Maryland Defends Glock Ban by Treating Common Pistols Like Machine Guns

Maryland is defending SB 334, which will block future sales and transfers of many Glock and Glock-style pistols beginning January 1, 2027. IMG Duncan Johnson

The constitutional fight over Maryland’s Glock ban comes down to one question: Can the state ban law-abiding citizens from acquiring some of America’s most popular handguns because criminals can illegally modify them with an already-prohibited machinegun conversion device?

Gun-rights groups say the answer is clearly no. Maryland now says Glock-style pistols can be treated differently from other semiautomatic handguns because of what they could become after an illegal modification.

That dispute is at the center of Bathras v. Moore, the federal Second Amendment challenge to Maryland Senate Bill 334.

Amended Complaint Adds Maryland Gun Owners and Dealer

AmmoLand covered the original lawsuit after the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation sued Gov. Wes Moore and other Maryland officials on May 26—the same day Moore signed SB 334. That immediate filing leaves Maryland’s newly asserted laches defense, which requires unreasonable and prejudicial delay, with no apparent factual basis.

A June 25 amended complaint added Maryland residents David J. Bathras Sr. and Roslyn Mickens, along with Atlantic Guns in Rockville. The case is now captioned Bathras v. Moore.

Bathras owns a Glock and wants to purchase additional Glock-style pistols. He also wants to retain the ability to sell or transfer his current handgun through lawful channels. Mickens is a registered gun collector and licensed firearms instructor who also wants to acquire covered pistols.

Atlantic Guns has sold firearms in Maryland since 1950. The dealer says the law will force it to stop stocking and selling a substantial category of popular defensive handguns.

These plaintiffs are challenging a law that directly prevents them from buying, selling and transferring arms they otherwise may lawfully possess.

Maryland’s Ban Targets Factory-Built Semiautomatic Pistols

Beginning January 1, 2027, SB 334 prohibits ordinary Marylanders from manufacturing, selling, purchasing, receiving or transferring what the state calls a “machine gun convertible pistol.”

The definition targets semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can supposedly be converted into a machinegun by replacing the slide’s backplate with a pistol converter. That language is expected to cover nearly every Glock, along with Glock-pattern pistols such as the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, Ruger RXM and many Shadow Systems handguns.

A first offense can bring up to three years in prison, a $5,000 fine or both.

A factory Glock is not a machinegun. It fires one round per function of the trigger. Making it fire automatically requires someone to install an illegal conversion device or otherwise unlawfully alter the firearm.

Federal law already treats the conversion device itself as a machinegun. Maryland also bans pistol converters as “rapid fire activators.” Neither prohibition is being challenged. The lawsuit is about whether Maryland can ban the unmodified handgun because someone could attach a separate piece of contraband to it. As the amended complaint states:

“That is a handgun ban. The fact that the ban targets only one category of popular handguns does not make it constitutional.”

Plaintiffs Say Heller Protects Glock-Style Pistols

The plaintiffs’ Second Amendment argument begins with District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court held that handguns are at the core of the right to armed self-defense and that commonly possessed firearms cannot be banned as “dangerous and unusual.”

Glock pistols are plainly common. The amended complaint cites sales rankings, ATF production figures, civilian market data and widespread law-enforcement use. It alleges that Glock manufactured more than half a million handguns for the American market in 2021 alone, before imported pistols are even counted.

The complaint also notes that Glock pistols are widely issued to police—including Baltimore officers. Maryland considers these handguns suitable for police defensive use while attempting to block ordinary citizens from buying the same basic firearms.

Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the plaintiffs argue, the analysis is straightforward. Glock and Glock-style pistols are bearable arms. Buying and acquiring them is necessary to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Maryland must therefore prove that its ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The amended complaint says no such tradition exists.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Aimpoint COA Optic - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 885.20
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - AmeriGlo Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 592.30
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - GLOCK Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 565.68
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Fixed Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 513.65

Maryland Says Glocks Are Different

Maryland’s July 13 answer disputes the plaintiffs’ central claim that Glock-style pistols are not meaningfully different from other semiautomatic handguns.

The state instead says certain Glocks are “semiautomatic firearms that are capable of being fully automatic weapons.”

That appears to be the foundation of Maryland’s Second Amendment defense: These pistols can be singled out because their design allegedly makes illegal conversion easier.

But the state’s wording blurs the difference between a lawful factory pistol and the machinegun created after someone installs an illegal conversion device. The converter is not part of the unmodified handgun. Glock does not manufacture the illegal switches, and neither do the manufacturers of Glock-pattern pistols.

The government cannot turn a legal handgun into a machinegun on paper by pointing to an illegal part that is not installed. By that logic, an AR-15 could be banned because illegal auto sears exist, or a shotgun could be prohibited because a criminal might cut down its barrel.

The constitutional analysis should concern the arm as lawfully manufactured and possessed—not a hypothetical contraband configuration.

Maryland Avoids the Common-Use Evidence

Maryland also refuses to concede that Glock pistols are among the most commonly owned handguns in America.

When responding to the complaint’s allegations about Glock’s market share, production numbers, sales rankings and law-enforcement use, the state repeatedly says it is “without knowledge or information.”

That is a remarkable position for a government defending a sweeping firearm ban. Maryland knew enough about Glock pistols to prohibit their future sale and transfer, but it now declines to acknowledge public evidence showing just how common they are.

Common use is central because Maryland cannot plausibly call a firearm “unusual” when millions are owned for lawful purposes. A handgun does not lose Second Amendment protection simply because anti-gun legislators give it a menacing new name.

The Supreme Court reinforced that point in Wolford v. Lopez. At the plain-text stage, the question is whether the regulated weapon is an “Arm.” Maryland cannot avoid that threshold by relabeling an ordinary semiautomatic pistol a “machine gun convertible pistol.”

Maryland Has Not Offered a Historical Tradition

Maryland’s answer says Bruen “speaks for itself,” but the filing identifies no Founding-era or Reconstruction-era tradition of banning ordinary handguns because criminals might illegally modify them.

The state may present a fuller historical argument in later briefs. An answer is not ordinarily where the government lays out its entire constitutional defense. Still, Maryland has now made clear where the parties disagree.

The plaintiffs say Glock-style pistols are common semiautomatic handguns protected by Heller and Bruen. Maryland says their potential for illegal conversion makes them different.

That leaves the court with a basic choice: Judge the handgun as it lawfully exists, or allow Maryland to ban it based on a crime somebody might commit with a separate illegal device.

The Second Amendment protects the actual firearm in the citizen’s holster—not the imaginary machinegun Maryland politicians have constructed around it.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor 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/GMaK2gD
via IFTTT

Delaware Keeps Fighting to Ban Guns for Adults Under 21

In the federal challenge to HB 451, Delaware argues that binding Third Circuit precedent protecting young adults does not control restrictions on buying and possessing firearms. iStock-2217396059

Delaware is asking a federal judge to keep Birney v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, the federal challenge to the state’s under-21 gun ban, on hold.

In a July 13 filing, state officials opposed the Birney plaintiffs’ request to reopen proceedings over House Bill 451. That law was written to prohibit most adults ages 18 to 20 from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling firearms and ammunition, subject to limited exceptions.

The immediate question before U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews is procedural: Should the federal case remain frozen while Delaware continues defending HB 451 in state court?

Delaware says it should. The state also argues that Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, the Third Circuit’s major ruling recognizing the Second Amendment rights of adults under 21, does not control the Birney case.

Its reason is the heart of this latest filing. Lara involved public carry, Delaware says, while Birney challenges restrictions on purchasing and possessing firearms.

That is a hard argument to square with reality. A person cannot keep a firearm he is forbidden to possess, and he cannot bear one the government prevents him from acquiring in the first place.

Delaware Wants the Federal Case Kept on Ice

HB 451 was written to prohibit most adults under 21 from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling firearms and ammunition, subject to limited exceptions.

As AmmoLand previously reported, Delaware Superior Court Judge Reneta L. Green-Streett ruled in August 2025 that the age-based restrictions violate Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. She granted summary judgment to Gavin Birney, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, and the Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club.

Delaware appealed that loss. The challengers cross-appealed, asking the Delaware Supreme Court to address the federal Second Amendment claim under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework.

Meanwhile, the parallel federal case, Birney v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, has been stayed since 2023. On July 10, the federal plaintiffs asked Judge Andrews for a status conference and requested that the stay be lifted.

Delaware’s response was essentially: keep waiting.

The state wants the federal case held until the Delaware Supreme Court proceedings conclude. It has also requested that the state appeal be sent back for expert reports and an evidentiary hearing concerning Delaware’s concealed-deadly-weapon licensing system.

Delaware argues that adults ages 18 to 20 who obtain a concealed-carry license are exempt from HB 451’s criminal penalties. That exception may narrow the law’s reach, but it does not change the law’s starting point: an entire class of adult citizens is prohibited unless they qualify for a government-approved escape hatch.

An exception to a ban is not the same thing as a right.

Lara Is Binding, Even If Delaware Dislikes Its Reach

The Third Circuit’s published 2025 decision in Lara held that adults ages 18 to 20 are presumptively among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

The court also examined Founding-era militia laws requiring young men to acquire arms and report for service. That history showed that young adults were expected to be armed, not treated as a prohibited class until their 21st birthdays.

AmmoLand covered the Third Circuit victory and its subsequent refusal to rehear the case en banc.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court denied Pennsylvania’s petition, leaving the Third Circuit judgment intact. That denial did not turn Lara into a nationwide ruling. It did, however, leave Lara as a binding precedent inside the Third Circuit, which includes Delaware.

Lara did not directly decide on a purchase-and-possession ban. The state cannot ignore Lara’s holdings that 18-to-20-year-olds are protected adults and that Founding-era history does not support treating them as a disarmed class.

Delaware’s filing instead points to out-of-circuit decisions upholding other age restrictions, emphasizing that the Supreme Court recently declined to hear appeals from those cases.

A certiorari denial is not a Supreme Court endorsement. It decides only that the justices will not hear that particular appeal. Those out-of-circuit decisions remain persuasive authority in Delaware, while Lara remains binding authority.

You Cannot Keep What You Cannot Acquire

Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros reacted to Delaware’s argument on X, calling the theory that acquiring firearms receives less protection “unserious.”

His point is straightforward. The Second Amendment does not merely prohibit the complete elimination of firearm ownership. It says the right shall not be infringed.

The Tenth Circuit made the same point in Ortega v. Grisham, a case involving New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period:

“One cannot keep or bear arms if one cannot acquire them.”

The court in Ortega rejected the threshold claim that firearm acquisition somehow falls outside the Second Amendment simply because the word “purchase” does not appear in the text.

The right to acquire arms is necessarily connected to keeping and bearing them. Otherwise, a state could destroy the right while pretending it had never technically prohibited “keeping” or “bearing.”

This argument that acquiring firearms is somehow not a right or less protected because the Second Amendment only applies to the literal “keeping” or “bearing” of arms has always been unserious.

Perhaps if the Second Amendment said “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be… https://t.co/JPPyHzQXaD

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) July 13, 2026

Delaware’s Filing Does Not Discuss Reese

Delaware cites decisions from other circuits that upheld age restrictions, but its July 13 filing does not discuss the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Reese v. ATF.

That case is particularly relevant because it involved a federal prohibition on licensed dealers selling handguns to adults under 21. The Fifth Circuit held that the right to keep and bear arms “surely implies the right to purchase them” and found no adequate Founding-era tradition supporting the restriction.

Reese is not binding in Delaware, but neither are the pro-restriction decisions Delaware wants Judge Andrews to consider. It demonstrates that the appellate disagreement is hardly one-sided, and it addresses firearm acquisition far more directly than Lara does.

A Broader Ban Demands More History, Not Less

Delaware’s basic theory turns the breadth of HB 451 into a defense. The state says Lara involved carrying a firearm during an emergency, while HB 451 involves purchasing and possessing one. But HB 451’s broader reach should require a stronger historical justification, not weaker constitutional protection.

Under Bruen, Delaware bears the burden of identifying a historical tradition supporting its restriction. Expert reports can explain that history. They cannot manufacture a Founding-era tradition that did not exist.

Judge Andrews has not yet ruled on whether the federal case will remain stayed. The July 13 filing is Delaware’s request, not a court decision.

Still, the state’s strategy is plain. It wants the federal challenge delayed while asking courts to confine Lara to the narrowest possible box.

Adults do not fall out of “the people” when they step off the sidewalk and into a gun store. If Delaware wants to disarm them, it must justify that policy with Founding-era history, not modern preferences and not a stack of certiorari denials.

---

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/Ljo6QXf
via IFTTT

GOA Sues Pennsylvania After Veteran Denied Carry License Over 1994 Marijuana Conviction

GOA and GOF are challenging Pennsylvania’s lifetime denial of a carry license to Air Force veteran Craig Philips over a minor marijuana conviction from 1994. iStock-2196791813

In light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Hemani, Gun Owners of America (GOA) has filed a lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania law that permanently bars residents with a minor misdemeanor drug conviction from obtaining a license to carry a firearm.

The case centers on Pennsylvania resident and United States Air Force veteran Craig Phillips. In 1994, Phillips was arrested and convicted for possessing a small amount of marijuana. His offense occurred long before shifting public attitudes led many states to reduce or eliminate penalties for cannabis possession.

The lawsuit, Philips v. Bivens, attacks a Pennsylvania statute that permanently denies a License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) to anyone convicted of an offense under the state’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act—even when the offense was minor, nonviolent, and committed decades ago.

A 1994 Misdemeanor Became a Lifetime Carry Ban

Phillips has not used any drugs since that single incident more than three decades ago. Yet Pennsylvania’s outdated law has stripped him of his constitutionally protected right to bear arms ever since. Despite evolving public opinion and scientific understanding of cannabis, the Commonwealth has refused to modernize its statutes. Now, this law-abiding gun owner and longtime GOA member has teamed up with the organization to sue and restore his God-given Second Amendment rights.

In 2024, Philips applied for a Pennsylvania carry license in Butler County. His application was denied solely because of the 1994 marijuana conviction. That denial does more than prevent Philips from carrying concealed. Without an LTCF, Pennsylvania law substantially restricts his ability to carry a handgun in a vehicle, carry openly or concealed in Philadelphia, or remain armed on public property during a declared emergency.

In other words, Pennsylvania allows Philips to own a handgun but blocks him from practically bearing that handgun for self-defense throughout much of his daily life.

Hemani Puts Pennsylvania on the Defensive

The timing of the lawsuit is no coincidence. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling in Hemani. That case addressed a federal law criminalizing firearm ownership by “unlawful users” of marijuana. Prior to the decision, it was a federal offense for individuals to possess guns while being classified as unlawful marijuana users, even if their use was infrequent or in the distant past.

The Supreme Court took up the case after the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal prohibition was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court struck down the restriction.

Under the Bruen test, courts must first examine whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue.

In Hemani, the plaintiff was indisputably a member of “the people”—the class protected by the Amendment—having reached the age of majority. The same holds true for Phillips. The conduct in Hemani involved keeping arms, while Phillips seeks to exercise the right to bear arms. Both are explicitly protected by the Second Amendment’s text.

The second step of the Bruen analysis shifts the burden to the government to demonstrate that the challenged law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This requires the state to identify relevant historical analogues, typically from the Founding era.

In Hemani, the government’s primary analogues were racist “Black Codes” enacted during the Reconstruction era to disarm newly freed Black citizens. The Supreme Court soundly rejected these as improper historical comparators. Instead, the justices noted that many of the Founding Fathers themselves consumed alcohol regularly, sometimes heavily, without forfeiting their right to keep and bear arms. The unanimous decision made clear that only those who are actively intoxicated can have their rights restricted on that basis. Passive or historical drug use does not justify a lifetime ban.

Pennsylvania Must Produce the History

This ruling creates a significant roadblock for Pennsylvania in defending its law. The Commonwealth will struggle to produce Founding-era analogues that support permanently disarming someone for a decades-old minor misdemeanor. Legal experts believe Phillips v. Bivens could become one of the first major cases to apply the Hemani standard to strike down a state-level restriction.

Beyond historical analogues, Pennsylvania faces another glaring inconsistency: the state already deems individuals like Phillips safe enough to own firearms, yet it prohibits them from carrying those same firearms for self-defense. This distinction lacks logical or constitutional support under the Bruen framework, which treats the right to keep and bear arms as a unified whole.

GOA’s involvement underscores the organization’s commitment to defending the rights of veterans and everyday Americans against government overreach. For Phillips, this lawsuit represents more than just legal advocacy—it is a fight to reclaim a fundamental liberty denied for over 30 years because of one youthful mistake.

The outcome of Phillips v. Bivens could have far-reaching implications. A victory would not only restore Phillips’ rights but also set a powerful precedent for challenging similar restrictions across the country. As post-Bruen and post-Hemani litigation continues to reshape the legal landscape, courts are increasingly forcing states to justify their gun control measures with history rather than modern policy preferences.

Gun rights advocates see this as a critical step toward ensuring that the Second Amendment’s protections are not eroded by outdated statutes or selective enforcement. For veterans like Craig Phillips, who served their country honorably, the right to self-defense should not end with a decades-old minor conviction.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/W1sDtd3
via IFTTT

Silence Is Defeat: Why Gun Owners Must Flood ATF Comment Dockets Now

Gun owners can use ATF public comment periods to build the legal record against bad regulations and support pro-Second Amendment rollbacks. IMG Jim Grant

We’ve all seen the headlines. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) announce a new proposed rule change. Under hostile administrations, these rules threaten to turn millions of law-abiding citizens into felons overnight. Under pro-Second Amendment leadership, they are common-sense rollbacks of bureaucratic red tape designed to relieve heavily burdened Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) and gun owners.

Yet, a dangerous myth quietly circulates within the Second Amendment community: “The ATF is going to do whatever they want anyway, so why bother writing a comment?”

Let’s set the record straight right now. That defeatist attitude is exactly how we lose.

If we remain silent when a public comment window is open, we hand the anti-gun lobby an uncontested victory. Your voice is a critical weapon in this administrative dogfight, here is exactly how the system works, why it matters, and how we use it to win.

This Isn’t a Vote—It’s a Legal Paper Trail

When the ATF proposes a rule change, federal law requires them to open the docket to public scrutiny. Many gun owners mistake this for a popularity contest or a simple digital ballot box. It isn’t. The ATF doesn’t just tally up the “yes” and “no” votes to declare a winner.

Instead, the agency is strictly bound by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Under the APA, regulators are legally mandated to read, analyze, and address every single unique, substantive argument submitted.

This creates a high-stakes dynamic depending on which way a rule is cut:

• For Restrictive Rules: If anti-gun organizations flood the registry while we stay silent, the administrative record becomes completely one-sided. The ATF will use that uncontested noise as empirical justification to push through crushing restrictions.
• For Favorable (Deregulatory) Rules: If a pro-Second Amendment administration proposes rolling back red tape but gun owners don’t show up to support it, hostile groups will dominate the docket, forcing the agency to withdraw the proposal entirely due to “overwhelming public opposition.”

But when we flood the portal with high-quality, unique, and legally sound comments, we build a wall of resistance. If a hostile ATF tries to ram a bad rule through anyway while ignoring our valid, detailed objections, they hand us the ultimate weapon. Our comments become the exact, undeniable evidence pro-gun attorneys use in federal court to strike the rule down as “arbitrary and capricious.”

Proof from the Front Lines: How Comments Sink Rules

If you think public comments lack teeth, look no further than the massive victory that just occurred on July 6, 2026.

The ATF attempted a bureaucratic shortcut by pushing through a “direct final rule” regarding Licensee “eZ Check” Verification (Docket No. ATF-2026-0009). This fast-tracks process allows the agency to bypass standard administrative hurdles unless they receive adverse public comments.

1.The Fast-Track Attempt: June 2026.

The ATF issued a direct final rule to quietly alter the eZ Check system, assuming it would slide through without major friction.

2.The Opposition Flood: Open Window.

Gun control groups and hostile commenters flooded the federal register, lodging massive, coordinated opposition during the open window.

3.The Agency Capitulation: July 6, 2026.

The ATF officially broke. Recognizing the legal barrier created by the adverse comments, they published a formal notice withdrawing the rule entirely.

This proves the mechanics of the playbook work and right now, the stakes are higher than ever. Under Director Robert Cekada, the ATF has proposed nearly three dozen regulatory rollbacks, including crucial efforts to undo the highly restrictive “engaged in the business” and stabilizing brace rules.

Gun-control apparatuses like Everytown and Giffords are actively using this exact blueprint to bury these pro-gun rollbacks in hostile commentary. If we stay silent and let them dominate the dockets, they will kill these pro-gun rollbacks before they ever see the light of day.

How to Write a Comment That Cuts Through the Noise

Form letters and copy-pasted templates have their place for showing bulk numbers, but agency lawyers can easily bucket thousands of identical entries into a single generic response. To make your comment count double, you must make it unique.

• State Your Credibility: Start by explaining who you are. Are you a competitive shooter, a veteran, a hunter, an FFL holder, or a self-defense advocate?
• Focus on Real-World Impact: Explain exactly how the proposed rule impacts you practically or financially. Will it cost you compliance fees? Will it force you to destroy or register legally acquired property? Will it slow down your business operations? Lived experience is highly persuasive to a federal judge reviewing the record later.
• Point Out Flawed Logic: Did the agency use skewed data? Are they ignoring common sense or overstepping their statutory authority? Point it out clearly.
• Keep It Professional: Leave the insults and emotional rants at the door. Coarse language or vague threats allow agency lawyers to easily dismiss your input. Professional, firm, and fact-based comments cannot be ignored.

Recapturing the Founders’ Intent

The fight to protect the Second Amendment is no longer waged exclusively in the halls of Congress or the chambers of the Supreme Court. The modern battlefield is administrative, buried deep within the bureaucratic machinery of the Federal Register. Every single time an ATF comment window opens, gun-control groups mobilize their base to flood the portal. They want us quiet, compliant, and defeated. If we choose inaction, we choose defeat.

Our Founders never intended for unelected technocrats to hold veto power over a fundamental, God-given right. To dismantle this unconstitutional overreach and recapture the true intent of the Constitution, we cannot afford to cede a single inch of ground. We must engage in the trenches of the administrative process, leverage the law to our advantage, and play to win.

When the next ATF comment period opens, do not scroll past the alert. Go to Regulations.gov, type in the number of the docket, and take five minutes to write your comment. Those five minutes build the legal shield that protects our rights in court.

Gear up, get on the registry, and hold the line. Our liberties depend on it.

---

About Sean Maloney

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---

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

Seventh Circuit Upholds Illinois AR-15 Ban Days After Supreme Court Takes Up Same Fight

The Seventh Circuit upheld Illinois’ AR-15 ban just days after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a major challenge to semiautomatic rifle bans. IMG Travis Pike

The Seventh Circuit just upheld Illinois’ ban on AR-15s and standard 30-round magazines, but the ruling may have a very short shelf life.

In Barnett v. Raoul, a divided panel reversed Judge Stephen McGlynn’s permanent injunction against Illinois’ so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act, allowing the state to keep enforcing its ban on America’s most popular rifle. The decision landed just days after the Supreme Court agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two cases that ask whether the Second Amendment protects common semiautomatic rifles like the AR-15.

In other words, the Seventh Circuit just doubled down on Bevis while SCOTUS is already preparing to review the same fight.

AmmoLand readers have been following this fight for years. Barnett was never just another Illinois gun-ban case. It has long been one of the cases that could force the Supreme Court to finally confront whether the Second Amendment protects modern semiautomatic rifles. Justice Clarence Thomas previously warned that if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allowed Illinois to ban “America’s most common civilian rifle,” the Supreme Court “can—and should—review that decision once the cases reach a final judgment.” AmmoLand covered that warning when the case moved toward trial as well as the oral arguments last September.

Well, here we are with a decision and it is a decidedly anti-gun decision from the Seventh Circuit.

Court Leans On Bevis And Rahimi

The majority opinion, written by Judge Amy St. Eve and joined by Judge Frank Easterbrook, leaned heavily on the Seventh Circuit’s earlier Bevis ruling. In Bevis, the court claimed AR-15s are close enough to M16s to fall outside full Second Amendment protection, even though AR-15s fire only one round per trigger pull and are owned by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes.

After a full trial record in Barnett, the district court found that ordinary citizens choose AR-15s, standard magazines, and related accessories for self-defense. The district court also found that AR-15s are materially different from military-issued M16 rifles because AR-15s are semiautomatic, while M16s are capable of automatic or burst fire.The Seventh Circuit was not interested.

Instead, the majority said Rahimi supported its prior approach because the Supreme Court rejected the idea that modern gun laws need exact historical twins. The court also pointed to what it described as a unanimous circuit consensus, noting that other federal appeals courts to reach similar AR-15 or magazine-ban questions have upheld them.

That sounds impressive until you look at the list. The First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits are not exactly known as Second Amendment strongholds.

Calling that a national constitutional consensus is like polling a gun-control conference and declaring the debate over. The more honest framing is that anti-gun circuits have built a wall around AR-15 bans, and now the Supreme Court has agreed to decide whether that wall stands or falls.

Viramontes Changes Everything

That is what makes the timing of Barnett so important. On June 30, 2026, just days before this Seventh Circuit ruling, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and consolidated it with Grant v. Higgins. The Court allotted one hour of oral argument, and the question presented asks whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect semiautomatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes, including “the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15.”

In other words, the Seventh Circuit is doubling down on Bevis while the Supreme Court is already preparing to take up the same core issue.

The majority also cited Wolford v. Lopez, but it did not seriously grapple with what Wolford demands. Wolford made clear that courts evaluating historical analogues must look at how many jurisdictions adopted them, whether they were well accepted, and whether they are similar in both “how” and “why.” That is a much tighter inquiry than grabbing old Bowie knife restrictions and stretching them into a permission slip for banning commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

Brennan’s Dissent Gets It Right

Chief Judge Michael Brennan’s dissent cut straight through the noise.

“Illinois has banned the best-selling rifle in America and its standard magazine,” Brennan wrote. He warned that after “perhaps the most comprehensive trial record in any Second Amendment case to date,” the court simply repeated its Bevis error.

Brennan got it right. Heller protects arms commonly owned by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. The AR-15 clears that bar with room to spare. Courts do not get to relabel a commonly owned rifle as too dangerous simply because politicians and gun-control lawyers do not like it.

For Illinois gun owners, Barnett is a loss. But it may also be the Seventh Circuit’s final defense of Bevis before the Supreme Court finally answers the AR-15 question directly.

The Seventh Circuit has made its position clear. Now it is SCOTUS’ turn.

---

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/vL86Gp7
via IFTTT

Soros Money Shows Gun Owners Must Not Dismiss Blue Threat to Texas

Texas gun owners should not assume the Lone Star State’s pro-gun reputation will protect them from a well-funded political push against the Second Amendment. IMG Jim Grant

“Soros Continues To Pump Money into Efforts to Turn Texas Blue,” Texas Scorecard reported Wednesday. “According to Transparency USA, Soros has already funneled over $1 million into the Texas Majority PAC. The federal American Bridge PAC, long aligned with Soros, has contributed $7.57 million to the Texas Majority PAC… The Texas Majority PAC exists to turn Texas into a blue state by electing Democrats to statewide offices.”

“Don’t mess with Texas,” some may scoff, relying on the state’s “Come and take it” reputation on guns formed from Hollywood fiction. In actuality, Texas passed “An Act Regulating the Right to Keep and Bear Arms” back in 1870, essentially banning the carrying of arms in public places.

And don’t forget that a century later, Texas Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Gun Control Act of 1968.

In 1993, Democrat Gov. Ann Richards vetoed a concealed carry permit bill.  It was finally signed into law by George W. Bush in 1995, marking “the first time since frontier days.”

Still, the “Wild West” mythos has been perpetuated, and not just by American gun owners, but by opinion influencers around the world.

“I can’t recall the exact number of times I have eaten a meal in the immediate company of a man, or men, with shooters on their hips in plain view. For me, I am always equal parts spellbound and queasy,” a New Zealand “journalist” wrote back in 2010. “Spellbound because there is something so fundamentally cowboy and western about it. Guns, freedom, country music and the Second Amendment. It is Texas after all. Yeeha!”

It’s true: She couldn’t recall the exact number of times. That’s because Texas, at the time, still outlawed open carry. She made it up – and rather than apologize, the paper she wrote for doubled down with changed stories, insults, denials, and lies.

It wasn’t until 2016 that open carry of holstered handguns became legal for License to Carry holders, and permitless carry,  allowing adults to carry handguns openly or concealed, wasn’t enacted until 2021.

The bottom line is just because it’s Texas hardly means that “gun rights” can be taken for granted. And we’ve seen plenty of Texas Democrats making it clear that they can’t wait to eviscerate laws recognizing the right to keep and bear arms just as soon they think they have the power to make it happen, from Beto O’Rourke’s  “Hell, yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” to Sheila “Heavy as 10 boxes” Jackson Lee. And now, of course, Giffords/Everytown-endorsee James Talarico is vying for the Senate seat of outgoing Republican disappointment John Cornyn.

“Texas Gun Rights is warning that Texas Majority PAC-backed candidates, including James Talarico, Gina Hinojosa, Vikki Goodwin, Nathan Johnson, Sarah Eckhardt, Jon Rosenthal, and Clayton Tucker, support radical anti-gun policies such as red flag laws, raising the age to purchase guns, gun-registration schemes, and the outright banning and seizure of common semi-automatic firearms,” Texas Scorecard warns. And, of course, those aren’t the only radical cultural transformations Democrats intend to impose should they attain the power to force them.

Talarico’s in “a dead heat” against NRA/Gun Owners of America-endorsed Ken Paxton. And what happens in Texas will be a pretty good indicator of what happens in other states, especially noting “The Soros family has poured a staggering $103 million nationwide into the 2026 election cycle so far.”

Gun owners — and not just in Texas — know what they must do. They still have options the heroes of the Alamo did not. Will they use them?

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

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

The Uncomfortable Truth for Antis as Semi-Auto Rifle Cases Loom at SCOTUS

A single paragraph in a petition for certiorari to the Supreme Court could have a significant impact on how two gun ban cases already accepted by the high court could guide the legal arguments. IMG Jim Grant

Buried 18 pages into a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in a case known as Calce v. City of New York is an uncomfortable truth the gun prohibition lobby and its congressional and legislative allies want to avoid as two cases challenging bans on modern semiautomatic rifles are on the court’s docket for the term beginning in October.

By no small coincidence, both of those cases were also brought by SAF, and the outcome will almost certainly bring its sister organization—the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA)—out of the shadows, where it has dwelt for too long, and into the spotlight. More about this in a moment.

SAF’s Calce Petition Puts the Burden Back Where It Belongs

In SAF’s petition for Supreme Court review of New York City’s “recalcitrant” behavior regarding its stubborn refusal to obey the spirit, if not the letter, of the high court’s previous ruling on stun guns in a 2016 case known as Caetano v. Massachusetts, in which the Court rejected lower court rulings that said stun guns are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Instead, the Court reminded the nation that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”

And this brings the saga around to Page 18 of the Calce petition, where it states, “The Second Amendment enshrines a right to keep and bear arms free from the interference of the government, outside of narrow, long-recognized exceptions. It makes no more sense, in this context, to permit the government to ban whatever it wants and require rights holders to come to court and prove the arm they wish to possess is worth the protection, than it would to allow the government to place a prior restraint on publishing unless a writer can affirmatively prove his content is not defamatory or obscene.”

Viramontes and Grant Put Semi-Auto Bans in the Crosshairs

Whether upcoming motions and/or amicus briefs expected in the dual gun ban cases—Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins—quote that passage, it is now part of the bedrock supporting the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, the definition of which goes beyond firearms, and by the time the high court convenes Oct. 4—the first Monday of the month—that paragraph will have been widely read.

Of particular importance to the CCRKBA is the fact that Grant v. Higgins is a case that has been fought and pursued over the past five years by the Connecticut Citizens Defense League. CCDL has been the lead organizational plaintiff in the Grant case since its inception, and is a CCRKBA state affiliate, and now SAF’s ally in this case.

Leading this legal effort is CCRKBA Director Holly Sullivan, who is also CCDL president. These facts combined literally bring the Committee into the battle.

In a recent CCRKBA statement to the media about her direct involvement in the Grant case, she said, “Gun owners in staunchly anti-second amendment states have felt forgotten for too long. SCOTUS has restored our faith in the system that the little guy can still fight back in this great country. This case isn’t just about restoring our rights in Connecticut, it’s about ensuring that no other citizens will face similar infringements regardless of which state they call home.”

As noted by CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb in a recent news release, “Because CCDL is a plaintiff in the Grant case challenging Connecticut’s rifle ban, it essentially puts the Committee on the playing field. Frankly, we wouldn’t have it any other way.”

Meanwhile, joining SAF in the Viramontes case is the Firearms Policy Coalition. The significance of the Supreme Court’s decision to take both Viramontes and Grant, with the likelihood they will be consolidated, cannot be overstated.

A 2027 Ruling Could Reshape Gun Bans Nationwide

As Gottlieb mentioned in a chat with AmmoLand, Grant deals with a local government ban while Viramontes addresses a statewide ban. The ruling, which will likely arrive in June 2027, could be a blockbuster because it will literally cover the bases.

After all, some observers have hinted, the Court would not take two such cases if it intended merely to preserve the status quo.

“The Supreme Court’s decision to hear these pivotal cases will finally provide the courts the necessary guidance as it relates to the types of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut in a SAF news release. “The modern semi-automatic rifles banned in Cook County, Connecticut and elsewhere are among the most commonly owned firearms in the country, placing them well within the scope of the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes, and it’s hard to argue that a type of rifle that potentially outnumbers Ford F-150 trucks in America doesn’t meet that standard.”

The outcome may not be for all the marbles, but it could easily come close to filling the legal glass jar.

---

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/XLybeaT
via IFTTT