Expect Threats to Increase as Subversive Influencers Continue to Incite

Expect more would-be attackers to be triggered by Democrat and media rhetoric, all aimed at keeping illegal aliens in the country. (Homeland Security)

“DHS Arrests New Jersey Twins who Threatened to Shoot ICE Officers ‘On Sight’ and Hang Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin,” a Tuesday Homeland Security press release announces. “Emilio Roman-Flores is being charged with unlawful possession of an assault weapon, possession of prohibited weapons, conspiracy terroristic threats, criminal coercion, threats, and cyber harassment. Ricardo Antonio Roman-Flores is charged with conspiracy terroristic threats.”

Fox News gives more insights on what the brothers were “thinking”:

“[The Second] Amendment is in place for moments like this. Shoot ICE on sight,” one of the brothers allegedly tweeted…

Putting stupid stuff like that out on social media is a “low-hanging fruit” move that’s a sure way to get the attention of authorities. And getting the attention of authorities was a great way for them to bring the full power and virtually unlimited resources of the state down on the twins’ heads. Not the brightest bulbs…

And while it could (and should) be argued that the weapons possession charges — on their own —  are violations of the Second Amendment, their discovery in the context of threatening online statements makes them fair and legitimate game. If the brothers are found guilty of terror charges, they should remain separated from all weapons by segregating them behind bars, away from the rest of society.

It’s fair to wonder, though, where they got the idea that attacking federal officers enforcing duly enacted laws passed by democratically elected representatives can be construed as a legitimate application of the Second Amendment. It can’t be, but it’s probably fair to suspect they didn’t come up with the idea on their own, especially since it’s been spread around on mass media that the country is immersed in.

Case in point, former CNN talking head Don Lemon practically said as much on a widely reported recent podcast:

Former CNN host Don Lemon is urging “black and brown people” to buy guns and arm themselves as the Trump administration cracks down on illegal immigration… “Get a license to carry legally because when you have people knocking on your door and taking you away without due process as a citizen, isn’t that what the Second Amendment was written for?” He knows that’s not the issue.

Disingenuously and incompletely repeating points raised by 2A advocates is similar to the tactic employed by prominent Democrats when they calculatedly parody Oath Keepers. In all cases, they don’t actually define what the government is doing unlawfully, and they take pains to not cross the line between free speech and incitement, to incriminate themselves with what they’re advocating.

It’s interesting that Lemon made his point to The New York Times and The Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali, “a Pakistani-descent Muslim whose parents came to the U.S. in 1965,” who shows his appreciation for being let into this country by gloating that foreigners are taking over and our culture, which he abhors, is finished:

Wajahat Ali: “Whites, your mistake is you let us in. We are breeding people. Your culture suck. You already lost.”

White culture is being exterminated… pic.twitter.com/CICqZyMiYI

— Officer Lew (@officer_Lew) November 30, 2025

This is what the Senate oath-breakers perverting Oath Keepers points, and Fourth Estate Fifth Columnist Don Lemon suddenly positioning himself as a Second Amendment purist, are heralding and ushering in. Ditto for the Democrat Party for obvious political reasons, the mayor of every major city, and every one of the useful idiots that vote for them, go to “No Kings” rallies, demand gun bans, etc.

It’s instructional to note how Democrat condemnation was universal when one-time Nevada U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle referenced “Second Amendment solutions,” but they all clam up in response to Lemon’s call to war.

The thing is, Angle was talking about using it for that which the Founders intended, as a last resort when all else failed to resist tyranny and restore Constitutional order. That’s the same Constitution that – in its Preamble – lays out the ground rules for why powers are being delegated and why all legitimate laws that are enacted serve a specific Prime Directive:

[S]ecure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…

Not themselves and their posterity.

What we are facing is nothing less than existential. Pray we don’t have to resort to Second Amendment solutions. But don’t be surprised if that choice is forced on those who won’t be intimidated by subversives and ruled by tyrants and invaders.

---

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/hIiQo0f
via IFTTT

The Twisted World of Gun Control

Gun control advocates and Democrats inhabit a different space. Perhaps it’s another dimension or some kind of odd singularity. Whatever it is, it’s a fantasy, complete with all the trappings, in which facts are not only irrelevant, they’re squashed by whatever claims are made by the faithful.

We’re accustomed to unsupported (and unsupportable) claims, cynical appeals to emotion, and carefully crafted, mass-market propaganda. However, it appears some gun-grabbers, even influential ones, have succumbed to their addiction and actually believe what they say. They have embraced the elves-and-fairies lifestyle.

After Thurston County Superior Court Judge Christine Schaller upheld Washington’s assault weapons ban* last month, Renée Hopkins, CEO of Alliance for Gun Responsibility, released a statement:

“This is another strong affirmation that our state’s gun violence prevention laws are both constitutional and effective. Assault weapons have no place in our communities, and Washington has been clear about that.”

We’re still waiting on the Supreme Court to weigh in on ‘constitutional’ but ‘effective’? This is obviously some new definition of the word not found in any dictionary — ever.

A report from the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs covered violent crime from 2019 to 2024. The report compared the number of offenses and rate per 100,00 population for Washington state to the national stats.

Washington’s violent crime rate rose 8%; aggravated assaults rose 27%; and the murder rate soared 43%.

Compare those figures to the national rates: The U.S. violent crime rate dropped 6%; the rate of` aggravated assaults rose just 2%; and the murder rate fell 4%.

Red flag laws weren’t ‘effective’, either. In the five years from 2019 to 2023, the CDC reported the percentage of Washington suicides committed with a gun rose 7%.

In fairness, if Ms. Hopkins’ concept of ‘effective’ is an increase in firearm-related fatalities, Washington’s statutes are doing an exemplary job.

There was another notable aberration in September of this year. Following a tragic mass shooting in Manhattan, New York Governor Kathy Hochul sought to place blame on Nevada’s lax gun laws.

Hochul bragged about New York state’s gun laws and demanded Congress pass similar laws on a national basis.

Neither Hochul nor the media figured out that all those strong gun laws failed spectacularly. They not only failed to prevent the incident, but there’s also no indication that they impacted the killer at all. Despite this, she wants all Americans to be subjected to those same laws.

All that’s missing is Rod Serling saying, “Presented for your consideration…”

Ensconced in their little pocket of ersatz reality, gun grabbers believe nothing can stand in the way of their desired goals. Even the impossible is disregarded.

Ihlan Omar, the controversial U.S. Representative from Minnesota’s Fifth Congressional District, was captured on video as she spoke to a group:

“We have more guns in this country than we have humans. So one of the things that is going to be important is to create a registry so we know where the guns are. We know when they go into the wrong hands when they’re stolen. And we can actually start a buyback program. I know that some of the Minnesota legislators have had that legislation and that’s something that we should be thinking about on a federal level.”

Her first sentence is irrelevant: We also have more Crayola crayons than people. Left to themselves, they pose exactly the same threat to public safety as firearms — or steak knives, hand tools, or Ford F-150 trucks.

From the second sentence on, Rep. Omar falls back on a popular gun-grabber fantasy: Federal gun registration. There are two obstacles in our world, but it seems they aren’t considered an issue in whatever dimension is occupied by the gun-control crazies.

First, a national registry of firearms or firearm owners is prohibited by federal law and has been since May 19, 1986. 18 U.S. Code § 926 says: “No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”

The second challenge will be much more difficult to overcome: Americans are not going to register their guns. Only a fraction of the estimated 400 million+ firearms owned by more than 80 million citizens are located in states with long-standing gun registration laws. Attempts to impose new, state-level registration requirements on certain types of firearms delivered ‘disappointing’ results.

Actually believing in gun buybacks indicates a ban fan’s addiction has entered a critical phase, urgently requiring an intervention.

When it comes to restrictions on the legal ownership of guns, control addicts and Democrats cling to beliefs less credible than the Easter Bunny. These strongly indicate there’s no point in future discussions.

On the other hand, there is a pressing need for us to rein in some rogues in Congress and state legislatures who have fallen to the lure of the unicorn.

*Guardian Arms v. Washington

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

from https://ift.tt/H6ZDqbR
via IFTTT

Real Second Amendment Curriculum Could be Headed to High Schools Soon

(Photo from licensed Shutterstock account).

All eyes are turning toward the University of Wyoming, which recently received nearly $1 million in federal dollars to create Second Amendment curriculum for high school students that “highlights ongoing debates about firearms education in American schools and the federal government’s role in shaping how constitutional issues are taught,” according to a UW press release.

The U.S. Department of Education awarded a $908,991 grant to the college this year to develop what university officials have promised would be “historically grounded school curriculum on the Second Amendment.”

The money came from more than $137 million in federal funds that were redirected by President Donald L. Trump.

The University of Wyoming hosts the nationally known Firearm Research Center, which is one of very few college programs that do not add a leftist “gun-violence” perspective to everything they study and teach.

Instead, the FRC’s mission is to “foster a broad discourse and produce meaningful change in how firearms and the Second Amendment are discussed and understood in America through research, scholarship, legal training, and publicly available resources.”

FRC officials said the funds would create nationwide tools that will allow educators “to better understand the constitutional right to bear arms.”

“The doctrinal complexity of the Second Amendment is too often obscured by divisive discourse. We seek to provide a much-needed apolitical approach to an otherwise politically charged topic, emphasizing the legal and civic origins of the right to bear arms, connecting it to the early principles of the nation’s founding and examining its evolving role, through legal interpretation, in American culture over time,” George Mocsary, FRC’s director and a UW law professor said in a press release.

Recipients of the finished work will include UW professors, an advisory committee that includes K-12 teachers, scholars, public health experts and UW’s College of Education.

The finished product, Mocsary promised, will be extremely high-tech.

“Through a deliberately layered program of professional development, artificial intelligence-assisted archival research and open-access instructional media, the Firearms Research Center will empower teachers to cultivate in K-12 students the habits of mind essential to critical inquiry, evidentiary reasoning and civic deliberation,” Mocsary said according to the press release.

FRC’s strong 2A history

Any concern that the FRC may be secretly cashing checks from Michael Bloomberg or any other anti-gun hobgoblin are silly and not viable.

Even UW’s law school is pro-gun and refers to itself as “the premier law school for practitioners who serve the legal needs of all those who produce, employ, own, and regulate firearms.”

A quick look at its finished work products shows the FRC’s strong support for both gun owners and the Second Amendment.

Here are some of FRC’s recent reports:

• Bruen Means Bear; Heller Held Hunt
• Young Adults and Firearms: Why Gun Bans are an Ineffective and Unconstitutional Way to Lower Gun Violence in the United States
• The Debate Over the ATF Digitizing Gun Sales Records from Out-of-Business Firearms Dealers
• Second Amendment Law Applied to Attachments and Modifications to Firearms
• Bringing a Knife to a Gun Fight; A Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Takeaways

The FRC’s final work product will be both noteworthy and extremely needed, because it’s high time to share real information with high schoolers about the Second Amendment.

While the Department of Education cannot force this curriculum onto schools, parents and real educators can and definitely should insist that their schools bring it on board.

Even if blue states ignore or oppose this federally sponsored work, the high schoolers who are allowed to learn the true meaning of the Second Amendment will be far more advanced in their understanding of our constitutional rights than their blue-state based colleagues.

This, friends, could be a big win for our kids. It truly deserves our support.

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.

---

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/wSPV7mY
via IFTTT

En Banc Review Granted in New Jersey Sensitive Places Lawsuit

En Banc Review Granted in New Jersey Sensitive Places Lawsuit

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals has agreed to an en banc review of the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) challenge to New Jersey’s “sensitive places” firearms carry restrictions.

The case, Koons v. Attorney General of New Jersey, challenges laws New Jersey enacted in response to the 2022 landmark Supreme Court Bruen decision. The laws create multiple overlapping categories of so-called “sensitive places” where even those with a concealed carry permit are prohibited from carrying a firearm. The restrictions, in essence, cover almost every square inch of the state, severely limiting where residents can exercise their Second Amendment rights.

SAF filed a petition for en banc review in October after securing a partial victory in the case when a three-judge panel upheld the preliminary injunction SAF won at the district court for the carry of loaded, operable firearms in private vehicles and carry on private property open to the public without the owners express consent or signage. That panel decision did, however, uphold numerous provisions of New Jersey’s post-Bruen “sensitive places” law.

“We are thrilled the court has agreed to hear this case with the full panel of judges,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “The provisions left in place after the three-judge review fly in the face of not only the Second Amendment, but also the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bruen. We are optimistic the court will rule in our favor and finally stop infringing on the constitutional rights of New Jersey residents.”

SAF is joined in the case by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, New Jersey Second Amendment Society and four private citizens.

“Lawmakers in New Jersey are doing nothing more than wasting taxpayer money while at the same time continuing to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of residents,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “This thinly veiled attempt to make the Second Amendment a second-class right hast to be stopped, and we look forward to fighting this bad faith law in court.”

For more information visit SAF.org.

Federal Appeals Court Strikes Major Blow to NJ’s Anti-Gun Carry Laws

---

About the Second Amendment Foundation

The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group dedicated to safeguarding and promoting the fundamental rights of individuals enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. SAF engages in aggressive legal action to ensure the principles of armed self-defense, personal liberty, and the ownership of arms are defended, secured, and restored. Through public education initiatives, SAF teaches the importance of the Second Amendment to promote a society that values and exercises the right to keep and bear arms.

from https://ift.tt/GTtyu0s
via IFTTT

CCW Update: 46.8% Live in ‘Constitutional Carry’ States; Antis Cringe

An updated report on concealed carry acknowledges the impact of “constitutional carry” laws in 29 states on the data.

A new report from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) on concealed carry in the U.S. reveals that 46.8 percent of Americans now live in “Constitutional Carry” states—there are 29 of them—where no license or permit is required, while Congress is mulling H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, and anti-gunners are in a panic.

The report was prepared by John R. Lott, CPRC founder and CEO; Carlisle E. Moody, College of William & Mary – Department of Economics and CPRC associate, and Rujun Wang.

In a lengthy article published by The Trace—the pro-gun control news organ backed by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg—the alarm bells start ringing at the headline: “What Would Concealed Carry Reciprocity Mean for States with Tighter Gun Laws?” At least the article acknowledges, “When it comes to carrying a gun, the laws of the state you’re carrying in apply. That means reciprocity is not a blanket permission slip.”

Of course, this is spelled out in the text of H.R. 38, which may be read here. The pertinent language says this:

“Reciprocity for the carrying of certain concealed firearms

“(a) Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or political subdivision thereof (except as provided in subsection (b)) and subject only to the requirements of this section, a person who is not prohibited by Federal law from possessing, transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm, who is carrying a valid identification document containing a photograph of the person, and who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides, may possess or carry a concealed handgun (other than a machine gun or destructive device) that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, in any State that—

“(1) has a statute under which residents of the State may apply for a license or permit to carry a concealed firearm; or

“(2) does not prohibit the carrying of concealed firearms by residents of the State for lawful purposes.

“(b) This section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, or base.”

While the CPRC report notes that licensed concealed carry declined 2.7 percent from the 2024 data, there are still an estimated 20.88 million active permits/licenses across the country, a figure which does not mean the practice of carrying defensive sidearms has diminished.

As CPRC’s Lott puts it in the report, “A major factor behind this ongoing decrease is the widespread adoption of Constitutional Carry laws… Unlike gun ownership surveys that may be affected by people’s unwillingness to answer personal questions, concealed handgun permit data is the only really ‘hard data’ that we have, but it becomes a less accurate measure as more states become Constitutional Carry states.”

Translation: It is at best difficult to estimate the number of legally-armed citizens in the 29 Constitutional Carry states, and the figure could be in the hundreds of thousands, and maybe even more.

However, as fully explained in the legislation above, The Trace article seems deliberately confusing when it states, “As written, the bill appears to go beyond mandating that states honor other states’ permits. It would also effectively create nationwide permitless carry for people whose home states have such laws on the books.”

Not according to the bill, which stipulates reciprocity applies to a person “who is carrying a valid license or permit which is issued pursuant to the law of a State and which permits the person to carry a concealed firearm or is entitled to carry a concealed firearm in the State in which the person resides…”

The CPRC report highlights several important findings:

• 7.8% of American adults have permits. Outside of the restrictive states of California and New York, about 9.3% of adults have a permit.
• In 15 states, more than 10% of adults have permits. Utah has slipped below the 10% mark this year. Indiana has the highest permit rate at 22.7%, followed by Colorado at 19.0% and Pennsylvania at 16.2%.
• Five states now have over 1 million permit holders: Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Texas. Florida is the top states with 2.38 million permits.
• Twenty-nine states have adopted Constitutional Carry for their entire state, meaning that a permit is no longer required. Because of these Constitutional Carry states, the concealed carry permits number does not paint a full picture of how many people are legally carrying across the nation. Many residents still choose to obtain permits so that they can carry in other states that have reciprocity agreements, but while permits are increasing in the non-Constitutional Carry states, they fell in the Constitutional Carry ones even though more people are clearly carrying in those states.
• A survey CPRC conducted with McLaughlin & Associates in 2023 found that 15.6% of general election voters carry concealed handguns.
• In 2025, women made up 28.5% of permit holders in the 14 states that provide data by gender. Seven states had data from 2012 to 2024/2025, and permit numbers grew 106.1% faster for women than for men.

There is one other fact the CPRC report highlights, and it is one which even some gun control advocates stubbornly acknowledge.

“Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding,” CPRC says. “In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms related violations at one-twelfth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.”

Lastly, The Trace story falls back on one of the most tired, yet relentless arguments put forth by the gun prohibition lobby, which compares a concealed carry license to getting a driver’s license: “With drivers licenses, you have to take a vision test and a written test, and then you have to pass a proficiency test” that requires actually driving a vehicle, she said. But concealed carry permit requirements vary widely from state to state, with most not requiring live-fire training.”

Driving is considered a privilege, which can be regulated by state traffic laws. It’s asn apples versus oranges argument, and the gun control crowd knows it.

Bearing arms is a constitutionally-protected right, a fact which gun control proponents seem determined to ignore, and want the general public to forget.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s officially-launched “Second Amendment Section “ in the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division appears geared toward reminding anti-gunners about the differences between rights and privileges.

---

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/RlQm6ia
via IFTTT

If Elon Musk Supports the Second Amendment, Why Is X Still Banning Gun Ads?

Put A Henry Under Your Tree Henry Arm Billboard

Elon Musk has championed the First and Second Amendments in the United States Bill of Rights. However, X, formerly Twitter, has a policy that prohibits the promotion of weapons and weapon accessories worldwide. In effect, this bans paid advertising for all weapons and weapon accessories, even so far as to include airsoft guns, air guns, paintball guns, and imitation guns. From business.x.com:

This policy applies to monetization on X and X’s paid advertising products.

What’s the policy?

X prohibits the promotion of weapons and weapon accessories globally.

Examples of weapons and weapon accessories include:

• Guns, including airsoft guns, air guns, blow guns, paintball guns, antique guns, replica guns, and imitation guns
• Rental of guns (other than from shooting ranges)
• Stun guns, taser guns, mace, pepper spray, or other similar self defense weapons
• Swords, machetes, and other edged/bladed weapons
• Fireworks, flamethrowers, and other pyrotechnic devices
• Knives, including butterfly knives, fighting knives, switchblades, disguised knives, and throwing stars

Most large platforms have caved to anti-Second Amendment propaganda. The X policy likely predates Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter. Elon Musk has been a strong proponent of the Second Amendment. The X policy on weapons could change in the future, as each platform privately makes these decisions.

Comcast Corporation banned advertisements promoting guns or gun sales in 2013. Time Warner banned some gun advertising in 2013.  From opb.org:

So what this means is that the main sort of conventional media channels for advertising of other consumer products are not available to gun manufacturers. For example, Comcast and Time Warner have initiated bans on firearms in 2013. Other major television broadcasters like ESPN and Fox and CBS do not accept advertisements for firearms or ammunition. And major digital and social media platforms like Google, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, prohibit ads for firearms and ammunition.

Such broad bans are having unintended consequences. Advertising is decentralized today and targeted. Nationwide TV ads may not be cost-effective for the firearms industry. This may not hold true for X, Facebook, or YouTube.

Being banned on large platforms sends a subtle message that guns are bad. The absence of gun advertisements is unlikely to convince anyone that guns are not helpful. Programming, both fiction and factual, shows many examples where guns are used for positive purposes. Anyone who studies history sees many examples where those with guns rule those without guns. Advertising bans on major outlets and networks push people who sell guns and related products to advertise in other ways. In today’s fractured and partisan media, this means gun-related channels such as AmmoLand and popular gun influencers are able to attract more advertising dollars. People who are interested in purchasing guns find them in places where guns are valued.

It is similar to what happened after the Gun Control Act of 1968. The act pushed most casual sellers of guns and ammunition out of the marketplace. When this correspondent grew up, it seemed that about half of the retail outlets sold guns and ammunition. It was common to see them sold in many different stores.  After 1968, gun sales moved into specialized gun stores. The gun stores became centers for the spread of political information and nodes of political networks to organize gun owners. They still serve that purpose. The Internet has become a more effective method of organizing and informing Second Amendment supporters.  Influencers on the Internet provide more specific, accurate, and detailed reporting on Second Amendment issues than anything in old, large legacy media.

It would be beneficial to the 2A community to see Elon Musk make a political statement by allowing for firearms, ammunition, and accessories to be advertised on X. It could help X stand out from Facebook, Instagram, YouTube, and others. It could enhance X’s reputation as the freedom brand. Elon Musk would gain credibility by backing his views with his actions.

This correspondent does not worry about it. Elon Musk has already demonstrated he is a Second Amendment advocate.

The effort to ban gun advertising has backfired. It has not worked. Consider the number of guns in today’s society. Since the Internet became popular in the mid-1990s, the number of privately owned firearms has skyrocketed. In 1995, there were about 243 million privately owned firearms in the United States. In the last 30 years, the number has increased to about 540 million (as of December 2025), representing a nearly 300 million increase in firearms over the same period. The number of firearms per person in the United States has increased from .890 in 1993 to about 1.57 firearms per person in the USA today, based on 540 million private firearms in the USA and a 2025 population of 343 million.

Some of this stupendous increase is because firearms today take much less labor to make, distribute, and purchase. They are often of better quality. The same goes for ammunition. Firearms and ammunition today take much less of a person’s time to acquire.

The nature of reality itself plays a role. Firearms increase an individual’s personal power. A person with increased personal power has advantages over those who lack it. Firearms are great equalizers. A 100-pound woman with a pistol can intimidate a 250-pound man without one. When both have firearms, parity is accomplished.

The ban on advertising for weapons has not had the effect that those who pushed for it desired. Society has sought to reestablish the Second Amendment as a guarantee of empowerment for the weak and a check on government power.

---

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/F6chvZU
via IFTTT

Behind Bars: A Day in the Life of Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak

Behind Bars: A Day in the Life of Patrick ‘Tate’ Adamiak, iStock-980041056

Patrick “Tate” Adamiak is starting the third year of his 20-year federal prison sentence, even though he broke no law and did nothing wrong.

We’ve written more than 30 stories about Adamiak’s legal dilemma; how he was charged with possessing “illegal” arms that are still sold online without ID every single day; how his first federal judge allowed prosecutors to use evidence that had been severely doctored by the ATF; and how his questionable criminal charges were filed when Joe Biden was president and would likely never happen today.

We’ve documented how Adamiak, who is 31 years old, would be leading a SEAL platoon if he hadn’t been targeted by the ATF, and we’ve reported how this horrible case has affected Adamiak, his family and his friends.

What we’ve never mentioned, until now, is how Adamiak spends his days behind bars at the Federal Correctional Institution in Fort Dix, New Jersey, which is home to about 4,000 other federal inmates.

“FCI Fort Dix is a decrepit facility. The complex was discarded by the military decades ago as uninhabitable and later converted into a prison. The mold-infested, asbestos-ridden, lead-paint-filled buildings are literally falling apart. The showers look like a set from the movie “Saw,” and you get dripped on by the facilities above while bathing,” Adamiak said. “Ceilings collapse, windows leak, and there is no working ventilation in the winter. There is no air conditioning, so the summer months are unbearably hot and infested with fruit flies. With nearly $48,500 allocated per inmate per year—about $3 billion annually—many of us question where the money is going. Almost 4,000 inmates are here, and we were stunned watching Fox News tour the GITMO facilities—they look nicer than this place. Since the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP) makes no effort to house us near home, they might as well send us there.”

Daily prison life

“I first wake up at 5 a.m. when they bang the door and shine a flashlight on my face, which happens three times a night,” Adamiak said. “I get up around 6 a.m. I used to be in a cell with 11 other guys. I got a two-person cell about two months ago. I wake up to the sound of a loud staticky PA system calling inmates to their assignments. I get my uniform on and make my breakfast. It’s the same thing every day: oatmeal and peanut butter. Then I go to work or school depending on the day.

Adamiak has been trained by the prison as a steamfitter.

“I work with the gas pipes and hot water heating systems,” he said. “Basically, I keep the buildings warm. I am a grade one, in charge of the inmate population at the shop. We do repairs throughout the day, installing new systems and fixing old ones.”

Work ends at around 10:30 a.m. every day.

“We gotta return all the tools,” he said. “I walk around with boxcutters and hammers, which is interesting. We go to lunch and check the tools back out after lunch. Around 2 p.m. we’ll return to the cell. Lately, we’ve been coming back early.

Lunch is basically the same every day.

“We’re on a four- or five-week food schedule. We have chicken sandwiches every Tuesday, with tons of rice and beans every meal. It’s fine, I guess, but most people when they first come in and they’re fresh here won’t even eat it. Microwaves are banned. To heat their own food, inmates make ‘stingers’—two wires attached to metal plates that are dropped into mop buckets filled with water to boil it. Food is wrapped in trash bags and submerged. It’s disgusting and unsafe but the only option. Our drinking water comes from 1940s plumbing. Inline filters rarely get changed due to funding. Staff refuse to drink Fort Dix water because it is known to be contaminated.”

Boredom is a significant problem.

“When we return to the cell, I normally decompress by studying, reviewing my case or researching things I’m interested in. I’ll daydream about things I want to do when I get out, make phone calls and send emails to family and friends,” he said. “I shower every day in the afternoon, but we have a 4 p.m. count, so I have to be back in my cell to get counted. After that they’ll do mail call and then we’ll go to dinner.”

Dinner actually changes more than lunch.

“Dinner is the same thing on a rotating schedule, but it’s very similar to lunch. There’s a lot of rice and beans, crappy tacos, just water to drink. You get one tray and that’s it,” he said. “After dinner, I’ll go back to the unit (cell). Depending upon the day, I’ll watch news, do a lot of writing, read about my case or read a book. I have a couple of friends here who have accomplished a lot in their lives, contractors and businesspeople. I will talk to them and try to learn about their lives.”

Adamiak usually goes to bed at 9:30 p.m., or thereabouts.

“It’s a lot of dead time,” he said. “If you’re not reading, writing or working on a case, there’s not a lot to do.”

He is well known by the other inmates as the only innocent man behind bars.

“Yeah, everybody knows,” he said. “Most people, when they’re discussing my story, say of all the people they’ve met, I’m the one person who should not be here. I have heard multiple people say that here. Of all the people here, everybody says they’re innocent, but I am the only one who truly knows he is.”

His federal prison is not high security, but it is always dangerous.

“Somebody died here last weekend. There are fights every day, stabbings frequently. I haven’t had to physically fight anyone, but people have tried to rob me. I deescalated using no force. Most of the times I try to deescalate verbally. It’s a hostile environment. We’ve got people in here and that’s all they know. At one point it’s just such a cluster.”

Mass punishment is a problem for the 370 inmates in Adamiak’s building.

“If one person is found with contraband, they consider buying food a privilege, so they stop it as punishment,” he said. “The food in the canteen is only chips, cookies and salty meat. That’s problematic. Medical here is a joke. They’re not helpful at all. I would rather suffer in silence. It’s mentally disturbing to go to medial. They make you wait for four hours. I don’t even bother.”

Communication with his family is a money-maker for the prison.

“Communication with family is limited and expensive, even though inmates are scored on how much they communicate with loved ones. The more communication, the lower your custody level. Studies show that strong family connections reduce recidivism and improve mental health, but the FBOP treats communication as a profit opportunity,” he said. “We are limited to 300 phone minutes per month—about 10 minutes per day. That may sound like a lot, but it is nothing when you’re hundreds of miles away from family. Even inmates who qualify for fee waivers under President Trump’s First Step Act are still charged.”

The federal prison is poorly managed.

“There’s no consistency,” he said. “Everything is supposed to have a time like a high school when you gotta catch a bell. It’s supposed to have a rhythm. If you’re trying to leave at 7:20 for work, you stand there waiting. It’s the same thing outside. It could be pouring rain or snowing like today. It’s 30 degrees outside yet we were out there for half an hour. There’s no consistency for staff.”

Despite his innocence, Adamiak has learned things behind bars.

“I won’t take little things for granted anymore,” he said. “When you come to prison, you develop an appreciation for a lot of things people outside take for granted. I’ve learned to appreciate things more. I learned how to survive with nothing. Being in here, I pretty much live off of soup. The first thing I’m going to do when I get out is get something to eat with my family.”

Said Adamiak: “I already lost my mom since this all started. I was scared when I came in, to be frank. Am I ever going to spend another day with my dad? The worst thing about prison are all the missed opportunities and memories of friends and family. I am missing out on everything. The best years of my life are being burned away for no reason, since I did nothing wrong.”

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.

---

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/BbveCdL
via IFTTT

Fifth Circuit Upholds the NFA’s Constitutionality

Fifth Circuit Upholds the NFA’s Constitutionality

On December 9, 2025, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reissued a significant ruling in the case of United States v. George Peterson, affirming the conviction of George Peterson, a Louisiana firearms dealer, for possessing an unregistered suppressor in violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA). Chief Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod, a George W. Bush appointee, penned the decision.

Mr. Peterson’s legal troubles began in the summer of 2022 when federal and state law enforcement officers, led by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), executed a warrant at his home-based business, PDW Solutions, LLC. The investigation, spanning several months, uncovered multiple violations, including unreported firearm sales and a misrepresentation on Peterson’s federal firearms license (FFL) application. During the raid, ATF agents discovered a homemade suppressor in Peterson’s bedroom closet safe, which lacked a serial number and was not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, leading to his indictment.

Peterson pleaded guilty to the charge but reserved the right to appeal the denial of two pretrial motions: a motion to dismiss the indictment on Second Amendment grounds and a motion to suppress evidence on Fourth Amendment grounds. The Fifth Circuit’s ruling, filed on August 27, 2025, and substituted on December 9, 2025, addressed these challenges.

On the Second Amendment front, Peterson argued that the NFA’s registration requirement unconstitutionally burdened his right to bear arms, asserting that suppressors qualify as “Arms” under the amendment. The court assumed, without deciding, that suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment, aligning with arguments from both Peterson and the government. However, it upheld the NFA’s constitutionality by classifying its licensing regime as a “shall-issue” system, which the Fifth Circuit claimed the Supreme Court deemed presumptively lawful in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen. This regime requires the ATF to issue licenses to applicants who meet objective criteria, such as passing background checks and paying a $200 tax, ensuring that only “law-abiding, responsible citizens” possess firearms.

The court noted that Peterson failed to demonstrate that the NFA’s requirements imposed an unconstitutional burden on him. He admitted to forgetting to register the suppressor after making it and, according to the Fifth Circuit, lacked evidence of exorbitant fees or lengthy processing times that might deny his rights. The Fifth Circuit emphasized that Peterson’s as-applied challenge lacked substantiation, reinforcing the presumption of legality of shall-issue regulations established in prior cases such as McRorey v. Garland.

Turning to the Fourth Amendment issue, Peterson challenged the search warrant’s validity, arguing it lacked probable cause. The district court had denied his motion to suppress the suppressor, citing the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule. This exception allows evidence obtained under a warrant to be admissible if officers reasonably relied on it, even if the warrant is later deemed defective. The Fifth Circuit agreed, finding that the ATF’s affidavit, detailing Peterson’s unreported sales and license misrepresentation, provided sufficient indicia of probable cause to justify the officers’ reliance. The Circuit Court found none of the exceptions to the good-faith rule, such as intentional misrepresentation or a facially deficient warrant, applied, thereby affirming the district court’s decision.

The case has sparked debate among anti-gun groups and Second Amendment advocates. Suppressors, often misnamed “silencers” in popular culture, reduce firearm noise but do not eliminate it, offering benefits like hearing protection for shooters and reduced noise pollution for hunters. Commentators note their infrequent use in crimes, with studies citing only a handful of cases over decades. Yet, opponents argue that suppressors could hinder crime detection, even though the leading gunshot detection system, ShotSpotter, has been shown to be less than effective.

Mr. Peterson’s 24-month prison sentence reflects the seriousness with which federal authorities view NFA violations, even though suppressors do not pose a serious threat to public safety. His appeal highlighted tensions between individual rights and regulatory oversight. The decision leaves open the possibility of future challenges if evidence emerges of abusive application, such as excessive delays or fees, but the panel felt that Peterson’s case met that threshold.

Some anti-gun groups suggest the ruling aligns with a broader trend of upholding shall-issue regimes, as seen in other circuits. Critics argue that this historical context might support future as-applied challenges if a long wait time can be shown. However, the court believed that Peterson failed to pursue this angle, thereby limiting its consideration.

The case has no immediate effect on state laws, as Louisiana does not ban suppressors, unlike at least eight other states. For now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision reinforces the NFA’s framework. Peterson’s legal team has not indicated plans for further appeals but is expected to seek en banc review of the ruling, which the full bench could rehear and vacate the panel’s decision.

---

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/dSi9CGy
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Kills Missouri’s Second Amendment Protection Act

Supreme Court Kills Missouri’s Second Amendment Protection Act. Image created by AmmoLand editors with Artlist AI.

The Supreme Court just delivered a significant blow to Second Amendment advocates across the nation. On October 6, 2025, the high court refused to hear Missouri’s appeal of its Second Amendment Protection Act, effectively killing one of the most ambitious state-level efforts to shield gun owners from federal overreach. For those who believe in robust gun rights and state sovereignty, this represents a devastating setback with implications that reach far beyond the Show Me State.

Missouri’s Second Amendment Preservation Act, passed in 2021, aimed to establish a firewall between state resources and federal enforcement of gun control measures. The law declared certain federal firearms regulations “invalid” within Missouri’s borders and prohibited state and local officials from assisting federal authorities in enforcing them. Perhaps most notably, it authorized private citizens to sue agencies that cooperated with federal gun enforcement for $50,000 per occurrence.

The Department of Justice under Attorney General Pam Bondi attacked the law relentlessly, maintaining the Biden administration’s litigation strategy despite President Trump’s executive orders directing agencies to protect Second Amendment rights. Benjamin Hyun Sanderson, Deputy Director of Federal Affairs for Gun Owners of America, minced no words about the betrayal. “Why did the Department of Justice with Attorney General Pam Bondi, at the helm, attack and effectively end Missouri’s Second Amendment protection?” he asked in a video statement. “This was seen to fly in the face of President Trump’s own executive order, protecting Second Amendment rights.”

Federal courts showed no sympathy for Missouri’s federalism arguments. A district judge struck down the entire statute as unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The Eighth Circuit affirmed that decision in August 2024, treating Missouri’s law as impermissible nullification rather than legitimate non-cooperation with federal enforcement.

Missouri’s petition to the Supreme Court raised fundamental questions about state authority. Can federal courts second-guess a state’s reasons for exercising Tenth Amendment rights? May states decline cooperation with federal enforcement when their motivation stems from constitutional disagreement? These questions deserved answers from the nation’s highest court. Instead, the justices simply denied certiorari without comment, leaving Missouri gun owners without recourse.

The practical consequences hit immediately. Local police departments in Missouri can now rejoin federal task forces without fear of crippling civil penalties. Information sharing with the ATF and other federal agencies will resume unimpeded. Federal firearms prosecutions in Missouri will proceed with full local cooperation available. The state-level shield that the Second Amendment Protection Act attempted to create has been dismantled entirely.

“Through a deliberately layered program of professional development, artificial intelligence-assisted archival research and open-access instructional media, the Firearms Research Center will empower teachers to cultivate in K-12 students the habits of mind essential to critical inquiry, evidentiary reasoning and civic deliberation,” Mocsary says in explaining the educational initiative. But for Missouri gun owners facing renewed federal enforcement cooperation, educational programs offer cold comfort.

The broader implications extend nationwide. Every state that considered similar Second Amendment sanctuary legislation now faces clear judicial hostility. The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene sends an unmistakable message that aggressive state resistance to federal gun enforcement, particularly laws declaring federal statutes invalid or penalizing local cooperation, will not survive constitutional scrutiny.

“Thanks, Pam Bondi. They’re killing a state-level Second Amendment protection law. What a major mess up by the Department of Justice,” Sanderson stated bluntly. His frustration reflects a movement that expected different treatment from a Republican administration but instead watched the Trump Justice Department maintain Biden-era legal positions that undermine state attempts to protect gun rights.

Missouri legislators are already working on revised versions of the law, attempting to craft language that might survive federal challenge. But the Supreme Court’s decision leaves little room for optimism about bolder approaches to state-level Second Amendment protection.

---

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/aHMlmzf
via IFTTT

Latest Anti-Gun Task Force Report Delivers Next Wish List for Michigan Prohibitionists

Opinion

Michigan Democrat Governor Gretchen Esther Whitmer Official Photo

Joe Biden has been out of office for over 300 days now, but his anti-gun legacy lingers, including in the form of a playbook left behind for anti-liberty governors (hello, Governor Gretchen Whitmer!) to consult.

NRA-ILA warned of the damaging directives as they unfolded then, and their pernicious effects are still in motion. Ahead of a massively consequential election year for Michigan in 2026, when all statewide offices are up for a vote, and where the balance of power hangs on a handful of seats, Governor Whitmer has turned to the next chapter of the gun-grab guide following her creation of the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force last year. This next installment is the one on gun control that is – like a proctological exam – “good for your health.”

Last month, the Task Force released its latest report via the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (MDHHS).

While there is nothing especially novel to report on from the predictable contents, this ongoing effort to classify gun ownership as a public health “crisis” in need of management by government bureaucrats presents a time-honored “cure” to Second Amendment rights.

The 50-page report ran the gamut with a main emphasis being on the usual attacks aimed at law-abiding citizens and not criminals:

• ban so-called assault weapons;
• institute waiting periods on firearm purchases;
• raise the minimum age to purchase firearms;
• ban “large capacity” magazines;
• ban privately made firearms;
• prevent concealed carry permit holders from using their licenses as permits to purchase firearms and instead require intentionally redundant bureaucracy and expense;
• expand red flag laws, and many other formulaic asks.

Funny how supposedly evidenced-based public health interventions look exactly like old-fashioned gun control.

Indeed, missing from the report was the correlation of how exactly these unconstitutional policies align with MDHHS’ stated mission and strategic priorities that the department “provides services and administers programs to empower the health, safety, and prosperity of the residents of the state of Michigan.”

The vehicle for this report being the MDHHS is a crucial part of the national firearm prohibition movement’s off-the-shelf blueprint. NRA-ILA has long been warning of the “public health” approach to gun control at the federal level, noting anti-gun states would follow suit. The directive starts with declaring gun violence (and, inherent in that, mere lawful firearm ownership) a public health crisis. Next, in order to address the crisis, a task force of “experts” is created followed soon by reports and recommendations fancifully packaged for consumption to bolster gun control policies as supposedly aligned with “the science” of politically disinterested “health researchers.”

Weaponizing health care “experts” in an effort to more easily fool the citizenry into rights-adverse “support” in hopes of convincing them this public health crisis needs to be managed by government is critically dangerous. While we know it, predict it, anticipate it, identify it, we cannot let up on fighting it.

Thankfully, at the federal level, President Trump immediately recognized the danger of this scheme and ordered the removal of former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s anti-gun tract, Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America, from the official Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website shortly after taking office. He also reduced the workforce and tightened up the grant funding that were contributing to these efforts.

Unfortunately, the states with anti-gun governors still stay the course because ultimately, the facts, the research, the data, the relevance, and the efficacy of their gun control prescriptions have never, nor will ever, steer the agenda.

The end game of prohibition is predetermined. Every incremental step just conditions the public to support the next one. Precious few of the report’s suggestions addressed due process, self-defense, crime control, or mental health solutions but instead focused most recommendations squarely on law-abiding citizens. To reach the end game, they are the ones who must be persuaded (or bamboozled or steamrolled, as the case may be).

This anti-gun wish list is also more than carefully curated documents made to fortify gun control policies. It is also a campaign policy primer for anti-gun candidates for 2026. The Michigan Gun Violence Prevention Task Force was created in June of 2024 by order from Governor Whitmer and a legislative package soon followed that enacted various gun control measures such as red flag laws, mandatory storage, and universal background checks. That was never going to be enough,  and the next session’s infringements won’t be, either. Too many election year losses in Michigan led to the anti-gun power set up in Lansing, and while Republicans won back the House by a slim margin to hold the line in the legislature this session, the fight will be even more pitched in 2026.

This latest report is a wake-up call for the 2026 state elections, not just for Michiganders but for all citizens. Coordinated attacks using taxpayer funded resources and positions of power on Second Amendment rights is a concern for all time. The voice and vote of Second Amendment supporters are the only way to stop the next Task Force and these ominous playbooks.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA-15 20" Nitride Rifle-Length 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 Rifle W/Carry Handle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 999.99 $ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE AR-15 Rifle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 879.99 $ 550.00
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 949.99 $ 469.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Carbine-Length 5.56 NATO 1/8 Phosphate M4 Classic Rifle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 859.99 $ 519.99

---

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/EsMkjz0
via IFTTT

Dhillon Announces 2A Section in Civil Rights Division, Gun Owners Wait to Celebrate

Dhillon Announces 2A Section in Civil Rights Division, Gun Owners Wait to Celebrate, iStock-2164280498

Yesterday, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon posted a video on X announcing a new Second Amendment section inside the Civil Rights Division at the Department of Justice. Last month, AmmoLand writer John Crump broke this story when the plans for the unit were first released. Now, with Dhillon’s on-camera announcement, gun owners have a better picture of what this new branch of the Civil Rights Division is supposed to do — and a lot of questions about whether it will actually stay pro-gun.

In her video, Dhillon states that the Second Amendment is “not a second-class right” and that, for the first time, the Civil Rights Division has created a specific section to “protect and advance our citizens’ right to bear arms” as part of its civil-rights work. She calls the right of law-abiding Americans to keep, bear, and use commonly known firearms “fundamental,” and promises that this Justice Department has “a lot of 2A work planned” on top of what it has already done.

On paper, that sounds huge, and it is something that gun owners should celebrate. For decades, the federal civil-rights bureaucracy mostly pretended the right to keep and bear arms didn’t exist. Now, the DOJ is saying the Second Amendment is as important to defend as the First Amendment, and that is a substantial shift.

What Will the 2A Section Do for Gun Owners

According to Crump’s earlier reporting and outside coverage, the new office, called the Second Amendment Section, is scheduled to formally open in early December. Its stated mission is to review state and local gun laws, permits, and policies for conflicts with Supreme Court precedent and the Second Amendment, and to step in when jurisdictions cross the line.

Dhillon’s video spells out the kinds of abuses this Section says it will target, and what is said is as telling as what is left out. Gun owners hoping that the Second Amendment Section will turn the DOJ’s opinion on NFA items in the right direction are likely to be let down. However, there are some positives we can hope to achieve before the next election cycle inevitably reverses all the good work done under this administration.

What gun owners have glimpsed from this DOJ so far is promising and far better than what we received in the past. We have already seen this DOJ go after the Los Angeles County Sheriff for their outrageous permitting delays. That lawsuit has specifically targeted LA Sheriffs for dragging out background checks and interviews for months or years, leaving people defenseless while their paperwork gathers dust. If you are a gun owner in an anti-gun state, this sort of action from the DOJ is what you have dreamed of for years. While Los Angeles is a good start, there are still other states, such as New York and New Jersey, that are notoriously restrictive on carry permits.

There have also been a few amicus briefs delivered by the DOJ that are worthy of celebration. In Barnett, Dhillon argued that the AR-15 can not be banned, and in Wolford, argued against unnecessary restrictions on carry on private property.

Dhillon also leans into the self-defense angle, arguing that the right to bear arms levels the playing field for people who would otherwise be easy victims. In her words, criminals are less likely to target a house protected by an armed citizen, and the Second Amendment “equalizes the ability” of women, people with disabilities, and others who might be more vulnerable to protect themselves.

The new Section is being sold as an enforcement arm with the same tools that the DOJ already uses in other civil rights contexts: investigations, lawsuits, amicus briefs, and statements of interest filed in key 2A cases around the country.

Great news — I’m excited to announce the new 2A section of @CivilRights!

The right of law-abiding American citizens to keep, bear, & use commonly known firearms is fundamental, and this @JusticeDept has a lot of 2A work planned, in addition to what we’ve already done! pic.twitter.com/L4Acg72k7A

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) December 8, 2025

These moves are exactly what many gun owners said they wanted to see after Bruen: the federal government bringing the hammer down on states and counties that try to slow-roll or nullify the Supreme Court. The new Second Amendment Section is supposed to be the permanent home for that work.

Gun Owners Remain Cautiously Optimistic

If this Section achieves what Dhillon promises, it could mark a historic shift in how the federal government treats the right to keep and bear arms.

For regular gun owners, that could mean the ability to actually obtain a carry permit in previously restrictive states. If the DOJ starts treating months-long delays and sky-high fees as civil rights violations, counties like L.A. could be forced to clean up their act or face being dragged into federal court again. This would also include the ability to push back on post-Bruen “resistance” laws rapidly. Think “sensitive place” maps that cover half a state, private-property bans like Wolford, or prohibitions on common rifles and magazines. A dedicated 2A Section means there are lawyers within the DOJ whose entire job is to pursue those violations.

The Second Amendment finally being treated like other civil rights is something many gun owners, myself included, will have to wait and see before we believe it. For years, anti-gun politicians, aided by lawyers, have treated gun ownership as a privilege they could legislate and regulate out of existence. A Second Amendment unit within Civil Rights is, at the very least, a public acknowledgment that the right to keep and bear arms is a civil right that deserves enforcement, not just lip service.

If you’re a gun owner stuck in a hostile state, the idea of Trump’s DOJ sending federal civil-rights lawyers after your local sheriff, governor, or licensing bureau is pretty appealing.

Here’s the other side of the coin, and AmmoLand readers know this part well. Even as the DOJ talks tough about protecting the Second Amendment, the same department continues to take actions that undermine those promises. As this Section is being created, the DOJ is actively defending the National Firearms Act with anti-gun rhetoric that sounds like it was pulled straight from Everytown’s mission statement. They have repeatedly attempted to obtain membership lists of gun rights organizations, and they continue to defend Biden’s “engaged in the business” rule.

So while Dhillon is on X talking about a Second Amendment Section and promising aggressive enforcement, her own department and her “boss” are still in court defending the very gun-control laws that groups like GOA, FPC, SAF, and NRA are fighting to overturn.

All-in on 2A, or just a new label?

The big question now is quite simple: Will the Second Amendment Rights Section consistently go after states, cities, and agencies that violate the Second Amendment, eliminate magazine and assault weapon bans, and help establish the right to carry lawfully across all 50 states and local jurisdictions?

Or is this going to be a selective enforcement tool, while DOJ quietly protects federal gun-control schemes and legacy laws like the NFA?

The early signs are mixed. On the plus side, suing Los Angeles over CCW delays and backing gun owners in Illinois and Hawaii are real, concrete steps that anti-gun administrations simply never took. On the negative side, DOJ hasn’t backed off its defense of the NFA or the “engaged in the business” rule and has shown a worrying appetite for prying into gun-rights memberships.

For now, the new Section looks like a genuine opportunity and a test. If Dhillon and Bondi keep treating the Second Amendment as a real civil right, not just a slogan for speeches, this Section could become one of the most important tools gun owners have ever had at the federal level.

If they don’t, then “Second Amendment Section” will go down as just another D.C. brand name slapped on a bureaucracy that talks a big game while the government keeps coming after your guns. It also has to be questioned what this Second Amendment Section would mean under an anti-gun administration.

Remember that the same DOJ talking about protecting your rights is still defending the NFA in court using anti-gun rhetoric.

The Second Amendment Rights Section is here. Whether it ends up being a battering ram for gun rights or just a new sign on an old office door will depend on what cases the DOJ actually takes.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

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