Texas Senate Approves Bill Prohibiting Red Flag Laws

Texas Senate Approves Bill Prohibiting Red Flag Laws IMG iStock-884200682

The state of Texas is one step closer to prohibiting the enforcement of red flag laws across the state. 

On March 26, 2025, the Texas Senate passed SB 1362, which bans the enforcement of red flag laws in municipalities statewide. Specifically, this bill, the “Anti-Red Flag Act”, bars lower levels of government from enforcing red flag orders unless a state-level bill is passed, per a KHOU-TV report.

Red flag laws allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from individuals deemed to pose a significant risk to themselves or others. These orders usually permit the seizure of firearms without requiring criminal charges to be filed against said individual. They allow family members, law enforcement, or other designated parties to petition courts for the temporary removal of firearms when someone is perceived to exhibit concerning behavior.

State Sen. Bryan Hughes (R) introduced SB 1362 to protect Texas citizens’ rights to due process. 

The legislation specifically defines red flag orders as those “not issued on the basis of conduct that resulted in a criminal charge for the person who is the subject of the order.”

SB 1362 categorically bars all governmental entities in Texas from recognizing or enforcing red flag orders unless specifically authorized by Texas law. This is applicable to the following individuals and agencies:

• All state government agencies, departments, commissions, bureaus, boards, offices, councils, and courts
• Governing bodies of municipalities, counties, and special districts
• Officers and employees of local governments

SB 1362 additionally prohibits Texas entities from accepting federal funds intended for enforcing red flag laws in the state. One of the most notable facets of SB 1362 is that it subjects individuals to felony charges if they enforce a red flag order against a person in Texas, unless that order was specifically issued under Texas law.

“This bill deals with our Second Amendment rights, well known to people here and across Texas and the country,” Hughes stated during a debate on the Senate floor. He characterized red flag laws as allowing a “person’s firearms to be taken away from them without due process of law.”

Senator Hughes stressed that the bill does not apply to family violence protection orders or cases where criminal charges have been filed. 

The bill was passed along strict party lines, with 20 Republicans voting in favor and 11 Democrats opposing. As of the date of this writing, the bill had passed the Senate but still needed to clear the House of Representatives before becoming law. State. Rep. Briscoe Cain introduced a companion bill, HB 162, in the State House. 

The House version of the bill appears to have stalled in committee, according to Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt. The TXGR president described the Senate’s passage of this as “a huge victory for gun owners” while calling on supporters to pressure House representatives to advance the companion bill.

McNutt added, “Texas Gun Rights will not rest until gun confiscation without due process is prohibited across Texas.”

Kyle Rittenhouse, who was acquitted of homicide charges after shooting two men in self-defense during protests in Kenosha, Wisconsin in 2020, testified in support of SB 1362, stating: “I know first-hand the importance of self-defense and the weight that comes with exercising that right. But I also know how quickly false accusations and misinformation can be weaponized to destroy a person’s life.”

Before SB 1362 entered policy discussions, Texas did not have any red flag legislation or similar measures dealing with them on the books. Interestingly, in 2018, following the Sutherland Springs mass shooting that claimed 26 lives, Governor Greg Abbott had included red flag laws as a potential proposal in his school safety plan, though these proposals never gained much traction in the legislature largely due to pressure from pro-gun organizations and public opposition from Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick. 

On paper, HB 162 should be able to pass without problems due to the Republicans holding a 88-62 advantage in the State House.

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. 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/OdaN5nq
via IFTTT

Non-Violent Gun Convictions Deserve Trump’s Attention

For decades, this correspondent has considered the possibility of presidential pardons for persons convicted of non-violent offenses which are infringements on the rights protected by the Second Amendment.

In his recent YouTube video, Mark Smith explains his idea for pardons with some details about what was politically possible during the second Trump administration. Smith persuasively argues the Trump administration would be open to pardons for people who have been victimized in prosecutions, which are persecutions of people peacefully exercising their rights.

An individual or organization will be needed who can act as an organizational hub to verify cases and present a list of candidates to the Trump administration. All Second Amendment supporters could nominate candidates to the list of those who should be granted a presidential pardon for non-violent actions which arguably should have been protected by the Second Amendment.

In the video, Smith mentions some qualifications for the list. Not all people who have been persecuted in this manner will qualify for a presidential pardon.

The person has to have been convicted of a federal crime. Far more people have been victimized with state and local prosecutions than for federal crimes. Many are victimized by the process but never convicted.

The conviction must be for a non-violent crime. Mark specifically mentions things like possession of a short barreled rifle, or a silencer, without a tax stamp. This correspondent would add possession of a firearm in a gun free school zone, or perhaps a “straw purchase” of a firearm for someone who has no legal disability from owning a firearm, such as the Abramski v. United States case.

Cases in which a plea bargain was made to avoid prosecution for a violent crime should be avoided. Simple cases are better than complex cases.

Highest priority should be those who are in prison. The second priority should be those who were unjustly convicted and denied their rights. Many can remember injustices going back several decades. No president before Trump has had the courage to pardon people prosecuted and convicted for peacefully exercising rights which should have been protected by the Second Amendment.

We must be careful about ongoing cases. We do not want to “moot” cases that promise to restore Second Amendment rights in the courts. If a pardon is granted, the court may drop the case as moot, where a controversy no longer exists.

This correspondent is not volunteering to create and administer such a program. It is likely to become a full-time job. Perhaps an existing organization could add it as a part of their program. It is likely contributions to such a project could fund the necessary time and expense.

Such a list should be open to public viewing and searching to avoid duplicate efforts.

Here are some obvious and recent candidates:

• Matthew Hoover in the AutoKey case
• Kristopher Justin Ervin in the AutoKey case
• Patrick Tate Adamiak for selling legal gun parts.
• Jeremy Kettler on selling silencers under legal sanction by Kansas
• Gabriel Metcalf, Gun Free School Zone, appeal in progress.

Here are a couple of older cases; there are a large number of them.

• Robert W. Stewart, Jr., political prosecution, from 2001, State restoration of rights considered invalid by federal court.
• David Olofson, transfer of malfunctioning rifle.. so-called machine-gun, 2009.

Readers are welcome to suggest additional cases in the comments. Please follow the guidelines above.

Federal cases only, non-violent, and which have already been convicted of a federal crime, where the Second Amendment is implicated, and a pardon is appropriate.

---

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/izYS0Ms
via IFTTT

About the Federal Investigation of the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department for Second Amendment Violations

The U.S. Justice Department’s Special Litigation Section describes itself merely as one of several sections working within the Civil Rights Division.

In truth, they are much more than that.

The Special Litigation Section was created to protect people in several areas, including those in jails or prisons, individuals with disabilities, confined youth and “people who interact with state or local police or sheriffs’ departments.”

This last bit is why Attorney General Pam Bondi told the Justice Department to investigate the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department for violating their residents’ Second Amendment rights. The DOJ will definitely send in its Special Litigation Section. They are pros at investigating cops, and Bondi hinted they may have more agencies to review.

“As part of a broader review of restrictive firearms-related laws in California and other States, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division today announced an investigation into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to determine whether it is engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights,” Bondi’s press release states.

Los Angeles County Sheriff Robert G. Luna, who became the department’s 34^th Sheriff just 17 months ago, has more than 17,000 staffers, sworn and non-sworn. Luna became sheriff after a 36-year career at the Long Beach Police Department, where he served as Chief. However, should the Special Litigation Section get the case, there is absolutely nothing he can do to prevent them from determining whether his staff were, as Bondi described in her press release, “engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights.”

Sheriff Luna may try to slow the federal investigators’ progress and keep them from finding and reporting the truth, which would be futile. What Bondi didn’t say is that the Special Litigation Section has never lost a case – not a single one.

When the Section has completed its investigation, which can take months or even years, they present the Sheriff or Chief of Police with two documents: a federal complaint and a consent decree. The two documents are virtually identical except for their titles. If the chief law enforcement executive doesn’t sign the consent decree and agree to make substantive changes to their agency, the investigators file the complaint in federal court where, as stated, they always win.

Bondi was very clear about the allegations she believes were committed by the LASD. Their deputies can take more than 18 months to process concealed handgun license applications. She pointed out that the U.S. Supreme Court has strengthened the Second Amendment, which it considers a “fundamental, individual constitutional right,” but the LASD still has issues.

“This Department of Justice will not stand idly by while States and localities infringe on the Second Amendment rights of ordinary, law-abiding Americans,” Bondi said. “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and under my watch, the Department will actively enforce the Second Amendment just like it actively enforces other fundamental constitutional rights.”

Regan Rush, Special Litigation Section Chief, did not respond to emails seeking her comments for this story.

Much of how her staff operates is withheld from the public, but the best way to judge the Section’s effectiveness is by taking a close look at how they operated in the past.

Previous consent decrees

In March 2003, I was an investigative reporter at the Virgin Islands Daily News. I wrote “Deadly Force–A Special Investigative Report,” which was 44-pages long and examined the Virgin Islands Police Department’s shootings from January 1985 to December 2003.

It found:

• In the 85 shooting incidents reviewed, 65 of the victims were unarmed.
• The 85 police shootings resulted in the deaths of 28 people.
• Only 17 of the 72 people who were shot at by the police and survived were charged.
• VIPD records unit lacked information about involved officers and shooting victims and the findings of any investigation into the shootings.
• VIPD employed an outdated use of force policy that failed to provide officers with clear guidelines regarding the circumstances under which the use of deadly force would be justified and included illegal guidance indicating that deadly force could be used to protect property.
• Although VIPD required officers to pass an annual firearms certification examination, VIPD had not conducted annual weapons certifications for more than two years.
• In at least six cases VIPD officers shot at moving vehicles.

This Justice Department did not like the special report’s findings at all.

“The report included descriptions of 77 cases in which either officers had allegedly pointed or fired their weapons under questionable circumstances or the case files related to the shooting incidents contained little or no information reflecting that any investigation of the use of force was conducted. The report also summarized 20 cases in which VIPD officers, often off-duty at the times of the incidents, brandished or fired weapons during personal arguments or fights,” the DOJ said in a press release. “The disturbing and unflattering portrait presented by the ‘Deadly Force’ report was one of a police department whose officers were poorly trained, too quick to use firearms, and immune from serious consequences for improper and in some cases illegal uses of deadly force. The article called for various actions to be taken in response to its findings, including an investigation by the Special Litigation Section of DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.”

The Special Litigation Section and the VIPD signed a consent decree a few years after the news was published. However, today – more than 22 years after the first story was published – the VIPD still remains under close federal supervision because they have not made adequate changes to a series of consent decrees to end the civil case.

Two consent decrees in Delaware had opposite results. Delaware’s state government was able to make changes and avoid decades of federal inspections and supervision for problems I found in its prison system and psychiatric center, which it cleaned up in just a few years.

How LASD’s Sheriff Luna will respond is not yet known, but it may be difficult for him. The best advice is to quickly realize he is no longer in charge. The DOJ is. Hopefully, he will stop his deputies from depriving residents of their Second Amendment rights.

If Sheriff Luna doesn’t act soon, he may become just another unemployed top lawman who lost his job because he underestimated the Justice Department’s little-known but powerful Special Litigation Section.

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/ZumhqvY
via IFTTT

A Cautious Sigh of Relief in New Mexico

Opinion By Darren LaSorte

Michelle Lujan Grisham at a rally. By AFGE – #Handsoff Budget Rally, CC BY 2.0 creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0, via Wikimedia Commons

The quick, regular order legislative session in New Mexico, where strict gun control legislation had been making its way through committee consideration, came to an end on Saturday at noon.

The good news? Those gun control bills, that would restrict the rights of law-abiding New Mexicans and do nothing to hold criminals accountable for their crimes, failed to advance.

The bad news? New Mexico’s Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham isn’t happy and Second Amendment supporters in the state know very well she’s gone above and beyond before to enact dubious and unconstitutional gun control laws outside the normal process.

Stalled Out

Thankfully, Second Amendment supporters in the Land of Enchantment turned out in full force over the past several days and weeks to make their voices heard loudly and clearly. They don’t support Gov. Lujan Grisham’s gun control activism.

Two bills in particular where auspiciously close to gaining approval and proceeding to her desk for approval but legislators wised up, listened to constituents and chose not to proceed.

The bills in question included SB 318, which is an attempt to get around the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), that would open the door for frivolous litigation against firearm industry members from both private actors and the state’s attorney general based on nothing more than the marketing and advertising material of firearm companies, third party vendors and firearm retailers. It’s a lawfare tactic that began decades ago by antigun mayors in New Orleans, Chicago and New York City. These include others such as former disgraced New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo, when he was serving as President Bill Clinton’s Secretary of Housing and Urban Development. He organized dozens of local housing authorities to bring lawsuits against gunmakers and threatened the industry with “death by a thousand cuts.”

The mad dash push by New Mexico gun control activists toward the legislative cut-off line also included a push for SB 279, which would have banned the sale and manufacture of almost every semiautomatic long gun available. If that weren’t problematic enough, it also required existing owners to “certify” that they lawfully possessed the firearm before the ban took effect; essentially setting up a gun registry of those New Mexicans who already own a Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR). Those are the AR-15-style semiautomatic rifles that are more commonly-owned today than there are Ford F-150 pickup trucks on the road. For those counting at home, that’s more than 30 million MSRs in circulation today. City and state-level bans on MSRs have become more frequent at the same time as many more millions of law-abiding Americans have purchased them for any number of lawful reasons and the U.S. Supreme Court continues to deliberate whether or not to hear a challenge on the constitutionality of banning these commonly-owned firearms.

Not in the Clear, Yet

Not unexpected, Gov. Lujan Grisham made it clear that she wasn’t satisfied with the inaction of the legislature and she vowed to plow ahead on her own, invoking her power to call a special legislative session for “related and germane” pet issues. After all, this is the governor who two years ago infamously declared,

…“If there’s an emergency … I can invoke additional powers. No constitutional right, in my view … is intended to be absolute.”

This time, after Saturday’s regular order deadline came and passed effectively stalling out the gun control bills, the governor’s tone sounded eerily similar.

“While we made progress on universal free school lunch, literacy, water planning, and firefighting resources, I cannot ignore that we failed to adequately address the public safety crisis facing our state,” the governor said in a statement. “With 270 public safety bills introduced this session and only a handful passed, we have not met our responsibility to New Mexicans.”

The governor’s special session tease came on the heels of a gang-related criminal shooting that happened Friday night at “an unsanctioned car show.” Las Cruces police have already arrested one adult and three teenagers and charged them with crimes involved in the shooting. The three teens are already barred from legally owning firearms so no existing or additional laws would change that.

Cam Edwards at Bearing Arms connected the straight line from dots commonly used by gun control activists when criminal shootings occur inevitably leading to calls for more gun control laws that are ignored by criminals and only penalize the law-abiding.

“While Grisham and gun control activists are already pointing to the incident as evidence that an ‘assault weapon’ ban is needed, Las Cruces Police Chief Jeremy Story told reporters on Saturday that all of the more than 50 shell casings that were found at the scene came from handguns.”

Tom Knighton, writing in Townhall, added on a prescient point as well. “How anyone thinks an incident of two people getting guns illegally is a failure of too few gun control laws is beyond me. Instead, what we see here is a specific location where crime was becoming more and more of a problem and that local police say they were too short-staffed to actually do anything about,” Knighton wrote.

Staying Vigilant

Law-abiding gun owners in New Mexico have seen this show before. That’s the good news, if it can be described that way. The governor could very possibly overreact and overreach with strict gun control executive orders or additional gun control laws in her special session that do nothing to hold criminals accountable for their crimes and only penalize law-abiding New Mexicans. In the past, she’s been called out by even the most ardent gun control supporters for her overreach.

Those who value community safety and revere the Constitution can be relieved legislators on their own weren’t able to pass more gun control during the normal process during New Mexico’s 60-day legislative session. But all must remain vigilant for when the governor likely calls a special session to inevitably try it on her own.

NSSF will be watching.

Mexico Aims to Reshape the US Firearm Industry by Suing Gun Makers

New Jersey & Minnesota Sue GLOCK INC in Latest State-Level Assault on Gun Rights

---

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

from https://ift.tt/BX6nP4J
via IFTTT

GOA FOIA Shows NICS Being Used to Monitor Gun Owners in California

GOA FOIA Shows NICS Being Used to Monitor Gun Owners in California IMG ATFHQ Instagram

In April of 2021, AmmoLand News discovered through a leak a secret government program that monitors firearms purchases using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Once the article was published, Gun Owners of America (GOA) filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to determine the extent of the program. Now, according to a Zero Hedge article, it has been discovered that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has been using the system to monitor Americans from California to see if they are violating state law with their gun purchases.

Information obtained during an FBI background check when buying a gun is supposed to be deleted after 24 hours, but when a NICS monitoring request is approved, the FBI doesn’t delete the information and passes it onto the ATF. The people the ATF is monitoring are not prohibited from owning firearms. In many cases, they are not even suspected of committing crimes. The ATF monitored people for their associations and the feeling that the target might commit a crime in the future. The NICS monitoring program was open to all ATF agents and departments that wanted to monitor someone. The subjects of the surveillance were never notified by either the ATF or FBI.

The ATF’s NICS Business and Liaison Unit would send batches of monitoring requests to an FBI’s NICS Alert Services (NAS) team member. That team member would enter the targets of the ATF investigations into the system for monitoring. The ATF would then get an alert from the FBI every time the subject of the surveillance purchases and transfers a firearm. The FBI calls the system “Sentinel.” Some activists compare the program to the ‘Pre-crime” system in the movie “Minority Report.”

The ATF would provide the FBI with the target’s name, date of birth, gender, race, social security number, FBI number, state record number, state of residence, and place of birth. The requesting special agent could choose a monitoring time frame of 30, 60, 90, or 180 days. The ATF must say what potential crime the person is expected to be involved in or connected to. The special agent must list why they believe the person should be monitored.

One of the reasons given for monitoring an individual’s gun purchase is that an ATF agent out of Chicago thought he might take the firearm back to California, where it is prohibited for being an “assault weapon.” The Bureau is responsible for enforcing federal law, but this unnamed ATF agent seems to be using his power to help the Golden State enforce its gun laws, which exceed the power of the ATF.

The reason for monitoring is listed as: “MFG/SELL/TRANS/ETC ASSAULT WPN (30600(A) PC), STATE OFFENSE CODE 52509, FELONY 2; ILL POSS ANY ASSAULT WEAPON (30605(A) PC), STATE OFFENSE CODE 52510. FELONY.”

BREAKING

ATF & FBI are spying on Californians’ out-of-state gun purchases to enforce CA’s unconstitutional “assault weapons” ban.

FOIA docs obtained by GOA expose how far the government will go to violate your rights. We’ll keep fighting to abolish this tyrannical system. pic.twitter.com/4WTh2k9VyE

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) April 2, 2025

Other times the ATF monitored people who “might” buy a gun to riot. One instance highlighted the ATF monitoring a man that the Bureau feared might be buying guns to use during the riots of the summer of 2020. The target purchased a shotgun, which the ATF used as the reason for the monitoring of all his future firearm purchases. Using a lawful purchase to justify monitoring someone’s constitutionally protected activity is disturbing to many in the gun community.

The ATF also monitors people who spend more on guns than the Bureau thinks they should. The Bureau would monitor someone who spends beyond their means on firearms. Yet, people often spend beyond their means on other things, such as cars. The ATF doesn’t provide the percentage of a person’s income it considers to be excessive, but the fact is that many Americans live beyond their means and that is one of the reasons many struggle with debt. It might be more logical to assume that someone is not good with money before jumping to the conclusion that they are involved in something illicit.

Another gentleman was monitored because he “had a habit” of buying guns to tinker with them. When he was finished tinkering, he would sell them. This is a perfectly legal hobby, but the ATF believed that such activity required additional scrutiny. What the man did to warrant monitoring is something that a lot of the gun world could be targeted for. Many gun owners buy guns to shoot at the range and experiment with. Once they get their feel of the firearm they sell it and purchase a new one. Far from being the exception, this is common in the Second Amendment community. It might be time for Kash Patel to step in and end the practice of NICS monitoring because of situations like these.

Abuses of the system is rampant, but if the ATF is helping states enforce gun laws, it would be another overreach by an agency with a long history of overstepping its power. The NICS monitoring program is only supposed to be used for official ATF use. By doing the bidding of anti-gun states, the ATF is demonstrating that it can’t be trusted to use the program responsibly. It gives gun rights activists one more reason to push Congress to defund, defang, and eventually disband the ATF.

---

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/lJw6kyM
via IFTTT

Cory Booker’s Gun-Control Hypocrisy Exposed: Armed Staffer Arrested at Capitol While Senator Filibusters for “Safety” ~ VIDEO

While Senator Cory Booker was grandstanding on the Senate floor during a marathon speech attacking Republicans, one of his closest staffers—whom he’s called a “best friend”—was being arrested for illegally carrying a gun into the U.S. Capitol. That’s right: while Booker ranted for hours about supposed threats to democracy, his longtime driver and security sidekick, Kevin Batts, was cuffed and charged with “carrying a pistol without a license.”

Let’s just call this what it is: another shining example of “guns for me, but not for thee.”

Batts, a retired Newark police detective, wasn’t some unknown intern. He’s been on Booker’s personal detail for nearly two decades. And according to Capitol Police, Batts didn’t even go through the normal security checks—he was escorted around security by a Member of Congress. The implication? Someone knew he was carrying and didn’t want it detected.

Think about that. The same Cory Booker who’s never met a gun control bill he didn’t love—the same guy pushing for “assault weapon” bans, universal background checks, magazine limits, and laws that would disarm you for living in a “sensitive place”—is walking around the Capitol with a buddy likely serving as de facto armed security. Meanwhile, the rest of us are told we shouldn’t need guns because we have police.

Senator Cory Booker’s best friend longtime driver, and security sidekick, Kevin Batts IMG Instagram Cory Booker

Hypocrisy, Meet Reality.

Let’s make something clear: under federal law, no one is allowed to carry a firearm on Capitol grounds, not even a retired cop with a permit.

If you or I had done what Batts did, we’d be facing federal charges and likely jail time. But because this guy is part of Team Booker? Crickets from the anti-gun crowd. The same folks who would’ve had a meltdown if this had been a staffer for Marjorie Taylor Greene or Rand Paul are dead silent. Not a peep from Brady, Giffords, or Moms Demand.

Alan Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation put it best: “Cory Booker has never met a gun control law he didn’t like… but it’s okay for him to have armed security while he labors to keep every average citizen disarmed.”

The Double Standard is Disgusting.

And it’s not new. Remember when Ted Kennedy’s bodyguard was busted in the Capitol with an Uzi? Or when Diane Feinstein pushed gun bans while carrying her own pistol? Or is Kamala Harris claiming she’s “pro-gun safety” while owning a gun herself?

These people don’t actually hate guns. They just hate you having one.

Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens are demonized, red-flagged, and disarmed in the name of “public safety,” while violent criminals like Sharon Evans in North Carolina rack up dozens of felonies and walk free to kill. Evans had 37 felonies and nine misdemeanors in under two years. He was caught repeatedly with stolen guns and cars, and he even strangled a woman—and yet, he kept getting released. Eventually, he killed an innocent man on the way to dialysis.

So, let’s recap:

• Booker’s staffer, armed illegally = no national outrage.
• Gun control groups = silent.
• Everyday Americans = disarmed in “sensitive places”.
• Violent repeat offenders = back on the street.
• Politicians = protected by armed friends and privilege.

It’s no wonder more Americans are embracing their Second Amendment rights and rejecting the elitist hypocrisy of politicians like Cory Booker. If the people crafting the laws don’t follow them—and are quietly surrounded by guns themselves—why should we trust anything they say?

• You don’t get to push for disarmament while sneaking your armed buddies past security.
• You don’t get to rail against “gun violence” while turning a blind eye to the revolving-door justice system, letting actual violent criminals go free.

And you definitely don’t get to claim the moral high ground while enjoying protections you’re actively trying to deny the rest of us.

---

Cory Booker: “The filibuster is being abused and needs to be reformed.”

Also Cory Booker: Is about to abuse the filibuster for 24 hours straight. pic.twitter.com/osO9zp39z4

— Gain of Fauci (@DschlopesIsBack) April 1, 2025

Senator Cory Booker’s net worth soared from $807,000 in 2018 to $15 million today. He is still yapping and won’t shut up because they’re onto that money, and the left all cheering for it. While we’re distracted, they shuffle to hide the cash. How do these Democrats get so… pic.twitter.com/qT9LCUnAA9

— ??ê? ??ê? (@TheThe1776) April 2, 2025

---

Gun rights are not just for the politically connected. They’re for everyone. Especially those without private security details and friends in high places.

It’s time the double standard ends. Equal protection doesn’t just mean equal laws—it means equal rights, including the right to keep and bear arms. Speak Out! Because the louder we are, the harder it is for hypocrites like Senator Cory Booker to keep lying to the public while hiding behind armed privilege.

Stay armed. Stay aware. Stay free. Stay Dangerouse.

Is Cory Booker Dangerous, Or Just Stupid When It Comes To The Constitution? #GUNVOTE

Why Cory Booker Sucks When it Comes to Gun Rights

from https://ift.tt/aRNbq5r
via IFTTT

60 Days In, How Is AG Pamela Bondi Doing Defending the 2nd Amendment?

Opinion

How Is AG Pamela Bondi Doing? Take Our Reader Poll!

It’s been roughly 60 days since Pamela Bondi stepped up as Attorney General under President Trump, and the pro-gun community is talking.

For those of us who live and breathe the Second Amendment, a Trump appointee like Bondi comes with big expectations. Two months in, though, the word on platforms like X and in gun circles is a mixed bag. Is she the 2A defender we’ve been waiting for, or is she falling short?

Read the rundown based on what’s out there, and take our reader Poll!

The Good: Bondi’s Pro-Gun Moves

Bondi’s made some moves that have gun folks nodding in approval. In February, she fired the ATF’s General Counsel, Pamela Hicks, with a sharp statement: “These people were targeting gun owners. Not going to happen under this administration.”

WATCH: Pam Bondi chastises ATF and celebrates the firing of former Chief Counsel Pamela Hicks. ⁰⁰“These people were targeting gun owners. Not going to happen under this administration,” the Attorney General says. pic.twitter.com/0sXm2RggSG

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) February 22, 2025

That’s a solid hit against an agency we all see as overreaching. Then, in late March, she launched a DOJ investigation into Los Angeles County’s Second Amendment practices, declaring, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right.” Pro-gun groups have given her a thumbs-up for that, calling it a strong first step.

These actions show she’s willing to push back on anti-gun efforts, and that’s got some folks hopeful.

The Bad: What’s Happening with Adamiak?

Then there’s the Patrick “Tate” Adamiak case, and it’s a sore spot. This former Navy sailor’s been in prison for 30 months, facing a 20-year sentence, all tied to what Lee Williams calls fake ATF evidence—think toy guns twisted into “machineguns” by a questionable ATF tech. Federal prosecutors under Bondi’s DOJ are still fighting his appeal, sticking to the ATF’s story. Lee’s recent article laid out the details, and the pro-gun reaction was fierce. Some asked why Bondi isn’t stepping in to stop this. Others demanded she sack the prosecutors involved.

For a guy who just wants to serve his country again, it’s tough to see her not acting. Is she too tied up, or is this not on her radar?

The Ugly: Trust Issues Hang Around

Here’s the kicker: Bondi’s got a past that doesn’t sit right with everyone. As Florida’s AG, she backed red flag laws and age restrictions for gun purchases after Parkland. That’s still fresh for a lot of gun owners—X posts from the last two months keep bringing it up, pointing to her “unconstitutional” stances. Even with her recent pro-2A actions, some see her as inconsistent. There’s grumbling that DOJ attorneys under her are still pushing anti-gun arguments in court, like in cases challenging young adults’ rights.

It feels like she’s half in the fight, half stuck in the old habits.

What’s the Buzz?

The pro-gun crowd’s divided. On X, some praise her ATF shakeup but say she needs to do more. Others argue she’s swamped fixing a messed-up system, the FBI Deputy Director, Dan Bongino, dropped a message saying, “Just because you don’t immediately see it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.” However, not everyone’s buying that excuse.

Just because you don’t immediately see it doesn’t mean it isn’t happening.

— Dan Bongino (@FBIDDBongino) April 3, 2025

“A patriot’s losing his rights for what?” one voice shot back. There’s speculation she might not even know about Adamiak, with hopes pinned on a Trump pardon instead. Meanwhile, calls to flood her inbox and the White House with messages are gaining traction—complete with how-to guides floating around. The vibe? We’re watching closely and not staying quiet.

The Bottom Line

Bondi’s at a turning point. She’s got the power to be a Second Amendment hero, but she’s got to prove it. Firing ATF brass and probing LA County are big, but letting an innocent guy sit in jail while her team plays hardball? That’s a miss. Her past raises eyebrows, but her next moves could settle the score. Two months isn’t the whole story, but it’s enough to show where she’s leaning. Right now, it’s anyone’s guess.

What Do You Think?

This is our fight, and AG Bondi’s on the hot seat. Take a minute to hit the poll below and weigh in—your opinions matter.

How Is AG Pamela Bondi Doing? Take Our Reader Poll!

Federal Prosecutors Now Using ATF’s Lies and Fake Evidence to Harm Former Sailor’s Legal Appeal

DOJ Launch Investigation Into Second Amendment Violations by the LASD

---

About Tred Law

Tred Law is your everyday patriot with a deep love for this country and a no-compromise approach to the Second Amendment. He does not write articles for Ammoland every week, but when he does write, it is usually about liberals Fing with his right to keep and bear arms.

from https://ift.tt/N5CVdzh
via IFTTT