The government’s petition glides over the fact that there was no such thing as an “unlawful consumer” of a “controlled substance” until the 20th century. When the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791 and when the 14th Amendment made it binding on the states in 1868, people could legally consume currently prohibited drugs without a medical prescription.

In the 19th century, drugs such as opium, cannabis and cocaine were widely consumed in patent medicines that could be readily obtained over the counter or by mail. It seems highly doubtful that Americans of that era would have thought eschewing such products should be a condition for exercising the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.

The Trump administration, in short, will have a hard time meeting the historical test that the Supreme Court has said gun control laws must pass. The question is whether the justices will let pharmacological prejudices override that test.

---

About Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine. Follow him on Twitter: @JacobSullum. During two decades in journalism, he has relentlessly skewered authoritarians of the left and the right, making the case for shrinking the realm of politics and expanding the realm of individual choice. Jacobs’ work appears here at AmmoLand News through a license with Creators Syndicate.

Jacob Sullum

---

We are in dangerous times! We are SO CLOSE to our final funding goals! With your help we can make it!

How One Supreme Court Case Is Reinforcing the 2nd Amendment & Returning Power to the States

from https://ift.tt/Hldw5rW
via IFTTT

Argentina’s Milei Wins Big, Strengthens Push for Gun Rights

Argentine President Milei Approves of Right to Keep and Bear Arms, iStock-521076918

President Javier Milei won a landslide victory in the October 26, 2025, election. This election is a midterm election in Argentina. There are 257 seats in the Chamber of Deputies and 72 seats in the Senate. Half of the Chamber of Deputies’ seats were up for election, as were one-third of the Senate’s seats. President Milei’s party scored 41.5% of the vote, increasing its share of seats in the House of Deputies from 37 to 101. Milei’s party increased its number of Senators from 6 to 20. This is a significant increase in power for President Milei. It is likely he will pursue his policy goals with continued vigor. President Milei admires the United States Constitution and the Second Amendment.

From AmmoLand, 2022:

Newly elected President Javier Milei of Argentina is an admirer of the right to keep and bear arms, similar to the Second Amendment enshrined in the Constitution of the United States of America.  Argentina has a vibrant gun culture nurtured by strong rural farming and cattle ranching roots.

In 2024, President Miley reduced the minimum age for legal firearms ownership from 21 to 18.

From thefinancialanalyst.net:

In a bold move that has ignited fervent debate across Argentina, President Javier Milei has lowered the legal age for gun ownership from 21 to 18. This decision arrives amid rising crime rates and a palpable sense of insecurity within urban centers, particularly Buenos Aires, where citizens feel increasingly vulnerable to violence. Supporters of Milei’s initiative argue that greater access to firearms is essential for self-defense, especially in a country grappling with high poverty levels and a deteriorating judicial system.

Argentina has suffered under extreme restrictions on firearm ownership for the last 30 years.  In 1995, semi-automatic firearms of greater than .22 rimfire were banned for nearly everyone but the military. On June 18, 2025, President Milei signed a presidential decree allowing ordinary citizens to possess such semi-automatic firearms above .22 caliber using the existing permit process.

From batimes.com.ar:

 It allows so-called “legitimate users of conditional civilian weapons” to “acquire and possess semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines, similar to assault rifles, carbines or submachine guns derived from military-use firearms, in calibres above .22.”

President Milei has instituted reforms in the permitting process. In May of 2025, the process was streamlined. It is now entirely online.

From resumenlatinoamericano.org, translated online from Spanish:

 It created a digital procedure under that name with the aim of reducing the time it takes for private individuals to acquire firearms. 

The government of Javier Milei moved forward on Tuesday with facilitating the purchase and possession of weapons through the creation of a digital express procedure, with the goal of reducing the time it takes for users to acquire firearms.

This was done by the National Agency for Controlled Materials (ANMaC), which approved, through Resolution 45/2025, the creation of the digital procedure called “Express Possession,” designed to facilitate obtaining permits for the possession of firearms with a Unique Material Identification Code (CUIM), acquired through commercial dealers (gun shops) by individual (private) users and personnel from the Armed Forces, Security Forces, police, and the Penitentiary Service.

Argentina has relatively few legal firearms. According to the Small Arms Survey, Argentina has 7.36 civilian firearms per 100 people.  Brazil has a similar number of firearms per 100 people, at 8.29. Brazil’s murder rate dropped to 19.83 per 100,000 in 2019 from 30.8 per 100,000 in 2017, during the Bolsonaro administration.  Argentina has a murder rate of 5.5 per 100,000, close to the murder rate of the United States at about 5 per 100,000 people.

Reforming firearms law and allowing people to defend themselves are part of President Milei’s agenda. Milei may be termed a “practical libertarian” aimed at increasing efficiency in Argentina by reducing governmental restrictions, bureaucracy, red tape, and corruption.  Milei and his party do not have the political strength to create an Argentinian Second Amendment at this time.

DOJ Declares DC Magazine Ban Unconstitutional in Stunning Reversal

A Warning to Florida Public Officials About the New Open-Carry Law

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/5aQEd1r
via IFTTT

A Warning to Florida Public Officials About the New Open-Carry Law

A Warning to Florida Public Officials About the New Open-Carry Law, iStock-2205481813

No one is issued a Glock when they move to Florida, unfortunately. Florida’s state gun laws are good, but not that good, at least not yet.

The Gunshine State only recently legalized open carry, which was decades overdue. However, it was never passed by our state lawmakers and was never signed by the governor into law. Instead, Florida’s gun community legalized open-carry without using lawmakers.

After open carry became law, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier quickly warned all state prosecutors and every state law enforcement agency about the case, McDaniels v. State, in which the First District Court of Appeal struck down Florida’s ban on the open carry of arms.

The Attorney General also told the group they should “refrain from arresting or prosecuting law-abiding citizens carrying a firearm in a manner that is visible to others.”

Most cities reacted well to the new law. However, there were a few Democratic strongholds scattered throughout the state that did not take the news well at all. Their reactions may have violated the law.

The City of Sarasota went absolutely bonkers because their citizens can now carry arms openly. Sarasota’s City Commission is strongly Democratic and has a history of being frightened by guns, gun rights and especially the Second Amendment.

A City Commission meeting held last Thursday was attended by three Sarasota Police officers and their chief of police. The officers wore ballistic vests with hard body armor. Two of the officers carried ARs, but not a single citizen openly carried a firearm during the meeting.

So, who ordered the officers to attend the meeting with their hard vests and ARs?

That would be Sarasota Police Chief Rex Troche.

Sarasota Police Chief Rex Troche. (Photo courtesy Sarasota Police Department).

Contacted Monday, Chief Troche said that while he remains very concerned, and his officers plan to continue to monitor guns at public meetings, he may reduce the presence of “heavily armed officers.”

“We respect the Second Amendment and want people to know their rights and adhere to the law,” Chief Troche said.

It doesn’t appear that the good police chief knew how close he came to violating someone’s civil rights.

Compare the City of Sarasota’s reaction to that of Sarasota County, which is overseen by Sheriff Kurt Hoffman—one of the most ardent Second Amendment defenders in the entire country.

At a recent Sarasota County Commission meeting, there were no changes made because of the new open-carry law. The two deputies who attended the meeting wore no hard ballistic body armor, carried no long guns and were as jovial as ever.

Takeaways

Sending the police chief along with three officers wearing hard ballistic plates and armed with carbines to a public meeting because someone may legally exercise their Second Amendment rights is completely wrong if not illegal.

Local law enforcement leaders do not get to decide whether citizens can access a federal civil right. The last time they tried it was the 1960s, and a few police officials lost their jobs, and several went to federal prison.

Then, like now, law enforcement justified their illegal acts by claiming they were only trying to keep order and preserve the peace. The truth is, law enforcement broke the law because its leaders were scared, just like they are now.

Sarasota and cities like it should be very, very careful.

The Second Amendment has been a constitutional right since 1791. If local leaders try and prevent someone from exercising their constitutional rights, they may soon find themselves explaining to a federal judge and jury why they decided it was okay to illegally violate someone’s constitutional rights.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

Anti-Gunners Just Obliterated the Greatest Gun Control Myth

Vehicle as Weapon, Shots Fired, No USCG Personnel Injured ~ VIDEO

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

---

from https://ift.tt/blciWJT
via IFTTT

Anti-Gunners Just Obliterated the Greatest Gun Control Myth

The pro-gun-control Trace says “gun violence” is down. Perhaps not surprisingly, at the same time, gun ownership and concealed carry is up. (Dave Workman)

No doubt that when The Trace posted an article purporting to show that 150 cities were showing “one of the greatest drops in gun violence—ever,” it unintentionally destroyed one of the greatest gun control myths—ever—in the process: that more guns in private hands would result in more carnage and death.

Authored by Trace reporter and editor Olga Pierce, this remarkable report acknowledges, “The downward trend cuts across red and blue cities and states in every region of the country.”

But this downward trend comes at a time when more Americans own more guns than probably any other time in recent history. Twenty-nine states have adopted “Constitutional Carry” laws which do away with a licensing requirement, and that may increase to 30 states in mid-November when North Carolina lawmakers hold a veto override vote on Senate Bill 50, that state’s permitless carry bill, according to a report at TheGunMag.com. That vote is now scheduled Nov. 17.

More than 21 million citizens are licensed to carry and many states have reciprocity agreements, enabling armed residents from one state carry in other states on their own state’s license/permit.

None of this is lost on Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the grassroots Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, who noted Monday in a statement to the press, “For a couple of generations, we have seen one gun control myth after another used as excuses to restrict our Second Amendment rights. Yet here we are, at a time when those rights are being gradually restored, when states have adopted Constitutional Carry laws, more people own guns and more people are legally carrying them for personal protection, and The Trace acknowledges violent crime involving guns is declining. Looks like we’ve been right all along, and the anti-gun media essentially just admitted it.”

The Trace is the online pro-gun-control news publication backed by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg, founder of Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Everytown for Gun Safety. The Trace article says it is an “analysis by The Trace’s Gun Violence Data Hub.”

As written by Pierce, “The downward trend includes red and blue cities, in both red and blue states, in all of the country’s regions. It includes cities where shootings are traditionally sky-high, like Baltimore, and much safer cities, like Austin, Texas.”

Later, Pierce writes, “While it is worth noting that cities in the Deep South, for example, tend to have much higher rates of per-capita gun violence than cities in the blue states on the coasts, many of them have seen violence spike and then sharply decline in recent years, just like cities everywhere else.”

But “rates” of gun violence don’t always translate to actual body counts. After all, Chicago—which is a blue bastion of Democrat control—is one of the bloodiest social slaughterhouses in the country. Already this year, as of this writing, the Windy City has chalked up 316 gun-related slayings out of 375 total homicides, according to the popular Heyjackass.com website. The city has logged another 1,368 people shot and wounded, so “per-capita” statistics don’t always tell a straight story.

What is straight, however, is the fact that the gun prohibition lobby has preached against expanded carry rights for decades, while tens of millions of honest citizens have obtained licenses and permits, and legislatures have moved to restore Second Amendment rights by eliminating government permission slips to do so legally.

Predictions of blood flowing in the streets have not been accurate, leading many to question what else the gun prohibitionists have been saying might also be wrong. The Trace article has opened a can of worms, if not Pandora’s Box.

The Crime Prevention Research Center’s most recent update on concealed carry in the United States came out last December, but put the number at that time to 21.46 million. That represented a drop of about 1.8 percent from the previous year, and CPRC attributes that to the expansion of “Constitutional Carry” laws.

While anti-gunners may try to credit literally every other factor in the “gun violence” decline, Gottlieb suggested The Trace report could unintentionally be pointing to the proverbial “elephant in the room” while trying to avoid it.

Gottlieb makes a good argument that an increase in the number of legally-armed citizens has “definitely contributed to this decline in so-called ‘gun violence,’ and may, indeed, be the key factor.” After all, what criminal hoping to be a recidivist will deliberately try to victimize someone who just might shoot back?

He also suggests this report in The Trace also shows there is no need for more gun control laws, and that some existing laws could be rolled back.

Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed so far to take a couple of Second Amendment cases, and Pam Bondi’s Justice Department is going after the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for egregious foot dragging in its carry permit process.

The Second Amendment community is just waiting to see what happens next.

Florida Sheriff Calls McDonald’s Shooting a “McMess” After Employee Defends Himself Against Threats ~ VIDEOS

Urban Crime Spike “the Most Overlooked U.S. Crime Story in Recent Years”

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/ahs7FOK
via IFTTT