New Jersey’s One-Handgun-a-Month Ban Faces Summary-Judgment Challenge

FPC, NRA, GOA, and other gun-rights plaintiffs are asking a federal judge to strike down New Jersey’s one-handgun-a-month restriction, arguing that the state’s own experts cannot identify a comparable Founding-era law. iStock-1413053043

New Jersey lets a qualified resident buy one handgun. Then it starts a 30-day clock before that same resident may ordinarily buy another.

Firearms Policy Coalition, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, and other gun-rights plaintiffs are now asking a federal judge to end that handgun-rationing scheme.

Two groups of plaintiffs filed separate motions for summary judgment September 14 in the consolidated Benton v. Davenport and Struck v. Davenport litigation. Both ask U.S. District Judge Karen M. Williams to declare New Jersey’s restriction unconstitutional and permanently block its enforcement.

These are motions, not a court victory. New Jersey has not yet lost the case. But the filings force the state to confront a basic problem: Its own experts acknowledge that laws resembling one-handgun-a-month rationing did not exist early in American history.

New Jersey’s 30-Day Handgun Limit

New Jersey enacted its one-handgun-per-30-days restriction in 2009. The official chapter law amended N.J.S.A. § 2C:58-3(i) to provide that only one handgun may be purchased or delivered on each permit and that “no more than one handgun shall be purchased within any 30-day period.”

The statute does not impose the same numerical limit on rifles or shotguns.

There are exceptions for law-enforcement agencies and officers purchasing duty guns, federally licensed collectors of curios and relics, firearm businesses, certain returned-handgun exchanges, and transactions for which the state police superintendent approves an exemption. Separate provisions allow exemptions involving inheritance, qualifying handgun collections, and sanctioned competition.

Those exceptions do not give an ordinary New Jersey resident an automatic right to buy a second defensive handgun simply because he wants or needs a different firearm before the state’s calendar expires.

The Benton plaintiffs’ summary-judgment brief also argues that knowingly or recklessly violating New Jersey’s regulatory provisions governing handgun-purchase permits can constitute a fourth-degree crime, punishable by as much as 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $10,000.

New Jersey is not targeting a prohibited person or someone accused of threatening another person. The challenged law applies to citizens whom the state has already determined are legally eligible to acquire a handgun.

Two Cases Now Focused on One Restriction

The consolidated litigation includes two groups of plaintiffs presenting overlapping arguments.

Matthew Struck and Daniel Francisco are joined by FPC and the NRA. According to their statement of undisputed material facts, both men hold New Jersey firearms purchaser identification cards and are not prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms.

They want to purchase two or more commonly owned handguns from licensed dealers within a 30-day period for lawful purposes. They say they would do so but for New Jersey’s enforcement of the law.

The other plaintiffs are Christian Benton, the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners, Gun Owners of America, and Gun Owners Foundation. Benton says the law has forced him to stagger handgun purchases over several months.

The procedural history requires some care. The Benton plaintiffs originally challenged both the 30-day restriction and New Jersey’s broader permit-to-purchase system. The district court dismissed the permit challenge and the claims against a local licensing official in March 2025 while preserving the one-handgun-a-month claim against the state.

As AmmoLand previously reported, Benton and Struck are part of a larger wave of Second Amendment litigation attacking New Jersey’s gun-control regime. The surviving issue here, however, is specific: whether New Jersey may ration handgun purchases by time after a person has already qualified to buy them.

The Right to Keep Arms Requires the Right to Acquire Them

The Struck plaintiffs’ summary-judgment brief begins with the constitutional text.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear “Arms”—plural. Struck and Francisco argue that the text contains no numerical limit on how many protected handguns a citizen may acquire or how often he may acquire them.

More fundamentally, a person cannot keep or bear a firearm he is prohibited from obtaining.

That principle has gained substantial support in federal courts. In Rigby v. Jennings, a Delaware federal judge recently held that the Second Amendment’s protection extends to acquiring a firearm, including through lawful self-manufacture. The court permanently blocked Delaware’s bans on possessing and making privately manufactured firearms while leaving other provisions intact.

New Jersey cannot avoid that question by arguing that the plaintiffs already own handguns. Different handguns serve different lawful purposes. A full-size home-defense pistol is not the same firearm as a compact carry gun, hunting revolver, competition pistol, or collectible military handgun.

The government does not satisfy the Second Amendment by deciding that one gun owner already has enough.

The State’s Experts Acknowledge the Historical Gap

Once the Second Amendment’s text covers the proposed conduct, the burden shifts to New Jersey to establish that its restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

According to the Struck brief, New Jersey retained historians Brennan Rivas and Robert Spitzer. The plaintiffs say both experts acknowledge the central historical problem: Laws like New Jersey’s handgun-rationing mandate “did not exist early in the country’s history.”

The state’s experts instead discuss historical restrictions involving firearm taxes, gunpowder storage, commercial licensing, dealer records, trade with Native Americans, and prohibitions directed at particular categories of people.

The plaintiffs describe that collection as a “hodgepodge” that fails the Supreme Court’s required comparison.

Gunpowder-storage laws addressed the danger of fires and explosions in densely populated areas. Restrictions on trading arms with Native Americans were directed at supplying potential military adversaries. Dealer licensing and taxation requirements did not prohibit every peaceable citizen from purchasing another handgun for 30 days.

Those regulations did not impose the same burden, and they were not enacted for the same reasons.

The plaintiffs also reject the experts’ contention that modern firearm production, interstate travel, market conditions, and gun trafficking justify a modern solution. Arms trafficking is not new, they argue, and changes in degree do not authorize courts to abandon the historical test.

California Already Lost the Same Argument

The most direct modern precedent is Nguyen v. Bonta, in which the Ninth Circuit struck down California’s former one-firearm-per-30-days law.

The court held that the Second Amendment protects both possessing multiple firearms and acquiring firearms without meaningful constraints. After reviewing California’s proposed analogues—including gunpowder regulations, licensing systems, taxes, dealer records, and Native American trade restrictions—the court concluded that the historical record did not establish even a “historical cousin” for the law.

AmmoLand followed Nguyen through the district court, appellate proceedings, and the Ninth Circuit’s final mandate.

That decision is persuasive rather than binding authority in New Jersey because the Garden State sits in the Third Circuit. California has also since enacted a three-firearms-per-month limit, effective in 2026. What Nguyen eliminated was California’s former one-per-30-days law.

Nevertheless, New Jersey must now explain why substantially the same arguments rejected in Nguyen should produce a different constitutional result.

Third Circuit Precedent Makes New Jersey’s Job Harder

The New Jersey litigation also arrives after the en banc Third Circuit’s decision striking down the state’s bans on covered semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds.

In that case, the Third Circuit rejected New Jersey’s reliance on gunpowder-storage laws, Bowie-knife regulations, trap-gun restrictions, and other purported analogues that differed from the modern bans in their purpose or operation.

The Struck plaintiffs argue that the same methodology governs here. Under the Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, historical laws must be representative, sufficiently widespread, and relevantly similar in both how and why they burdened the right.

A pile of unrelated gun laws is not a historical tradition.

The Founding Generation Acquired Pistols in Pairs

The Benton plaintiffs do more than argue that New Jersey lacks supporting history. They contend that the historical record affirmatively contradicts handgun rationing.

Their brief cites militia laws requiring mounted men to provide themselves with a “case” of pistols—a term referring to a pair. It identifies examples from Connecticut, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.

The brief also points to historical advertisements offering pistols in cases and notes that George Washington acquired several pairs of pistols through purchases, gifts, and capture.

These are arguments and historical materials submitted by the plaintiffs, not factual findings the district court has already adopted. But they present New Jersey with an uncomfortable originalist question: How can a state claim a historical tradition of prohibiting multiple-handgun purchases when Americans near the Founding were sometimes expected to acquire and possess pistols in pairs?

What Happens Next

New Jersey will have an opportunity to oppose the motions and defend its experts’ historical analysis. The Struck filing lists December 15, 2026, as the motion date.

The court’s eventual decision could carry consequences beyond the Garden State. The plaintiffs’ briefs state that only New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia presently retain one-handgun-a-month laws, although California now imposes a separate three-firearms-per-month restriction.

For now, the burden rests where the Supreme Court placed it: on the government.

New Jersey must identify a representative American tradition allowing the state to tell an otherwise lawful citizen that he has already acquired his allotted handgun and must wait until the government’s clock permits him to exercise the right again.

The filings argue that no such tradition exists. Handguns predate the Republic, Americans acquired them in multiples, and monthly purchase rationing did not appear until nearly two centuries after the Second Amendment was ratified.

New Jersey’s law is not an enduring constitutional boundary. It is a modern infringement still searching for a historical excuse.

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/NGArC05
via IFTTT

Texas Says Its Carry Bans Are Unconstitutional, But Keeps Enforcing Them

Texas admits its carry bans at racetracks, 51-percent alcohol establishments, and sporting events are unconstitutional but asks the Fifth Circuit to dismiss the challenge without blocking enforcement. AmmoLand News / AI-generated illustration

Texas’ top public-safety official has now told a federal appeals court that three state carry bans violate the Second Amendment. Yet the laws remain on the books, Texans remain exposed to arrest, and the same official is asking the court to throw out the lawsuit seeking an enforceable judgment against them.

That contradiction is now at the center of Ziegenfuss v. Martin, a Firearms Policy Coalition challenge pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

On September 11, FPC filed its reply brief, completing the scheduled merits briefing in the appeal. The case challenges Texas Penal Code §46.03 provisions that prohibit firearm carry at racetracks; inside businesses that derive at least 51 percent of their revenue from alcohol sold for on-premises consumption; and on premises where high-school, collegiate, professional-sporting or interscholastic events are taking place.

The 51-percent ban applies even when the armed citizen is completely sober and has no intention of drinking.

Texas Concedes the Bans Are Unconstitutional

Texas Department of Public Safety Director Freeman Martin’s position is remarkable. His appellate brief says he agrees with the plaintiffs that all three laws are unconstitutional and should not be enforced.

But Martin does not want the Fifth Circuit to strike them down. He asks the court to vacate the district-court judgment and dismiss the lawsuit on sovereign-immunity, standing and case-or-controversy grounds. DPS argues that Martin has not enforced the challenged provisions against these plaintiffs. Local authorities perform the relevant enforcement, and that his courtroom position eliminates any credible threat from DPS.

FPC’s answer is straightforward: a litigation concession is not an injunction.

According to the reply, Texas Rangers and Highway Patrol troopers retain statewide arrest authority. While DPS can suspend or revoke a handgun license after a licensee is charged with or convicted of violating the challenged laws. FPC says Martin has not promised that DPS will refrain from enforcement, shown that officers have received a non-enforcement directive, or bound any future DPS director to his current litigation position.

If Texas truly believes these carry bans are unconstitutional, it should stop enforcing them and accept a judgment that prevents their enforcement. It should not leave peaceable gun owners to gamble their liberty on a lawyer’s representation in one lawsuit.

A Courtroom Concession Is Not Constitutional Protection

The procedural dispute matters well beyond these three locations. Government officials cannot be allowed to insulate unconstitutional laws from judicial review by conceding the merits while refusing the relief that would protect citizens.

FPC argues that the parties remain genuinely adverse because they want different real-world outcomes. The plaintiffs want a declaration and injunction barring enforcement. Martin wants dismissal, which would leave the statutes intact. Without a binding judgment, local officers are not restrained, DPS enforcement authority remains disputed, and a future director could change course.

In other words, Texans still face laws carrying criminal consequences while the official defending the appeal tells the court those same laws violate the Constitution. Rights cannot safely depend on prosecutorial grace.

Where Is the Founding-Era Tradition?

The merits question is equally important. Under N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, once the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct, the government must establish that its restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

FPC argues that the historical record does not support any of the three categorical bans. Taverns were common when the Second Amendment was ratified, but the briefs defending the laws identify no Founding-era rule categorically disarming ordinary citizens merely for entering one. Laws aimed at intoxicated people or the discharge of firearms are not historical twins for disarming a sober person because a business crosses Texas’ 51-percent revenue threshold.

The same problem applies to sporting events and racetracks. Public amusements and horse racing existed long before 1791. FPC notes that America’s first official racetrack was established on Long Island in 1665. Yet the historical defense relies heavily on later, scattered regulations, including a single Tennessee restriction from 1868.

The Founding generation knew about taverns, crowds, alcohol, sporting contests and horse racing. Its failure to broadly ban peaceable carry at those places is evidence, not an inconvenience to be explained away.

Private property rights also remain protected. A Texas business that wants to exclude firearms may provide notice under the state’s existing trespass and carry-notice laws. That is fundamentally different from the government turning every business or event in an entire category into a mandatory gun-free zone.

The Texas Carry Bans Remain in Force

This filing is an appellate brief, not a ruling, injunction or change in Texas law. Gun owners should not mistake a constitutional concession in court for permission to ignore §46.03.

As AmmoLand previously reported, U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman ruled on March 24 that the plaintiffs had standing and that the Second Amendment’s plain text covered the conduct. Nevertheless, he upheld the bans after finding the appointed amici had supplied sufficient historical analogues. FPC appealed that judgment.

The Fifth Circuit can now decide whether the district court stretched the “sensitive places” exception beyond the original meaning of the Second Amendment. Also, whether Texas can confess that its laws are unconstitutional while keeping gun owners under their threat.

The case is Charles Ziegenfuss et al. v. Freeman Martin, Fifth Circuit No. 26-10302, arising from No. 4:24-cv-01049-P in the Northern District of Texas. No oral-argument date is publicly listed. A precedential Fifth Circuit decision would govern federal courts in Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi.

The right answer is not complicated. When the state admits a law violates the right to keep and bear arms, that law should be void. The Fifth Circuit should reverse.

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/HlXN4xo
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Orders New York City to Defend Stun Gun Ban in ‘Caetano 2.0’

The Supreme Court has ordered New York City to respond in Calce, a challenge to its ban on civilian possession of stun guns and Tasers. IMG AmmoLand News made with Open AI

Six months ago, AmmoLand warned that the Second Circuit appeared ready to preserve New York City’s stun gun ban by claiming the challengers had not supplied enough evidence that electronic arms were in “common use.”

That is exactly what happened.

Now, the Supreme Court has ordered New York City to respond in Calce v. New York City, giving the justices an opportunity to stop lower courts from using that evidentiary maneuver to evade the Second Amendment.

The Court’s official docket shows that New York City waived its right to respond on August 6. On September 8, the Supreme Court requested a response anyway. The city’s brief is due October 8.

The order does not mean the Court has agreed to hear the case or ruled against New York City. It does mean the petition will not be rejected without the justices first receiving the city’s defense of a ban that should have been dead after Caetano v. Massachusetts.

Second Circuit’s Attempt at an Escape Route

In March 2025, AmmoLand’s Dean Weingarten reported that U.S. District Judge Edgardo Ramos had placed the “common use” burden on the challengers. Ramos held that stun guns and Tasers were not presumptively protected because the plaintiffs had not submitted sufficient evidence showing the arms were commonly possessed for lawful purposes.

When the Firearms Policy Coalition appealed, AmmoLand reported that the organization argued the ruling “[flew] in the face of the Second Amendment” because electronic weapons plainly fall within the ordinary meaning of “arms.”

Following the Second Circuit’s March 2026 oral argument, AmmoLand examined Mark Smith’s analysis of the case. Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, described Calce as a layup under Caetano. AmmoLand nevertheless warned that the panel appeared interested in a narrow procedural ruling that would leave the ban intact without directly declaring stun guns unprotected.

On April 13, the Second Circuit did exactly that.

Second Circuit Says Citizens Failed to Prove Their Rights

In an unpublished summary order, the Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for New York City.

The panel held that the plaintiffs bore the burden of establishing that stun guns and Tasers are in common use for lawful purposes at the first stage of the Bruen analysis. It then faulted them for failing to introduce sufficient admissible evidence in the district court.

That allowed the city to win without proving that its ban is consistent with America’s historical tradition of arms regulation.

This is not a minor procedural dispute. It determines who must prove what when the government bans an entire category of arms.

Under Bruen, once the Second Amendment’s plain text covers a person’s conduct, the government must justify its restriction using history. But if a hostile court inserts “common use” into the plain-text inquiry, it can force citizens to prove that an arm is popular enough before the government carries any constitutional burden.

The government can then ban an arm, suppress its ownership, and argue that the resulting lack of ownership proves the arm was never protected. That is a constitutional Catch-22 created by the infringement itself.

New York City Still Defies Caetano

The Supreme Court petition, filed by the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and individual plaintiffs, calls the case “Caetano 2.0.”

In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Supreme Court unanimously vacated a Massachusetts ruling that excluded stun guns from Second Amendment protection. The Court rejected the idea that an arm could be excluded because it did not exist at the Founding, was supposedly unusual, or lacked an obvious military application.

Quoting District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court reaffirmed that the Second Amendment extends “to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” including those that did not exist in 1791.

A stun gun is a weapon carried for defense. Under the original public meaning of “arms,” the textual inquiry should end there. The government must then prove that history supports its prohibition.

New York City exempts police officers while denying ordinary citizens the same less-lethal defensive option. Even residents licensed to carry handguns cannot legally choose a stun gun or Taser instead.

Plaintiff Amanda Kennedy’s experience exposes the absurdity of that policy.

According to the petition, a pedestrian struck Kennedy’s vehicle, hit her through an open window, and attempted to open her door. Kennedy displayed a stun gun, and the attacker retreated. She did not shoot or shock him.

When responding officers discovered the stun gun, they charged Kennedy. The charge was eventually resolved through an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, but Kennedy and the other plaintiffs remain threatened with prosecution if they possess electronic arms in New York City.

The city punished the intended victim after she stopped an assault without using deadly force. That is New York’s version of public safety.

The Stakes Extend Beyond Stun Guns

The Calce petition asks the Supreme Court to grant review, summarily reverse the Second Circuit, or hold the case pending its decision in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. Those consolidated cases ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect AR-15-style and similar semiautomatic rifles.

The same burden-shifting dispute runs through both fights.

Unlike stun guns, AR-15-style rifles are undeniably common. A 2026 National Firearms Survey estimates that approximately 26 million Americans own an AR-15-type or similarly styled rifle, with approximately 60 million such rifles in civilian hands.

But constitutional protection cannot depend entirely on whether citizens acquired an arm before politicians prohibited it. Otherwise, the government could ban every new weapon before it becomes common and then use the ban-created scarcity as its defense.

A requested response is not a victory on the merits. New York City will argue that the petition should be denied, and the challengers will have an opportunity to reply.

Still, the sequence matters. The city attempted to waive its response and let the Second Circuit’s decision stand without further argument. The Supreme Court refused to dispose of the case that way.

AmmoLand warned that the Second Circuit’s narrow ruling would not resolve the constitutional problem. It would merely package that problem for the Supreme Court. That package has now arrived.

The Second Amendment protects arms. It does not protect only those arms that citizens can prove—through market surveys, expert reports, and courtroom statistics—are popular enough to satisfy judges hostile to the right to keep and bear them.

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/8HLCnVB
via IFTTT

‘You Have No Other Options’: GOA Challenges Oregon’s Nonresident Carry Ban

GOA and Arizona resident Cynthia Ladd are challenging Oregon laws that deny most nonresidents an Oregon carry license while recognizing no permits issued by other states. Original image by AmmoLand News with Open AI

An Arizona gun owner licensed to carry across much of the country says Oregon leaves her defenseless when she crosses the state line—and when she tried to obtain an Oregon license, a county employee allegedly gave her a blunt answer:

“You have no other options.”

Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Cynthia Ladd filed a federal lawsuit on September 11, 2026, challenging Oregon laws that prevent most nonresidents from obtaining an Oregon Concealed Handgun License while refusing to recognize carry permits issued by any other state.

The case, Ladd v. Hunter, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. It names Marion County Sheriff Nick Hunter, in his official capacity, and the City of Salem as defendants.

The lawsuit argues that Oregon has created a legal trap for visiting gun owners. Nonresidents from most states cannot obtain an Oregon carry license. Their home state permits mean nothing in Oregon. And in cities such as Salem and Portland, local restrictions can eliminate loaded open carry—the only remaining method of ordinary public carry.

The result, according to the complaint, is that a law-abiding American can exercise the right to bear arms on one side of Oregon’s border and lose it simply by crossing into the state.

Oregon’s Residency Barrier

Under Oregon Revised Statutes § 166.291, a county sheriff generally must issue a concealed-handgun license to a qualified applicant who meets the statute’s requirements, including being a resident of the county where the application is filed.

A sheriff may waive that residency requirement for someone from a contiguous state who demonstrates a “compelling business interest or other legitimate demonstrated need.” Oregon borders Washington, Idaho, Nevada, and California.

Someone from Arizona, Virginia, Florida, Texas, or any other noncontiguous state cannot use that exception.

Oregon also does not recognize concealed-carry permits issued by other states. A visitor, therefore, cannot rely on a permit from Arizona, Virginia, Utah, or anywhere else to carry concealed in Oregon.

Open carry theoretically remains available under state law. But ORS § 166.173 allows cities and counties to “regulate, restrict or prohibit” loaded firearms in public places. Those local restrictions do not apply to someone holding an Oregon concealed-handgun license, the same license most nonresidents cannot obtain.

The complaint identifies Portland, Beaverton, Tigard, Oregon City, Salem, Independence, Gladstone, Newport, Astoria, Yachats, McMinnville, and Multnomah County as jurisdictions with restrictions on loaded firearms in public.

In those jurisdictions, the plaintiffs argue, Oregon closes both doors: no concealed carry and no loaded open carry.

Cynthia Ladd Tried to Apply

Ladd is a resident of Maricopa County, Arizona, a GOA member, a supporter of GOF, and GOA’s Oregon state director. She holds an Arizona Concealed Weapons Permit and a nonresident Utah Concealed Firearm Permit.

She regularly carries a handgun for self-defense where legally permitted and says those two permits allow her to carry across much of the country.

According to her sworn declaration, Ladd plans to travel to Salem as part of her duties for GOA. Her work includes visiting the Oregon Capitol, speaking with legislators, attending dinners and other events, delivering speeches, and meeting prospective GOA members. She also expects to travel to Eugene.

Ladd wants to bring a handgun and carry it for lawful self-defense during those trips. If Oregon law allowed it, she says she would check the firearm with the airline, rent a vehicle after arriving, and carry the handgun while traveling and conducting business.

She would also carry openly while filling the rental vehicle with gas, buying groceries, eating at restaurants, and checking into her hotel.

But Oregon does not recognize either of her permits. Because Arizona does not share a border with Oregon, she also cannot apply for an Oregon CHL.

Salem then independently prohibits the possession of a loaded firearm in public by someone who does not hold a concealed-handgun license. A violation is a misdemeanor.

Ladd says the combination means she cannot carry a loaded handgun openly or concealed while in Salem.

Oregon’s vehicle law creates another problem. ORS § 166.250 prohibits an unlicensed person from possessing a handgun that is concealed and readily accessible inside a vehicle. Ladd therefore cannot keep a functional handgun immediately available while driving her rental vehicle.

“You Have No Other Options”

Although Oregon law appeared to make her ineligible, Ladd still tried to apply. On August 14, 2026, she called the Marion County Sheriff’s Office. According to her declaration, an employee in the Concealed Handgun License department asked whether she lived in Marion County or elsewhere in Oregon.

Ladd explained that she lived in Arizona. The employee allegedly told her that Oregon does not issue nonresident permits unless the applicant lives “in a border county.”

Ladd then called the Lane County Sheriff’s Office because Eugene is another destination she expects to visit.

A Lane County employee reportedly asked whether Ladd owned property or resided in the county. When Ladd answered no and explained that she lived in Arizona, the employee allegedly told her that she did not qualify for an Oregon license.

Ladd asked whether that meant she had no other options. According to her sworn declaration, the employee responded:

“Yes ma’am, you do not qualify. You have no other options.”

Ladd says residency is the only statutory qualification she cannot satisfy. She would apply immediately if Oregon accepted applications from residents of noncontiguous states. Alternatively, she would carry under her Arizona or Utah permit if Oregon recognized either one.

Virginia Gun Owner Disarmed in Portland

The lawsuit also relies on the experience of AmmoLand contributor, GOA member, and GOF supporter John Crump.

Crump is a Virginia resident with a valid Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit. He regularly carries a handgun for self-defense and frequently travels to Portland to meet with business clients. His most recent Portland trip was in November 2025. He plans to return before the end of 2026 and again in 2027.

Crump says he wanted to carry during his November trip but could not legally do so. Oregon would not recognize his Virginia permit, and Virginia does not border Oregon, making him ineligible for an Oregon CHL.

Portland’s loaded-firearm ordinance also generally prohibits carrying a loaded firearm in a public place while exempting concealed-handgun licensees and several other categories.

Crump, therefore, says he could carry neither concealed nor openly with a loaded handgun during his visit. He also could not keep a concealed and readily accessible handgun in his rental vehicle without an Oregon license.

In his declaration, Crump states that he would immediately apply for an Oregon CHL if permitted and would carry it during future trips to Portland if the challenged laws were blocked.

“When I go to Portland, I am forced to disarm,” Crump told AmmoLand. “This strips me of my constitutionally protected right to bear arms. No state or locality has the right to strip me of my ability to protect myself. GOA is fighting back to ensure my rights are not violated”

GOA Says the Problem Is Nationwide

GOA and GOF Senior Vice President Erich Pratt submitted a declaration supporting the organizations’ standing to sue.

Pratt says GOA has more than two million members and supporters nationwide, including people who want to carry in Oregon but cannot apply for an Oregon license because they live outside Oregon and its four neighboring states.

GOA and GOF have communicated with members facing that problem, according to Pratt. He says the organizations’ members overwhelmingly support litigation against Oregon’s residency rule and the state’s patchwork of local loaded-firearm restrictions.

The declarations are intended to show that this is not a hypothetical dispute. Ladd has imminent plans to visit Salem, Crump has already traveled unarmed to Portland and intends to return, and other GOA and GOF members allegedly face the same barrier.

The Second Amendment Does Not Stop at the State Line

The lawsuit brings one constitutional count under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Its core argument is straightforward: Ladd, Crump, and other ordinary citizens are part of “the people.” They want to “bear” handguns for self-defense. Handguns are unquestionably protected “Arms.”

Nothing in the Second Amendment says those protections depend on state residency.

The complaint relies heavily on District of Columbia v. Heller, McDonald v. Chicago, and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In Bruen, the Supreme Court confirmed that the Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns publicly for self-defense.

Once the Constitution’s text covers the conduct, the government bears the burden of demonstrating that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Oregon cannot satisfy that burden merely by arguing that its laws promote public safety or make officials’ jobs easier.

The plaintiffs contend that there is no Founding-era tradition of limiting the right to bear arms to residents of a particular state, preventing nonresidents from applying for carry licenses, or allowing cities to extinguish the only remaining method of lawful public carry.

The complaint also cites recent nonresident-carry litigation in California, New York, Hawaii, and Massachusetts. Those cases are not binding on the Oregon federal court, but the plaintiffs offer them as evidence that courts increasingly recognize the obvious: a constitutional right does not disappear at a state border.

As the Supreme Court recently stated in Wolford v. Lopez, the Second Amendment has the same meaning throughout the United States. Local hostility cannot rewrite the constitutional text.

What the Lawsuit Seeks

The plaintiffs ask the court to declare Oregon’s county-residency requirement and contiguous-state limitation unconstitutional.

They want Oregon ordered to take one of two paths: allow otherwise-qualified nonresidents to apply for and receive an Oregon CHL, or recognize concealed-carry licenses and permits issued by other states.

The lawsuit also asks the court to invalidate the Oregon statutes authorizing local loaded-firearm restrictions and strike down Salem’s prohibition against carrying a loaded firearm without a CHL.

The plaintiffs seek permanent injunctions, nominal damages, attorney fees, and court costs.

The case has only just been filed. Sheriff Hunter and Salem have not responded in the documents reviewed by AmmoLand News, and the court has not ruled on the merits.

Still, the constitutional defect is hard to ignore. Oregon demands a state license, refuses to recognize licenses from anywhere else, denies most Americans even the opportunity to apply, and then allows local governments to close off loaded open carry.

That is not simply a licensing system. In places such as Salem and Portland, it becomes a ban on ordinary public carry for most visiting Americans.

National reciprocity would address much of this abuse legislatively, and constitutional carry would solve the issue more completely. But Americans should not need Congress to remind Oregon that the Bill of Rights is already national. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people, not merely the residents of whichever state is willing to honor it.

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/6ipSRao
via IFTTT

Washington ‘Permit-to-Purchase’ Will Cost $126, Before Training

Washington’s permit-to-purchase mandate will cost gun buyers $126 before required firearms training and related expenses. AmmoLand News illustration created with OpenAI

The Washington State Patrol (WSP) has confirmed to Ammoland News that the Evergreen State’s “permit-to-purchase” (P2P) mandate for gun buyers, scheduled to take effect next May 1, will cost $126, raising alarms that for people on fixed incomes, their ability to exercise a right protected by both the state and federal constitutions will escape their finances.

One experienced firearms instructor told AmmoLand about an elderly woman student, who can barely afford to travel back and forth for lessons, will be unable to afford this permit fee.

The law, passed in 2025 and signed by anti-gun-rights Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson, requires permit applicants to complete a firearms training course—likely to cost even more money—before they can get the permit. In a follow-up message to Washington state federally licensed firearms dealers, the WSP explained, “The P2P fee is $126.  $90 for the permit and $36 for the fingerprint background check.”

The WSP also explained, “WSP is not providing the safety training nor the training curriculum. This training will be provided by private instructors with training curricula certified by us as required by RCW 43.43.575…Information updates about the safety training program is being disseminated on a different email distribution list.”

There is nothing in the state or federal constitutions about requiring a government-issued permit to purchase a firearm. Indeed, critics of the statute contend the right to bear arms has been reduced to a government-regulated privilege and is therefore unconstitutional. Starting next May, it’s also going to get expensive.

The Second Amendment states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Article 1, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Not a single Republican legislator voted for the permit-to-purchase legislation. It was pushed through solely by Democrats. The statute is almost certain to be immediately challenged in both state and federal courts immediately after it takes effect.

This revelation comes as increasing numbers of Washington gun owners appear to be moving out of the state. Never before in state history have Washington gun owners, exercising their right to keep and bear arms, been faced with this degree of bureaucracy.

According to the WSP, “A person applying for a permit to purchase firearms must provide a certificate of completion of a certified firearm safety training program within the last five years that, at a minimum, includes instruction on:

1. Basic firearms safety rules;
2. Firearms and children, including secure gun storage and talking to children about gun safety;
3. Firearms and suicide prevention;
4. Secure gun storage to prevent unauthorized access and use;
5. Safe handling of firearms;
6. State and federal firearms laws, including prohibited firearms transfers and locations where firearms are prohibited;
7. State laws pertaining to the use of deadly force for self-defense;
8. Techniques for avoiding a criminal attack and how to manage a violent confrontation, including conflict resolution; and
9. Live-fire shooting exercises on a firing range that include a demonstration by the applicant of the safe handling of, and shooting proficiency with, firearms.

The WSP recently announced the training requirements:

“The Washington State Patrol Firearms Background Division will provide a list of training providers with certified curriculums on GetapermitWA.org, including the levels of training they provide.

What are the different levels of firearms safety training?

• Level 1: This meets the requirements under RCW 9.41.1132 and includes 50 rounds of live fire. Level 1 will meet the requirements for both Concealed Pistol Licenses and Permits to Purchase.
• Level 2: Meets the requirements of RCW 9.41.1132 and includes more than 1 and less than 50 rounds of live fire. Level 2 will meet the requirements for the Permit to Purchase only.
• Level 3: Meets the requirements of RCW 9.41.1132 but does not include live fire training.

*Level 3 will meet the requirements for the Permit to Purchase renewals only when live fire training has been completed within the past ten years.”

In addition, people renewing their concealed pistol licenses must also take the training course under conditions of the new law. As noted on the WSP website:

“Will the Concealed Pistol License (CPL) safety training requirement only be for new licenses issued after May 1st, 2027?

“No. Starting May 1st, 2027, the completion of a Washington State Patrol certified firearms safety training program will be required for both new applications and renewals of existing Concealed Pistol Licenses.”

The WSP is also noting that “GetapermitWA.org” was launched Sept. 1, as the public gateway for Permit to Purchase information.

---

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/7MKbcdL
via IFTTT

Delaware Judge Permanently Blocks Ban on Possessing and Making ‘Ghost Guns’

A federal judge permanently blocked Delaware from enforcing its bans on possessing and making unserialized, privately manufactured firearms. Original AI-generated editorial image created for AmmoLand News.

A U.S. District Court judge in Delaware struck down part of the state’s ban on privately made firearms (PMFs), which Delaware calls “ghost guns.”

Judge Maryellen Noreika entered final judgment in Rigby v. Jennings. Delaware’s bans on possessing and self-manufacturing or assembling untraceable firearms (and unserialized unfinished frames and receivers) are permanently enjoined as Second Amendment violations. The commercial distribution rules and the CAD/3D-print file ban survive.

On Oct. 27, 2021, John Rigby, Alan Knight, and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) sued Delaware Attorney General Kathy Jennings, challenging the constitutionality of H.B. 125 (2021)—the “ghost gun,” unfinished-frame, and 3D-print regime under 11 Del. C. §§ 1459A and 1463. On Sept. 23, 2022, the judge granted a preliminary injunction against the law’s regulation of possession and manufacture/assembly of PMFs. The provisions banning distribution and digital instructions remained in place. In March 2024, both sides moved for summary judgment.

According to a Delaware Department of Justice letter, while the law was enjoined, a family court mistakenly prosecuted a juvenile under the enjoined § 1463(a). Because the court applied an enjoined statute, it vacated the juvenile’s conviction.

The final judgment was not a complete win for the plaintiffs. They prevailed on two counts but lost on other parts of the law.

The court struck down the possession ban as unconstitutional, both facially and as applied. Unserialized, untraceable firearms and unfinished frames and receivers are “Arms.” Frames and receivers are necessary for a firearm to function, so they receive the same protection magazines receive in this circuit. The ban applies to “the people,” concerns Arms, and restricts “keeping” them, so it fails Bruen step one and is presumptively invalid.

At step two, Delaware offered historical laws on clubs, Bowie knives, slungshots, trap/punt/swivel guns, and gunpowder storage. The Third Circuit had already rejected those same analogues in ANJRPC (2026) as too late, the wrong “why,” or the wrong “how.” Delaware did not carry its burden. An outright ban on a class of arms used for self-defense is not “relevantly similar” to those historical rules.

The court also held the manufacturing and assembly ban unconstitutional, both facially and as applied. The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms includes the ancillary right to acquire them. Cutting off self-manufacture restricts that right. The ban also interferes with the repair and reassembly needed to keep a lawfully owned gun operable and blocks a law-abiding person from obtaining a chosen self-defense firearm (here, a self-made Glock-pattern pistol or rifle). That fails step one. Step two fails for the same historical-analogue reasons as the possession ban.

The court noted that a different statute, for example, requiring existing homemade guns to be serialized with the state, or requiring future homemade guns to be serialized after manufacture, might survive. An outright ban on possession and manufacture does not.

The judge upheld the distribution ban. It does not restrict keeping or bearing arms. It is a condition on commercial sale of the kind Heller called presumptively lawful. Plaintiffs produced no evidence that it actually cuts off access to parts needed for self-manufacture. It survives step one; the court did not need a historical analogue.

The court also upheld the instruction ban, which was challenged on First Amendment grounds. Following the Third Circuit’s 2026 decision in Defense Distributed v. Attorney General of New Jersey, computer code is not automatically protected speech. Coverage depends on a fact-specific inquiry into whether the files are expressive or purely functional. Plaintiffs offered only general citations that “source code is speech” and never identified what ideas the CAD files communicate. Because the statute is framed in functional terms (“that may be used to program a 3-dimensional printer”), the court held that the plaintiffs failed to show the First Amendment even applies.

The Fifth Amendment takings claim (forced dispossession of previously lawful guns) was not reached because the Second Amendment already invalidates the same provisions. The permanent-injunction factors favor the plaintiffs on the two invalidated bans: loss of a constitutional right is irreparable, damages cannot cure it, Delaware has no legitimate interest in enforcing an unconstitutional law, and the public interest favors allowing law-abiding people to exercise the right.

Delaware is expected to appeal to the Third Circuit. There is no timeline for that appeal.

---

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 @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/fT5YHG1
via IFTTT

FPSRussia Lost His Gun Rights Over Marijuana. Trump Should Give Them Back

Kyle Myers became one of the most recognizable firearms personalities on the early internet. Millions knew him as FPSRussia, the Georgia gun owner playing the fictional “Professional Russian” Dmitri Potapoff while demonstrating everything from AKs and belt-fed machine guns to armored vehicles and artillery.

Today, Myers cannot legally possess a single round of ammunition.

He was not convicted of shooting anyone, threatening anyone, using a firearm during a crime, or operating a violent trafficking organization. His lifetime federal firearms disability grew out of a marijuana felony involving approximately 25 grams—less than one ounce—of butane honey oil.

Myers broke the law that existed at the time and pleaded guilty. He also served the sentence the government imposed. None of that establishes that he is dangerous with a firearm, and it does not justify stripping him of a fundamental constitutional right for the rest of his life.

President Donald Trump should grant Kyle Myers a full pardon and expressly restore his right to keep and bear arms.

Patrick Adamiak got his pardon, but we still have another who should have gotten it long ago.

Pardon Kyle, give him his rights back. pic.twitter.com/Q0ms8oTxMl

— Doc Strangelove (@DocStrangelove2) September 10, 2026

How FPSRussia Became a Prohibited Person

In August 2017, authorities arrested Myers after he received approximately 25 grams of butane honey oil through the mail. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation described the substance as “a marijuana concentrate.”

Authorities subsequently searched Myers’s home and seized numerous firearms and other property. The case eventually moved into federal court as United States v. Myers, No. 3:18-cr-00049, in the Middle District of Georgia.

Myers pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and butane hash oil. Public case summaries report that he received 56 days in federal prison, two years of probation or supervision, and a $7,500 fine.

The relatively short prison term concealed the real punishment. Because the offense was punishable by more than one year in prison, Myers became a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). That meant a permanent federal ban on possessing firearms or ammunition.

The conviction closed the door on any lawful return to the firearm demonstrations that made FPSRussia YouTube-famous. That is a lifelong penalty attached to conduct involving marijuana, not violence.

DOJ’s New Rule Undercuts Myers’s Continued Disarmament

The timing makes Myers’s case impossible to ignore.

Attorney General Todd Blanche recently finalized a new Federal Firearm Rights Restoration process under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The rule becomes effective September 21, 2026, and the Justice Department plans to open the application portal to the first 5,000 public applicants on November 4.

For more than 30 years, the statutory restoration process was effectively unavailable because Congress prohibited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from spending money to process applications. DOJ has now transferred the work to the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

AmmoLand previously examined the new process in “DOJ Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration After 30-Year Shutdown.”

The most important language for Myers appears in the rule’s definitions. For purposes of the restoration program, “controlled substance” does not include marijuana.

The rule ordinarily places a ten-year presumption against restoring rights following a conviction for manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Other felony convictions generally receive a five-year presumptive waiting period, calculated from the completion of every part of the sentence.

Because DOJ expressly excluded marijuana from its definition of “controlled substance,” the plain language of the rule strongly suggests that Myers’s marijuana conviction falls under the five-year category rather than the ten-year drug-trafficking category.

DOJ should publicly confirm that interpretation. Myers’s official judgment and sentence-completion record would also be needed to calculate his exact eligibility date. Based on the publicly reported timeline, however, he appears to have completed his sentence approximately five years ago.

In other words, FPSRussia could be among the clearest early candidates for restoration.

Marijuana Is Not Proof of Firearm Dangerousness

In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court rejected the federal government’s attempt to automatically disarm a man based solely on regular marijuana use. The government had not alleged that Hemani was intoxicated while possessing the gun, addicted, unable to manage his affairs, dangerous to himself or others, or irresponsible with the firearm.

As AmmoLand explained in “Not Just Marijuana: CRS Says Hemani Could Put More Federal Gun Bans in the Crosshairs,” the decision did not erase § 922(g)(3) or create a right to mishandle firearms while impaired. It rejected the idea that marijuana use alone proves someone is too dangerous to exercise the Second Amendment.

Myers’s conviction was for possession with intent to distribute, not mere use, so Hemani does not overturn his conviction. But the same fundamental problem remains: Where is the evidence that Myers poses a danger today?

He has lived under this disability for years. His offense did not involve firing, brandishing, or criminally using a gun. The government punished him with imprisonment, supervision, a substantial fine, the loss of valuable property, and a felony record.

Yet they still claims the power to disarm him until death.

The founding generation did not establish a blanket rule under which every person convicted of any offense carrying a potential sentence of more than one year permanently lost the right to arms. Modern legislatures have created thousands of felonies covering conduct the Founders would never have recognized as justification for civil death.

The Second Amendment protects a right, not a privilege handed back only when a bureaucrat feels generous.

Why Myers Needs a Presidential Pardon

The new § 925(c) process is important, but administrative restoration may not solve Myers’s entire problem.

DOJ acknowledges that federal relief does not override an independent state firearms prohibition. Georgia’s State Board of Pardons and Paroles currently says it cannot restore firearm rights lost because of a federal felony.

Its official guidance is direct:

“Can I have my right to legally possess a firearm restored if I have a felony FEDERAL conviction? No. The Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles does not have the authority to restore firearm rights on felony federal convictions. You will need to apply for a presidential pardon.”

Georgia should clarify whether a new § 925(c) restoration order would change that answer. Until it does, Myers could obtain federal relief only to remain exposed under Georgia law.

A presidential pardon is the cleaner remedy.

DOJ’s own restoration FAQ states that a full presidential pardon removes the penalties and disabilities—including a firearm disability—resulting from a federal conviction. Any pardon issued to Myers should expressly restore his right to receive, possess, transport, carry, and use firearms and ammunition.

A pardon would also do something an administrative restoration order cannot: formally recognize that a lifetime of punishment is unjustified.

Trump Pardoned Adamiak. FPSRussia Should Be Next.

President Trump has already shown that he is willing to correct abusive or excessive federal gun prosecutions.

On September 3, Trump granted full pardons to Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, George Peterson, Jeremy Kettler, and Shane Cox. AmmoLand had repeatedly called attention to Adamiak’s prosecution and directly urged gun owners to write the White House demanding a pardon.

Trump ultimately acted. Adamiak walked out of federal prison after serving roughly four years of a 20-year sentence arising from disputed NFA classifications and government testing of demilled parts and inert collectibles.

The Adamiak and Peterson pardons did not erase the federal court opinions in their cases. They did restore liberty to men caught under federal gun laws that treated regulatory possession offenses like violent crime.

The same official clemency list contains pardons for people convicted of serious marijuana-trafficking offenses. Pardoning Myers would therefore break no new legal or political ground.

It would simply acknowledge the obvious: A marijuana conviction from years ago is not sufficient reason to permanently disarm a peaceable American.

Kyle Myers served his sentence. He has spent years as a prohibited person. His offense did not involve violence, and the Justice Department’s own new rule rejects marijuana as an automatic marker of dangerousness.

The federal government took his freedom, his firearms, and his ability to continue the work that made FPSRussia a household name among gun owners. It should not keep his Second Amendment rights forever.

President Trump should pardon Kyle Myers and give FPSRussia his gun rights back.

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/NW21GpU
via IFTTT