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

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

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

“You have no other options.”

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

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

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

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

Oregon’s Residency Barrier

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cynthia Ladd Tried to Apply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“You Have No Other Options”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Virginia Gun Owner Disarmed in Portland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GOA Says the Problem Is Nationwide

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

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

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

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

The Second Amendment Does Not Stop at the State Line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the Lawsuit Seeks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The WSP recently announced the training requirements:

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

What are the different levels of firearms safety training?

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/7MKbcdL
via IFTTT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About John Crump

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Doc Strangelove (@DocStrangelove2) September 10, 2026

How FPSRussia Became a Prohibited Person

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

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

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

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

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

DOJ’s New Rule Undercuts Myers’s Continued Disarmament

The timing makes Myers’s case impossible to ignore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marijuana Is Not Proof of Firearm Dangerousness

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Myers Needs a Presidential Pardon

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

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

Its official guidance is direct:

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

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

A presidential pardon is the cleaner remedy.

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

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

Trump Pardoned Adamiak. FPSRussia Should Be Next.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

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

Michigan Judge Asks Armed 19-Year-Old Who Stopped Mall Gunman Why He Needed a Gun

Michigan accepted that Martinez Long lawfully stopped an armed attacker at Fairlane Town Center but sentenced him for carrying the pistol without a license. iStock-1184846218

A Michigan judge questioned why 19-year-old Martinez Long brought a gun into a shopping mall—even after Long used that firearm to stop a gunman who had killed one person, wounded another, and continued firing recklessly inside the building. The question answers itself.

Long was sentenced Tuesday to two years of probation for carrying a concealed weapon during the July 3 shooting at Fairlane Town Center in Dearborn. Prosecutors did not charge him for fatally shooting Cameron Watkins because they determined that Long acted in lawful self-defense or defense of others.

The state accepted that Long’s trigger pull was justified. It punished him for possessing the firearm that made his intervention possible.

Gunfight Erupts Inside Fairlane Town Center

According to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, as reported by FOX 2 Detroit, the violence began with a fight involving 19-year-olds Cameron Watkins and Keonte Seaborn.

Watkins reportedly took a handgun from the purse of 19-year-old Cania Cain and shot Seaborn. Watkins then shot another person during a struggle and continued firing recklessly inside the crowded mall.

That was when Long intervened.

Long drew his own handgun and fatally shot Watkins, ending the threat. Seaborn and Watkins both died. The other wounded person survived and was released from the hospital.

The available reporting does not establish how many additional people Watkins might have shot had Long not acted. It does establish that Watkins had already killed one person, wounded another, and was still recklessly firing a gun in a public mall.

Police were called at approximately 1:25 p.m. Long was already there when the threat appeared.

As AmmoLand recently observed after an armed customer stopped a knife-wielding bank robber in Texas, nothing has a faster response time than an armed citizen who is present and willing to act.

Lawful Shooting, Unlawful Carry

Prosecutors charged Long and Cain with carrying concealed weapons without a license. Long was not charged with homicide because his use of deadly force was deemed legally justified.

That distinction exposes the senselessness of the prosecution.

Michigan law requires a person to obtain a Concealed Pistol License before carrying a concealed handgun in public. Under Michigan’s licensing statute, an applicant must be at least 21 years old.

Long was 19. No amount of training, good judgment, clean criminal history, or demonstrated ability to act responsibly could have made him eligible for Michigan’s permission slip.

The state’s position is that Long was mature enough to recognize a deadly threat, decide when lethal force was necessary, accurately engage the attacker, and stop shooting once the threat ended. He was nevertheless supposedly too young to carry the handgun he used to accomplish those things.

Attorney Kostas Moros highlighted that contradiction on X, noting that “reality proved that he indeed did need one.”

Martinez Long was sentenced to two years of probation for carrying a concealed weapon. He had to shoot a gunman, and he faced no charges for that use of lethal force, because it was deemed lawful self-defense. But his underlying carrying of a firearm was illegal because Michigan… pic.twitter.com/NqkmK6Iw2e

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) September 9, 2026

Michigan’s age restriction did not stop Watkins from obtaining and firing a handgun. It only gave prosecutors a way to charge the person who stopped him.

Michigan’s Contradictory Rules for Young Adults

Michigan’s firearm laws create a particularly irrational trap for adults between 18 and 20.

Under federal law, a federally licensed dealer generally cannot sell or deliver a handgun to anyone younger than 21. The Fifth Circuit held that federal prohibition unconstitutional in Reese v. ATF, concluding that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. AmmoLand previously covered that decision.

That decision does not automatically invalidate the restriction in Michigan, which sits within the Sixth Circuit, but the constitutional principle is the same: legal adults do not lose an enumerated right because they have not reached an arbitrary birthday.

Michigan itself recognizes that an otherwise qualified 18-year-old may acquire a pistol through a private transaction. A purchaser who does not hold a CPL must first obtain a License to Purchase and comply with the background-check and transfer requirements contained in MCL 28.422.

Michigan nevertheless requires a person to be 21 before obtaining a Concealed Pistol License.

The result is a legal maze in which a 19-year-old may be permitted to acquire and possess a handgun but is categorically denied the license required to carry it concealed for personal protection. Long was not accused of being a prohibited person. His reported charge was carrying a concealed weapon—the firearm he ultimately used to stop Watkins.

The available reports do not explain how Long obtained his pistol or establish whether that acquisition complied with Michigan law. What the case does establish is that Long could not obtain a CPL solely because he was 19.

Judge Questions Why Long Needed Protection

At sentencing, the judge acknowledged that the attorneys and court agreed Long had acted in self-defense or defense of others. He nevertheless criticized Long for carrying the gun and asked:

“Why did you walk into the mall with a gun in the first place?”

Violent criminals do not announce their attacks. They do not provide advance notice. They do not wait for police to arrive. They do not check whether their intended victims have reached their 21st birthdays or received the correct plastic card from the government.

Long’s attorney explained that he carried the firearm for protection and had not planned to use it that day. He did not start the fight or instigate the shooting.

When Watkins began firing, Long used the gun to protect himself and others. That is precisely why people carry defensive firearms.

The judge ultimately imposed two years of probation. According to FOX 2 Detroit’s account of the sentencing, Long must undergo cognitive behavioral therapy, complete court-offered handgun-safety classes, and refrain from possessing firearms or ammunition during his probation.

The handgun-training requirement is particularly ironic as he clearly had it figured out on the day in question. Nothing in the reported facts suggests that Long mishandled his firearm or recklessly fired it. That conduct was attributed to Watkins, the man Long stopped.

Long had no previous criminal record and is working toward earning his GED. If Long completes probation without incident, he should avoid a permanent public conviction. That is better than a prison sentence or lasting felony record, but it does not make the prosecution just.

For two years, the state will supervise him and prohibit him from possessing the very means of protection that proved necessary inside Fairlane Town Center.

Young Adults Are Part of “The People”

Long’s case is not merely about prosecutorial discretion. It demonstrates the real-world consequences of denying Second Amendment rights to adults between 18 and 20.

Federal courts remain divided over age-based firearm restrictions. The Fifth Circuit has held that adults under 21 are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Other courts have strained to preserve these prohibitions, including a federal judge who recently used Founding-era contract law and the “infancy doctrine” to uphold Hawaii’s under-21 gun ban.

The Second Amendment does not establish one set of rights for adults over 21 and a lesser set for adults who are 18, 19, or 20. At the Founding, the Militia Act of 1792 enrolled able-bodied men beginning at age 18 and required them to appear armed. It would be difficult to devise a more direct rejection of the claim that 18-to-20-year-olds were historically outside America’s armed citizenry.

Michigan’s law turned Long into a defendant based not on dangerous conduct, but on his age and lack of government permission.

This case also shows why constitutional carry is more than a political slogan. A constitutional right should not depend upon obtaining a license, paying a fee, navigating an application process, or surviving until an arbitrary birthday.

The right to bear arms exists because the danger may arrive before the police do. Martinez Long did not need to explain why he carried a gun into Fairlane Town Center. The gunman he stopped had already answered that question.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/lN3wmdR
via IFTTT

Trump DOJ Wants 10 Minutes to Argue Against AR-15 Bans at Supreme Court

The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court for ten minutes of oral argument to explain why categorical bans on commonly owned AR-15 rifles violate the Second Amendment. IMG Tim Potter

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wants the United States at the lectern when the Supreme Court considers whether Cook County and Connecticut may outlaw America’s most popular rifle.

The Trump administration does not want to remain in the spectator seats when the Supreme Court hears its most consequential Second Amendment case in years.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, on behalf of the United States, asked the Supreme Court for permission to participate in oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The consolidated cases ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

The Justice Department has already filed an amicus brief supporting the gun owners and arguing that categorical AR-15 bans are unconstitutional. Now, the federal government wants ten minutes at the lectern to make that case directly to the justices.

“These cases present the question whether a categorical ban on the possession of AR-15 semiautomatic rifles infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment,” Sauer’s motion states. “The United States has filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, arguing that such a ban is unconstitutional.”

That is the federal government’s position without the usual evasions: Cook County and Connecticut cannot turn possession of one of America’s most commonly owned rifles into a crime.

DOJ Wants Ten Minutes Before the Justices

The Supreme Court has allotted one hour for the consolidated arguments, which are scheduled for Wednesday, December 2. Sauer proposes dividing that hour as follows:

• 20 minutes for the gun-owner petitioners.
• 10 minutes for the United States.
• 30 minutes for Cook County and Connecticut.

Counsel representing the petitioners in both cases consented to the motion. The filing does not say that the respondents consented. The United States also takes no position on how the respondents should divide their proposed 30 minutes between Cook County and Connecticut.

The Court has not yet granted the request. For now, the motion is pending.

If granted, the arrangement would preserve an even 30-minute division between the two sides while allowing the United States to present its own constitutional argument alongside the petitioners challenging the bans.

Federal Government Claims an Interest in Preserving the Right

The United States says its participation could “materially assist” the Court because the government has an institutional interest in protecting the right to keep and bear arms and ensuring the Second Amendment is interpreted correctly.

“The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment,” the motion states.

The filing notes that the United States has previously participated in Supreme Court arguments as an amicus in District of Columbia v. Heller, NYSRPA v. City of New York, NYSRPA v. Bruen, and Wolford v. Lopez.

The motion itself is procedural and only three pages long. It does not add to the constitutional analysis contained in DOJ’s previously filed merits brief. Its importance is that the Solicitor General wants the federal government’s opposition to AR-15 bans heard during the argument itself.

That is more than a symbolic request. Supreme Court arguments give the justices an opportunity to test the competing theories, press counsel on the limits of their positions, and expose arguments that cannot survive direct questioning. Ten minutes would give the United States its own opportunity to answer the claims offered by Cook County and Connecticut.

AR-15 Bans Cannot Survive an Honest Reading of the Second Amendment

The United States is not alone, twenty-seven states have urged the justices to strike down the bans. The states in their brief argue that legislatures cannot prohibit an arm commonly possessed for lawful purposes merely because politicians believe citizens do not “need” it.

The factual record makes the anti-gun position impossible to maintain. William English’s 2026 National Firearms Survey estimates that Americans possess approximately 40 million AR-15-type rifles and another 20 million similarly styled semiautomatic rifles. Approximately 26.4 million American adults currently own at least one rifle in those categories.

Those numbers are already before the Court. The petitioners cited the new findings in their merits brief, as AmmoLand detailed in its report on the 60 million AR-style rifles implicated by these cases.

A firearm owned by tens of millions of peaceable Americans cannot honestly be described as “unusual.” Nor may judges rescue that argument by separating “dangerous” from “unusual” and treating the former as an independent excuse to ban a common arm. Heller used a conjunctive historical formulation: “dangerous and unusual.”

The AR-15 is common. It is used for defense, hunting, competition, training, predator control, and ordinary recreational shooting. Its operating system is semiautomatic: one shot for each function of the trigger. Features targeted by these laws—including adjustable stocks, pistol grips, muzzle devices, and handguards—generally improve fit, control, and safe handling. They do not transform a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

The en banc Third Circuit recently applied the Second Amendment’s text and history and struck down New Jersey’s prohibition on covered semiautomatic rifles. Cook County and Connecticut want the Supreme Court to reach the opposite result by allowing local lawmakers to erase a protected class of arms.

A Seat at the Table for America’s Rifle

The ultimate question is bigger than two anti-gun jurisdictions. The Court’s decision will determine whether the Second Amendment actually restrains government when the firearm at issue is politically disfavored but overwhelmingly chosen by the American people.

“Shall not be infringed” does not mean that a state may prohibit a rifle after millions of citizens buy it. It does not mean that judges may replace the people’s choice of arms with whatever firearm they consider sufficient. And it does not permit lawmakers to outlaw an ordinary semiautomatic rifle by attaching the dishonest “assault weapon” label to it.

The Justice Department has already told the Court that these AR-15 bans are unconstitutional. Sauer’s new motion asks for the opportunity to say it before the justices on December 2.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/FRx0O2l
via IFTTT

Missouri Challenges NFA Registry for Untaxed Suppressors, SBRs, and AOWs

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway is asking a federal court to block ATF from enforcing NFA registration requirements for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs after Congress reduced their making and transfer taxes to $0. IMG Tim Potter

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), asking a federal court to end National Firearms Act (NFA) registration for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and “any other weapons” (AOWs).

“Law and order and the Second Amendment go hand in hand,” Hanaway said. “A government that respects the Constitution has empowered, law-abiding citizens who can protect themselves and their families. It does not paper over rights with red tape. The ATF’s heavy-handed restrictions on suppressors threaten lawful firearm use and undermine the rights protected by the Second Amendment.”

BREAKING: Our office is suing the ATF over its unconstitutional limits on suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

A government that respects the Constitution has empowered, law-abiding citizens who can protect themselves and their families. It does not paper over rights with red… pic.twitter.com/R2eucgk3UR

— Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway (@AGCHanaway) September 8, 2026

Missouri Says the NFA Registry Lost Its Constitutional Foundation

The case, Marshak v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Hanaway is joined by co-plaintiff Dave Marshak, a law-abiding resident of Festus. The complaint is the latest challenge to the NFA after Congress, in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, cut the making and transfer tax on those four categories from $200 to $0, effective January 1, 2026. Machine guns and destructive devices remain taxed at $200.

Missouri’s first argument is structural. In Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), the Supreme Court upheld the NFA as a revenue measure. Registration, fingerprints, photographs, and ATF approval existed to collect the tax. Section 70436 of the OBBB set that tax at zero for silencers, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. Once the tax vanished, Missouri says, the registry lost its constitutional footing. Congress has no free-floating power to build a national firearms database, demand biometric packets, and attach felony exposure—up to 10 years and $250,000—when no revenue remains to collect. A registration scheme without a tax, the state argues, exceeds the enumerated powers.

That theory tracks the August 5, 2026, decision in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix in the Northern District of Texas held that because the NFA no longer generates revenue from the untaxed categories, its registration and approval provisions cannot be sustained under the taxing power. Missouri asks the Eastern District to apply the same logic to Missourians.

Suppressors and SBRs Are Arms in Common Use

The state also brings a Second Amendment claim. Suppressors and SBRs, it says, are “arms” in common use for lawful purposes—training, hunting, and self-defense.

Missouri turns ATF’s own numbers against the agency: roughly 6.65 million registered suppressors and 1.23 million registered SBRs. Those figures, plaintiffs argue, make it impossible to treat the items as “dangerous and unusual” weapons that fall outside the Amendment.

Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the analysis has two steps. First, the plaintiffs must show the plain text covers the conduct. Marshak is among “the people.” The items are bearable arms. After the Supreme Court’s Wolford decision, that is the end of step one. No extra balancing or interest-weighing is allowed at that stage.

The burden then shifts. The government must prove the modern scheme is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, using founding-era analogues that match both the “how” and the “why.” Colonial gunpowder-storage rules, Missouri notes, existed to keep towns from burning down. They were not a national registry backed by photographs, fingerprints, and felony penalties for possession without federal permission. The complaint says no such tradition exists.

Missouri asks the court for a declaratory judgment that the remaining NFA requirements for these now-untaxed items exceed Congress’s powers and violate the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied. It also seeks a permanent injunction barring ATF and DOJ from enforcing those provisions and related regulations against the covered items, plus costs and fees.

Another Front Opens in the Fight Against the NFA

The filing lands in a crowded field. Industry groups, gun-rights organizations, and more than a dozen states have already challenged the leftover NFA machinery after the tax went to zero. The Texas injunction is limited in scope, and ATF has not issued nationwide implementation guidance.

Hanaway’s suit puts a state attorney general and an individual Missourian in front of an Eighth Circuit district court, adding another venue and another set of plaintiffs to the fight over whether a 1934 tax statute can still force Americans to register commonly owned arms after Congress itself stopped collecting the tax.

---

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/hWLGf9S
via IFTTT