DeSantis Shows the Country How Pro-Gun Governors Operate

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (Photo from licensed Shutterstock account).

Every morning as I don my Staccato 9mm and my Microtech automatic knife without any permits or paperwork cluttering my wallet, I realize that these freedoms would never have taken place without the honest pro-gun leadership of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis.

Law-abiding Floridians no longer need to apply in writing or pay a state fee to carry a concealed weapon.

Gov. DeSantis saw to that.

For the state’s millions of gun owners, our 46-year-old, soon-to-be-former governor has been a true friend.

Unfortunately, DeSantis is term-limited and barred from running again. Fortunately, during his terms in office, the good governor gave gun owners one heck of a good ride.

Let’s take a close look at his pro-gun accomplishments.

Permitless concealed carry

On April 3, 2023, in Florida’s state capitol of Tallahassee, Gov. DeSantis signed House Bill (HB) 543, which strengthened Floridians’ Second Amendment rights by allowing concealed weapons to be carried without a state permit.

Concealed-carry permits are still available, but are no longer required.

“Constitutional Carry is in the books,” Desantis said at the time.

Florida became the 26^th state to enact concealed-carry legislation. However, Open Carry remains prohibited. According to state law, Floridians may only carry an exposed handgun “while traveling to or from fishing, camping, hunting or target shooting.”

“Would be great to see it hit my desk — Florida needs to join the overwhelming majority of states and protect this right,” DeSantis posted about Open Carry on X.

DeSantis has promised he would change this and sign Open Carry legislation; however, the state’s Republican-led legislature has never given him a bill to sign, and they have never fully explained why.

Some believe tourism – Disney and the beaches – as well as the powerful Florida Sheriffs Association could be the reasons why millions of Floridians do not yet enjoy all of their Second Amendment rights.

Florida State Guard

In December 2021, while Joe Biden occupied the White House, DeSantis created the Florida State Guard, a 200-member volunteer paramilitary force that answered to him, not Joe Biden.

The Florida State Guard assists the Florida National Guard in state emergencies.

DeSantis noted that the Florida State Guard was not “encumbered by the federal government,” and that the unit would give him “the flexibility and the ability needed to respond to events in our state in the most effective way possible.”

Florida, he pointed out, has always been one of the most pro-military and veteran-friendly states.

“We are proud of our veterans and active-duty military members and proud of what our communities do to support them,” DeSantis said in a press release. “Florida is one of the most veteran friendly states and I think there are very few places that you would rather be on duty than in the state of Florida. As a veteran, I really appreciate what everyone who wears the uniform does in our state and am excited about these proposals – they will go a long way and have a meaningful impact. In Florida, we are going to continue our momentum of supporting our military, supporting our veterans and being good stewards of our military installations.”

Other 2A actions

Last May, DeSantis ended a confusing portion of state law that automatically imposed reprehensible firearm restrictions during a local state of emergency.

Previously, during an “emergency arising from a threat of violence or public disorder,” any sale of firearms or ammunition became illegal. Also, only law enforcement or the military were allowed to possess firearms in a public place.

DeSantis ended all of this foolishness with a signature.

The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Monique Miller, (R-Palm Bay), said in February, “By removing these automatic restrictions, the bill ensures that lawful gun owners are not preemptively barred from exercising their Second Amendment rights during times of crisis.”

Other pro-gun legislation signed by DeSantis was also needed.

He signed a bill that created a Second Amendment tax holiday for the state, which will run from September 8 to December 31, and will include firearms, ammunition as well as other outdoor items.

The move is expected to save Florida gun buyers up to $8 million.

DeSantis also signed multiple bills related to school safety. One law now requires local law enforcement to attend on-campus active shooter drills.

SF-tabbed Lt. Gov.

Just this week, DeSantis swore in Republican state Senator Jay Collins, (R-Tampa), to serve as Florida’s lieutenant governor.

DeSantis made the announcement at the Tampa Green Beret Association.

“What I was looking for is someone that can be lieutenant governor that will help us deliver more wins for the people of Florida – and then also that is capable of serving and leading as governor, if that need were ever to arise,” DeSantis said.

Collins was an astounding pick.

He served as an Army Special Forces Medical Sergeant, an 18-Delta, until he lost a leg in Afghanistan. However, he came back after being wounded and served five more years as a fully deployable Green Beret using a prosthetic leg.

Collins, too, has a solid Second Amendment record. He has sponsored several gun-friendly bills. He targeted anti-gun legislation passed in Florida after the 2018 Parkland school shooting, and sought to lower the state’s minimum firearm purchase age back to 18.

Red Flag Law opposition

Florida’s Red Flag law, known officially as the Extreme Risk Protection Order, or ERPO, clearly violates the Second Amendment.

The law allows law enforcement or a gun owner’s family to petition a court to allow law enforcement to enter a home and remove guns from someone accused of being a “danger to themselves or others.”

It only allows gun owners to seek return of their property after their rights have been violated.

DeSantis has tried to get the law overturned.

“If you look at this red flag law that was passed, they can go in and say, ‘this person’s a danger, they should have their firearms taken away,’ which is property in addition to being something connected with a constitutional right,” DeSantis said in March. “The burden shifts where you have to prove to a court that you are not a menace or a threat. That’s not the way due process works.”

Florida’s red flag legislation was signed into law by former Gov. Rick Scott, a Republican who is now a United States Senator.

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.

---

Glock 47 MOS 9mm Pistol | Gun Review

Street Violence, Sleeper Cells and Cartels: What You Should Actually Prepare For

---

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/OzZUpd8
via IFTTT

Bob Ferguson’s 433,000-Vote Firewall: Corrupt Voter Rolls & the End of Gun Rights in Washington

Opinion

Washington Governor Bob Ferguson IMG atg.wa.gov

In 2024, Democrat Bob Ferguson defeated Republican Dave Reichert in the Washington governor’s race by about 433,000+ votes—a 55.6% to 44.4% margin. On paper, it looked decisive. In practice, that margin guaranteed four more years of one-party control in Olympia, where the legislative agenda mirrors the Everytown for Gun Safety playbook.

For Washington gun owners, that means more restrictions, more hoops to jump through, and almost zero chance of rolling any of it back.

---

When the Victory Margin Mirrors the Flaws in the System

The real story isn’t just Ferguson’s win—it’s how secure that win really was. Election watchdog Glenn Morgan’s review of Washington’s voter rolls uncovered a problem that should worry anyone who believes in clean elections: roughly 709,000 registered voters have no Social Security number on file, and about 25,000 have neither a driver’s license nor an SSN in state records.

Morgan’s audit covered 29 of Washington’s 39 counties. The real statewide totals could be even worse.

Put that side-by-side with Ferguson’s 433,000-vote win and Kamala Harris’s 714,926-vote presidential margin in the same election, and you get an uncomfortable overlap. The number of potentially unverifiable voters is nearly double the number Ferguson needed to win—and almost identical to the number Harris won by. That’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s arithmetic.

Morgan’s conclusion was blunt: “Fourteen percent of these voters… don’t have any Social Security numbers referenced in the state’s data at all.” The fact that these are mostly active voters—not old, inactive names—should set off alarms for anyone serious about election integrity.

---

From Bloated Rolls to a Locked-In Agenda

When elections are this lopsided—and when the voter registration system is riddled with holes—policy outcomes become predictable. Ferguson has built his career as a dependable ally of the gun-control lobby. As Attorney General, he secretly investigated the Second Amendment Foundation, costing them millions in legal fees.

“It is a sad day when you have to sue the state Attorney General for violating your civil rights,” Gottlieb stated. “This is not something we ever anticipated, nor do we take any pleasure in it. However, because the CPD has singled out SAF and myself for invasive and expensive harassment because of my political beliefs, especially my positions on gun control and our outspoken criticism of Attorney General Ferguson, our only recourse is to take legal action.

As AG, he pushed for bans on so-called “assault weapons,” limits on magazine capacity, mandatory waiting periods, and mandatory safety training. Now, as governor, Ferguson can sign and defend any new gun restriction that crosses his desk.

Washington currently ranks #9 in the nation for gun law “strength” according to Everytown for Gun Safety, one of the most devious gun-control organizations in the country. That’s no coincidence. The group’s checklist—ban modern sporting rifles, outlaw standard-capacity magazines, regulate “ghost guns,” expand dealer licensing, and mandate reporting of lost or stolen firearms—has been practically photocopied into Washington law.

And with Democrats holding both chambers of the legislature and the governor’s office, Olympia doesn’t have to negotiate with gun owners; they can steamroll them.

---

The Rural Cost of Urban Politics

Rep. Dan Newhouse has been one of the few public officials willing to point out what rural Washington already knows: these laws aren’t about “safety”—they’re about control.

In many rural counties, sheriff’s deputies might be an hour away on icy roads. In a place like Wenatchee or Okanogan, if someone breaks into your home, you don’t have the luxury of waiting for a cruiser to pull up.

The same goes for defending livestock from predators. Whether it’s a cougar picking off calves or a grizzly bear threatening a ranch, firearms are tools as essential as a tractor or a water pump. Politicians from Seattle or Olympia legislate as if every emergency gets a rapid 911 response.

Out here, that’s a dangerous fantasy.

---

One-Party Rule Means No Brake Pedal

2024, Democrat Bob Ferguson defeated Republican Dave Reichert in the Washington governor’s race.

The danger of a political monopoly is simple: bad ideas never have to survive real opposition. When the ruling party’s control is never in doubt, their agenda accelerates unchecked.

Washington’s tightening web of firearms restrictions didn’t happen by accident—it’s the product of a political system where power never changes hands. Bloated, unverifiable voter rolls are part of what helps guarantee it stays that way.

When the same party controls the governor’s office, both chambers of the legislature, and most statewide offices, there’s no meaningful debate about whether laws respect the constitutional rights of Washingtonians.

The only debate is how far to go next.

---

Why Gun Owners Must Care About the Voter Rolls

Gun rights advocates often focus their battles on specific bills, ballot measures, or lawsuits. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: if your elections aren’t built on clean, verifiable voter rolls, you’re fighting uphill from day one.

You can’t change the laws if you can’t change the lawmakers—and in Washington, the path to changing lawmakers runs straight through a voter registration system that Morgan’s findings say is 14% noncompliant with federal standards.

In fact, Washington’s Attorney General is actively fighting against measures that could lead to cleaner voter rolls. In April 2025, the state joined Oregon in suing to block a federal executive order that would have required proof of citizenship to vote and tightened deadlines for ballot receipt. While framed as protecting “access,” the lawsuit’s effect would be to preserve a registration system already riddled with unverifiable voters. By opposing even modest verification requirements, Ferguson’s office is ensuring that the structural problems Morgan identified will remain untouched — locking in the same political imbalance that drives the state’s aggressive gun-control agenda.

That’s not just a partisan gripe—it’s a structural flaw. Until it’s fixed, election outcomes will be predictably lopsided, and the political landscape will stay hostile to gun owners.

---

The Stakes for the Next Four Years

With Ferguson in office, gun control in Washington won’t just hold steady—it will expand. The political climate in Olympia makes it nearly impossible to repeal existing laws or stop new restrictions from becoming law.

The downstream effects are already visible:

• More bans on firearms and accessories, dressed up as “public safety.”
• Higher barriers to ownership through licensing and training mandates.
• Rural residents are left less able to defend themselves, their families, and their property.

For gun owners, the lesson is clear: until Washington cleans up its voter rolls and restores true electoral competition, the fight to protect your Second Amendment rights can’t be won in the legislature. It has to start with securing the ballot box itself.

Because if the foundation of your elections is cracked, it doesn’t matter how strong your arguments are in the hearing room—you’ve already lost before you walked in the door.

---

We are in dangerous times! We are NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?

Washington FFL Takes Mag Ban Fight to U.S. Supreme Court After State Ruling

2nd Amendment Foundation Sues Washington AG Ferguson, Alleging Civil Rights Violations

from https://ift.tt/K1IfOMs
via IFTTT

Matthew Walker Anderson Walks Free from “Ghost Gun” Charges

FPC Sue State Department For Records About ‘3-D’ Gun Blueprints

A three-year legal nightmare is finally over for Matthew Walker Anderson after the charges for owning two privately made firearms (PMF) without serial numbers were dropped by the state.

In May 2022, Mr. Anderson was target shooting with a friend on private property in Sherburne County, Minnesota. A neighbor who lived a half mile away heard the shooting and called the Sherburne County Sheriff’s Department. A deputy from the SCSD responded to investigate the complaint of gunshots. They approached Anderson and his friend. The two men invited the deputies onto the property to check out the range because they were confident that they were not breaking any laws.

After the deputy determined that the range was safe and no laws were being broken, they asked to see the firearms. Mr. Anderson, knowing the law, knew his guns were legal under state and federal law. The deputy noticed that the firearms didn’t have serial numbers. Mr. Anderson explained that they were PMFs and did not require serialization. The deputy disagreed, and later Anderson would be arraigned on two separate felony charges for each firearm for violating Minnesota’s law on the serialization of guns. The state law makes it illegal for someone to remove or alter the serial number of a firearm. The two PMFs in question never had a serial number to remove or alter.

Minnesota State law doesn’t require serial numbers for so-called “ghost guns.” The law is similar to the federal law for serialization. In fact, the state statute references both the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) and the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

This makes it clear that the serialization requirement only applies to guns that are required to have a serial number under federal law, and PMFs do not. The state spent three years arguing that the law does apply to PMFs.

While going through legal hell and uncertainty, another case, State of Minnesota v. Vagle, made it to the Minnesota State Supreme Court. That case dealt with criminal charges for having a gun with no serial number that was homemade. Mr. Vagle lost at the District Court and Appeals Court level, but the State Supreme Court ruled that the serialization law doesn’t apply to any firearm that doesn’t have a federal requirement for a serial number. The reason for the decision is the state statute referencing federal law.

Because of the Minnesota State Supreme Court decision in Minnesota v. Vagle, the state decided to dismiss the case, knowing now a conviction would be impossible. Mr. Anderson can now rest without a proverbial Sword of Damocles hanging over his head. The Minnesotan and law-abiding citizen can finally build back his life.

“All I have to say is I am so happy this nightmare is over,” said Walker Anderson’s mom, Sara Forgues. “It doesn’t seem real. He had an incredible team working on his case. From his lawyer, Blair Nelson, to the MN Gun Owners Caucus, who spent the last three years working on this, taking my calls, talking me off the ledge, supporting Walker and our family. And I am so grateful for people like you, who have taken the time these past two years to speak about his case. It’s how we knew we weren’t alone in this battle. He’s a good kid. With a big heart, who can finally start living his life and planning for his future. In so many ways, his life was on hold.”

Although the legal case is over, it has left Mr. Anderson and his family with massive legal fees. To help with the legal fees, his mother has set up a GiveSendGo.

---

---

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules Homemade Guns Do Not Require Serial Numbers

Sixth Circuit Admits Machineguns Are Protected by the Second Amendment

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/HE2uzkn
via IFTTT

Civil Rights Group Urges N.C. Lawmakers To Override Governor’s Veto of Permitless Firearms Carry

IMG NRA-ILA

BELLEVUE, WA – The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms recently sent letters to North Carolina lawmakers urging them to override Governor Josh Stein’s veto of their permit less carry bill. North Carolina SB 50 was passed in both legislative chambers and Governor Stein usurped the will of the people by vetoing it.

Lawmakers who should be sympathetic to the passage of the bill either did not show up to vote, voted against the measure, or are not in favor of an override. This needs to change.

Letters were sent to House Representatives Ted Davis, Jr., Stephen M. Ross, Howard Penny, Jr., and Jimmy Dixon.

“I’m writing concerning a decision that you are being tasked to make,” CCRKBA Director John Petrolino said in the letter. “I represent over 600,000 Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms members across the country. You have a chance to be part of meaningful change for all who live in and visit North Carolina.”

“You have a chance to do the right thing,” Petrolino further stated. “By continuing to support the need to have a permit in order to exercise a fundamental civil liberty, you are supporting Jim Crow era laws that keep people disarmed. There’s nothing noble about requiring a permit to exercise a constitutional right and you have the ability to help change an unjust law.”

The letters can be read in full HERE.

“This is a scenario where North Carolina should clearly yield to South Carolina and do away with a law that’s historically rooted in racism and classism,” Petrolino said in a statement. “There’s no reason why North Carolina shouldn’t be the 30th permit less carry state.”

We’ll be anxiously waiting to see if these lawmakers do the right thing and/or if they’ll respond with a commitment to vote in favor of the override. For more information on these legislative efforts in the Tar Heel state, we invite Committee members to visit the homepage of our friends over at Grassroots North Carolina. They’ve been actively tracking the progress of the permit less carry bill in their state.

For more information visit: www.grnc.org

---

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 NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?

North Carolina Governor Stein Vetoes Constitutional Carry Bill

Make Constitutional Carry the Law of the Land in North Carolina ~ Take Action

from https://ift.tt/GnXPO8a
via IFTTT

REPORT: WA Gun Sales Plummet, Women’s Group Blames Gun Laws

Gun sales have plummeted in Washington state, according to a conservative women’s group, and they blame it on restrictive gun control laws. shutterstock_Nomad_Soul 1686855574.jpg

A conservative women’s group in Washington state has issued a report decrying a “staggering 45.7 percent decline in firearm sales” from 2023 to 2024, and they place the blame squarely on passage by the Democrat-controlled legislature of restrictive gun control laws.

The group—Conservative Ladies of Washington—says on its website, “The impact is clear: fewer Washingtonians are purchasing firearms, and the chilling effect is no coincidence.”

The data comes from another group, SafeHome.org, which reported in June that “Gun sales declined most significantly between 2023 and 2024 in Washington, Connecticut, Michigan, Maryland, and New Mexico.”

According to SafeHome.org, “Leveraging data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), we’ve tracked gun sales nationwide over the past several years. Our latest analysis of these trends provides essential insights for policymakers and citizens alike, helping to ensure the safety of our homes and communities.”

Other “key findings” in the SafeHome.org include:

• An estimated 16.1 million firearms were sold in the U.S. in 2024, a 3.4% decrease from 2023.
• In the first four months of 2025, American gun dealers and individuals sold approximately 5.2 million guns, putting the year on pace for a projected 4% drop in sales compared to 2024.
• Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, New Hampshire, and Oregon had the top five highest population-adjusted gun sales rates in 2024.
• Massachusetts had the greatest year-over-year increase in gun sales at 22.5%, followed by Iowa, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and Arkansas.

The Washington-based women’s group blames the passage of House Bill 1240 in 2023, which added restrictions on gun owners and banned so-called “assault weapons.” The group argues on its website, “These policies are making it increasingly difficult for everyday citizens, especially women, to exercise their Second Amendment right to self-defense. For victims of domestic violence, stalking, or threats, access to a firearm can be the difference between life and death. When lawmakers restrict access to the most effective tools of self-protection, they leave vulnerable individuals more exposed, not safer.”

Source: SaferHome.org

As if to underscore the group’s claim, KOMO News—the Seattle-based ABC affiliate—is reporting police are investigating a double homicide at a public park in Seattle’s Lake City area.

This comes after the Center Square reported, “There were three homicides between Aug. 1 and Aug. 3, bringing the total for the city up to 25 as of Aug. 3.” With the two new slayings, the body count now is 27, which is still lower than the 31 murders recorded during the first seven months of 2024. However, there are still 2 ½ months remaining in the year.

The Conservative women’s group stated in its blistering assessment of Evergreen State gun control, “Supporters of these policies will point to declining gun sales as a ‘win,’ but for law-abiding gun owners, this is a huge red flag…These laws do not prohibit from criminals doing what criminals do.”

SafeHome.org acknowledges that gun sales have been declining since 2020. The group estimates “about 5.2 million guns were sold in the first quarter of 2025.”

As AmmoLand News reported back on July 31, gun control proponents in the Evergreen State may have a small problem explaining how overall violent crime and homicide have declined in the state at the same time thousands more citizens have obtained concealed pistol licenses (CPLs). As recently reported by the state Department of Licensing, there are now more than 713,000 active CPLs in the state—a new record—which some sources suggest translates to about 1 in 9 or 10 qualified Washington adults being licensed to carry.

SaferHome.org said the data “elucidating this examination was procured from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), spanning 2010 until April 2025.”

“To estimate arm deals,” SaferHome.org said, “we applied a formula derived from the Small Arms Survey by Jurgen Brauer, counting each long firearm and handgun verification as 1.1 purchases and each multiple-gun verification as two acquisitions. Private sale verifications were incorporated, while we omitted permit verifications and other checks.”

Texas, Florida, and California lead in total sales, the report says, while “Washington, Connecticut, and Michigan had the most significant decrease in sales.”

Data: Washington Homicides Decline While Concealed Carry Increased

Saying Quiet Part Out Loud Reveals Fatal Flaw of Gun Control

---

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/pR7yldZ
via IFTTT

Barrel Length Tyranny: Activist Courts Are Twisting the Law on Our 2nd Amendment Rights

Short-Barreled Rifles, the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court: Why Robinson v. U.S. Matters

SIG MPX SBR Primary Arms SLx 3x MicroPrism

The fight over short-barreled rifles (SBRs) isn’t just about barrel length — it’s about whether courts will follow the clear rules laid out in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), or whether they’ll find creative ways to sidestep them.

In Robinson v. U.S., the Eleventh Circuit upheld the federal restriction on SBRs without doing the required historical analysis. Instead, it leaned entirely on U.S. v. Miller (1939), treating that 86-year-old case about short-barreled shotguns as if it automatically decided the SBR question. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), along with the Second Amendment Law Center, the California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, filed an amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to take the case — and to set the record straight.

Step One: SBRs Are “Arms” Under the Second Amendment

Under Bruen, the test is simple:

1. Does the “plain text” of the Second Amendment cover the conduct?
2. If yes, does the government’s restriction align with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation?

SAF argues the first step isn’t complicated. “All firearms constituted ‘arms,’” Heller explained, citing founding-era sources (554 U.S. at 581). Short-barreled rifles are still rifles — the difference is just a few inches of barrel. The Eleventh Circuit’s refusal to even engage in historical analysis is what Justice Thomas has criticized in other cases as courts giving “a judicial middle finger” to the Supreme Court’s precedents (Duncan v. Bonta, 133 F.4th 852, 890 (9th Cir. 2025) (R. Nelson, J., dissenting)).

No Historical Tradition of Barrel-Length Restrictions

When courts do try to find historical analogues, they come up empty. Because,,, there’s no national tradition of banning common firearms based on barrel length. Winchester, for example, sold its popular Model 1892 “Trapper” lever-action in 14″ and 15″ versions — both would be SBRs under today’s NFA rules. These weren’t exotic weapons; they were production firearms sold to the public.

SAF points out that over 870,000 registered SBRs exist today, despite the NFA’s burdens. And millions of similar firearms — AR pistols, carbines with 16″ barrels, etc. — are in civilian hands without the NFA’s extra taxes and registration requirements.

PSA PA-15 5.56 Classic Stealth 11.5″ Carbine AR-15 Pistol

Even Miller Supports SBR Protection

The Eleventh Circuit claimed that Miller resolved the SBR question. That’s wrong. Miller held that a short-barreled shotgun wasn’t protected because there was no evidence it had a militia use. But SBRs do. The U.S. military’s M4 carbine has a 14.5″ barrel — making it an SBR in civilian form. If Miller is about arms “part of the ordinary military equipment” (307 U.S. at 178), SBRs are exactly that.

As SAF notes, even the U.S. government’s own brief in Miller said the Second Amendment “gave sanction only to the arming of the people as a body to defend their rights against tyrannical and unprincipled rulers” — and the arms in question were the ones useful for that mission.

The NFA’s inclusion of SBRs was never based on a belief they were “dangerous and unusual.” Congress initially planned to ban handguns, and SBRs were swept in only to prevent people from substituting them for banned pistols. When the handgun ban failed due to public backlash, SBR restrictions stayed anyway — a legislative accident that became entrenched law.

This case concerns a defendant charged with possession of an unregistered short-barrel rifle.

Skipping the Bruen analysis altogether, the 11th Circuit ruled relying entirely on U.S. v. Miller (1939) that the question was already decided, and the restrictions on SBRs are… https://t.co/aITegZGLes pic.twitter.com/6r7B0B7P5n

— SAF (@2AFDN) August 12, 2025

Special Taxes & the Second Amendment

This case is also about money. The NFA imposes a $200 tax on each SBR — the equivalent of thousands in 1934 dollars — and SAF argues there’s no historical tradition of taxing common arms.

Historical examples of taxes on arms are rare and targeted at concealable weapons like Bowie knives or pocket pistols, not the standard-issue arms of the day. An 1856 North Carolina law even exempted pistols used for militia mustering from its weapons tax.

Other taxes were openly discriminatory. In 1867, Washington County, Mississippi, imposed a $5–$15 tax “on every gun and pistol” — a sum that would be $108–$325 today — as part of Reconstruction-era efforts to disarm newly freed Black citizens. Such laws are not the “historical tradition” Bruen calls for; they are examples of unconstitutional abuse.

Why the Supreme Court Should Step In

This isn’t an isolated case. SAF points out that certain circuits — especially the Ninth and Fourth — have repeatedly twisted or sidestepped Bruen. When lower courts “appear bent on distorting this Court’s Second Amendment precedents” (Snope v. Brown, 145 S. Ct. 1534, 1538 (2025) (Thomas, J., dissenting)), waiting for more “percolation” only rewards judicial resistance.

Granting Robinson would let the Court affirm two key principles:

• All firearms are “arms” under the Second Amendment.
• Restrictions must be justified by clear historical precedent, not by skipping straight to outdated or misread cases like Miller.

And if the Court isn’t ready to take the full case, SAF urges at least a grant-vacate-remand, with instructions to do the proper historical analysis.

The Stakes

For gun owners, Robinson v. U.S. is about more than SBRs. It’s about whether courts will apply Bruen consistently — or whether the Second Amendment will be treated, in Justice Thomas’s words, as “a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees” (Bruen, 597 U.S. at 70).

If the Court takes the case, it could reaffirm that the right to keep and bear arms includes the very arms — like the M4 in military service or the civilian SBR — that are most suited to the Second Amendment’s core purposes: self-defense and defense against tyranny. And it could shut down the growing tactic of pricing the right out of reach with punitive taxes.

---

We are in dangerous times! We are NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?

Second Amendment Foundations Petition for Certiorari in Robinson v. U.S.

Supreme Court Asks for Justice Department’s Position on SBRs

NFA Prosecution Shows ATF Still Determined to Imprison Americans for Braced Pistols

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

Voter Registration vs. Gun Registration: Should We Register Both?

File Photo

The debate over firearm registration often includes a familiar analogy: “We register to vote, so why not register to own a gun?”

At first glance, the comparison appears simple—both voting and keeping arms are rights protected by the Constitution. However, a closer look at the legal, historical, and functional differences between these rights reveals why the analogy is flawed.

---

The Constitutional Foundations

• Multiple constitutional amendments (15th, 19th, 24th, 26th) protect voting, which is recognized as a cornerstone of representative democracy.
• The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment, with the clear directive that it “shall not be infringed.”

While both rights are essential to liberty, the Second Amendment contains an unusually strong prohibition on government interference—language not mirrored in voting amendments. This distinction matters: it shows the framers saw the keeping of arms as a safeguard against government overreach, not just a civic process to be managed.

---

The Purpose of Registration in Each Context

• Voter Registration exists to confirm eligibility: age, residency, citizenship, and prevention of fraud. It does not restrict the existence or possession of the right itself; it simply manages when and where it is exercised.
• Gun Registration, by contrast, involves cataloging the private ownership of specific tools that can be physically seized. This creates a direct pathway to confiscation—something voting registration does not enable.

In practical terms, voter rolls are lists of people eligible to cast a ballot; they are not inventories of ballots stored in citizens’ homes. A firearm registry is an inventory—linking specific tools to specific individuals—making the potential for abuse much higher.

---

Historical Risks of Gun Registration

Throughout the 20th century, authoritarian regimes often began disarming citizens by first requiring registration. Historical examples from Germany, the Soviet Union, and other nations illustrate how such registries became tools for confiscation, leaving the population defenseless against state power.

Voter registration lists have never been used to prevent lawful citizens from casting ballots in a similar sweeping, physical manner. While voter suppression exists as a political problem, it is not comparable to the armed seizure of constitutionally protected property.

---

The Role of Government Trust

Supporters of gun registration argue it could help law enforcement assess risk before responding to dangerous calls. Opponents note that it requires a level of trust in government that the Second Amendment was specifically designed to limit.

Voting rights advocates may accept government control over voter rolls because the act of voting inherently depends on a centralized process—elections. Gun ownership, however, exists independent of the state and is meant, in part, to provide a counterbalance to it.

---

Key Differences in Liberty Impact

Aspect	Voter Registration	Gun Registration
Purpose	Verify eligibility	Track possession of physical property
Risk of Abuse	Administrative errors, targeted suppression, corruption by non-citizens	Enables confiscation, historically misused by authoritarian regimes
Dependency on the State	Inherent—elections are state-run	Independent—firearms are privately held
Constitutional Language	Multiple amendments, no “shall not be infringed”	Explicit “shall not be infringed” directive
Effect of Registry Removal	Harder to confirm eligibility	Removes pathway to confiscation

Conclusion

The analogy between voter registration and gun registration oversimplifies two fundamentally different systems. Voter registration is an administrative safeguard for a state-run process; gun registration is a list of private arms held by citizens—precisely the kind of record history shows can be turned against the people.

In a free society, protecting the right to vote matters greatly. But, protecting the right to keep and bear arms is what ensures all other rights—including voting—remain secure.

Did we get it right? Did we get it wrong? Let us know in the comments below.

---

We are in dangerous times! We are NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?

Guns, Rights, & Responsibilities: A Civil Conversation ~ Should There Be a Line? ~ VIDEO

How was Gun Control Imposed Upon an Unwilling World?

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

Guns, Rights, & Responsibilities: A Civil Conversation ~ Should There Be a Line? ~ VIDEO

In a recent debate, two speakers [including Charlie Kirk] discussed whether America needs more gun control or if current laws already go too far.

Both agreed on some points—like the importance of the Second Amendment and the need for responsibility in gun ownership—but they sharply disagreed on where to draw the line between liberty and regulation.

Below is a summary of the key positions and tradeoffs explored in the conversation. Read it over, watch the video, and tell us what you think in our comments below.

---

Arguments for More Gun Control

• Safety and Prevention:
  Supporters believe stronger laws could prevent tragedies like school shootings and protect law enforcement officers. Ideas discussed included red flag laws, stricter background checks, and a federal registry of firearms.
• Barring Violent Offenders:
  The pro–gun control side argued that those convicted of violent crimes, such as domestic violence, should permanently lose the right to own firearms.
• Federal Registry as a Safety Tool:
  Advocates suggested that a registry would help police know what to expect when responding to dangerous calls, potentially reducing risk to officers.
• Training Requirements:
  Similar to driver’s license testing, mandatory firearms training could ensure that new gun owners know how to handle and store firearms safely.

Potential Pros:

• It could reduce access for dangerous individuals.
• It may prevent accidents through required safety training.
• It could give law enforcement better situational awareness.

Potential Cons:

• Risk of government overreach or misuse of registry data.
• The possibility of unjustly disarming lawful owners through faulty accusations or mistakes.
• It may create new barriers for law-abiding citizens seeking self-defense.

---

Arguments Against More Gun Control

• Protection of Liberty:
  Opponents argued that government registration of firearms often precedes confiscation in authoritarian regimes. They believe liberty is best preserved by keeping arms in the hands of citizens.
• Ineffectiveness of Restrictions:
  Examples were given comparing cities like Houston and Chicago, suggesting that stricter gun laws don’t necessarily mean fewer homicides.
• Red Flag Law Abuse:
  Cases were cited where veterans and lawful owners lost their firearms due to false or unverified claims, highlighting due process concerns.
• Self-Defense and Urgency:
  In states where permits take weeks to process, individuals under immediate threat may be left defenseless. Looser laws could allow quicker access for those in danger.

Potential Pros:

• Maintains the ability of citizens to resist tyranny and protect themselves.
• Reduces government control over private property.
• Avoids penalizing law-abiding citizens for crimes they didn’t commit.

Potential Cons:

• It may make it easier for dangerous individuals to obtain firearms.
• Could limit the tools available to law enforcement for risk assessment.
• Less oversight may lead to more accidental misuse by untrained owners.

---

Shared Ground

Despite their differences, both sides acknowledged:

• Gun ownership is a right that comes with responsibility.
• Some form of safety training could reduce accidental gun deaths.
• Protecting both liberty and safety is a complex balancing act.

---

Now it’s your turn.

Where do you stand? Do the potential benefits of stricter regulations outweigh the risks to liberty—or is the opposite true? Share your thoughts below.

---

A Population Capable Of Using And Operating Firearms Is Necessary

The Second Amendment & Staying Well-Regulated ~ VIDEO

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

Sixth Circuit Admits Machineguns Are Protected by the Second Amendment

East Harlem a Microcosm of What Total Democrat Control of Country Will Look Like

War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength, and junkies having sex in the streets is “public safety. With Democrats, every day is Opposite Day. (OnPoint NYC/Facebook)

“Safe injection site brings daytime public sex to East Harlem: ‘Getting my own porno show’,” a New York Post Saturday headline reports. “New York City’s controversial, taxpayer-funded ‘safe’ injection site has reached a depraved new low — with addicts so zonked out they routinely have sex in broad daylight, often at the doorstep of neighbors forced to endure the X-rated free-for-all.”

There’s nothing “safe” about it. It’s beyond disgusting. Based on results, such self-destructive degenerates can’t be trusted without a custodian, yet here, they’re not only being tolerated, but they’re also being subsidized.

It’s revealing as to the way Democrats “solve” problems created by their own edicts and policies when they are in total control.  They are in this case, you know.

Start with New York Governor Kathy Hochul, and the Empire State’s two United States Senators, Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand. Then go to New York’s Democrat-dominated State Senate and Assembly, and drill down further for East Harlem, with State Senator Cordell Cleare, State Assemblyman Adriano Espaillat, Mayor Eric Adams, and Council Member Diana Ayala.

Note that the links in the above paragraph all document that the politicians responsible for enabling intolerable conditions are all committed gun prohibitionists, who couch their citizen disarmament demands under the mantle of public safety. That being the case, how safe is it?

“The serious crime rate, including property and violent crime types, was 21.4 serious crimes per 1,000 residents in 2024, compared to 13.6 serious crimes per 1,000 residents citywide,” New York University School of Law’s Furman Center documents. By comparison, “East Harlem’s violent crimes are 264% greater than the national average. Still, East Harlem’s safety is better than that of more than 23% of other New York cities,” real estate brokerage Nest Apple reports.

Those are controlled by anti-gun (for you) Democrats, too.

It’s instructive at this point to recall what Founding Father and second president John Adams declared to the Militia of Massachusetts back in 1798:

“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

These Democrat rulers don’t care much about the Constitution except how to exploit and pervert it. They rely on the resulting criminal deviancy to amass more power for themselves.  And while they are all for abetting more degeneracy in the streets using the lying guise of being humanitarian and champions of civil liberties for the self-destructive, there’s one group of citizens they demand to lock up: Those who agree with Mr. Adams, and who will not comply with Second Amendment infringements the Democrat platform dictates.

It’s instructive to note who the Democrats want to keep on the streets and who they want to forcibly remove from society.

Their gaslighting excuse is that all the woes of their constituents are ultimately blamable on Trump, Republicans, racism, white supremacists, rightwing extremists…

That a Marxist who is running on a plan to continue and accelerate the destructive agenda, and who has gone a step further and flat-out called for banning guns, is a “serious” contender for mayor shows how widespread and dangerous the lunacy has become. And it’s not just New York City.

Take any major urban area in the Republic, the ones with the populations to ultimately control everything (including federal court appointments and reversals of all Second Amendment advances achieved to date) and they all are under Democrat control, and all are increasingly manifesting radicalism reminiscent of nothing so much as Bolshevism. Ditto, it goes without saying, for “Blue States.”

Totalitarians want it all. And if you think East Harlem is a s***hole, wait ‘til you see what they’ll turn your neighborhood into. And don’t overlook that all of this is supported by “commonsense gun safety law” organizations who help elect the politicians doing this to us. They share culpability.

If Republicans manage to blow the midterms,  and if that allows Democrats to disrupt things enough to regain the White House in 2028, gun owners who make the decision not to comply with infringements will be in for the fight of their lives.

---

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/ypjMeJz
via IFTTT

Trump Bans Banks from Discriminating Against Gun Companies

Biden’s new tax plan infringes on all American’s privacy. IMG iStock-1060256694

President Donald Trump signed an executive order banning banks from discriminating against firearms companies, removing one of the tools that previous administrations have used to curtail the rights of Americans to keep and bear arms.

The move comes after years of pressure by anti-gun politicians and groups trying to force banks from doing business with the firearms industry. During the Barack Obama presidential administration, banks were pressured by the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) to drop gun companies or charge them exorbitant rates through the agency’s “Operation Choke Point.”

According to the Wall Street Journal, the DOJ and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) would issue “informal” and “unwritten suggestions” to banks to stop doing business with firearms companies. The federal government claimed that firearms dealers were at high risk for fraud and money laundering. These claims were made even though, to purchase a firearm, the buyer must prove their identity and go through a background check.

The targets were not suspected of any crimes. The government simply didn’t like their business, so it pressured the banks to cut them off. Many critics of the operation claimed that these companies’ due process rights were being violated. The evidence presented to Congress was undeniable.

“I fear that activists at the DOJ and the FDIC are abusing their power and authority and are going after legal businesses and, in effect, they are weaponizing government to meet their ideological beliefs,” said Subcommittee chair Sean P. Duffy (R-WI) during a congressional hearing in March of 2015.

BREAKING⁰⁰@realDonaldTrump signs executive order to “guarantee” fair access to banking for gun owners & the firearm industry. ⁰⁰For years, @BarackObama & @JoeBiden weaponized the term “reputational risk” to de-bank supporters of the Second Amendment. pic.twitter.com/4A4B2CAd7E

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 7, 2025

Gun dealers were lumped into a category with other so-called “high-risk” businesses by the FDIC. These different businesses included drug paraphernalia sales, escort services, Ponzi schemes, and pyramid-type sales. The FDIC would be forced to revise its policy in July 2014. Operation Choke Point would continue until 2017. After the FDIC settled multiple lawsuits and a blistering report from Congress, the operation was finally shuttered.

The report read: “Forceful prosecution of those who defraud American consumers is both responsible and admirable. However, Department of Justice initiatives to combat mass-market consumer fraud must be legitimate exercises of the Department’s legal authorities and must be executed in a manner that does not unfairly harm legitimate merchants and individuals. Operation Choke Point fails both these requirements. The Department’s radical reinterpretation of what constitutes an actionable violation under § 951 of FIRREA fundamentally distorts Congress’s intent in enacting the law, and inappropriately demands that bankers act as the moral arbiters and policemen of the commercial world. In light of the Department’s obligation to act within the bounds of the law, and its avowed commitment not to ‘discourage or inhibit’ the lawful conduct of honest merchants, it is necessary to disavow and dismantle Operation Choke Point.”

Even though the operation ended, there was still pressure on banks to stop doing business with gun companies from anti-gun organizations. These organizations would apply pressure to banks to drop companies. Many banks and credit card processors stopped doing business with gun companies because of “reputational risk.”

One company was Elavon, which threatened to stop doing business with companies selling 80% kits. These demands came before the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF’s) new rule on frames and receivers.

With the new executive order, the anti-gun organizations have one less method of curtailing the rights of Americans. These anti-gun organizations are against discrimination unless it is for political means.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 19X 9mm Pistol w/ Glock Night Sights - 19rd	Rainier Arms	$ 649.99
	Glock 19X 9mm Pistol With Glock Night Sights, Flat Dark Earth - UX1950703	Palmetto State Armory	$ 795.99 $ 588.99
	Glock 17 9mm Pistol, 4.49" Barrel, Fixed Sights, Black - 80577	Palmetto State Armory	$ 799.99 $ 569.99
	Glock 19X 9mm Pistol w/ Glock Night Sights - 19rd (USA Made)	Rainier Arms	$ 649.99

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/9RodG3g
via IFTTT