SCOTUS Lets Illinois Public Transit Carry Ban Stand, Leaving a Dangerous “Sensitive Places” Theory in Place

A no-guns sign is posted on a transit door in Illinois, underscoring the type of public-carry restriction at issue after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Schoenthal v. Raoul. iStock-1166005919

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday denied certiorari in Schoenthal v. Raoul, leaving in place a Seventh Circuit ruling that upheld Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transportation. The denial appeared on the Court’s April 6, 2026, order list, where No. 25-541, Schoenthal, Benjamin, et al. v. Raoul, Att’y Gen. of IL, et al. was listed under “CERTIORARI DENIED.”

That means the Seventh Circuit’s September 2025 opinion remains controlling law in Illinois, at least for now. And the real problem here is not just the result in one state. It is the reasoning the lower court used to get there. The Seventh Circuit said Illinois’ public-transit carry ban is “comfortably situated in a centuries-old practice of limiting firearms in sensitive and crowded, confined places,” then went a step further and held that regulations in “crowded and confined places are ensconced in our nation’s history and tradition.”

Once a court starts treating “crowded” and “confined” as the metric for creating a “sensitive place” ban, anti-gun states are going to try to apply that logic everywhere they can.

If carry can be banned in a place because it is busy, enclosed, or hard to exit, the list of so-called sensitive places will never stop growing. Today, it is buses and trains. Tomorrow, it is train stations, public parks, entertainment districts, events, and any other place politicians decide feel is too populated for ordinary citizens to exercise a right. That is exactly the kind of interest balancing that Bruen was supposed to stop.

To be clear, the Seventh Circuit did acknowledge that the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct at issue here. The panel said “everyone agrees” the Amendment covers the plaintiffs’ desire to ride public transit while carrying a licensed concealed firearm for self-defense. So this was not a case where the court claimed the right simply did not apply. Instead, the judges upheld the ban by concluding the state had carried its burden under Bruen’s historical-tradition test.

The court’s reasoning leaned heavily on the physical characteristics of public transit. It described trains and buses as “discrete, confined spaces” where it is difficult to avoid someone wielding a firearm. The panel said the risk of stray rounds hitting innocent people is high, noted that escape is generally impossible when vehicles are moving, and stressed that a driver distracted, injured, or killed by gunfire could endanger everyone onboard and even people outside the vehicle. The opinion also emphasized the challenge first responders face in confronting violence inside “crowded and confined metal tubes.”

However, Bruen analysis does not ask whether judges think a law is sensible in modern life. It asks whether the government can prove a modern restriction is consistent with this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

When the Supreme Court discussed sensitive places in Bruen, it did so in narrow terms, not as a blank check for states to disarm people anywhere officials see crowds. The Court said modern regulations may be upheld by analogy to “longstanding” laws barring firearms in “sensitive places such as schools and government buildings.” It then stressed that the historical record revealed only “relatively few” such places, giving examples like “legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses.”

Just as important, the Supreme Court also drew a clear limiting line. In rejecting New York’s attempt to defend its carry regime by pointing to crowded urban conditions, the Court said there was “no historical basis” for New York to effectively declare Manhattan a sensitive place simply because it is crowded and generally protected by police. The justices warned that expanding the category of sensitive places to all places of public congregation “would in effect exempt cities from the Second Amendment” and “would eviscerate the general right to publicly carry arms for self-defense.”

That warning should have been the guardrail. Instead, the Seventh Circuit treated “crowded and confined places” as a constitutionally meaningful category of its own. The panel said there is an “unbroken chain of regulations in crowded and confined spaces,” cited railroad-era restrictions as corroborating evidence, and concluded that this additional history “removes any doubt” that Illinois’ public-transit restriction falls within the tradition.

The court not only upheld a ban but also blessed a framework that future courts will use to justify additional location-based prohibitions.

For ordinary gun owners, the real-world burden is obvious. A commuter who depends on buses or trains may effectively be disarmed for major portions of the day. It means the ability to exercise a constitutional right can turn on whether you own a car. In cities where crime is concentrated around transit stops, platforms, and late-night routes, that burden is not theoretical. The people hit hardest by rules like this are often the very people most likely to need a means of self-defense. That practical disparity flows directly from the type of prohibition the Seventh Circuit upheld.

None of this means the Supreme Court endorsed the Seventh Circuit’s reasoning on the merits. A cert denial is not a ruling that the lower court got it right. It simply means the justices declined to hear the case. But for gun owners living under the law, the practical effect is the same: the ruling stands, the ban stays in force, and lower courts now have one more appellate opinion they can cite when expanding the sensitive-places doctrine beyond the narrow historical examples recognized in Bruen.

If the Supreme Court wants to keep Bruen from being hollowed out by creative analogies, it is eventually going to have to step in and draw firmer lines. If sensitive places expand to include “crowded” and “confined” as enough justification for disarmament, the right to bear arms in public starts shrinking fast.

Once that exception grows large enough, what remains is not a right that ordinary citizens can count on. It is a right that exists only where the government decides conditions are calm, spacious, and convenient enough to tolerate it.

That is not what Bruen promised, and it is not a result the Court can ignore forever.

New Filing in Yukutake v. Lopez Accuses Hawaii of Rewriting Gun Laws to Dodge Defeat

---

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/Mwf9Dmt
via IFTTT

First Circuit Says Second Amendment Does Not Protect Buying Guns in Beckwith v. Frey

In Beckwith v. Frey, a three-judge First Circuit panel upheld Maine’s 72-hour waiting period and said laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of firearms do not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text. iStock-1413053087

In a stunning ruling, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to acquire or purchase firearms.

The case, Beckwith et al. v. Frey, was brought by several Maine residents and businesses against Maine Attorney General Aaron Frey. It challenged a 2024 Maine law requiring a 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases (Me. Stat. tit. 25, § 2016). The law was enacted six months after the October 2023 mass shooting at a bowling alley in Lewiston, Maine, in which 18 people were killed, and 13 others were injured. In response, the state introduced the “cooling off” period.

The plaintiffs argued that the mandatory three-day waiting period violated their Second Amendment rights. A federal district court judge agreed, finding that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm, and that the balance of equities favored them. After conducting a Bruen analysis, the judge issued a preliminary injunction.

Under step one of the Bruen framework, the district court examined the conduct in light of the plain text of the Second Amendment. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were part of “the people” and that the right to bear arms includes the right to acquire arms. Courts across the country have long held that there can be no meaningful right to bear arms if one cannot first acquire them. Having found that the law burdens protected conduct, the court then moved to step two and allowed the state to present historical analogues to justify the 72-hour waiting period. The state failed to do so.

Maine appealed to the First Circuit, where the case was heard by a three-judge panel consisting of one Obama appointee and two Biden appointees. The panel reversed the district court, holding that the lower court had erred in its Bruen analysis. In its opinion, the majority cited opinions on gun violence from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and other groups that have taken anti-gun positions. Prior to Bruen, such interest-balancing considerations were permissible, but after the Supreme Court’s landmark decision, courts may consider only text, history, and tradition when evaluating Second Amendment challenges.

The First Circuit panel determined that the district court should never have reached step two of the Bruen analysis. According to the panel, there is no Second Amendment right to acquire a firearm. Because purchasing a gun is not protected conduct, the court concluded that the 72-hour waiting period is constitutional.

“We agree with the Attorney General’s view that laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of firearms do not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s “plain text.” The Amendment’s plain text guarantees an individual’s ability to keep and bear arms, which means to have and carry guns. Heller, 554 U.S. at 582-84. The Act does not address this conduct,” the First Circuit opinion stated. “Rather, the Act imposes a limitation in some circumstances on when a person can acquire a firearm after the person purchased it. The Act thus regulates conduct that occurs before a person keeps or carries a gun. Accordingly, applying Bruen’s plain text analysis, the Act imposes conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of firearms that do not directly restrict the textual rights protected by the Second Amendment.”

This decision creates a clear circuit split. The Seventh Circuit held that the right to bear arms includes the right to acquire arms in Ezell v. City of Chicago (2011 and 2017). The Ninth Circuit agreed in Teixeira v. County of Alameda (2017) and more recently in Nguyen v. Bonta (2025). The Tenth Circuit also recognized this right in Ortega v. Grisham (2025). The First Circuit’s ruling is an outlier.

If the plaintiffs petition for a writ of certiorari, the Supreme Court seems likely to grant review, given the clear circuit split. The plaintiffs could also seek en banc review by the full First Circuit. The chances of en banc review being granted are also high, as the panel’s decision starkly conflicts with precedent from other circuits and with Supreme Court decisions in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).

The panel vacated the district court’s decision and remanded the case to the lower court.

---

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/tnKaNfe
via IFTTT

Hegseth Signs Memo Allowing Soldiers to Carry Personal Sidearms on DOW Property

Our military installations have been turned into gun-free zones—leaving our service members vulnerable and exposed.

That ends today. pic.twitter.com/IQ204YepZ0

— Secretary of War Pete Hegseth (@SecWar) April 2, 2026

Military policy on carrying personal firearms just got flipped by Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, who signed a memo directing military base commanders to allow personnel—“namely, uniformed service members”—to carry privately owned firearms “while in their nonofficial duty capacity on DOW property within the United States.”

Hegseth signed the memo while announcing the new policy on a video posted on “X” on Thursday. In his announcement, which ran just over 2 minutes, 30 seconds, Hegseth noted, “Before today, it was virtually impossible—most people probably don’t know this—for War Department personnel to get permission to carry and store their own personal weapons aligned with the state laws where we operate our installations. Effectively, our bases across the country were gun-free zones, unless you’re training, or unless you’re a military policeman, you couldn’t carry. You couldn’t bring your own firearm for your own personal protection onto post. Well, that’s no longer.”

In a statement obtained by Ammoland News from Kostas Moros, director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation, he said, “SAF fully supports Secretary Hegseth’s decision to enable our service members to be able to carry personal firearms on military bases, with any denials requiring a written explanation. SAF believes any ‘gun-free zones’ are constitutionally questionable, and also create soft targets that are enticing to criminals and others bent on violence. The fact that military bases, of all places, have been under such restrictions has long been perplexing to us. Serving your country should not require the wholesale abandonment of the Second Amendment right of armed self-defense. It’s excellent to hear that this dangerous policy is finally changing.”

In announcing this change of policy, Hegseth alluded to past tragedies on military bases, including a December 2019 attack at Naval Air Station Pensacola, Florida which left three men dead and eight other people wounded, and another incident at Fort Stewart-Hunter Army Airfield, Georgia in August 2025. That incident left five soldiers wounded, and was committed by Sgt. Quornelius Radford, using his own firearm. On March 31, he pleaded guilty to several charges, according to WTOC News. He will face further charges of attempted premeditated murder and unpremeditated murder on June 15.

There was another fatal shooting at Holloman Air Force Base in New Mexico on March 17, which resulted in one fatality.

Going back further in history, two separate shootings occurred at Fort Hood, Texas, one in 2009 during which 13 people were killed, and the other in 2014, which left four dead. The 2009 shooting was committed by then-Major Nidal Hasan, using his own firearm, as noted by the New York Times. Hasan was convicted and sentenced to death. Following a series of appeals, which stretched over several years, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Hasan’s final petition for a writ of certiorari. Last September, Hegseth said he would seek formal approval from President Donald Trump for the execution to be carried out, according to Wikipedia.

According to a media release from Hegseth’s office, the undersecretary of war for intelligence and security will be responsible for updating the War Department Manual, which lays out physical security measures for the DOW. This update “will authorize permitting officials to review service member requests to carry personally owned firearms.”

In his video, Hegseth states, “If the rejection of an application is necessary, the rejection shall be in writing and explain the objective, clearly describable, and individualized basis for such decision. The review shall be a dispassionate and commonsense application of applicable law and standards.”

Hegseth’s announcement has literally reversed long-standing policy, and he matter-of-factly explained why it makes sense.

“The War Department’s uniformed service members are trained at the highest and unwavering standards,” Hegseth said. “These warfighters — entrusted with the safety of our nation — are no less entitled to exercise their God-given right to keep and bear arms than any other American. Our warfighters defend the right of others to carry. They should be able to carry themselves.”

He subsequently observed, “Not all enemies are foreign, nor are they all outside our borders. Some are domestic.”

Trump Ousts Pam Bondi as AG, Todd Blanche Takes Over Amid Epstein Fallout

---

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/FDb3Cte
via IFTTT

ATF Set to Introduce New Frames and Receivers Rule

The ATF is preparing a new rule on frames and receivers as litigation continues in VanDerStok v. Bondi. Img Duncan Johnson

In a filing in VanDerStok et al, v. Bondi et al. (formerly VanDerStok v. Garland), the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has asked the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, to stay the case for 90 days due to an upcoming rule change.

The ATF’s Frames and Receivers Rule (officially Final Rule 2021R-05F, titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms”) is a 2022 regulation issued by the ATF. It updated the regulatory definitions of “firearm,” “frame,” and “receiver” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). The rule effectively restricts the sale or transfer of most unfinished firearm frames and receivers that are not serialized – colloquially known as “80% firearms.” Although the official term is privately manufactured firearms (PMFs), anti-gun groups have demonized these items as “ghost guns.”

The rule was published in the Federal Register on April 26, 2022, and took effect on August 24, 2022. It remains in force following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 7-2 decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok (2025), which upheld the rule against a facial challenge.

Before the change, federal law generally defined a firearm as a single part that houses the hammer, bolt, or breechblock, and firing mechanism. The new rule expanded this to include partially completed frames or receivers (including certain parts kits) that have reached a stage of manufacture where they are clearly identifiable as an unfinished frame or receiver, or that are designed to, or may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or converted to function as a frame or receiver.

The keyword is “readily.” The ATF defines “readily” as a process that is fairly or reasonably efficient, quick, and easy, taking into account factors such as time, tools, expertise, instructions, jigs or templates, and other elements. According to the ATF, selling a partially completed lower with a jig, template, or instructions can make it subject to regulation.

The rule primarily affects the commercial sale or transfer of unfinished precursor parts. Home builders are still free to privately manufacture their own PMFs without a federal firearms license (FFL) or serial number, as long as the firearms are not for sale and not transferred to prohibited persons.

However, the parts they purchase may now be regulated if sold as kits. Exemptions exist under the rule. A bare forging, a flat sheet without indexing, or a very incomplete kit requiring significant machining, expertise, or time is generally not regulated as a firearm. AR-15 lowers remain the serialized “receiver” under the prior grandfathered classification.

Many are wondering what is changing with the rule. Although the revised rule is still in draft form and the final language is subject to change, AmmoLand News spoke with sources at the ATF to get a high-level overview of the proposed changes. Polymer frames, such as those made by the now-defunct Polymer80, will remain subject to strict regulation. Nothing will change on that front.

Our sources indicate that certain metal products, such as the MUP-1 from JSD Supply, will now be permissible. JSD Supply previously sold an 80% Sig P320 kit before the regulatory change and was rumored to be working on a Sig P365 kit. If the new draft rule remains as currently written, those kits will once again be legal to sell and transfer.

This rule is just one of many expected changes that will lessen the ATF’s grip on the firearms industry. The updated rule isn’t earth-shattering, but it represents progress in rolling back some of former President Joe Biden’s use of government regulation to target law-abiding gun owners.

---

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/8oqMXS5
via IFTTT

Trump Ousts Pam Bondi as AG, Todd Blanche Takes Over Amid Epstein Fallout

President Donald Trump removed Attorney General Pam Bondi and named Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche as acting AG, putting the Justice Department under new leadership amid Epstein-related fallout. Image generated with AI, image of Pam Bondi from DOJ.

President Donald Trump informed Attorney General Pam Bondi on Wednesday night that she would be stepping down, according to people familiar with the matter.

The conversation reportedly took place in the Oval Office shortly before Trump delivered a televised address on the ongoing conflict in Iran. By the time he finished speaking, Bondi’s tenure as the nation’s top law enforcement official had effectively come to an end, even though the formal announcement did not come until the following morning.

On Thursday, Trump acknowledged Bondi’s departure on Truth Social, praising her as “a Great American Patriot and a loyal friend.” He also noted that she had served in the role for about a year and would be moving on to opportunities in the private sector. Her deputy, Todd Blanche, has assumed the acting attorney general position.

According to multiple accounts, the decision had been in the works for some time. Ammoland News became aware of the discussion as early as December 2025. Tensions reportedly grew in part over the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Despite campaign expectations and pressure from lawmakers, the release of those materials has been slow, heavily redacted in places, and widely criticized by both supporters and critics of the administration.

Bondi, a longtime ally of Trump and former Florida attorney general, faced criticism from across the political spectrum. For some in Trump’s base, the Epstein issue became a persistent frustration that never seemed fully resolved.

At the same time, there were quieter concerns among gun rights advocates. Under Bondi’s leadership, the Justice Department continued defending certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) in court, including regulations involving suppressors and short-barreled firearms. While the department also pushed back against some state-level gun control measures, some Second Amendment supporters had hoped for a more aggressive approach overall. Many pointed out that the DOJ, while attacking state laws, tended to protect federal gun control measures.

With Bondi’s departure, attention is now turning to what direction the department may take next, particularly in ongoing litigation and policy decisions tied to firearms and transparency issues. Gun rights advocates hope that the change at the top will result in the DOJ stopping to defend what they see as unconstitutional laws, such as regulations on suppressors.

Speculation is already circulating about possible candidates to permanently fill the role. Among those mentioned is Lee Zeldin, the former New York congressman who is now head of the Environmental Protection Agency, who has maintained a strong conservative profile and support for gun rights. Zeldin was the co-sponsor of the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and several other high-profile gun rights bills.

In the interim, Todd Blanche, who has worked closely with Trump in the past and previously served as a federal prosecutor, will lead the department in an acting capacity. Observers expect him to review pending matters, including the Epstein-related materials and active firearms cases.

The change marks another notable shift within the administration as it navigates both domestic policy challenges and international developments. How the Justice Department proceeds under new leadership, particularly on high-profile transparency issues and Second Amendment-related litigation, is likely to draw close attention in the weeks ahead.

Supreme Court Asked to Stop New York’s Lawfare End-Run Around PLCAA

---

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/bQlYGf4
via IFTTT

USPS Moves to Allow Mailing Handguns After DOJ Says Federal Ban Is Unconstitutional

A DOJ legal opinion says the federal handgun mailing ban is unconstitutional, and USPS is now proposing rules that would allow lawful handgun shipments. iStock-1357038188

The Trump Administration, via the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), issued a Memorandum Opinion on January 15, 2026, pertaining to the general ban on the mailing of handguns by use of the Postal Service. The Memorandum declared the federal ban on mailing handguns to be unconstitutional.  This was a significant step toward restoring rights traditionally protected by the Second Amendment.

Our history is full of famous figures ordering firearms by mail, from Bat Masterson to President Theodore Roosevelt.  In 1927, a federal law banning the mailing of handguns went into effect. It is widely regarded as the first federal firearms law.

The Congressional record of the debate shows the purpose was to prevent black people from circumventing existing state and local handgun bans on the carry of concealed weapons by black men.

“Here we have laid bare the principal cause for the high murder rate in Memphis–the carrying by colored people of a concealed deadly weapon, most often a pistol.  Can we not cope with this situation?” – Senator John K. Shields (D-TN), 1924

It took time for the act to be passed and become law. Senator Shields said the primary purpose was to prevent black people from circumventing state and local bans on the possession and carry of concealed handguns. This was done through the interstate shipping of handguns. Shields asserted that no law-abiding citizen had any lawful reason to carry a concealed weapon. The ban only affected the postal service. Private shippers were not banned from shipping handguns.

The current regulation proposed by the Postal Service is designed to bring postal regulations back into conformity with the Constitution, or at least with the OLC Memorandum’s finding.

“The proposed revisions expand the scope of mailable firearms compared to the existing regulations by allowing lawful handguns to be mailed under the same terms and conditions as lawful rifles and shotguns. These conditions continue to require, among other things, that mailed firearms be
unloaded. Additionally, otherwise nonmailable handguns will remain mailable between authorized persons consistent with Section 1715.”

Handguns will be included as “Mailable firearms”.  For mailing within a particular state, shipment of handguns will be required to use “Return Service Requested”. Tracking and signature capture at delivery will be required. For mailing to out-of-state addresses, by those without a Federal Firearms License,  the following is required:

Out-of-State Mailings by Non-FFL Owners: Non-FFL owners may mail Mailable Firearms to themselves or another person in another state for lawful activities under the following conditions.The mailpiece must:

1. 1. Be addressed to the recipient.
      
   2. Include the “in the care of” endorsement immediately preceding the name of the applicable temporary custodian.
      
   3. Be opened by the recipient.
      
   4. Be mailed using a class of mail, product, or Extra Service that provides tracking and signature capture at delivery. 

The reform regulation will not go into effect until the comment period has lapsed. The comment period will begin at the time of publication in the Federal Register, expected on April 2, 2026, and continue for 30 days. Comments can be made after the proposed rule is published. Exactly when the regulation may go into effect is not certain at this time. If this rule is of interest, citizens can influence it through reasoned arguments submitted via comments at the link when the comment period is open.

One of the expected results of being able to send handguns through the postal service is a drop in the cost of ordering handguns remotely, through the Internet, telephone, or by mail. The cost of returning handguns to the manufacturer for warranty service should also drop. The cost of sending handguns through non-postal means has skyrocketed in recent years, along with privacy concerns.

The argument over the utility of concealed weapons continues to this day. Those opposed to an armed population claim that weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens, especially handguns, serve no useful purpose. Those supporting the reasoning behind the adoption of the Second Amendment claim multiple useful and necessary purposes. Research on the subject is divided.

Bans on handguns do not appear to reduce overall homicide rates or suicide rates. Handgun bans appear to be motivated for purposes of political power.

The Second Amendment appears clear on the subject. The Supreme Court has issued a definitive opinion in the Bruen decision. The Second Amendment protects the right to be armed in public.

 

 

---

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/XeYwUPt
via IFTTT

Gun Prohibitionists Using Pincer Strategy with Reports on U.S. Arms in Mexico

Who thinks “lax U.S. gun laws” are responsible for Mexican cartel carnage? IMG iStock-913549340

“They were under siege by a Mexican cartel. Now these civilians fight back with AK-47s and grenades,” The Washington Post reports. “Residents in the Mexican central state of Guerrero are setting up self-defense patrols to keep a powerful cartel out of their mountain towns.”

That’s a good thing, right? Citizens who want to live their lives banding together to defend themselves against evil oppressors? That’s not why they’re posting this.

Because while it seems like the overwhelmed and outgunned Mexican citizens – who can’t rely on the government for justice – fighting for self-defense, freedom, and survival, are doing what any decent human being unwilling to live as a victim or a slave would do, that’s not the point of this story. So, the WaPo feigns understanding and objectivity but then shapes a narrative.

By lumping defenders in with “local gangs and vigilante groups, many of which are allied with the larger cartels,” and noting “Because Mexico has strict gun control laws, the vast majority of arms in Mexico are smuggled from the U.S. by cartels,” they’ve just been redefined as part of the “problem,” their motives notwithstanding. And the larger problem, per a prohibitionist narrative that keeps being recycled, is the carnage is caused by American weaponry being smuggled into Mexico, and that’s all due to the Second Amendment and “lax U.S. gun laws.”

Where have we heard that before?

Gun control doesn’t work in Mexico, why would it work here in the U.S.? pic.twitter.com/KXlAtIb3Tf

— Crime Prevention Research Center (@CrimeResearch1) January 7, 2023

Fingers would be better pointed at Mexico’s pervasive corruption and tyrannical citizen disarmament edicts that have made a cartel black market both lucrative and inevitably bloody. And the narrative perpetuated by the article repeats the lies used so shamelessly to gin up domestic support for gun bans here.

Start with the grenades. These aren’t arms you can pick up at a gun show or from your local FFL.

From my January 2011 report, “Ordnance crossing into Mexico over border—its southern one”:

“Mexico… is also flooded with hand grenades … some of the grenade stockpiles are coming up from leftover military depots in Central America from the 1980s… Some have been taken/bought/stolen from the Mexican army itself.”

Later that year, I cited ATF actions concerning inert grenade hulls and controlled delivery to Mexico and attempts to retaliate against whistleblower Peter Forcelli by trying to undermine his credibility (also see my  AmmoLand interview with Forcelli and review of his book).

And there’s one other major lie being told, and this is a long known and calculated one originated by a veteran gun prohibitionist group.

The civilians are “Armed with military-grade weapons smuggled from the U.S.,” WaPo declares. Again, “thanks” to the National Firearms Act and the Hughes Amendment, “military grade” (full -auto capable) rifles are not something you can just “straw purchase” from a gun store and drive across the border. Whoever is getting the military stuff is getting it through corrupt official sources. The lie being promoted here plays right into the hands of the Violence Policy Center, that uses it to agitate for semi-auto bans:

“The weapons’ menacing looks, coupled with the public’s confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons—anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun—can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons.”

Then there’s the other jaw of the pincer.

“Inside the Supply Line Delivering American Guns to Mexican Cartels,” The New York Times headline proclaims. “A surge of weapons is flowing from the U.S. to Mexico. These firearms — sourced from gun shops, shows, websites and apps — are funneled across the border to fuel the country’s most violent crimes.”

Heavy on anecdotes and estimates, the same old tricks used prior, during, and after Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking” have been dusted off for reuse with a new generation of readers.

“About 80 percent of weapons seized by Mexican authorities come from the United States, [Mexico’s security minister, Omar Harfuch] said at a recent news conference,” readers are further “informed.”

“[B]oth Sinaloa Cartel and its rival Jalisco New Generation Cartel are increasingly armed with weapons like grenade launchers, grenades, machine guns and assault rifles,” they are told. What they’re not told is what “gun shops, shows, websites and apps” sell those things to Americans.

From a report I posted in 2009,

I’d like to share with you a bit of testimony, from the Statement of David Ogden, Deputy Attorney General, United States Department of Justice, before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing entitled “Southern Border Violence: Homeland Security Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Responsibilities”, presented March 25, 2009. Just a small bit, really, but a critical one, almost lost in the 20 pages of his statement:

According to ATF’s Tracing Center, 90 percent of the firearms about which ATF receives information are traceable to the United States.

Read it again and compare it to what the antis are saying. It’s very different, isn’t it?

It’s not guns “seized” by Mexican authorities. It’s the unknown percentage of those seized then submitted to ATF for tracing. Both Minister Harfuch and The Times know that.

And from another:

What is being ignored is the fact that the United States government (via Departments of Defense and State) sells thousands of military and non-military firearms to foreign governments, including Mexico and Central and South American countries…Many of these governments are notoriously corrupt and unstable. Moreover, we know that individuals in the Mexican police and military have ties to the drug cartels. It is highly reasonable, if not probable, that many of these weapons (and those sold to these nations in previous years), have now made their way onto the black market and thereby being funneled into the hands of the Mexican drug cartels. If traced by the BATFE, any of the firearms above would return as “originating in the US.”  Origination in the US clearly does not equate to an origination in the lawful US civilian market. [Emphasis added]

“Conviction of Top Mexican Cop Shows Corruption Problem, Not U.S. Guns,” I reported for Firearms News 14 years later. “Former Mexico Public Security Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna is guilty of drug trafficking, also showing new points on American guns in Mexico.”

And from a 2021 AmmoLand report:

U.S. Guns-to-Mexico Reports Suggests ‘Deja Vu All Over Again’

No one is saying U.S. guns don’t get smuggled into Mexico just as certainly as drugs are smuggled from there to here. A reporter wishing to make that case will absolutely be able to find untold examples to exploit. But when they don’t present the complete picture and then rely on recycling the same canards that were debunked years ago, it needs to be called out by those who know better. Especially when “experience hath shewn” the point behind the propaganda is to gin up low information voter support for being swindled out of their rights.

The answer is to expose corruption and enhance border security, not undermine the security of a free state by infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

(NOTE: Some of the substantiating links used in this article go to stories from discontinued websites that are only available via the Internet Archive (“Wayback Machine”), and may load slowly or time out.)

---

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/pSNJrQu
via IFTTT