Thursday, June 11, 2026

When it Comes to School Safety, the Missouri Rangers Beat Fairy Godmothers Every Time

Missouri SB 905 would create trained Missouri Rangers to help protect schools, students, and staff across the state. iStock-2171689382
Missouri SB 905 would create trained Missouri Rangers to help protect schools, students, and staff across the state. iStock-2171689382

On May 28, Republican lawmakers sent Senate Bill 905 to Missouri Governor Mike Kehoe. This is a purely Republican bill: Not one Democrat in either chamber voted for the bill; not one Republican voted against it.

Introduced by David Gregory, a state senator from Chesterfield, SB905 would create a new category of school protection officer: The Missouri Ranger.

The Missouri Ranger bridges the gap between armed teachers/staff and school resource officers, who are sworn officers employed by a law enforcement agency and assigned to a school district or campus.

Missouri Rangers, who may be district employees or volunteers, must complete 160 hours of training. The curriculum will be set by the Missouri Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST) and must include state and federal constitutional and statutory law; firearms training; close quarter combat; de-escalation; active shooter training; defensive tactics; and bomb and arson instruction.

Since it’s fairly common for school protection jobs to be filled by retired law enforcement officers or retired military, Ranger candidates must pass a physical fitness test prior to being admitted for the training program. For those 35 and younger, the test includes doing 40 pushups in less than one minute and running 1.5 miles in under 12 minutes and 30 seconds. The POST Commission will establish tests for candidates older than 35.

“You have to be in physical fitness superior to a Marine,” Gregory said. “Once you pass that fitness test, we then put the rangers through pretty serious training modeled after U.S. Air Marshals.”

After completion of the training, Rangers receive a certificate, a badge, and are vested with limited police powers, including arrest. Their authority is limited to school district property, including buses. They also get the same qualified immunity as regular law enforcement officers.

The school district makes the final decision whether a Ranger will be armed or unarmed, what weapon will be carried, and whether the weapon will be carried openly or concealed.

Of course, the Democrats were having none of this.

“The answer to guns in schools is not more guns in schools,” said state Rep. Elizabeth Fuchs. A St. Louis Democrat, Fuchs prefers mental health support for students.

This is profoundly stupid.

There is a world of difference between a gun in the hands of a school protective officer and a gun in the hands of a teenage gang member or drug dealer. This fact is often missed by those afflicted with acute hoplophobic myopia, such as Rep. Fuchs.

There’s an even bigger difference between the majority of school shooting incidents and mass shootings in schools. These last are the ones Democrats and gun-control freaks in general use to scare the public and traumatize our children.

According to the K-12 School Shooting Database*, there were 3,195 school shooting incidents nationwide from 1970 through 2025. In these incidents, there were 3,308 victims with fatal and non-fatal injuries. Nineteen incidents could be considered mass shootings with a total of 368 injuries and deaths.

The deaths would all be classified by the FBI as either NIBRS Code 09A (murder/non-negligent manslaughter) or 13A (aggravated assault). The CDC uses the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition; (ICD-10) Classes X93, X94, and X95, assault with handgun, long gun, and other firearms, respectively.

These are all criminal offenses. Moreover, they are the only types of injury involved. This is the grand total of “gun violence.”

The K-12 SSD looked at 2,735 incidents and divided them into 17 ‘situations’ or root causes. Mass shootings made up slightly more than one-half percent of the situations while escalations of disputes, criminal activity, drive-by shootings, and vandalism accounted for more than 60% of the total.

Which is going to be more useful more of the time? An armed Missouri Ranger or “mental health support for students?”

Sounds like there is room for more guns — In the right hands.

Who has the right hands? As well-known author and Second Amendment champion Cam Edwards says, anyone “(I)n the right place; at the right time; willing and able to do the right thing.”

Compare this to Rep. Fuch’s strategy: Invoking fairy godmothers.

The mental health dodge is a favorite of gun control addicts, regardless of party. Whether it’s denying fundamental rights to young adults or relying on nonexistent mental health markers to quickly and conclusively identify a person’s potential for future violence, there’s gotta be someone singing “Bibbidi-Bobbidi-Boo” in the background as they turn pumpkins and mice into squash and roadkill or stigmatize people with legitimate mental health issues who live otherwise healthy, non-violent lives.

There are about 896,000 students enrolled in Missouri K-12 schools. Roughly 280,000 of them are enrolled in high school, which is where the majority of shooting incidents occur. Supplying the range of psychological/psychiatric services needed is going to be challenging from both personnel and budgetary viewpoints.

While we’re supposedly hoping to interdict wannabe mass shooters, the truth is that most injuries and deaths are the result of events that developed rapidly, sometimes within minutes. Disputes, gang and criminal activity, can quickly escalate. Drive-by shootings may or may not involve any planning. Mental health providers will have difficulty predicting and zero ability to stop mass shootings.

On top of everything else, Missouri is not socially homogeneous. The state includes St. Louis, which has one of the highest homicide rates of any city in the world. The murder rate in the Missouri part of Kansas City was more than twice as high as the Kansas side in 2025. On the other hand, Jefferson City, the state capital, had zero murders in 2024 and 2025.

If Missouri could exile St. Louis and Kansas City, the state’s murder rate would plunge by 53 percent.

So what’s the “mental health support” plan, assuming no assistance from the denizens of Fantasyland? Study it to death? Hum a few bars and fake it? Or do like they do with every gun control fail and ignore it?

I have seldom heard of it in the media or from the gun-grabbers, but the K-12 SSD includes 230 reports of school shootings that were averted.

The list even includes a 2023 intervention in Platte County, Missouri. An 18-year-old was planning to carry out a mass shooting with a higher body count than the 2007 slaughter at Virginia Tech, one of the worst mass shootings in U.S. history.

How was this potential tragedy averted? By members of the public providing tips to authorities, followed up by quick action. Based on reports of the incidents, this was the case in virtually every one of the successful interventions.

Proof of this comes from a high-profile failure: The shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in 2018.

The state commission formed to investigate the incident blamed the deaths and injuries on the shooter, but blamed the Broward County Public Schools, the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, and the FBI for allowing it to happen. The FBI received tips on two occasions but never even forwarded them to its Miami field office.

There’s nothing wrong with improving the quality and availability of mental health care in the United States. However, expecting it to prevent school shootings is unrealistic to the point of being delusional.

On the other hand, we know from experience that a good guy with a gun can end a mass shooting and the quicker the response, the better the outcome.

In addition, the opportunity for smaller school districts to have an armed, well-trained, and licensed law enforcement officer on a volunteer basis could provide an unmatchable measure of security for students, teachers and staff and assurance for parents and family members.

In Texas, we’ve had our School Marshal program since 2013. No problems, so far, but we still rely heavily on retired law enforcement officers. The Missouri Ranger program places an emphasis on attracting younger candidates with a higher level of physical fitness. This means they will likely be able to respond more quickly to threats.

Missouri citizens should urge Governor Kehoe to sign SB 905 without waiting until mid-July.

*Raw statistics sourced from the K-12 School Shooting Database copyright © 2025 David Reidman. Other statistics from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the U.S. Census Bureau, the FBI, Missouri State Highway Patrol, The St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department, Kansas City (KS) Police Department, Kansas City (MO) Police Department. Analysis by the Second Amendment Society of Texas exclusively for AmmoLand.

Philadelphia Police Under DOJ Investigation Over Carry Permit Revocations

New Jersey Glock Subpoenas Are Part of Nationwide Push Against America’s Most Popular Pistol


About Bill Cawthon

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




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

Virginia Judge Stays Crump v. Katz Hearing as July 1 Gun Ban Deadline Looms

AR-15 Rifle
A Virginia judge stayed proceedings in Crump v. Katz as the July 1 effective date for SB749 approaches. IMG Duncan Johnson

Virginia gun owners were supposed to get their day in court before Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s sweeping gun and magazine ban takes effect on July 1. Instead, the emergency hearing in Crump v. Katz has been pulled from the docket, and the case has been stayed while a three-judge panel decides whether several challenges to SB749 should be consolidated or transferred.

For Virginians facing a fast-approaching criminal ban on commonly owned firearms and magazines, the effect could leave gun owners in legal danger while the courts work their way toward a decision.

Crump v. Katz was filed in Lancaster County Circuit Court by AmmoLand contributor John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation. The lawsuit challenges Virginia’s new SB749/HB217 restrictions, which ban the future acquisition, sale, manufacture, importation, purchase, and transfer of firearms the state labels “assault firearms,” along with magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on May 15, one day after the law was enacted, and followed it on May 18 with a motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The point was simple: get the issue in front of a judge before the July 1 effective date, not after law-abiding Virginians, gun shops, and manufacturers are already forced to live under an unconstitutional scheme.

The hearing on that emergency motion had been scheduled for Friday, June 12th. According to the plaintiffs’ emergency motion to reinstate the hearing, the date was set by agreement of the parties and the court so the judge could make a decision before the law took effect. Then the hearing disappeared.

On June 9, Lancaster County Circuit Judge John S. Martin entered an order staying further proceedings in the case. The order states the Supreme Court of Virginia appointed a panel of three circuit court judges to determine whether Crump v. Katz should be consolidated with similar cases pending in Washington County, Spotsylvania County, and Fauquier County, and whether the case should be transferred to another jurisdiction for trial.

The court’s order states that “further proceedings in this case are stayed pending the decision” of that panel.

The Virginia Supreme Court order attached to Judge Martin’s stay order names four cases: Santolla v Katz in Washington County, Crump v Katz in Lancaster County, Curtis v Katz in Spotsylvania County, and Black v Hook in Fauquier County. The panel was appointed under Virginia’s Multiple Claimant Litigation Act to deal with possible joining, coordination, consolidation, or transfer of the related lawsuits.

SB749 is set to take effect July 1. The plaintiffs have asked for emergency relief because the law would immediately affect the ability of Virginians to acquire and carry a wide range of commonly owned firearms and accessories.

The state is targeting the kinds of rifles, pistols, shotguns, and magazines ordinary Americans own by the millions for lawful purposes, including self-defense, training, competition, and recreation.

The plaintiffs are now asking Judge Martin to vacate the June 9 stay order and reinstate the June 12 hearing. Their argument is that nothing in the Multiple Claimant Litigation Act requires or authorizes a full stay of the injunction proceedings merely because a consolidation or transfer request is pending.

Their emergency motion warns that the three-judge panel has not yet issued a briefing schedule, hearing schedule, or any indication of how quickly it will move. If that process takes weeks or months, the law could take effect before the court ever reaches the emergency injunction question. That would leave gun owners suffering the very constitutional harm the temporary injunction motion was designed to prevent.

This is the problem with procedural delays in Second Amendment cases. The government passes the ban. Gun owners sue. The calendar becomes a weapon. Every day of delay helps the state and hurts the citizen.

Virginia should not be allowed to run out the clock on constitutional rights.

AmmoLand has been following this fight from the beginning. We previously reported when GOA, VCDL, and John Crump filed their state-court challenge in Crump v. Katz. We also covered the plaintiffs’ emergency injunction request, Virginia’s troubling argument that the state constitution does not protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, and the separate NSSF-backed Black v. Hook lawsuit challenging the same SB749 gun ban.

Together, these cases show how much legal resistance Spanberger’s gun-control push has created. Federal lawsuits. State lawsuits. Industry-backed challenges. Grassroots gun-rights groups. Individual gun owners. Gun shops. Manufacturers. Magazine makers. Even multiple Virginia Commonwealth’s Attorneys have said they will not enforce the ban on constitutional grounds. That should tell Richmond something.

SB749 is a ban on common arms. The state can dress it up with scary labels, feature tests, and political talking points, but the substance is clear. Virginia Democrats are trying to make it a crime for peaceable citizens to acquire arms and magazines that are standard across America.

The stay in Crump v. Katz does not validate SB749. It stops the Lancaster County case from moving forward while the consolidation panel decides what to do.

For Virginia gun owners, that is the danger. Rights can be lost in the gap between “we will hear you later” and “the law takes effect now.”

The court should reinstate the hearing and let the injunction motion be heard before July 1. If Virginia wants to defend its gun ban, it should have to do so in court before the ban starts turning ordinary conduct into a criminal offense.

The Second Amendment is not supposed to wait in line behind scheduling games. Neither is Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution.

Spanberger Signs SB 749; SAF, NRA, FPC Immediately File Federal Lawsuit

Virginia Claims State Constitution Does Not Protect Individual Gun Rights in Crump v. Katz


About Duncan Johnson:

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




from https://ift.tt/eFzwI6S
via IFTTT

Wednesday, June 10, 2026

Wolford and Hemani: Supreme Court Decisions in Second Amendment Cases Expected Soon

Supreme Court building with Second Amendment text, a 1911 pistol, and judge’s gavel representing the Wolford and Hemani gun rights cases.
The Supreme Court is expected to issue decisions soon in Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani, two Second Amendment cases that could shape how Bruen and Rahimi are applied. Image generated with AI by AmmoLand editors.

Two Second Amendment cases have been heard by the Supreme Court this term. The Supreme Court’s opinions in those two cases are expected to be announced before the end of June 2026.

The two cases are the Wolford case, out of Hawaii in the Ninth Circuit, and the Hemani case out of Texas in the Fifth Circuit.

Wolford is essentially a question of whether a state can define “sensitive” locations so broadly as to prevent people from being armed in most public places.  Specifically, Wolford asks whether Hawaii has the authority to require property owners to actively choose to allow private carry on their property, or whether the State will ban private carry on their property.

The Hemani case is a fairly straightforward question: Can the government strip people of their Second Amendment rights if they are users of a substance (marijuana) which the government has deemed to be illegal, even if they are not carrying arms while impaired?

Both cases have the potential to further clarify the standard set in the Bruen decision for how courts are to decide Second Amendment issues. The Bruen decision was straightforward. If the case involved an infringement of Second Amendment rights, as provided by the text of the Second Amendment, the burden of showing that such limitations were necessary was on the government. The government had to show that there was a longstanding tradition of such limitations dating back to the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

If the government could show a longstanding tradition, then it was shown that such a limitation was considered understood as part of the right to keep and bear arms at the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights.

In the Rahimi decision, the Supreme Court appeared to ease the restrictions somewhat. The decision allowed laws from the time of the ratification, which had a loose connection to the statute in question, to meet the Bruen test if the essential intent was the same. Both Wolford and Hemani present cases to the Supreme Court that could be used to narrow or broaden how lower courts interpret Bruen as seen through the lens of Rahimi.

The Supreme Court hears about 70 cases each year. Thousands of cases apply to be heard by the Court. In addition to the 70 or so cases heard on the merits, the Supreme Court has been burdened by numerous lawsuits against the Trump administration. These cases have taken up much of the Court’s time as they react to frivolous challenges to Trump’s administrative decisions. The Supreme Court has issued at least 35 emergency orders related to Trump’s administrative actions.  The more “emergency” actions, the less time to spend on cases on the merits. The vast majority of these cases have been decided in favor of the Trump administration.

Both the Wolford and Hemani decisions are expected to be released by the end of June 2026.

Both cases could shape how lower courts apply Bruen after Rahimi: Wolford on public carry and private-property default bans, and Hemani on whether the government may disarm people based on unlawful drug use without proof they were armed while impaired.

Bruen’s Text-and-History Test Spreads Beyond the Second Amendment


About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

Dean Weingarten




from https://ift.tt/ZE9mClU
via IFTTT

Armed Citizens Confront Missouri Grocery Store Shooter, Police Say They Likely Saved Lives

Close up view of hand holding a pistol / handgun taking aim for target. iStock-1175500022
A deadly Memorial Day shooting outside a Pleasant Hill, Missouri grocery store is becoming another example of why armed citizens matter. iStock-1175500022

A deadly Memorial Day shooting outside a Missouri grocery store is offering another reminder to carry every day. Police are often minutes away, and armed citizens may be the only people close enough to stop the killing.

Allen Prince, 27, of Pleasant Hill, Missouri, has been charged with first-degree murder, two counts of first-degree assault, and three counts of armed criminal action after police say he opened fire in the parking lot of a Price Chopper grocery store in Pleasant Hill. The shooting killed 45-year-old Amy Coon of Strasburg and wounded a 16-year-old Price Chopper employee.

Prince has been charged, not convicted, and the case remains active.

Early police statements and reporting point to one detail that cannot be ignored: two armed citizens moved toward danger and may have prevented more bloodshed.

According to KCTV5, Pleasant Hill Police Chief Tommy Wright said two armed men from the Pleasant Hill area approached Prince shortly after the first shots were fired. Wright said Prince then turned the gun on himself. The chief did not release the men’s names, but he did not mince words about their actions.

“I think that it’s a good possibility that they prevented further bloodshed,” Wright said.

Two men heard gunfire, recognized a lethal threat, armed themselves, and moved to stop it.

Court-document reporting from The Kansas City Star adds more detail. According to that report, witnesses told police Prince pulled a rifle from his vehicle and fired at victims in the parking lot. One witness said he saw a man with a pistol approach Prince, then retrieved his own gun and helped hold Prince at gunpoint until officers arrived. Another witness said he drew his gun, ordered Prince to kick the rifle away, and remained there with the other armed citizen while aid was provided.

KSHB reported that one witness said he and another man pulled out their sidearms to detain Prince. Police Chief Wright confirmed that two bystanders stepped into action and likely prevented others from being hurt or killed. KSHB also reported that Wright said the men would not face charges.

Armed citizens stepped forward when it mattered. People were not saved by waiting for help. Armed citizens helped bring a deadly attack under control and rendered aid until officers arrived.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Remain Among America’s Most Law-Abiding Citizens

Glock: How The Polymer Pistol Changed the Handgun Market Forever


About Duncan Johnson:

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




from https://ift.tt/tzv8bBM
via IFTTT

ASA Report: Suppressor Demand Explodes After $200 Tax Stamp Drops to $0

PSA Sabre Mixtape 300 BO pistol with Sabre 300 suppressor. IMG Duncan Johnson
Suppressor demand surged after the federal transfer tax dropped from $200 to $0, but NFA registration requirements remain in place. IMG Duncan Johnson

According to a May 2026 document titled, Suppressor Commercial Market Analysis, from the American Suppressor Association, reviewed by AmmoLand News, suppressor demand has surged to levels never before seen in ASA’s data. From January through April 2026, gun owners submitted 660,744 suppressor Form 4 applications. That is roughly 90 percent of the entire 2025 total in only four months.

January 2026 alone produced 240,270 suppressor Form 4 receipts, the largest single month recorded in ASA’s data set. Even after that initial January rush cooled, February, March, and April each remained higher than any individual month seen in 2024 or 2025.

As ASA put it, “demand is structurally higher,” not merely a short-term bump.

Suppressors were not sitting on dealer shelves because gun owners had no interest in them. Many gun owners were staying away because the federal government made the buying process expensive, confusing, slow, and intimidating.

Once the tax fell to zero, Americans responded immediately. The change came under the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed into law on July 4, 2025. The law reduced the federal transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” from $200 to $0, effective January 1, 2026. Machine guns and destructive devices remain subject to the $200 tax.

Gun owners should not confuse a $0 tax stamp with full deregulation. The ASA report makes clear that the One Big Beautiful Bill Act did not remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act. Suppressors are still treated as NFA items. Buyers still submit Form 4 applications. We still provide fingerprints and photographs. We still go through CLEO notification and FBI-NICS background checks. Still, we wait on federal approval.

Washington took away the tax penalty but kept the registry.

That creates the obvious legal and political question: if the NFA was defended for decades as an exercise of Congress’s taxing authority, what happens when the tax is zero?

ASA notes that constitutional challenges to NFA registration under a $0 tax regime are already pending. Those cases could become the next major front in the fight over suppressors and the broader NFA system.

The government kept the registry even after the tax disappeared. Gun owners should be asking the obvious question: if Congress is collecting no tax, what constitutional authority remains for forcing peaceful Americans into a federal registry for hearing-protection devices?

ASA’s 2026 projections show just how large the suppressor market could become now that one of the biggest federal barriers has been removed.

The association lays out three possible full-year scenarios. The conservative case projects roughly 1.10 million suppressor Form 4 applications in 2026, a 50 percent increase over 2025, with an estimated wholesale value of about $699 million.

The likely case projects roughly 1.50 million suppressor Form 4 applications, more than double 2025, with an estimated wholesale value of about $953 million.

The upside case projects approximately 1.85 million applications, a 153 percent increase over 2025, with an estimated wholesale value of roughly $1.17 billion.

The report also shows how dramatically suppressor ownership has grown. As of May 27, 2026, ASA reported approximately 6.14 million suppressors registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. That is an increase of more than 1.7 million from January 2025.

Texas leads the nation by a wide margin, with 944,959 suppressors in the state-level data ASA obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. Florida follows with 401,064. Georgia, Utah, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Arizona, Washington, and Colorado also rank among the top states.

One of the more surprising parts of the ASA report is ATF’s performance during the surge.

From January through April 2026, ATF processed 607,797 suppressor Form 4 applications, which was within about eight percent of the number received during that same period. Median individual eForm 4 wait times stayed between six and twelve days despite application volume running at roughly three times the historical monthly level.

That is a major change from the old days when suppressor buyers routinely waited months or even more than a year for approval.

ASA does warn that ATF’s continued performance may depend on staffing. The report notes that the NFA Division has been supported by detailed personnel from elsewhere inside ATF, including industry operations investigators and headquarters staff. If those personnel return to their normal duties while volume remains high, the system could again come under pressure.

The ASA data also gives a useful look at what suppressor buyers actually want.

The 7.62mm family is the largest category, accounting for 34.4 percent of registered suppressors in ASA’s FOIA-derived caliber data. That makes sense. A .30-caliber can is one of the most versatile choices on the market, covering popular rifle cartridges such as .308 Winchester, 7.62 NATO, .300 Blackout, and many 5.56 rifles when properly mounted and rated.

Rimfire suppressors are next at 21.9 percent. Anyone who has shot a suppressed .22 understands why. They are affordable, practical, extremely effective, and useful for training, small-game hunting, and general range use.

The 5.56/.223 family accounts for 17.8 percent, while 9mm accounts for 12.2 percent. Together, those four categories make up more than 85 percent of the registered suppressor market.

ASA also notes growth in universal and multi-caliber suppressors. The .46 and .36 universal categories together represent 4.6 percent of the registry. That may not sound huge, but it is larger than several more specialized categories combined. It also makes sense in a market with more first-time suppressor buyers. Many first-time buyers want one can that can cover several firearms before they start buying dedicated suppressors for each platform.

The ASA report shows what happens when one piece of that old federal burden is lifted. Demand does not merely increase. It explodes.

The $200 tax stamp was never just a fee. It was a barrier. It priced out some buyers, discouraged others, and made the entire process feel like asking permission for something ordinary Americans should be able to buy over the counter.

Even now, gun owners have not received full relief. The tax may be gone, but the registry remains.

The market has spoken: Americans are buying suppressors.

They want them for rifles, pistols, rimfires, hunting guns, home-defense guns, and range guns. They want them because they make shooting safer and more comfortable. When the federal government finally removed the $200 penalty, gun owners proved it in record numbers.

The next fight is whether Washington can keep treating a $0 tax stamp like a constitutional excuse for a national registry.

Gain a decisive advantage in today’s booming suppressor market. The full ASA Commercial Market Analysis is reserved exclusively for our industry members. Join ASA today to support the organization leading the charge for your industry’s growth.

Three NFA Lawsuits Put SBR & Suppressor Registry on Path to Supreme Court


About Duncan Johnson:

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




from https://ift.tt/L3TAWOR
via IFTTT

Tuesday, June 9, 2026

Virginia Claims State Constitution Does Not Protect Individual Gun Rights in Crump v. Katz

AR-15 Rifle with standard-capacity magazines.
Virginia is defending SB749 by arguing the state Constitution’s right-to-arms provision is militia-tied and does not protect commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and magazines over 15 rounds. IMG Duncan Johnson

Virginia gun owners are getting a clear look at how far the Commonwealth is willing to go to defend its new ban on so-called “assault firearms” and standard-capacity magazines.

In Crump v. Katz, plaintiffs John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation are seeking a preliminary injunction against SB749, Virginia’s newly enacted restriction on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

The defendant, Colonel Jeffrey Katz, Superintendent of the Virginia State Police, has now filed his opposition. The brief does more than argue that SB749 should remain in effect while the case moves forward. It takes direct aim at the idea that Virginia’s own Constitution protects an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Virginia’s central argument is that Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution is not an individual Second Amendment-style right at all. According to the Commonwealth, Section 13 is a “collective, militia-tethered right,” meaning the right to keep and bear arms is tied to militia service rather than individual self-defense.

The state leans heavily on the wording of Section 13, which says:

“That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

Virginia’s argument turns on the word “therefore.” The Commonwealth claims that because the right-to-arms language is joined to the militia language by “therefore,” the right is merely a consequence of the militia clause and not a free-standing guarantee for individual citizens.

The brief also argues that the right-to-bear-arms clause was added in 1971, not at the Founding, and that the court should look to the 1971 ratification history rather than simply applying modern Second Amendment doctrine. The Commonwealth points to legislative debates from that period, claiming sponsors said the language created “no additional rights” and would not interfere with gun control laws.

That is the legal path Virginia wants the court to take: separate Article I, Section 13 from the Second Amendment, treat it as narrower than the federal right, and then conclude that SB749 does not violate it.

The state also pushes back against the plaintiffs’ reliance on federal cases such as Heller and Bruen. Virginia admits those cases may be informative, but says they do not control the meaning of the Virginia Constitution. In the Commonwealth’s view, state courts do not have to treat Section 13 as coextensive with the Second Amendment.

That is a major claim. If accepted, it would leave Virginia gun owners with far less protection under their own Constitution than they have under the federal Second Amendment.

The Commonwealth then argues that even if the court applies a Bruen-style test, SB749 still survives because the banned firearms and magazines are supposedly outside the scope of protected arms.

Virginia says “large-capacity” magazines are not “arms” at all. The brief calls them accessories, not weapons, because a magazine does not fire a projectile by itself. The state argues a firearm can still function for self-defense without a magazine over 15 rounds, so those magazines do not receive constitutional protection.

That argument should sound familiar. Anti-gun states have been using the same “accessory, not arms” theory to defend magazine bans around the country. The problem is obvious: a modern semi-automatic firearm depends on magazines to function as designed. Treating the magazine as constitutionally irrelevant is just a convenient way to regulate around the firearm itself.

Virginia also claims that so-called “assault firearms” and large-capacity magazines are not in common use for lawful self-defense. The brief argues that AR-15-style rifles are “weapons of war,” not ordinary defensive arms, and says they are more like M16s than handguns.

The Commonwealth cites federal appellate decisions upholding similar bans and relies on expert declarations claiming AR-style rifles and larger magazines are disproportionately tied to mass shootings and dangers to law enforcement. It also argues these firearms are “dangerous and unusual,” a category the government says falls outside constitutional protection.

The state does not simply say SB749 is a modest regulation. It argues that some of the most popular semi-automatic rifles in America are not protected arms, that magazines over 15 rounds are accessories, and that Virginia’s own right-to-arms provision does not protect individual gun owners in the way the Second Amendment does.

Virginia’s opposition also argues that SB749 fits within a historical tradition of regulating dangerous weapons. The brief points to laws involving trap guns, Bowie knives, machine guns, and older magazine restrictions. That is the state’s attempt to satisfy Bruen while also telling the court Bruen should not really drive the state constitutional analysis.

If the court accepts Virginia’s argument, the state could claim Article I, Section 13 offers little independent protection for individual gun owners. The Commonwealth could then treat the right to arms as something tied to a government-recognized militia purpose, while dismissing modern semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines as too dangerous for ordinary citizens.

Gun owners should be watching closely. The preliminary injunction motion is set to be heard this Friday, June 12, 2026, and the court’s ruling could determine whether SB749 is blocked before it takes effect or whether Virginia gun owners are forced to live under the new restrictions while the case continues.

For gun owners, this is not just a procedural hearing. It is the first major test of whether Virginia courts will treat the state’s right-to-arms provision as a real protection for individual citizens or allow the Commonwealth to narrow it into a militia-only guarantee while banning some of the most commonly owned rifles and magazines in America.

Virginia Judge Blocks State Police From Enforcing Universal Background Checks

GOA, VCDL, John Crump Sue Over Virginia Assault Weapons Ban


About Duncan Johnson:

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




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