Nondangerous Felons Retain Gun Rights in Florida, iStock-1324734605
Christopher Morgan was convicted in Pennsylvania in 2007 after he was caught carrying a firearm without a state license. Fifteen years later, he was stopped by a Florida officer, whom he told of a pistol in the center console of his car. Morgan was charged in Florida with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. He has no other criminal history.
Before his trial in Florida, Morgan’s defense team made a motion that the state firearm law, 790.23, is “unconstitutional both facially and as applied to him.” However, the trial court denied his motion. Morgan then pleaded no contest to the felon in possession Florida charges but appealed his conviction. He was sentenced to two days in jail and court costs.
Last week, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a response to Morgan’s appeal, which said that his conviction for possessing a firearm by a felon violates the Second Amendment.
AG Uthmeier actually agreed with Morgan’s legal team.
“On studied reflection, the Attorney General has concluded that the conviction does indeed infringe Morgan’s right, as a nondangerous felon, to keep and bear arms,” Uthmeier wrote. “The state must therefore confess error and urge this Court to reverse.”
In the court document, Uthmeier spells out that he is Florida’s “Chief Legal Officer,” and that he swore an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.
“It is thus the Attorney General’s duty to admit when he believes the State has obtained a conviction in violation of the Constitution,” he wrote.
If the court permits him to file a brief for this case, Uthmeier’s team wrote, he will “discuss the lack of historical evidence supporting the dispossession of all felons as distinct from the strong historical evidence supporting the dispossession of dangerous felons.”
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier. (Photo from Florida Attorney General’s Office.)
Solid Second Amendment history
This is not the first pro-gun move Florida’s Attorney General has made. In fact, the list is getting long.
Uthmeier recently intervened in a teen’s criminal case by asking a state appeals court to uphold the defendant’s right to carry—a move that even the anti-gun media admitted was a victory for Floridians’ gun rights. The issue involved a 1987 state law, which bars 18, 19 and 20-year-olds from carrying concealed firearms.
In September of last year, Uthmeier ended a Florida state law that criminalized open carry. He did it with a single post on X.
Once Florida’s First District Court of Appeals ruled the state’s open carry ban was unconstitutional in McDanielsv.StateofFlorida, Uthmeier posted an important announcement.
“I’m issuing guidance to Florida’s prosecutors and law enforcement in light of the 1st DCA’s decision in McDaniels v. State,” Uthmeier posted on X. “Because no other appellate court has considered the constitutionality of Florida’s open carry ban since the SCOTUS decision in Bruen, the 1st DCA’s decision is binding on all Florida’s trial courts. Meaning that as of last week, open carry is the law of the state.”
Uthmeier first joined Florida Governor Ron DeSantis as deputy general counsel in 2019. Within a year he became general counsel. One year later, DeSantis appointed him chief of staff. Last year, when DeSantis appointed Attorney General Ashely Moody to replace Senator Marco Rubio, he appointed Uthmeier to replace Moody as the state’s 30th Attorney General.
Reaction
Eric Friday is general counsel for Florida Carry, Inc. He has been a pro-gun attorney in Florida for more than 20 years.
“James Uthmeier is the most intellectually honest Attorney General we’ve ever had in Florida, while I have practiced law in the state,” Friday said Thursday morning. “The real question going forward will be a process for people who want a determination of whether their prior conviction is still problematic.”
Florida’s clemency process, Friday said, has been broken for years. There are long delays after applications are submitted. Many states have a judicial restoration process, but Florida does not.
“That is the only path we have in Florida currently to restore felons in their right to bear arms,” he said. “New York has a better restoration process for felons to be able to bear arms than Florida.”
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.
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.
West Virginia Introduces Bill to Repeal the State’s Machine Gun Ban. IMG Jim Grant
The West Virginia Legislature is once again considering a bold and controversial measure to repeal the state’s longstanding ban on the possession of machine guns, with House Bill 4185 introduced in the 2026 regular session. The bill, which seeks to strike down §61-7-9 of the West Virginia Code, has reignited fierce debate over Second Amendment rights and the interplay between state and federal firearms regulations.
Introduced on January 14, 2026, HB 4185 is a straightforward repeal bill. Its single purpose, as stated in the legislation, is “to repeal the section of code making it unlawful to possess a fully automatic weapon.”
Under current West Virginia law, it is illegal for any person to carry, transport, or possess a machine gun, submachine gun, or any other fully automatic firearm defined as a weapon that fires multiple rounds with a single pull of the trigger unless the owner has fully complied with federal statutes and Treasury Department regulations. Violations carry misdemeanor penalties, including fines of $1,000 to $5,000 and jail time of 90 days to one year.
The existing statute, §61-7-9, dates back decades and mirrors broader federal restrictions under the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934. The NFA heavily regulates machine guns through registration, background checks, a $200 tax stamp per transfer, and extensive ATF oversight. Machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986, are generally barred from civilian ownership under the Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA). Pre-1986 transferable machine guns remain legal for civilians who navigate the federal process, but West Virginia’s state law adds an extra layer of prohibition unless federal compliance is met, effectively creating a state-level barrier even for federally approved owners in some interpretations.
Proponents of HB 4185 argue that the state ban is redundant and infringes on constitutional rights. West Virginia has positioned itself as one of the most gun-friendly states in recent years, with permitless concealed carry, strong preemption laws preventing local restrictions, and repeated efforts to nullify or ignore perceived federal overreach. Supporters, including gun rights organizations and some Republican lawmakers, view the repeal as a logical next step in affirming Second Amendment protections. They contend that law-abiding citizens who already comply with stringent federal requirements should not face additional state criminalization. In a state with high household gun ownership rates ranking among the top nationally, the bill aligns with a broader cultural emphasis on individual liberties and self-defense.
Delegate Chuck Horst, who has championed the measure, has framed the repeal as removing an outdated restriction. Past iterations, such as HB 2213 in 2025 and HB 2959, carried nearly identical language and reflected growing momentum among conservative legislators to dismantle state-level gun controls that exceed federal minimums.
The bill arrives amid a broader pro-gun push in the 2026 session. Companion efforts, such as Senate Bill 478, the “Second Amendment Reaffirmation and Protection Act,” would automatically nullify state cooperation with certain federal firearms laws if the NFA, the Gun Control Act (GCA) of 1968, or related statutes are repealed or struck down by the federal courts. Sponsored by Senators Rose, Helton, Maynard, and Rucker, SB 478 includes preemption clauses, private rights of action against violating officials, and prohibitions on state agencies re-enacting federal-style rules. These measures reflect a defensive posture: preparing for potential national changes while solidifying state sovereignty over firearms.
As of mid-February 2026, HB 4185 remains in early stages, referred to the House Judiciary Committee. Similar bills in previous years failed to advance fully or died in committee, but the Republican supermajority in Charleston gives pro-gun legislation a stronger chance than in many other states. The West Virginia Citizens Defense League (WVCDL) and local groups have urged members to contact lawmakers in support, framing the repeal as part of defending freedoms against incremental restrictions. West Virginia’s bill focuses narrowly on repealing the possession ban, but success could signal openness to challenging other NFA items, such as suppressors or short-barreled rifles, in future sessions.
If passed and signed by Governor Jim Justice, the repeal would not immediately flood the state with machine guns. Federal law would still apply, meaning civilians could only possess pre-1986 registered models after ATF approval and payment of tax, or post-1986 samples under dealer/manufacturer licenses. However, the symbolic impact would be significant: West Virginia would join a handful of states with minimal or no additional restrictions beyond federal rules.
As hearings approach, the bill tests the boundaries of gun rights in one of America’s most firearm-permissive states. Supporters see it as restoring rights that have long been eroded by outdated laws. With the session running through early spring, HB 4185 could become law or join the list of bold but stalled Second Amendment measures in Charleston.
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.
Breaking Down Virginia With NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford iStock-1925281650
John Commerford is the Executive Director for the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). The NRA-ILA serves as the NRA’s dedicated lobbying and political advocacy arm. Established in 1975, it is committed to preserving and protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens by ensuring their ability to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes, such as self-defense, hunting, and sport shooting.
NRA-ILA engages in a range of activities to achieve this goal. It actively lobbies lawmakers at the federal, state, and local levels to promote pro-gun legislation and oppose restrictive gun control measures. This includes tracking and influencing legislation, providing testimony, and mobilizing grassroots efforts through member alerts and volunteer networks such as NRA-ILA FrontLines. The organization also monitors and reports on gun-related laws, maintains state-by-state gun law resources, and educates the public on firearm policy issues through its website (nraila.org), publications, and fact sheets.
Additionally, NRA-ILA plays a key role in the political process by evaluating and grading candidates based on their positions on gun rights, issuing endorsements, and operating the NRA Political Victory Fund (a political action committee) to support aligned candidates. It participates in legal efforts to defend Second Amendment protections, including supporting or initiating court challenges to perceived infringements.
AmmoLand News sat down with Mr. Commerford to discuss what is happening in the Commonwealth of Virginia, which, once again, seems to have become ground zero for the gun control debate.
Crump: I’m just going to jump right into it. And the first question is fairly simple: What is the NRA doing about combating the bad gun bills in Virginia?
Commerford: Our full-time staff is at the General Assembly in Richmond, along with contractors we’ve hired, in addition to activating our members across the Commonwealth to contact their lawmakers, make their voices heard, and make sure they know exactly how many lawful Americans across the Commonwealth are going to be impacted by this terrible legislation.
Crump: It seems like some of the bills are having a really hard time getting through. For example, the suppressor tax bill. There was another bill that just died today in committee, the permit to purchase bill. There are several other bills that have been scrapped or delayed. Is pushback from gun owners the reason why these bills are having a hard time getting through, or is it something else?
Commerford: Well, the pressure is working, and gun owners all across the Commonwealth need to keep up that pressure, even gun owners who visit Virginia, call the legislature, make it known that this is going to impact you. Last week, I received a call from an employee at the General Assembly who asked us to stop listing the phone number for the switchboard there, because they’re getting 1000s of phone calls. It’s affecting their ability to do business, to which I said, “Well, you know, you should ask your boss about that in the new Governor Abigail Spanberger.” So, I think the pressure works.
They started the session with all these big, grand ideas about how they can change the Commonwealth in the image of the progressive, radical left, and then all those voters who didn’t show up at the polls have now woken up and are actively calling their lawmaker. They’re commenting on social media, they’re sending emails, they’re sending letters, they’re visiting the offices. That has an impact. It starts to change the tone of the conversation, and that needs to continue.
Crump: All right, so you believe that gun owners calling and getting involved is what can stem the tide of all these anti-gun laws in Virginia?
Commerford: That’s a huge component to it. Another component is Abigail Spanberger’s future aspirations if she wants to be President of the United States, wholesale banning the most popular firearms in the Commonwealth? I don’t know if that’s her best ticket to the White House in her future campaigns, but this is a critically important week.
Folks need to pay attention because if anything passes this week, it will go to her desk, and she will only have 7 days to decide whether to sign it, let it become law, or veto it. After this week, it gets out of the seven-day window.
Crump: What anti-gun laws do you see getting through?
Commerford: Well, we hope that nothing gets through. However, we do live in reality, and we’re seeing what’s happening. I think there is a variation of hardware bands that will make it to her desk. There’s a variation of the firearms industry liability bill that will make it to her desk, and some others. However, there are changes; the suppressor tax has died. They’ve punted the 11% excise tax to the next year. The permit to purchase was stripped out of the bill this morning, and it’s now a ban on young adults buying pistols and so-called assault firearms. So, there’s a lot of activity here over the next few days that is really going to determine what we see going to her desk.
Crump: Yeah, you bring up the bill being modified to strip those 18 to 20-year-olds of the right to buy a pistol. In the universal background check case, it was partially knocked down because of the Equal Protection Clause, since 18-year-olds can only buy handguns through private sales. Do you think that they’re trying to change that law so they can return universal background checks in the future?
Commerford: Yeah, I think they will do anything they can to try to return to that regime. However, I think they have other shiny objects that they’re looking at in this session. I mean, look, we’ve seen what their priorities have been over the last two years, and thanks to Governor Youngkin, they have been vetoed, but now they have a willing participant in the Governor’s mansion. So, there are going to be numerous things put on her desk, and I think in the future, they will be exploring universal background checks further. But right now, we’re focused on what is heading to her desk, and we’re focused on having our lawyers get to work on legal challenges, because that’s where this fight is going to be. Anything that makes it across their desk and is then enacted in the law, we will be working to challenge.
Crump: That was my next question about legal challenges.
Commerford: We’re involved in more than 60 cases currently, and we’re going to be adding to that list with both a state and a federal challenge. There’s a conservative-leaning Supreme Court in Virginia on the state level. And of course, you know, we need to have federal challenges, and you have a willing Department of Justice under President Trump that has weighed in on state-level challenges to violations of our Second Amendment rights. So, we are looking forward to a team effort across all pro-Second Amendment groups, the DOJ, and others to try to fix the injustice we think is going to happen in Richmond.
Crump: Article I, Section 13 in the Virginia Constitution is very strong when it comes to gun rights. How is that going to play into any future litigation?
Commerford: We are absolutely focused on a state challenge and a federal challenge. Virginia is one of those unique states where the legislature is left-dominated, and the Supreme Court is conservative-leaning. So, the vehicle is there with exactly what you said with the state constitution, that we can attack any of these infringements in state law. We’re fully exploring those options now. As soon as standing exists to challenge them, we will do so.
Crump: How important is defeating the redistricting efforts in Virginia? They’re trying to make it ten to one for Democrats. How important is defeating that referendum in April?
Commerford: It’s incredibly important. I mean, if anyone who looks at the map knows how ridiculous it is what they’re trying to do, they’re trying to silence the voice of a huge amount of Virginians. I mean, Fairfax County alone will have five different congressional districts across the voters. Voters need to shoot that down.
That’s the first chance that gun owners and conservative voters have to voice their displeasure and bring this new, radical left General Assembly into reality. A lot of people sat at home in this last election. It wasn’t a mandate on the policies that they proposed, but folks were happy that President Trump won, we had majorities in the House and Senate, and they tend to stay home while the other side is motivated. And this is the first chance that gun owners will have to bring the lawmakers back to reality. And if, God forbid, it goes through, they’ll have another chance in November to make them regret the decision they made, because they’re spreading the paint very thin in a few of these districts, so there’s a chance that Republicans can get the upset as well.
Crump: Do you think the anti-gun groups are shifting their focus to the states, since they have failed on the federal level?
Commerford: We saw for years a focus of resources from the gun control community. I mean, look, first, they have unlimited resources from billionaires like Michael Bloomberg, so they have the ability to do that. But second, when we see their involvement in elections over the last few cycles, they weren’t focusing on gun control. They’re focusing on abortion and other issues that are not germane. They’re not like the gun groups like NRA, where we are single issue, and we’re only focused on the Second Amendment. They will go after whatever popular issue du jour the day is motivating the radical left. But they are fully focused on the states. We see them sometimes with paid volunteers in in the state houses and others.
They are well funded, but we have true volunteer activists. That’s why all gun owners need to be motivated, showing up at the State House and calling their lawmaker.
Crump: We’re seeing places like California trying to shut down 3d printed firearms nationwide by using California law. What is the NRA’s take on that?
Commerford: We fully support home-manufactured firearms. No state should limit the ability of a law-abiding individual to make the firearm of their choice. And it’s plain and simple, but we continue to see the evolution of the deep blue states to try to vilify firearm owners in any manner possible.
Crump: And final question I have for you. Some have suggested the NRA should abandon its Virginia headquarters and move to a state like Texas. What are your thoughts on that?
Commerford: We have a long-established history. Here at our headquarters in Virginia, we have a world-class, truly world-unique museum in the National Firearms Museum. We have a fully operational shooting range. It’s open to the public. We also have an office on Capitol Hill in DC. We didn’t abandon DC with that office when times got tough. So, we’re going to stay here. We’re going to defend our freedoms. At some point, they may force us out, but it’s not going to be without a fight.
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.
Gun Owners Fight Back as New Mexico Gun Ban Falters Ban IMG iStock-534364755
The New Mexico legislature is considering a combination gun ban and hyper-regulatory bill, SB17. It is covered in a previous article at Ammoland. The bill bans the future sale of most semi-automatic firearms and detachable magazines that hold more than ten rounds of ammunition. Those parts of the bill are almost certainly unconstitutional.
The bill also imposes costly regulatory measures likely to drive many small dealers out of business. SB17 has passed the Senate 21 to 17, with two senators not voting and two more senators absent. The bill is sponsored by six Democratic Party Senators and Senator Peter Wirth, the Senate Majority Floor leader.
The bill passed the New Mexico House Commerce & Economic Development Committee. It is currently being heard by the House Judiciary Committee as of February 17, 2026. Firearms are popular in New Mexico. Second Amendment supporters are mounting a campaign to flood the phone lines of Judiciary Committee members and House members in general.
On X, the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) is reporting that the bill is stalled in the House Judiciary Committee. From X:
We are receiving several reports from both people here and our members through the call center that angry staffers are slamming phones, yelling at callers, attempting and failing to shut down their lines, and generally losing their minds.
After being riddled with a slew of proposed amendments in a late-night committee hearing, the most contentious gun control bill of New Mexico’s 30-day session is all but dead.
One of the lead sponsors of Senate Bill 17, Sen. Debbie O’Malley, D-Albuquerque, said Tuesday the measure is unlikely to get another hearing after the House Judiciary Committee delayed a vote early Tuesday morning.
“There’s not enough time to hear it again,” she said.
Yesterday, the House Judiciary Committee heard SB 17, the Governor’s tyrannical “Stop Illegal Gun Trade Act,” a measure that serves not as a safety tool but as a calculated strike against the rights of every law-abiding firearm owner in the state. It did not receive a vote, but with the 2026 legislation session expected to end on the 19th, the committee could take a vote at any time.
Immediate Action Required
It is imperative that you use the Take Action button to send an immediate message to the committee to vote “NO” on SB 17. SB 17 isn’t about safety, it’s a calculated burden on law-abiding citizens that leaves actual criminals untouched.
As noted in the Los Alamos Daily Post, the executive director of New Mexicans to Prevent Gun Violence warned that SB17 was vulnerable to court challenge and might lead to undesired consequences.
“By passing a ban this broad, we are handing the U.S. Supreme Court a perfect opportunity to deliver a definitive, nationwide ruling against state-level firearm restrictions,” Viscoli told The New Mexican last week.
“Beyond the legal risk,” she added, “the bill’s immediate effect will likely be a surge in panic buying of the exact weapons this bill is trying to limit.”
AmmoLand News has been tracking SB17 from the beginning, and we will continue to follow this story closely. If there are last-minute votes, amendments, procedural moves, or public statements from lawmakers, advocacy groups, or the Governor’s office, this article will be updated accordingly.
It’s the final day of the session in New Mexico and SB17 is grinding to a halt.
But the fight isn’t over for New Mexicans until the clock hits 12:00 MST.
Don’t let up now!
The pressure you all have applied has been incredible, so let’s give it one last push! pic.twitter.com/zzFa0wcEhg
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.
The Deadly Fraud of Forced Helplessness: Why “Gun-Free” Zones are a Gift to Killers, iStock-490657417
When I first sat down to write this, my intent was to present a clinical analysis of John Lott’s research and the statistical failure of the gun-free zone. But as the words hit the page, the data gave way to memories, and this piece transformed into something much more personal. It became a testament to why we founded FASTER Saves Lives (Faculty/Administrator Safety Training and Emergency Response)—a movement born out of a refusal to accept the status quo, but then thrust upon us by the horrific events of Sandy Hook.
I spent years traveling to dozens of late-night school board meetings, advocating for a solution to the “gun-free” death traps our children are forced to inhabit. I have sat in those sterile school boardrooms, looking into the eyes of policymakers, pleading for the “FASTER answer” to the helpless murder of our children. I remember looking into the eyes of a determined FASTER observer who, after witnessing the program’s impact, made the life-changing decision to take FASTER back to her own state to protect her own community. My direct involvement in those early training sessions is now a distant memory, but the impact remains etched in my mind.
I watched, firsthand, the profound transformation of our educators. I saw teachers who previously only had the “option” of saving their students by absorbing bullets meant for their children—dying as martyrs in a hallway—be transformed into empowered defenders of their defenseless pupils. I assisted at FASTER training sessions where the look of mandated helplessness was replaced by the quiet confidence of a protector.
Today, I am reminded of what FASTER accomplishes and what the gun-free zone fallacy fails to do every time I see a school bus, drive past an elementary school, or hear the roar of the crowd at a high school football game. I don’t just see a “zone”; I see the faces of children who deserve a teacher, a protector, who is actually equipped to save them should the unthinkable occur.
The Deadly Fraud of “Safety”
Gun-free zones are often promoted as a “commonsense” way to keep people safe. As a veteran attorney who has spent a career at the frontline of our legal system, I am here to tell you that claim is a deadly fraud. How could any sane person think it is acceptable to deny a victim of violent crime their only chance for survival? My perspective is shaped by a sobering reality: I have spent decades in the courtroom observing the dark mechanics of the criminal mind. I never saw a perpetrator who was looking for a fair fight. Every criminal I encountered in the justice system shared a common trait—they were looking for an advantage. They planned their lawlessness around the certainty of zero resistance, specifically targeting those they knew were defenseless because they, too, wanted to ensure they went home at the end of the day.
When a school board or a business mandates a gun-free zone, they aren’t voting for safety; they are signaling to the most predatory among us that their targets have been stripped of their means of survival. They aren’t legislating peace; they are mandating helplessness and, ultimately, inviting funerals.
The Evidence: Lott’s Research and the “Magnet Effect”
To a predatory killer, a “Gun-Free Zone” sign isn’t a deterrent; it’s an invitation. It signals a high-density area of defenseless targets. This is the Magnet Effect: the statistical reality that mass shooters bypass harder targets in favor of “soft targets” where they know the law-abiding have been forced to disarm. Criminals act rationally. They deliberately select locations where they can maximize casualties with minimal resistance, even when the planned intent of their final shot is their own suicide. They aren’t afraid of the police arriving in ten minutes; they are afraid of the defender who is already in the room.
The Information Gap: Suppression of the Truth
The FBI’s reporting on active shooters is a systematic act of narrative-building. While their “official” reports claim armed citizens rarely intervene, John Lott and the CPRC have documented the Bureau “omitting” dozens of successful defensive gun uses (DGUs). When the FBI reports a low intervention rate, they are lying by omission. In reality, in areas where citizens are allowed to carry, they stop the threat over 50% of the time.
The Human Cost of the “Gap”
Consider the agonizing reality of “forced helplessness.” Imagine you are in a crowded venue—a church, a theater, or a school hallway. You hear the first shot. You are a trained, responsible carry permit holder, but because of a sign on the door, your firearm is inaccessible, locked in your car out in the parking lot.
Pulse Nightclub (2016)
For three hours, victims were trapped inside while the police staged outside. Three hours of text messages to parents saying goodbye. Three hours of hiding in bathroom stalls while a killer methodically hunted the defenseless. If just one responsible citizen in that room had been armed, the narrative of that night would have changed from a “massacre” to a “stopped threat.” Instead, the law-abiding were forced to wait for a rescue that arrived three hours—and dozens of lives—too late.
The Borderline Bar & Grill Massacre (2018)
In Thousand Oaks, California, a gunman entered a crowded country music bar. Among the patrons were several young men who had survived the Las Vegas shooting just a year prior. These were individuals who understood the threat and possessed the will to act. However, because California law and the establishment’s status made it a gun-free zone, they were unarmed. As the killer moved through the room, veterans and off-duty law enforcement officers were forced to throw barstools and dive in front of friends. They were tactical men rendered tactically useless by a “No Guns” policy. They were forced to engage a semi-automatic weapon with wooden chairs, resulting in 12 deaths while the “official” response was still minutes away.
The Luby’s Cafeteria Massacre (1991)
This remains one of the most haunting examples of “locked in the car.” Suzanna Hupp was dining with her parents when a gunman crashed his truck through the window and began a slow, methodical execution of the patrons. Suzanna was a licensed gun owner, but she had left her .38 revolver in her vehicle to comply with the state laws of the time. She reached for her purse out of habit, only to realize her “equalizer” was sitting in a parking lot while her mother and father were murdered in front of her. She later testified that she wanted the tool she had already bought, trained with, and owned—the tool the law forced her to leave behind.
The Robb Elementary Standoff (2022)
Uvalde, Texas, provides the ultimate indictment of the “Wait for Police” doctrine. For 77 minutes, children were trapped in a classroom with a killer while hundreds of heavily armed officers waited in the hallway. Parents outside were handcuffed and tackled by police for trying to rush in to save their own children. This wasn’t a failure of “resources”; it was a failure of access. The system mandated that the teachers and parents remain helpless while the “professionals” waited for a key and a tactical plan. In those 77 minutes, 19 children and two teachers were sacrificed to a “safety protocol” that valued procedure over immediate intervention.
The Solution: FASTER Saves Lives
We cannot wait for the police when seconds count. Most active shooter incidents conclude within five minutes, yet police response can often take fifteen minutes or longer. The first ten minutes are the deadliest.
The Fatal Delay: Reevaluating Campus School Security
The presence of a School Resource Officer (SRO) at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Colorado, remains a haunting reminder that a badge is not a magic shield. On that December day, the SRO was a hollow promise of safety, a reactive presence that arrived only after the damage was done.
This tragedy exposed a fatal systemic delay, proving that even a trained professional cannot stop a bullet that has already been fired. For Claire Davis, murdered in the school library, the “security” on campus was quite literally a failure of geography. The reality is that a predator knows exactly where the SRO is stationed. They do not start their rampage in front of a badge; they start where they know the response is minutes—and several hallways—away. To truly bridge those lethal seconds, the focus must shift from delayed reaction to immediate intervention. It is a shameful dereliction of duty to mandate helplessness for those who have the greatest will to protect our children.
Dismantling the “Gun-Free Zone” Fallacy
I have seen firsthand that opponents of arming teachers often rely on a series of scripted objections, yet each one crumbles when measured against the reality of these tragedies.
The “More Guns, More Danger” Myth: Critics argue that adding firearms increases risk. However, this ignores the lethal certainty of an unopposed shooter. In a gun-free zone, the only person with a weapon is the one intent on mass murder.
The “Teachers Aren’t Soldiers” Argument: This is an insult to educators who already use their own bodies as human shields. We must stop teaching educators the “Run, Hide, Fight” protocol—which, in a gun-free zone, is actually “Run, Hide, Die.” It is the height of ridiculousness to ask a teacher to charge a rifle with a fire extinguisher.
The “Crossfire” Concern: Opponents worry about a teacher engaging a threat. Yet they remain silent on the guaranteed carnage of a shooter given minutes of uncontested access. The risk of a tactical complication pales in comparison to the absolute failure of a system that leaves a student to die with zero defense.
The Martyrdom of a Hero Denied a Choice
One of the most agonizing examples of this fallacy occurred during the 2018 massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida. It is the story of Scott Beigel, a geography teacher who pulled fleeing students into his classroom. He was in the middle of locking the door when he was shot and killed.
Because the system had mandated his unarmed helplessness, Beigel died without firing a shot. Had Scott Beigel been armed, the evil threat would have been neutralized the moment it darkened his doorway. Instead, the shooter was able to fire over Beigel’s fallen body, murdering Nicholas Dworet and Helena Ramsay while wounding several others. Beigel gave his life to protect those children, but the system ensured he would fail the very mission he died for.
Call to Action
Tragically, this system will fail again. We must choose: Do we value the ideological purity of a gun-free sign, or do we value the lives of the children standing behind it?
Demand Accountability: Hold your local school board accountable for the “forced helplessness” they mandate. Challenge them on their own consistency: If a school board believes so strongly in the “safety” of a gun-free zone, they should be willing to conduct their own meetings without the armed guards they use to protect themselves while leaving our children defenseless.
Support the Leaders: Stand with programs like FASTER; push for them to be created in your local school district. Save the children in your communities—give them a chance.
End the Victim Zones: The Second Amendment isn’t just a right; it’s the only insurance policy that pays out when seconds count.
The FASTER you stop the killing, the more lives that will be saved.
The FASTER you stop the bleeding, the more victims that will survive.
The FASTER we end the “Gun-Free” lie, the safer our children become.
Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.
VA Restores Veterans’ Second Amendment Rights After Decades of Unconstitutional Disarmament, iStock-1335232275
For more than 30 years, American veterans who bravely defended our freedoms were stripped of their own Second Amendment rights — not through any crime, not by a judge’s order, and not because they were a danger to anyone — but simply because they needed help managing their VA benefits under a fiduciary program. That changed on February 17, 2026, when the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) formally ended this unconstitutional practice.
A Unilateral Bureaucratic Gun Ban Ends
Under decades-old policy, veterans who lacked the ability to manage their financial affairs — often due to service-related disabilities — were automatically reported by the VA to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) as “prohibited persons.” This reporting effectively barred them from legally owning or purchasing firearms.
In its official announcement, the VA acknowledged that this practice violated both the Gun Control Act and the constitutional rights of veterans, because the department was making life-altering disability determinations without any judicial or quasi-judicial due process — a fundamental right in American law.
Effective immediately, the VA will no longer report veterans to NICS solely because they need fiduciary help, and it is working with the FBI to remove veterans’ names that were improperly submitted in the past.
Historic Pro-Second Amendment Advocacy Paid Off
This outcome was decades in the making, driven by tireless pressure from Second Amendment stalwarts in the grassroots and legislative arenas.
On X, Gun Owners of America (GOA) celebrated the milestone as a long-sought victory: “After THREE DECADES of lobbying by Gun Owners of America, we are proud to announce that the Veteran Gun Ban is officially DEAD.”
BREAKING
After THREE DECADES of lobbying by Gun Owners of America, we are proud to announce that the Veteran Gun Ban is officially DEAD.@DeptVetAffairs “is working” to delete over 270,851 veterans who were added to @FBI‘s background check system & unlawfully disarmed. pic.twitter.com/3taCW14NEN
GOA’s campaign included formal petitions to the VA, support for legislative measures like the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act, and continuous public advocacy highlighting the unconstitutional nature of the policy.
Similarly, the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) publicly applauded the VA’s decision, noting this policy reversal corrects an “unjust” practice that reversed Second Amendment rights without due process for veterans who asked only for assistance, not punishment.
Why This Matters — Constitutionally and Practically
Today’s announcement from the VA has real constitutional significance: it reaffirms that the right to keep and bear arms cannot be removed by arbitrary federal bureaucrats — only by lawful adjudication. Veterans who have served honorably and, in some cases, suffered injury or disability in service of this country should not be treated as second-class citizens when it comes to their foundational liberties.
Before this policy change, veterans hesitated to seek help from the VA or accept fiduciary assistance for fear of losing their gun rights — often a crucial means of self-defense.
By ending the practice and removing improperly submitted records, the VA finally puts veterans on equal footing with other Americans: no right taken without due process, no liberty removed without legitimate legal cause.
What Happens Next?
While this administrative change is monumental, leading gun rights advocates including GOA and NRA have stressed the importance of legislative codification — ensuring a future administration cannot reverse this hard-won restoration through bureaucratic rule-making alone.
Congressional allies in both chambers have already introduced bills like the Veterans Second Amendment Protection Act that would permanently prohibit the VA from submitting NICS reports unless the veteran is adjudicated a danger by a court — a safeguard many pro-gun advocates deem essential to protect this reform forever.
This long-overdue correction by the VA marks a decisive victory for liberty and for every veteran who ever feared seeking help from their government at the cost of their constitutional rights. It’s a clear rebuke of bureaucratic overreach — and a powerful affirmation that when Americans organize, advocate, and fight for freedom, the principles of the Constitution still prevail.
Go out and vote! The fate of the Second Amendment and the Republic as a whole are at stake. iStock-1271805899
As I write this, we are fast approaching the 2026 midterm elections. Sounds like a lot of time, but it’s not.
The conventional wisdom says Congress changes parties at the midterms. With the razor-thin margins Republicans hold now, damage control has to be a priority.
There’s a four-seat majority in the House; all 435 seats are up for grabs. Fifty-one representatives are retiring or leaving to run for other offices. The majority of them are Republican.
There’s a six-seat majority in the Senate. However, that includes at least two RINOs (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski), who can be counted on to join the Democrats on 2A issues.
Thirteen Democrats and 20 Republicans are retiring. Mitch McConnell is among them, but that probably won’t keep the Senate Red. It may well be the best strategy is to do everything in our power to prevent the Democrats from winning 60 seats.
Gun owners and pro-Second Amendment advocates made a difference in the 2024 general election. According to the 2021 National Firearms Survey, there are about 81.4 million gun owners in the United States. Out of a population of 342 million, that doesn’t seem like much, but looking at data from the 2022 midterms, that 81.4 million would equal more than 72% of the total number of ballots counted.
After four years of possibly the most anti-gun administration in history, Donald Trump pledged to support the Second Amendment, undo the damage done by Biden, Harris, & Co., and recover gun rights in general.
Being the most 2A-friendly administration in U.S. history wasn’t much of a challenge. Based on the past 100 years, simply doing nothing would have ensured a ranking near the top.
The President made a good start right out of the gate, though there was concern about his choice of Pam Bondi as Attorney General. When she was Florida’s AG, she had a very uneven track record on 2A issues.
Bondi’s bad habits followed her from Tallahassee to Washington. Over the past year, she’s taken a lot of the shine off of the administration’s 2A claims by her inconsistent and sometimes perplexing positions.
When the DOJ opposed dropping the registration and approval requirements for short-barreled rifles and shotguns, it argued that the NFA tax still produced revenue for the federal government. But that revenue came from an entirely different tax.
There is no longer any revenue from the transfer tax on SBRs and SBSs. The Supreme Court ruled the National Firearms Act was a revenue measure nearly 89 years ago. Without the tax, there is no reason to impose the processes intended to ensure compliance and payment of the tax.
To be sure, the Trump Administration, including Pam Bondi, has done more to secure gun rights than any administration in recent memory. However, disappointment often has a greater impact than satisfaction on public perceptions: It certainly generates more traffic on social media.
The current Congress can’t pass gas, let alone any pro-2A legislation. The Supreme Court seems to be content to smile benignly on lower courts’ defiance of its decisions. The burden of inspiring pro-2A voters to show up at the polls falls squarely on President Trump, the actions of his administration, and the efforts of pro-gun groups and gun owners to persuade them to get back on track.
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.
BREAKING
