ATF Rolls Back Biden-Era Gun Rules in Major Reform Package

ATF’s new reform package would roll back or revise several firearm regulations affecting pistol braces, bump stocks, FFLs, and NFA gun owners. IMG Jim Grant

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has announced what it calls a “New Era of Reform,” and for once, the agency is not leading with a new way to turn ordinary gun owners or small FFLs into regulatory targets.

ATF says the new reform package is aimed at “transparency, accountability, and partnership with the firearms industry, gun owners, and the public.” More importantly, the agency says it is moving toward regulations grounded in “clear statutory authority” while reducing unnecessary burdens on law-abiding businesses and citizens. That is exactly where ATF should have been all along.

This is not the repeal of the National Firearms Act we all want. It does not abolish the ATF, and gun owners should not pretend a federal press release equals restored liberty. But it is a major shift away from the Biden-era model of treating every paperwork error, brace-equipped pistol, and private seller as a potential federal case.

ATF lists 34 regulatory actions under five headings: Repeal, Modernize, Reduce Burden, Clarify, and Align. The page calls the package “proposed rulemakings,” but the list actually includes proposed rules, final rules, a direct final rule, and an interim final rule. That matters because some items are still open fights, while others are being moved into effect through final agency action.

The Repeal Group: Braces, Bump Stocks, “Engaged in the Business,” and FFL Warning Posters

The most obvious win for gun owners is ATF’s proposal to formally remove the Biden-era pistol brace rule. ATF now says it is proposing to rescind the 2023 stabilizing brace regulatory changes after multiple federal courts found the rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act and after the rule was enjoined, stayed, or vacated across numerous jurisdictions. In plain English, the agency is finally admitting what gun owners already knew: the brace rule was legally defective and largely unenforceable.

That rule threatened millions of Americans who lawfully owned brace-equipped firearms. It was never about violent crime. It was about bureaucratic reclassification. ATF tried to take a common firearm accessory, rewrite the meaning of federal law, and force ordinary people into NFA registration or felony exposure. Courts stopped it. Now ATF is moving to clean up the wreckage.

ATF is also revising its “engaged in the business” rule. This one deserves careful attention. The agency says it will rescind certain regulatory changes because they failed to produce the anticipated outcomes in FFL applications, licensing actions, forfeitures, or other enforcement metrics. However, ATF says it will retain the definition Congress enacted through the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act.

That means this is a rollback of ATF’s extra regulatory overreach, not a full undoing of Congress’s statutory language. Gun owners should welcome the retreat, but not confuse it with complete victory. The government still has too much room to blur the line between someone liquidating part of a private collection and someone actually operating as a firearms dealer.

ATF is also removing bump-stock language from its machine gun definitions after the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill. ATF says the final rule removes two sentences from three regulatory definitions of “machine gun” that had incorporated bump stocks, aligning the regulations with the Court’s holding that semiautomatic rifles equipped with bump stocks do not meet the statutory definition of machine gun under the NFA.

That is another important admission: agencies do not get to rewrite criminal law because they dislike a firearm accessory.

Finally, ATF proposes to remove the requirement that FFLs post and provide the Youth Handgun Safety Act notice. The agency says the law has been in place for more than 30 years and is readily accessible, making the old 1998 posting and notification mandate an unnecessary burden.

Modernizing FFL Records: Useful Relief, But Watch the Fine Print

The Modernize group focuses heavily on Form 4473, electronic records, retention periods, and how FFLs verify each other’s licenses.

ATF proposes to update Form 4473 and its implementing regulations by streamlining identity and residency verification, increasing the period during which a NICS check remains valid, clarifying background-check exceptions, allowing electronic notice, and authorizing electronic forms, auto-population, and digital attachments. This could potentially lead to online sales being brought into a more streamlined process for gun owners.

That is the kind of modernization the industry has needed for years. Gun stores are not stuck in 1968. Their compliance systems should not be either.

ATF is also proposing to formally authorize FFLs to generate, store, and maintain required records electronically, including Form 4473 and Acquisition & Disposition records. The agency notes that many licensees have already operated this way through blanket or individual variances, but the new rule would codify it into regulation.

The bigger issue is record retention. ATF says it wants to replace indefinite retention of FFL records with definite retention periods. The agency is considering either 20 or 30 years for Form 4473 and A&D records, including records at the Out-of-Business Records Center. It also proposes 90-day retention for certain private-party transfer and voluntary firearm handler check records, and five-year retention for multiple-sale reports, theft/loss reports, and incomplete 4473s.

That is better than indefinite retention, but gun owners should still be clear-eyed. The federal government should not be allowed to quietly build a permanent backdoor registry through “records management.” A fixed retention period is an improvement, but the details matter.

ATF is also issuing a direct final rule allowing FFLs to use ATF’s online FFL eZ Check system instead of requiring a certified paper copy of another licensee’s FFL. This is common sense. It is 2026. A federal agency should not require paper relics when it operates the verification website itself.

The agency also proposes to modernize non-over-the-counter sales by allowing FFLs to sell to same-state residents through updated verification procedures. That could give dealers and buyers more flexibility while still requiring identification and Brady Act background checks.

NFA Relief: Travel, Spouses, CLEO Notifications, and SOT Rules

The Reduce Burden group contains some of the most practical changes for NFA owners.

ATF proposes to update Form 5320.20 rules for interstate transport of NFA firearms. For short-term transport of 365 days or fewer, owners would no longer have to submit advance notice or wait for ATF approval before leaving. For long-term transport or permanent relocation, owners would still submit notice but would not have to wait for ATF approval before transporting.

This is a serious improvement. Law-abiding NFA owners should not need permission slips from Washington to travel with firearms they already lawfully registered.

ATF is also proposing joint NFA registration for spouses. Under current practice, many married couples use a trust so both spouses can lawfully possess an NFA firearm. ATF says the new proposal would allow married couples to register jointly as makers or transferees without creating a trust, and transfers between spouses under that joint registration would not be treated as separate NFA transfers.

That is a real-world fix for ordinary families. A husband and wife should not have to hire a lawyer and create a trust just to avoid stepping into a federal trap inside their own home.

ATF also proposes to remove the CLEO notification requirement for NFA applications and responsible-person questionnaires. The agency says the requirement has faced sustained legal challenges and has not achieved its intended public-safety outcomes.

Again, that is what gun owners have said for years. The CLEO notice requirement was mostly symbolic. It burdened lawful applicants while doing nothing to stop criminals, who are not lining up to file NFA paperwork in the first place.

ATF is also proposing to clarify interstate firearm transport under the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act. The rule would recognize that normal travel activities — overnight stops, refueling, vehicle maintenance, emergency stops, and medical treatment — are part of “transport” and covered by FOPA protections.

That matters because hostile states and localities have long tried to punish peaceful travelers for ordinary interruptions during interstate travel. A flat tire or hotel stop should not erase a citizen’s federal protection.

Other burden-reduction changes include simplifying certain machine-gun transfers between qualified licensees for government demonstrations or when a licensee is going out of business, clarifying that SOT payments are owed per business activity at a location rather than per overlapping GCA license, and removing an obsolete triplicate filing requirement for importing plastic explosives.

Clarifications: Imports, Markings, Carriers, Mental Health Definitions, Straw Purchases, and “Willfully”

The Clarify group is broad, but several items have direct firearms industry and gun-owner implications.

ATF proposes to clarify activities in Foreign Trade Zones and Customs Bonded Warehouses, expand lawful FFL activity beyond mere storage in those facilities, and reduce ambiguity for importers and licensees. It also proposes to clarify that certain dual-use barrels, frames, and receivers may be imported when a sporting configuration exists, and that once lawfully imported, those parts may be incorporated into sporting, non-sporting, or NFA-regulated firearms if other federal laws are followed.

That is important because “sporting purposes” restrictions have long been used as a backdoor gun-control tool. Any clarification that narrows arbitrary import games is welcome, though the larger “sporting purposes” framework remains a problem Congress should eventually address.

ATF also proposes to clarify that certain training rounds — inert, marking, or simulated-projectile products used for training — are not “ammunition” under the Gun Control Act or Arms Export Control Act, provided the round is not for a firearm.

The agency is also proposing a formal process for converting temporary imports of firearms or defense articles into permanent imports, rather than forcing importers to re-export, reimport, or destroy items when temporary authorization expires.

For NFA makers, ATF proposes to allow people who make NFA firearms by altering existing firearms to adopt the original manufacturer’s markings instead of adding redundant markings. That is another practical fix. If the firearm already has the original manufacturer and serial-number markings required by law, forcing extra markings can be unnecessary and confusing.

ATF also proposes to clarify that a person traveling on a common or contract carrier while maintaining direct control over a firearm or ammunition has not “delivered” that firearm or ammunition to the carrier.

The agency is also revising definitions tied to “adjudicated as a mental defective” and “committed to a mental institution.” ATF says it would modernize the term “mental defective,” associate it with “intellectually disabled,” and clarify that a person receiving assistance in only one functional area, such as financial management, is not prohibited on that basis alone. It also clarifies that certain dangerousness commitments or findings of not guilty by reason of insanity fall under “committed to a mental institution,” not the “mental defective” definition.

This is another area where precision matters. The government should not use sloppy terminology or overbroad definitions to strip people of constitutional rights.

ATF also proposes to clarify when state-issued permits qualify as alternatives to a NICS check under the Brady Act, to require that the permit be valid and unexpired and that state law conform to congressional requirements.

Other clarification rules address biological sex on ATF forms, the definition of FFL “business premises,” straw-purchase guidance, and the definition of “willfully” for license suspension, revocation, and civil penalties. The “willfully” proposal would codify the Supreme Court’s Bryan v. United States standard, under which a person acts willfully when he knows his conduct is unlawful, even if he does not know the specific statutory provision being violated.

That last point deserves scrutiny. If ATF is serious about ending the old “gotcha” culture, the agency must apply willfulness in a way that separates true bad actors from paperwork mistakes and technical compliance errors.

Aligning Rules With Courts, Statutes, and Other Agencies

ATF is issuing a final rule codifying its existing practice of conducting NICS checks during the NFA making-application process. The agency says this aligns regulatory text with current statutory requirements and operational practice.

ATF is also updating export-control references to reflect the division of authority between the Commerce and State Departments, updating proscribed-country import restrictions by replacing a static list with a dynamic reference to the State Department’s list, and removing the former Soviet-country import-denial list except for Russia.

The agency also proposes technical AECA component-definition updates, a final rule involving contraband cigarettes and smokeless tobacco, and a final rule changing NFA tax remittance regulations to reflect changes made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Gun Owners Should Welcome This — And Stay Suspicious

This package is a welcome change in direction. It targets some of the worst Biden-era regulatory abuses, reduces needless NFA burdens, modernizes recordkeeping, and acknowledges that ATF cannot keep pretending its job is to invent new crimes out of old statutes.

But gun owners should not confuse reform with surrender.

The same agency that now says it wants partnership and clear statutory authority spent years trying to crush brace owners, pressure FFLs over paperwork, and stretch the NFA beyond what Congress wrote. The lesson is not that ATF has suddenly become harmless. The lesson is that elections, litigation, public pressure, and relentless scrutiny matter.

Gun owners, FFLs, manufacturers, and Second Amendment organizations should read the actual rule text, file comments where comments are open, support the genuine rollbacks, and demand stronger protections where ATF leaves itself too much discretion. This is progress. It is not the finish line.

The goal remains simple: violent criminals should be prosecuted, and peaceful gun owners should be left alone.

Trump DOJ Must Repeal Biden ATF Rules & Destroy Gun Registry

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/CO6bvoT
via IFTTT

Minnesota Senate Democrats Push Sweeping Gun Control Package Targeting AR-15s & Magazines

Minnesota gun owners are warning that Senate Democrats are advancing a sweeping gun control package targeting AR-15s, magazines over 10 rounds, so-called ghost guns, binary triggers, and red-flag enforcement. iStock-2253799988

Gun rights organizations across Minnesota issued urgent calls to action as the state Senate prepared to advance sweeping firearms legislation through the Finance Committee on April 28, 2026.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus sounded the alarm on social media on April 27. “ALERT: The Minnesota Senate is holding a hearing TOMORROW on an omnibus gun control bill that crams nearly every anti-gun wishlist item into one package,” the organization wrote. “What’s in it? Ban on future sales of semi-automatic rifles. ‘Ghost gun’ ban. Binary trigger ban. More funding for Red Flag (ERPO) enforcement. ‘School safety’ funding tied to gun control mandates. In other words: the usual ‘we swear this one will make you safer’ starter pack.”

The Caucus warned that opposition groups were already mobilizing. “Moms Demand Action is packing the room. Every Senator is being pressured to go on record. We need Minnesota gun owners to push back BEFORE the hearing starts at 8:30 AM tomorrow.”

The National Association for Gun Rights echoed the alarm. “ALL HANDS ON DECK FOR MINNESOTA!” the organization declared. “A massive gun control package is set to move through the Senate Finance Committee. The package includes a ban on most semi-automatic firearms, a magazine ban, red flag law expansion, ‘ghost gun’ laws, and more. It is the entire Virginia gun control playbook in one bill, and they are trying to pass it all at once.”

NAGR provided direct phone numbers for every Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, including Chair Senator John Marty, Vice Chair Senator Nick A. Frentz, and Senators Bobby Joe Champion, Zaynab Mohamed, Erin P. Murphy, Sandra L. Pappas, and Melissa H. Wiklund.

The alerts were responding to Senate File 3655, the central vehicle for Minnesota Democrats’ 2026 gun push. DFL Senator Zaynab Mohamed of Minneapolis authored the bill, which was introduced on February 19, 2026. SF 3655 prohibits the possession, sale, and transfer of firearms the bill designates “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons,” explicitly including the AR-15. It defines a “large-capacity magazine” as any capable of holding more than 10 rounds and bans their manufacture, sale, and possession.

Minnesotans who already own a banned firearm must apply to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for a “certification of ownership” by February 1, 2027, and renew it every three years. According to an analysis by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, obtaining that certificate could require owners to consent to warrantless home inspections for “safe storage” compliance. Transfers are largely banned, inheritance is permitted only if the inheritor completes the certification process, and violations carry felony charges.

SF 3655 was the subject of a marathon hearing on March 13, 2026, in the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, which passed the bill 6 to 3 on a party-line vote and re-referred it to the Senate Finance Committee. At the April 28 Finance Committee hearing, the bill was laid over on a voice vote and will be incorporated into SF 4067, a broader omnibus Gun Violence Prevention bill to be heard by the Finance Committee on April 29.

The Minnesota House remains the primary obstacle for gun control advocates. Because the chamber is tied 67 to 67 between Republicans and Democrats, no gun control bill has been able to advance there, and the companion House bill has stalled. Any movement would require bipartisan support that has not materialized.

NAGR has likened the package to “the entire Virginia gun control playbook in one bill” — a reference to Virginia’s 2020 experience where Democrats swept both chambers and rapidly enacted sweeping gun restrictions. Minnesota Democrats appear to be betting that Senate passage will eventually create enough political pressure to break the House deadlock.

Connecticut House Passes Bill Targeting Glock Handguns and Striker-Fired Pistols

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/0WACqfI
via IFTTT

FPC Lawsuit Forces Pennsylvania State Police to Drop 80% Receiver Policy

The Pennsylvania State Police agreed to revoke its challenged 80% receiver policy after years of litigation by Firearms Policy Coalition and other plaintiffs. iStock-1432499170

In the six-year-old case of Landmark v. Evanchick, in Pennsylvania, the Firearms Policy Coalition has been vindicated. A settlement has been reached. The Pennsylvania State Police has agreed to revoke the policy of the Pennsylvania State Police to the effect that partially-manufactured frames, receivers, and kits, often referred to as 80% frames and receivers, were firearms that required a background check through an FFL before purchase.

The case started six years ago, on December 16, 2019. Then, Attorney General of Pennsylvania Josh Shapiro issued an opinion classifying 80% receivers as functional firearms. Just four days later, on December 20, 2019, Firearms Policy Coalition filed a lawsuit against the Pennsylvania Police, which had stated they would accept the Attorney General’s opinion in their policies. On January 21, 2020, Judge Brobson of Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court issued an order preventing the enforcement of the policy.  On April 21, 2022, the court issued an order granting a stay pending Pennsylvania State Police promulgation of new regulations, to be based on new federal regulations.

The parties attempted to resolve the matter amicably. On February 23, 2026, they jointly petitioned the court, agreeing to the following:

• The matter is now moot.
• The preliminary injunction can be dissolved
• The parties shall bear their own costs
• The matter can be discontinued without prejudice.

In addition, the parties agreed:

This stipulation does not alter the Pennsylvania State Police’s obligation to comply with any and all federal requirements as a point-of-contact state for NICS.

On March 6, 2026, the Court issued an order directing the following:

 1. The preliminary injunction issued pursuant to this Court’s January 31, 2020 Opinion and Order is hereby dissolved and the Prothonotary is ordered to return the cost bond, in the amount of $100.00, to counsel for Petitioners Landmark Firearms LLC, US Rifle, LLC, Polymer80, Inc., and Firearms Policy Coalition, Inc.;

2. The Parties shall bear their own costs, expenses, and attorney fees in this matter; and

3. The Prothonotary shall mark this matter discontinued without prejudice.

The case is now ended. The Pennsylvania State Police have not required firearms made with “80%” receivers to be sold only with serial numbers and only through Federal Firearms Dealers in the State of Pennsylvania for the last six years.

The rule promoted under the Biden Administration was upheld as acceptable under the Administrative Procedure Act. The rule was not challenged under the Second Amendment.  In the future, much depends on what new rule is promoted by the ATF in the Trump administration on what is considered a firearm.

Firearms have been made at home by individuals since before the colonies became the United States of America. The ATF argued that technological changes have made the selling of kits that can be made into functional firearms as quickly as firearms can be legally purchased, rendering those kits the same as functional firearms. Such an argument was under the Biden administration. The ATF is set to issue a new rule under the Trump administration. The key appears to be what the term “readily convertible” means under the law.

My best guess would be something to the effect of “If the kit can be assembled into a functional firearm in less than two hours by an ordinary individual with commonly available tools, it is ‘readily convertible’.

Many other possibilities exist.

Eleventh Circuit Says Machine Guns Are Not Protected by 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.

---

from https://ift.tt/2IsS7eb
via IFTTT

Trump DOJ Must Repeal Biden ATF Rules & Destroy Gun Registry

Gun owners want the Trump DOJ to repeal Biden-era ATF rules, end pistol brace and private-sale traps, make zero-tolerance repeal permanent, and dismantle ATF’s backdoor registry. Image Jim Grant

According to reports, the Department of Justice and ATF are preparing a new firearms regulation package tied to President Donald Trump’s Second Amendment executive order. If true, gun owners should welcome any real rollback of Biden-era abuses. But there is a difference between reform and a press release.

The Trump administration has often said the right things to gun owners. President Trump’s February 7, 2025, executive order directed the Attorney General to review federal actions that may infringe the Second Amendment and create a plan to protect gun owners. The order correctly stated that the Second Amendment is “foundational” and “must not be infringed.”

Breaking: According to reports, the DOJ is set to announce a firearm regulation package tomorrow!

Attorney General Todd Blanche has stated the DOJ will unveil several new rules.

The Trump admin has previously stated it wants to undo or heavily alter several current ATF… pic.twitter.com/N1J6zbOOFv

— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) April 29, 2026

Former Attorney General Pam Bondi, an appointment that was questioned by many gun owners, later announced a Second Amendment Task Force, promising that the DOJ would use policy and litigation resources to advance Trump’s pro-gun agenda and protect gun owners from overreach.

Good. Now prove it.

Gun owners do not want Biden’s anti-gun rulebook cleaned up, reworded, and left in place for the next Democrat administration to weaponize. They want it ripped out root and branch.

That means the Trump DOJ must stop defending the same Biden-era ATF theories in court while telling gun owners it is on their side. You cannot claim the Second Amendment is no longer a second-class right while your lawyers are still trying to preserve the administrative machinery that treated it like one.

Kill the Frames-and-Receivers Rule

The most obvious test is the Biden ATF’s frames-and-receivers rule. AmmoLand has covered this fight extensively because it goes to the heart of a basic American tradition: peaceable citizens making firearms for personal use. The Biden administration wrapped that tradition in “ghost gun” scare language and used ATF to regulate unfinished parts, kits, tools, templates, and ordinary commerce around home-built firearms.

The ATF’s frames-and-receivers rule, Final Rule 2021R-05F, changed the regulatory definitions of “firearm,” “frame,” and “receiver,” restricted many unfinished frames and receivers, and leaned heavily on the vague word “readily.”

That word is the problem. “Readily” gives regulators room to decide that a chunk of metal, a jig, a template, instructions, or a parts kit has magically crossed the line into a regulated firearm. That is not how criminal law should work in a constitutional republic.

ATF does not get to create felony traps by administrative imagination.

The Trump administration has already sent mixed signals. AmmoLand reported that DOJ and ATF first appeared ready to keep the Biden-era frames-and-receivers rule in place, then reversed course and told litigants in cases including VanDerStok v. Bondi and Defense Distributed v. Bondi that a new rule was coming.

A real reform package should not merely “revise” the frames-and-receivers rule. It should remove it entirely and protect the right of Americans to build firearms for lawful personal use.

End the Pistol Brace Felony Trap

The pistol brace rule should be buried permanently. For years, ATF told Americans that pistols equipped with stabilizing braces were ordinary Gun Control Act firearms. Then the Biden administration decided that millions of those same firearms should be treated as National Firearms Act items. Overnight, lawful gun owners were pushed toward registration, destruction, forced modification, or potential felony exposure.

AmmoLand’s coverage of how ATF’s pistol brace rule is officially dead explained the Mock litigation and how Biden pushed ATF to reconsider braced pistols after years of prior agency treatment. That should have been the end of it.

But gun owners have learned not to trust vague promises from ATF. If DOJ wants credit, it needs to provide clear written protection for braced-pistol owners, manufacturers, dealers, and accessory makers. No secret classification games. No case-by-case ambushes. No “we lost the rule, but we still might prosecute you later” nonsense.

A firearm cannot be legal on Monday, politically inconvenient on Tuesday, and a felony on Wednesday because bureaucrats changed their mind.

Repeal the “Engaged in the Business” Rule

The Biden “engaged in the business” rule was never just about actual illegal dealers. It was an attempt to scare ordinary gun owners away from private sales.

AmmoLand warned about this early, including in its reporting on the ATF’s effort to redefine private-sale activity and personal collections. The concern was simple: the Biden administration was using the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act as a launchpad for a backdoor universal background check scheme.

In January, AmmoLand reported that critics of the rule argued it could force hobbyists, collectors, and occasional sellers to obtain an FFL, conduct background checks, and maintain records previously associated with commercial dealers.

More recently, AmmoLand covered DOJ dropping its defense of the “engaged in the business” rule in Texas v. ATF, noting that the rule created automatic presumptions that put casual sellers at real risk. That is welcome, but the job is not done until the rule is gone.

Americans have always bought, sold, traded, and collected firearms. Selling part of a personal collection does not make a citizen a gun dealer. Trading a firearm does not make him a criminal suspect. Helping a friend find a rifle does not mean ATF gets to treat him like he is running an unlicensed storefront.

If DOJ is serious, it should rescind the rule and make clear that private sales remain private sales.

Make the End of Zero Tolerance Permanent

The repeal of Biden’s zero-tolerance FFL policy was one of the better early moves by the Trump DOJ and ATF.

AmmoLand called it what it was: ATF’s war on gun stores. The Biden policy punished dealers over paperwork mistakes and treated small business owners like enemies of the state. AmmoLand reported that the policy was used against FFLs for minor clerical errors, including issues like transposed serial numbers on Form 4473.

The government’s own announcement admitted the Enhanced Regulatory Enforcement Policy, better known as zero tolerance, was repealed and that inspections would no longer be held to those Biden-era guidelines.

But gun owners and dealers should not have to live election to election, wondering whether ATF will go back to using paperwork as a death penalty for gun shops. A real reform package should lock in discretion for honest mistakes, restore wrongly targeted FFLs where possible, and prevent future administrations from reviving the same anti-industry hit job under a new name.

The right to keep and bear arms includes the practical ability to acquire arms. Destroying gun stores through regulatory harassment is gun control by another name.

Destroy the ATF’s Backdoor Gun Registry

Any Trump ATF reform package that ignores the registry problem is incomplete.

AmmoLand has been warning for years that ATF’s so-called tracing system has become something far more dangerous: a backdoor national gun registry built out of out-of-business dealer records, Form 4473s, bound books, and digitized transaction data.

Federal law is supposed to forbid this. The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act bars any federal rule that requires firearm records or their contents to be transferred to a government-controlled facility and also forbids “any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions.”

Yet ATF’s National Tracing Center says out-of-business records are “integral” to firearm tracing, and that FFLs that discontinue business must send those transaction records to ATF. ATF also says it receives an average of 5 million out-of-business records per month.

When the federal government collects gun-buyer information, stores it, digitizes it, and keeps adding millions of records every month, calling it a “tracing system” does not make it any less of a registry.

AmmoLand reported in 2022 that ATF acknowledged holding 920,664,765 firearms records, with almost 866 million already scanned and digitized. That report also noted that Form 4473 includes personal identifying information about the buyer along with the make, model, caliber, and serial number of the firearm being transferred.

AmmoLand later reported that congressional testimony in 2026 put the number near 1 billion firearm records, with 94 percent digitized. As that article put it, if the government is sitting on a mountain of gun-owner records approaching a billion files, and almost all of it is digitally searchable in one form or another, gun owners were right to call it what it looks like.

That database should not be “reviewed.” It should not be “modernized.” It should not be handed to a new ATF director with a promise that this administration will use it responsibly.

It should be destroyed.

The Trump administration should move to delete every firearm transaction record ATF is not required by law to keep for a specific criminal investigation or lawful trace. Congress should go further and pass legislation requiring ATF to dismantle the out-of-business records database entirely. That is not a radical position. AmmoLand covered Rep. Michael Cloud’s No REGISTRY Rights Act, which would require ATF to delete existing firearm transaction records accumulated by the agency and require FFLs to destroy transaction records when they go out of business so the records do not keep feeding a federal database.

A government that is forbidden from creating a registry should not be allowed to build all the parts of one and then pretend the final switch has not been flipped.

The ATF’s defenders always fall back on the same excuse: traces help law enforcement solve crimes. But a real criminal trace does not require the federal government to maintain a permanent, billion-record database of peaceable gun owners. If ATF needs information for a specific criminal investigation, it can pursue that trace through lawful channels. What it cannot do is warehouse the private purchase records of Americans who have done nothing wrong.

Registration is not paperwork. Registration is power.

A registry tells the government who has what. Once the government has that information, the only question is which administration gets to use it. Gun owners understand history well enough to know that today’s “trace database” can become tomorrow’s confiscation list.

That is why destroying the registry should be part of any serious Trump ATF reform package.

Not limiting it. Not renaming it. Not promising better guardrails.

Destroy it.

The same administration that says it is reviewing Biden’s anti-gun rules should also review the data those rules and prior ATF practices helped collect. If that data creates a registry of firearms, firearm owners, firearm transactions, or firearm dispositions, it should be deleted, physically destroyed, and permanently barred from being rebuilt.

Anything less leaves the weapon in place for the next anti-gun administration.

Fix ATF Classifications and Stop Secret Lawmaking

ATF’s classification system also needs a serious overhaul. For too long, manufacturers and gun owners have lived under a system where the legality of a product can depend on shifting letters, private interpretations, and the political mood inside the Bureau. That is unacceptable.

ATF’s own “New Era of Reform” page says the agency is working on a classifications board, requiring new firearm classifications to be reviewed and approved by the Office of the Director, and ensuring rules implement statutes rather than create new laws by administrative order. It also lists changes like simplifying Form 4473, updating Form 20, improving FATD response times, limiting NICS alerts, and allowing electronic signatures on NFA forms.

Those are the right categories. But gun owners should judge the administration by results, not slogans.

A classification board is only useful if it stops ATF from making secret law. A simplified Form 4473 is only useful if the agency stops treating harmless paperwork errors like crimes. Faster response times only matter if the answers are clear, binding, and consistent.

The rule should be simple: if Congress did not ban it, ATF does not get to invent a ban.

DOJ Cannot Be Pro-Gun in Press Releases and Anti-Gun in Court

This is the biggest issue. The Trump DOJ deserves credit when it repeals bad policy. It deserves credit when it backs away from defending Biden’s “engaged in the business” rule. It deserves credit for ending zero tolerance.

But it also deserves criticism when it keeps defending Biden-era rules, asks courts for more time, or tries to preserve ATF power while promising gun owners reform.

The Biden administration weaponized ATF against gun owners, dealers, builders, and the firearms industry. The Trump administration now has a chance to do more than slow that machine down. It can dismantle it.

That means repealing the frames-and-receivers rule. It means removing the pistol brace rule. It means rescinding the “engaged in the business” rule. It means making the end of zero tolerance permanent.

And it means destroying the ATF’s backdoor gun registry.

Gun owners do not want a friendlier custodian for a billion-record database of private firearm purchases. They do not want DOJ promising that this administration will not abuse the information. They want the information gone.

If the registry is illegal, destroy it. If the rules are unconstitutional, repeal them. If DOJ lawyers are still defending Biden’s anti-gun theories in court, fire them and replace them with constitutionalists.

Voters did not put Trump back in office so the DOJ could manage Biden’s gun-control machine more politely. They expected that machine to be taken apart.

President Trump’s Second Amendment Accomplishments Second Term

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/8aEGh3Y
via IFTTT

Judge Reverses James O’Keefe Firearms Ban After Newsroom Gun Seizure

James O’Keefe said a Florida judge removed firearm surrender provisions after law enforcement collected his guns from his West Palm Beach newsroom. iStock-901659046

A Florida judge has overturned the firearms prohibition placed on journalist James O’Keefe just one day after West Palm Beach police entered his newsroom headquarters and confiscated all of his firearms.

O’Keefe announced the victory on social media. “Judge Marie E. Mato has just OVERTURNED the firearms prohibition placed upon me in the state of Florida,” O’Keefe wrote. “Order forthcoming. At a hearing in Miami this morning, the Judge Mato stated: ‘Mr. O’Keefe you are free to pickup your firearms in West Palm Beach at the Sheriff’s Office.'”

Judge Marie E. Mato has just OVERTURNED the firearms prohibition placed upon me in the state of Florida.

Order forthcoming. At a hearing in Miami this morning, the Judge Mato stated:

“Mr. O’Keefe you are free to pickup your firearms in West Palm Beach at the Sheriff’s Office.”…

— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) April 24, 2026

Judge Marie E. Mato acknowledged O’Keefe’s compliance with the prior order despite his objections. “I appreciate your compliance Mr. O’Keefe with this court’s order despite your objection,” Judge Mato said. “But I’m deleting those provisions.”

The episode stems from a bitter dispute between O’Keefe and Matthew Tyrmand, a former Project Veritas board member. In February 2026, O’Keefe released undercover footage in which Tyrmand allegedly admitted to being an FBI informant against conservative organizations and made statements about wanting to kill O’Keefe. The footage also showed Tyrmand having shot rifle bullets through a physical copy of O’Keefe’s book Breakthrough, through the image of O’Keefe’s heart on the cover.

Rather than face legal consequences for these statements, Tyrmand filed a domestic violence stalking temporary restraining order against O’Keefe in Miami-Dade family court. O’Keefe has described the move as a “heckler’s veto” and a form of legal harassment.

A Miami-Dade family court judge initially granted and later extended the restraining order. The order included a firearm surrender provision compelling O’Keefe to disclose and hand over all of his weapons. On the evening of April 23, West Palm Beach Police entered O’Keefe’s newsroom at his O’Keefe Media Group headquarters and physically confiscated all of his firearms. O’Keefe livestreamed and documented the entire event.

O’Keefe’s attorneys immediately sought emergency relief. They argued that Florida law and U.S. Supreme Court precedent do not permit firearm confiscation based on mere hunches without evidence of a credible direct threat. “In Florida law, it’s very clear, it’s consistent with what the Supreme Court has said about this,” O’Keefe’s attorney Benjamin Barr explained. “You can’t just deprive people of firearms based on hunches and guesses.”

The very next day, Judge Marie Mato held a hearing in Miami and reversed the firearms prohibition. She ordered O’Keefe’s guns returned to him at the West Palm Beach Sheriff’s Office.

O’Keefe’s legal team called the ruling a Second Amendment victory, explicitly linking the case to the Supreme Court standard that firearm rights cannot be stripped absent a real, credible, demonstrated threat of violence.  However, the broader restraining order remains in place. This includes First Amendment restrictions on O’Keefe’s continued investigative reporting. His team has filed an emergency appeal and emergency stay, citing the First Amendment.

O’Keefe has invoked landmark First Amendment cases including Near v. Minnesota and New York Times v. United States, calling the injunction unconstitutional prior restraint against a newsroom.

The broader Second Amendment community has raised concerns that red flag gun confiscation orders can be used to strip gun rights from people who have not committed any crime and against whom no credible direct threat has been established. Gun Owners of America and the Second Amendment Foundation have been extremely active in 2026, challenging firearm confiscations tied to restraining orders and red flag procedures.

The O’Keefe case serves as a stark reminder that threats to Second Amendment rights exist in every state, including those with reputations for being gun-friendly. Florida may have strong firearms protections on the books, but civil court mechanisms like temporary restraining orders can still be weaponized to strip law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights without any criminal charge or conviction.

Gun owners across America should recognize that the battle for the Second Amendment is never truly won and that vigilance is required, whether you live in a red state or a blue state. The legal infrastructure for disarmament exists everywhere, and only constant pushback prevents it from being used against you.

Gun Owners Had It in Their Power to Defeat Virginia Redistricting at the Polls

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/0ZfAGqp
via IFTTT

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

Attorneys in one of three cases challenging registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled rifles have filed for summary judgment. It’s the latest move to remove NFA restrictions. Image Duncan Johnson

Attorneys representing the plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA) have filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Covington Division, one of three legal actions now in progress seeking to undo registration requirements for short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and suppressors (“silencers”).

The case is known as Roberts v. ATF, and it is supported by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), which is involved as a plaintiff in a separate legal action known as Brown v. ATF. There is also a third case supported by SAF, known as Jensen v. ATF.

All three legal actions are grounded in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” passed last summer, which eliminated the $200 tax on certain classes of firearms, including SBRs and suppressors.

According to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, “We have the best opportunity in almost a century to end the registration scheme for silencers and short-barreled rifles under the NFA.”

Gottlieb said SAF has seized the moment—a “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” in his words—to support three separate cases challenging the NFA all at the same time. He expressed confidence that SAF and other plaintiffs will prevail.

The cast of characters includes quite a lineup.

• In the Brown case, filed in Missouri, plaintiffs, in addition to SAF, are Chris Brown, for whom the case is named, plus Allen Mayville, Prime Protection STL, the National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association, and the Firearms Policy Coalition.
• In the Jensen case, filed in Texas, plaintiffs are John Jensen, for whom the case is named, plus the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, FPC Action Foundation, Hot Shots Custom, the Texas State Rifle Association, plus citizens Jeremy Neusch and David Lynn Smith.
• The Roberts case involves T.J. Roberts, Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (JPFO), the American Suppressor Association Foundation, Buckeye Firearms Association, Center for Human Liberty, Meridian Ordnance, and Zachary Cockrell. JPFO is a project of the Second Amendment Foundation.

At stake in all of these cases is the chance to erase a registration requirement dating back to the 1930s, when the National Firearms Act was passed. Because the $200 tax was eliminated by Trump’s legislation last year, the requirement should be null because the tax justifying registration no longer exists.

Attorney Bill Sack, SAF director of Legal Operations, said in a prepared statement, “As we’ve stated in each of our three National Firearms Act challenges, Congress lacks the authority to continue requiring the registration of protected arms under the NFA. The Court has everything they need to put this case to bed and end this infringement on the rights of Americans nationwide.”

Back in August 2025, when SAF and its partners filed the Brown case, SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut explained the principle behind each lawsuit.

“The National Firearms Act’s registration scheme only exists to ensure that the tax on NFA firearms was paid,” Kraut said. “With Congress removing the tax on silencers, short-barreled firearms, and ‘any other weapons,’ the continued inclusion of these items in the NFA serves no purpose, except continuing to retain an impermissible hurdle to the exercise of one’s constitutional right to keep and bear arms. We look forward to relegating this unconstitutional law to the history books.”

The motion for summary judgment in the Roberts case is just the latest strategic step in the process. With cases in three separate circuits, it should be impossible for the Supreme Court to ignore, should these cases advance to that level.

In February, the NRA noted in a statement about the Roberts case, “The complaint also asserts that the NFA’s registration regime for suppressors and short-barreled rifles violates the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court has established that any regulation on arms-bearing conduct must be consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. And, the complaint argues, there is no tradition that supports the NFA’s registration regime for protected arms such as suppressors and short-barreled rifles.”

Under federal law, a rifle with a barrel shorter than 16 inches, or certain firearms made from rifles with an overall length under 26 inches, is treated as a short-barreled rifle and remains subject to the NFA’s registration regime. Plaintiffs argue that SBRs are protected arms commonly possessed for lawful purposes and that the government cannot keep a tax-enforcement registration scheme in place after Congress reduced the relevant tax to zero.

Last August, Knox Williams, president and executive director of the American Suppressor Association, noted, “The National Firearms Act has been a weight around the neck of law-abiding gun owners for nearly a century. With the elimination of the excise tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs through the One Big Beautiful Bill, our lawsuit challenges the NFA as an unconstitutional registry of now untaxed firearms. Common sense and the law are on our side, and we look forward to fighting on behalf of all Americans in Federal Court.”

Likewise, NRA’s John Cummerford stated, “Congress took a major step by eliminating the NFA tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms through the OBBB, and we’re proud to work alongside other leading Second Amendment organizations to finish the job.”

FPC President Brandon Combs called the NFA a “tyrannical abomination.” He said the law violates the Second Amendment and asserted, “Congress never had the lawful authority to pass it in the first place.”

Any case, or all three cases combined, successfully challenging the constitutionality of the NFA would literally set the gun control movement on its ears, and dramatically change the legal landscape where the Second Amendment is concerned. This is what makes these cases so important, and why both sides in the gun rights v. gun control battle are watching them closely.

Eleventh Circuit Says Machine Guns Are Not Protected by the Second Amendment

---

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/YKMsIVt
via IFTTT

D.C. Gun Laws Failed Again at the Washington Hilton

A suspect allegedly passed through California’s strict gun-control system, reached an equally restrictive Washington, D.C., and attacked a protected political event. So why are gun-control advocates demanding more restrictions on everyone else? iStock-876515334

Washington, D.C., has spent more than a century proving the same lesson the gun-control lobby refuses to learn: criminals, assassins, and would-be killers do not stop because a city council, legislature, or Congress passed another weapons law.

The latest reminder came at the Washington Hilton, the same hotel where John Hinckley Jr. shot President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

During the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner on April 25, 2026, a suspect allegedly tried to breach security while President Donald Trump, First Lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance, Cabinet officials, journalists, and other guests were inside. According to Reuters, the hotel said the event was operating under strict Secret Service protocols when the suspect bypassed a checkpoint on the floor above the dinner and opened fire with a shotgun. A Secret Service agent was wounded, reportedly protected by a ballistic vest, and the suspect was arrested before reaching the ballroom.

The gun control crowd responded the same way it always does. They demanded more restrictions on the people who did not commit the crime.

CNN’s Brian Stelter quickly used the attack to complain that there would not be any “substantive discussion about access to weapons.” The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms was not impressed.

“In an analysis, CNN’s Brian Stelter insinuated that nobody will consider tougher gun laws to prevent such an incident,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “He should have looked at the facts before going off half-cocked.”

Gottlieb pointed out that the suspect reportedly purchased the shotgun and a handgun from two different California gun stores. The Washington Post, citing an FBI affidavit, reported that the suspect legally purchased the firearms in California in 2023 and 2025.

“He had to pass two California background checks and endure two separate waiting periods,” Gottlieb said. “It is widely known California has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country, and the suspect was able to complete his legal purchases. Just what more does Stelter think could be done?”

California already has the background checks, waiting periods, gun restrictions, ammunition restrictions, and political class the anti-gun movement keeps trying to impose everywhere else. Washington, D.C., already has the registration laws, carry restrictions, and gun control bureaucracy they insist will make people safe.

Yet a determined attacker still allegedly traveled across the country with weapons, showed up at a protected political event, and tried to get past armed security in the nation’s capital.

Even Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche resisted the media’s rush to turn the attack into another legislative gun-control push. On CBS’s Face the Nation, Margaret Brennan pressed Blanche about whether the federal government should consider new rules after the suspect reportedly traveled from California to D.C. by train with multiple weapons.

“Look, this isn’t about, in my mind, changing the law or making the laws more restrictive around possession of firearms,” Blanche said.

When Brennan continued pressing the train-travel angle, Blanche again pushed back.

“I don’t think the narrative here is about changing laws or making our laws more restrictive,” he said. “This is about law enforcement who are doing their jobs and a suspect who tried to do something and failed miserably.”

Even after an armed attack at a high-profile political event in Washington, D.C., the acting attorney general was not willing to pretend another layer of gun laws was the obvious answer. Blanche said investigators were still working to determine how the suspect got the guns, whether he got them legally, and what additional federal charges may apply. But he made clear the immediate lesson was not “pass another gun law.” The immediate lesson was that Secret Service and law enforcement stopped the attack before the suspect got near the President or anyone else in the room.

Washington, D.C., already has the kind of gun laws they keep demanding for the rest of the country. D.C. law generally requires firearms to be registered. No person or organization in the District may possess or control a firearm without a valid registration certificate, subject to limited exceptions. D.C. law also makes it illegal to carry a pistol openly or concealed in the District without a D.C. carry license.

So what exactly did those laws stop?

They did not stop a determined attacker from showing up armed. They did not stop him from trying to get past security. They did not stop the first shot. What stopped him, according to the available reporting, was not a registration certificate, a carry ban, a waiting period, or a background check. It was armed people already on scene, ready to meet violent force with immediate force.

Gun control advocates treat the law-abiding citizen as the problem because the law-abiding citizen is the only person their laws can reliably control. The criminal who is willing to commit attempted murder, attack federal officers, or target a public event is not deterred by a paperwork requirement.

If the suspect purchased firearms legally in California, then he already passed through the very system gun-control activists claim will prevent these attacks.

California’s gun laws did not stop him. D.C.’s gun laws did not stop him. Armed, prepared people did.

Assassination attempts of U.S. Presidents in Washington, D.C. are unfortunately nothing new. Gun laws have always disarmed the law-abiding, while allowing violent criminals like John Wilkes Booth, Charles Guiteau, and John Hinckley Jr. to commit horrible crimes.

President Abraham Lincoln was shot at Ford’s Theatre in 1865, inside the old City of Washington. The city had already enacted an 1858 ordinance prohibiting the concealed carrying of pistols, dirks, Bowie knives, and other dangerous weapons. Yet John Wilkes Booth still carried a pistol into the theater and murdered the President.

President James A. Garfield was shot in 1881 at the Baltimore and Potomac Railroad Station in Washington, D.C. By then, the District had a 1871 law prohibiting the carrying of concealed deadly or dangerous weapons, including pistols, within the District. Yet Charles Guiteau still carried a revolver and shot the President.

President Ronald Reagan was shot in 1981 outside the Washington Hilton. By that time, D.C. had already adopted one of the harshest handgun-control schemes in the country. Yet John Hinckley Jr. still got a revolver to the scene and nearly killed a President.

Another interesting note is that the first two would also have been immune from magazine restrictions, semi-auto bans, and numerous other proposed gun control legislation. A person determined to commit violence will do so by any means necessary, gun control or no.

Now, in 2026, the Washington Hilton is again the scene of a violent attack in a city already buried under layers of gun laws.

The pattern is hard to miss.

Gun control does not disarm violent criminals. It disarms the peaceable. It creates soft targets. It tells ordinary citizens to obey, wait, hide, and hope someone else with a gun arrives in time.

Gottlieb put the focus where it belongs: on the attacker and on the hateful political climate surrounding the attempt.

“President Trump referred to the suspect as a ‘whack job’ and after reading his manifesto, that description seems appropriate,” Gottlieb observed. “That’s not to suggest this guy should be allowed to plead insanity, because his writings show he was in complete control of his faculties. He appears to be someone consumed by the vile, hate-filled rhetoric that’s been used against Donald Trump for more than ten years. This was not some spur-of-the-moment act.”

That point is worth sitting with. Tens of millions of American gun owners went through that weekend without shooting anyone, threatening anyone, or attempting to assassinate anyone. They did what they do every day: went to work, raised their families, carried responsibly where legal, and harmed no one.

“Tens of millions of gun owners—people whose rights too many in the media seem to disdain—didn’t hurt anyone Saturday night,” Gottlieb said. “We watched in shock with everyone else, as a California teacher, obviously overwhelmed by fanatical anti-Trump demagoguery, attempt to kill people. He will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but what about those who continue to spread their invective, hoping some harm comes to the president?”

That is the conversation media figures do not want to have. It is easier to blame guns than to examine a political culture that has spent years painting Donald Trump and his supporters as existential threats who must be stopped by any means necessary.

When the threat is seconds away, the answer is not another ordinance, another registration rule, another carry restriction, another waiting period, or another politician promising that the next law will work where the last hundred failed. The answer is immediate armed resistance from someone capable of stopping the threat before more innocent people are hurt.

At the Washington Hilton, that role fell to armed federal law enforcement. In the rest of America, it is often the armed citizen, the concealed carrier, the homeowner, the store clerk, the church volunteer, or the parent who refuses to be helpless.

That is why the Second Amendment matters. It is not a government-granted privilege for ideal conditions. It is a constitutional protection for the real world, where police cannot be everywhere, security checkpoints can be breached, and violent criminals do not care what the statute book says.

Proponents of gun control should stop hiding behind the claim that one more law, another infringement, or restriction is what they are looking for. They will not be satisfied until they have banned civilian ownership entirely.

The gun-control lobby will look at Washington, D.C., and demand more of what failed. Gun owners should look at the same facts and draw the obvious conclusion: laws that burden only the law-abiding do not stop evil men. Armed, prepared people do.

That was true in 1865. It was true in 1881. It was true in 1981. And it is still true today.

Virginia’s Assault Weapons Bills Head Back to Governor’s Desk Without Modification

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/Q3j28wV
via IFTTT