Owning a Gun Is Not Reasonable Suspicion: SAF Seeks Judgment Over School Truck Search

SAF is asking a federal court to rule that school officials violated Jack Harrington’s Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his truck after learning he lawfully owned a handgun. iStock-691528428

The Second Amendment Foundation is asking a federal judge to rule that New Hampshire school officials violated an 18-year-old student’s Fourth Amendment rights after searching his truck based solely, SAF says, on his lawful gun ownership. The search found no firearm.

In a July 15 motion for summary judgment in Harrington v. Crawford, SAF argues that lawful off-campus handgun possession did not give Hillsboro-Deering High School officials probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, to search Jack Harrington’s vehicle.

Hillsboro-Deering High School officials searched Jack Harrington’s truck while it was parked on school property. They found no gun. According to SAF, Harrington’s Glock 43 was safely stored at his family’s home, nowhere near the campus.

Now, after discovery produced testimony from the officials involved, Harrington has moved for summary judgment.

“This case comes down to one simple and undeniable fact,” the motion argues. School officials allegedly searched Harrington’s vehicle based solely on his lawful exercise of “the right to keep and bear arms.”

A Week-Old Traffic Stop Becomes Grounds for a School Search

The controversy began with an uneventful off-campus traffic stop on April 11, 2025.

Harrington, who had turned 18 the previous November, lawfully had his Glock in the glove box. When he opened the compartment, he informed the officer about the handgun. New Hampshire law allows an 18-year-old who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms to own a handgun and transport it in a vehicle.

Five days later, Harrington discussed the traffic stop with a friend while traveling on a school bus to an athletic event. An assistant softball coach sitting nearby thought he heard Harrington say, “It’s a good thing they didn’t look in my glove box, because that’s where I keep my gun.”

Harrington denies making that statement. The coach also admitted, according to the motion, that he never heard Harrington say he possessed a firearm on school property. Despite any supposed safety concern, the coach waited a week before reporting the conversation.

By the time the information reached Principal James O’Rourke, it had passed through the coach and the school’s athletic director. The motion says administrators did not interview Harrington’s friend or conduct any meaningful investigation before deciding to search the truck.

More importantly, O’Rourke reportedly acknowledged during his deposition that he had no evidence Harrington had brought a firearm to school. He knew Harrington could legally own a handgun and legally transport it in his glove box away from campus. The motion says officials had no indication Harrington had engaged in any illegal conduct anywhere.

Nevertheless, they treated the fact that Harrington had previously possessed a gun in his truck as evidence that the gun might be there on April 24.

That is not an investigation. It is a presumption of guilt attached to gun ownership.

An Armed Officer, a Closed Office and Repeated Refusals

Assistant Principal Brian McGinn removed Harrington from class and escorted him to an office where O’Rourke and Hillsboro Police Officer Michael DeTurris, the school resource officer, were waiting.

According to the motion, DeTurris wore his complete police uniform, including a badge, handcuffs, Taser and visible Glock handgun. He remained standing near the office’s only door while the two school administrators sat across from Harrington.

Harrington repeatedly said he did not have a firearm at school. When officials demanded access to his truck, he reportedly refused four or five times, using some variation of: “I am not going to let you guys search my truck.”

His parents also refused consent during a phone call that officials could hear. Harrington’s father said he was coming to the school and told administrators they had no right to search the vehicle.

The questioning continued.

The motion says O’Rourke repeatedly told Harrington that the truck would be searched regardless of what he said. Harrington eventually responded with a single “okay” after being informed yet again that the search was inevitable. School officials now contend that word amounted to consent.

The original complaint alleges O’Rourke later defended the search by saying, “we did nothing illegal; we have a statement that Jack keeps a gun in his glovebox.”

But possessing a gun in a glove box away from school was entirely legal. It did not establish that Harrington had a gun on campus.

School officials opened the glove box and found nothing, confirming what Harrington had told them all along. Shortly afterward, Harrington emailed McGinn:

“It’s wrong that my truck had to get searched. I didn’t do anything wrong to constitute that.”

Lawful Conduct Cannot Create Suspicion

SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack warned that allowing gun ownership to justify a search would place young gun owners under permanent suspicion.

“Entirely lawful and constitutionally protected conduct cannot be the grounds for a search,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “School officials, especially when accompanied by law enforcement as was the case here, need at minimum reasonable suspicion to search a student’s vehicle. Here, those officials learning that our client was a gun owner gave them that suspicion. They are mistaken. If that were the case, student gun owners all over the country could be subject to repeated and endless harassment.”

That is the larger danger presented by this case. If simply knowing that someone owns a gun creates reasonable suspicion, any adult student who hunts, shoots competitively or carries lawfully could be searched repeatedly without evidence of wrongdoing.

The complaint calls that a “dangerous and unacceptable precedent.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said officials treated Harrington’s lawful firearm ownership as if it stripped him of his other constitutional protections.

“District officials – and even a school resource officer who should know better – took it upon themselves to violate the constitutional rights of a peaceable, adult, firearm owner for no other reason than they learned of his status as a gun owner,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This young man was interrogated and coerced into allowing school officials to search his vehicle because he chooses to exercise his rights as a private citizen. Law enforcement and school officials are required to understand the law and to follow it, and in this case, it appears they failed at both.”

The Second Amendment Does Not Cancel the Fourth

Public school officials normally operate under the lower “reasonable suspicion” standard established by the Supreme Court in New Jersey v. T.L.O. Harrington argues, however, that DeTurris’s substantial involvement as a sworn police officer elevated the required standard to probable cause.

The Supreme Court has not definitively settled the standard for a search jointly conducted by school officials and law enforcement. Harrington’s motion therefore makes the alternative argument that the search fails under either test.

Officials had no probable cause. They also lacked reasonable suspicion that the truck contained evidence of a crime or school-rule violation. Their only information concerned Harrington’s lawful possession of a handgun away from school nearly two weeks earlier.

The claimed consent is equally questionable. Consent obtained after repeated refusals, threats of discipline and declarations that the search will happen anyway is not meaningfully voluntary. It is submission to authority.

Harrington is seeking a declaration that the defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, nominal damages, legal fees and judgment rejecting the defendants’ consent defense. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

School safety is important, but it is not a magic phrase that wipes away the Bill of Rights. Government officials cannot use the exercise of one constitutional right as their excuse to invade another.

---

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/B7w2FHd
via IFTTT

New Jersey Escalates Lawfare Against Pennsylvania Firearms Entrepreneur Jordan Vinroe

New Jersey is seeking to hold JSD Supply founder Jordan Vinroe personally liable after JSD Supply and Eagle Shows entered bankruptcy. iStock-1432499179

In a stark example of anti-Second Amendment activism, the State of New Jersey has launched a personal lawsuit against Jordan Vinroe, the former owner of Pennsylvania-based gun show operator Eagle Shows and the firearms parts company JSD Supply.

This latest legal action, filed by New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, seeks to hold Vinroe personally accountable for activities that occurred through his now-defunct businesses.

Illegal ghost guns pose a serious threat to public safety—and we won’t rest until we get them off our streets.

Today, we sued a key member of the ghost gun industry who has been trying to evade accountability for years. Not on our watch. https://t.co/cMx5NFGSgb pic.twitter.com/sgS7AKMsva

— Attorney General Jennifer Davenport (@NewJerseyOAG) July 15, 2026

Federal “Ghost Gun” Backdrop

Vinroe previously owned and operated Eagle Shows, which hosted numerous gun shows across Pennsylvania, drawing enthusiasts from the region. He also ran JSD Supply, a business that sold parts and components for various firearms. The company gained particular attention for offering privately manufactured firearms kits, often referred to as “80% lowers” or demonized as “ghost gun” kits, prior to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule changes implemented during the Biden administration.

These kits allowed hobbyists and gunsmiths to complete their own firearms at home, a practice protected under longstanding federal interpretations of the Second Amendment until regulatory shifts tightened restrictions.

Both companies faced aggressive legal challenges from multiple states, with New Jersey leading the charge. The Garden State sued Vinroe’s enterprises, accusing them of operating an “iron pipeline” that funneled firearms and parts into New Jersey. Notably, no Eagle Shows events were held within New Jersey itself, and JSD Supply did not maintain operations or retail locations in the state. Despite this, New Jersey officials blamed Vinroe for contributing to the state’s crime problems, while downplaying its own well-documented struggles with prosecuting violent offenders and addressing systemic failures in the criminal justice system.

New Jersey claimed gun shows hosted by Eagle Shows were strategically located near the Pennsylvania-New Jersey border, and according to the state, the businesses allegedly used advertising, including billboards along the New Jersey Turnpike, to reach potential customers.

New Jersey prosecutors claimed these efforts deliberately targeted residents seeking unserialized firearms components, which are illegal to possess in completed form under strict Garden State laws. Critics argue this narrative ignores the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in neighboring states and the realities of interstate commerce.

New Jersey Says Closing the Businesses Was Not Enough

After years of legal battles, New Jersey achieved its initial goal. The costs of defending against these lawsuits forced both Eagle Shows and JSD Supply into bankruptcy. Many in the firearms community believed that bankrupting the companies would satisfy the state’s appetite for regulation. However, New Jersey viewed the corporate dissolution not as closure, but as an evasion of responsibility. In their eyes, Vinroe had dodged accountability for what has been characterized as nonexistent crimes—selling products that were legal at the time of sale and fully compliant with federal guidelines prior to the ATF’s expansive reinterpretations.

Undeterred, New Jersey has now pivoted to a personal lawsuit against Vinroe himself. This escalation can only be described as a vendetta, serving as a chilling warning to others in the firearms industry. By pursuing the individual after dismantling his businesses through relentless lawfare, the state signals that mere financial ruin is insufficient. They seek total personal destruction for those who facilitate lawful exercise of Second Amendment rights.

This case transcends Jordan Vinroe. It represents a broader strategy by anti-gun states to chill constitutionally protected activities. If successful, it sends a terrifying message to every gun show promoter, parts supplier, and firearms-related entrepreneur: anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions are no longer content with destroying livelihoods. They aim to ruin the lives, reputations, and futures of those who disagree with their policies. And they are more than willing to expend taxpayer dollars on these ideological crusades.

A Warning to the Firearms Industry

The implications ripple far beyond one Pennsylvania businessman. Law-abiding citizens across the country who engage in private manufacturing, attend gun shows, or support the firearms ecosystem now face heightened risks. States like New Jersey, with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and persistent urban crime issues, prefer scapegoating out-of-state businesses over reforming failed policies such as bail reform, soft-on-crime prosecution, and ineffective policing. This lawsuit weaponizes public nuisance laws and novel legal theories to bypass federal protections and Second Amendment precedents.

Vinroe’s story highlights the human cost of such tactics. Once a prominent figure in the Pennsylvania gun show circuit and parts market, he has seen his primary enterprises shuttered.

To support his defense against this latest suit, Mr. Vinroe has established a GiveSendGo campaign to help cover mounting legal expenses. This lawfare campaign extends far beyond one individual.

If New Jersey prevails, it could embolden similar actions against countless others in the firearms community. Any gun owner, dealer, or advocate could become the next target when exercising rights that the Constitution explicitly safeguards.

The firearms community must rally in support. This is not merely about one man’s businesses or alleged sales—it is about defending the foundational right to keep and bear arms against coordinated governmental overreach. Supporters can contribute to Vinroe’s GiveSendGo at GiveSendGo.com/jsdeagle and spread awareness of this case. Standing together against such abuses is essential to preserving liberty for future generations.

In an era where federal courts have increasingly scrutinized overreaching ATF rules and states’ attempts to regulate interstate commerce in arms, this personal lawsuit tests the boundaries of accountability and free enterprise. New Jersey’s actions risk setting a dangerous precedent that prioritizes political ideology over constitutional rights and due process. The outcome will reverberate through the Second Amendment landscape for years to come.

---

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/EVndqK3
via IFTTT

Virginia Says AR-15s Aren’t Protected “Arms”—Then Revives a Test SCOTUS Rejected

Virginia claims AR-15 rifles and magazines over 15 rounds are not constitutionally protected arms in Crump v. Katz. IMG Jim Grant

Jay Jones’s office wants a Virginia court to declare common semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines outside the right to keep and bear arms.

Virginia’s gun-control machine is trying to save its new rifle and magazine restrictions with an audacious argument: The AR-15 is not a constitutionally protected “Arm” at all.

On July 15, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones’s office filed a motion to dismiss and demurrer in Crump v. Katz, the lawsuit challenging House Bill 217 and Senate Bill 749 under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. The plaintiffs include AmmoLand contributor John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation.

The Commonwealth first argues that Virginia’s Constitution protects only a collective, militia-tethered right rather than an individual right. It then asks the court to go even further:

“Even if the Court adopts Plaintiffs’ mistaken theory that there is an individual right in § 13, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that assault firearms and large capacity magazines are “arms” protected by §13 or the Second Amendment.”

Jones’s office is not simply claiming that the state may regulate how a rifle is carried or sold. It is asking a court to place an entire class of common semiautomatic firearms, and magazines holding more than 15 rounds, outside constitutional protection.

Crump blasted the Commonwealth’s position, “The latest move of trying to claim that AR-15s are not protected arms smells of desperation. Jay Jones and his cohorts know they are fighting a losing battle and will try anything to stave off their inevitable defeat.”

Virginia Has a “Common Use” Problem

The motion claims that so-called assault firearms and large-capacity magazines “are not in common use today for lawful self-defense.” It adds that because they are “weapons that are most useful in military service,” they lie “outside the ambit of the Second Amendment.”

There are several problems packed into those two sentences.

First, District of Columbia v. Heller spoke of weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. It did not limit constitutional protection to firearms that can be proven to have been fired in a documented defensive encounter. Training, target shooting, competition, hunting, home defense, and simply being prepared are all lawful purposes.

The Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in Wolford v. Lopez also described “Arms” as weapons customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes. Under the federal test, an ordinary semiautomatic rifle would appear to clear the textual threshold. The burden would then shift to the government to establish a historical tradition supporting its ban.

Second, calling the AR-15 “unusual” collides with reality. In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, a unanimous Supreme Court described the AR-15 as “the most popular rifle in the country” and noted that such rifles are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers.

That is a devastating factual problem for anyone trying to call the platform unusual. NSSF currently estimates that more than 32 million modern sporting rifles are in circulation.

Virginia nevertheless insists that the banned rifles and magazines are “dangerous and unusual” and therefore “beyond the reach of any arms guarantee.” But Heller’s formulation is dangerous and unusual. The Commonwealth cannot erase the second half merely because every firearm is capable of causing harm.

Is Military Usefulness Supposed to Protect an Arm or Disqualify It?

Virginia leans heavily on the Fourth Circuit’s Kolbe and Bianchi decisions, which treated AR-15-style rifles as sufficiently similar to military weapons to fall outside the Second Amendment. That gives the Commonwealth lower-court precedent to cite, but it does not settle the national argument.

An AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle that fires one round with each trigger pull. It is not the select-fire M16 discussed in Heller. More importantly, Virginia’s position creates a glaring contradiction: The state says Section 13 protects a militia-tethered right, then says rifles useful for militia or military purposes are the least protected arms. Which is it?

That dispute is now headed directly to the Supreme Court. On June 30, the Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. Virginia filed its motion just 15 days later.

Virginia Tries to Bring Back Interest Balancing

The most revealing language appears in paragraph 37. Virginia claims SB749 responds to “the dramatic technological change of rapid-fire semi-automatic assault firearms and large-capacity magazines” and “the unprecedented societal concern of mass shootings.”

The motion then states: “The Commonwealth’s public-safety interest is substantial, and SB749 is reasonably adapted to that interest. Any burden on Plaintiffs’ rights is modest and does not outweigh the Commonwealth’s interest.”

That is interest balancing, the very approach the Supreme Court rejected in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In fact, the phrase “reasonably adapted to a substantial governmental interest” comes straight from the Fourth Circuit’s description of intermediate scrutiny in Kolbe v. Hogan.

Bruen held that this two-step methodology had “one step too many.” The government must prove that its restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. It does not get to win by declaring its objective substantial and the citizens’ burden modest.

Virginia asserts that it has a “long tradition of regulating dangerous weapons,” but the motion does not identify a single historical law that imposed a comparable ban on commonly possessed rifles or standard-capacity magazines. The Commonwealth reserved the right to submit more briefing, but an unsupported reference to generic “dangerous weapons” is not a historical tradition.

The filing is only a motion, not a court ruling, and the judge could address standing or other procedural questions without reaching every merits issue. Nevertheless, Jones’s office has now put its position in black and white: The state believes it can declare America’s most popular rifle a non-Arm, label common magazines unusual, and then balance away whatever constitutional protection remains.

That argument may play well with gun-control activists. However, it will not survive serious constitutional scrutiny.

---

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/qdBJIfQ
via IFTTT

No Tax, No Excuse: NFA Suppressor and SBR Registry Gun Rights Next Target

SAF-backed lawsuits in Brown, Jensen, and Roberts challenge ATF’s remaining NFA registry after Congress reduced the tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms to $0. Image Duncan Johnson

New filings argue that three Supreme Court decisions have stripped away the government’s excuses for maintaining a zero-tax federal gun registry. The tax is gone. The registry remains.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have opened a coordinated, three-court attack on the National Firearms Act registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled firearms. Supplemental filings in Brown v. ATF, Jensen v ATF, and Roberts v. ATF argue that three recent Supreme Court decisions leave the federal government with neither a valid taxing-power excuse nor an easy escape from the Second Amendment.

The Jensen filing is part of the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF litigation in Texas, where Silencer Shop Foundation and allied plaintiffs are pursuing a parallel challenge to the NFA registry.

Congress Zeroed the NFA Tax but Kept the Registry

Congress reduced the NFA making and transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to zero in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Washington, however, kept the paperwork, fingerprints, registration, prior approval, and felony penalties.

That creates the question now confronting federal courts: If the registry existed to collect a tax, what constitutional authority supports it when Congress no longer collects that tax?

SAF says the Supreme Court’s decision in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety reinforces the answer: none. Congress cannot stretch the Necessary and Proper Clause into an independent police power, then impose a burdensome registration scheme on Americans who owe no tax.

The Jensen filing puts the point bluntly. Maintaining registration on untaxed citizens, plaintiffs argue, would permit Congress “to regulate in minute detail the activities of untaxed Americans.”

That should concern every gun owner. A federal agency should not be able to preserve a national weapons database merely because the database once accompanied a tax.

Supreme Court Rulings Strengthen the Second Amendment Challenge

The Second Amendment attack may be even more consequential. SAF argues that Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani require courts to apply the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test instead of inventing special exemptions for NFA regulations.

According to the filing, a suppressed firearm is a form of an arm, while a short-barreled rifle is “indisputably” a form of an arm. Once protected conduct is implicated, the government bears the burden of proving that its restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The filing also takes direct aim at the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Peterson, which treated NFA registration as comparable to a presumptively lawful shall-issue licensing system. The plaintiffs contend that Wolford “leaves no room for a carveout” from the required Second Amendment analysis and therefore abrogates Peterson on that point.

That licensing comparison was always strained. Licensing evaluates whether a person is legally disqualified. Registration creates a government record of particular weapons and their owners. As the Jensen filing explains, “Registration, by contrast, focuses on tracking firearms and who owns them.”

Three NFA Lawsuits Target the ATF Registry

In a press release, SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said: “When the Supreme Court rightly ruled in favor of Landor, Wolford, and Hemani, the precedent set had a direct impact on SAF’s ongoing NFA challenges. With those rulings in hand, we are now able to better explain to the courts exactly why the remaining registration scheme left in the NFA lacks constitutional authority and is a direct violation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. We are hopeful these cases will move expeditiously and rightfully restore the full constitutional rights of gun owners across the nation.”

“There is no doubt the Supreme Court’s rulings this past term have direct bearing on our current challenges to the NFA’s remaining registration scheme,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The relevant district courts should recognize the rulings for what they are – binding precedent that bolsters SAF’s arguments in these three cases. The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the tax for suppressors and short-barreled firearms, and it’s now time to remove the registration burden so citizens can exercise their right to keep and bear arms without fear of being placed on some government list.”

The burden is now where Bruen put it: on the government. ATF must identify a historical analogue, not wave at modern licensing practices and demand judicial deference. The government now faces a problem it cannot solve with slogans about licensing or administrative convenience.

No tax means no taxing-power excuse. Protected arms mean the Second Amendment applies. And a government list of firearms and their owners is exactly what it looks like: registration.

---

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/lxC32WY
via IFTTT

Federal Rights vs. State Bans: How the Latest Supreme Court Docket Eyes National Reciprocity

The Wolford v. Lopez decision reinforced a national Second Amendment standard that could affect carry restrictions, AR-15 bans and the push for national reciprocity. IMG Duncan Johnson

The gun rights movement just got a win that’s bigger than most people realize.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez represents a structural pivot in Second Amendment jurisprudence that extends far beyond the municipal boundaries of the State of Hawaii. While initial commentary has largely framed the ruling as a localized vindication of public carry rights, a precise legal analysis reveals a broader administrative framework. Justice Alito’s majority opinion effectively establishes a repeatable baseline that invalidates the secondary wave of post-Bruen legislative restrictions, creating a uniform standard that holds significant implications for pending litigation and the broader architecture of interstate reciprocity under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1).

For decades, the boundaries of public carry have been defined by fragmented state frameworks. Following the realization that subjective licensing standards were no longer constitutionally permissible under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), several anti-gun jurisdictions sought to restrict the practical exercise of the right by altering traditional property defaults.

The introduction of what has been often referred to as the “vampire rule” which presumes that carrying a firearm on private property held open to the public is a criminal trespass absent explicit, affirmative consent, represented a systemic attempt to restrict public carry through widespread zoning limitations. Specifically exemplified by Hawaii Act 52 (2023) (codified at Haw. Rev. Stat. § 134-9.5) and mirrored by California S.B. 2 (2023) and New Jersey A.B. 4769 (2022), these statutes flipped centuries of property law to achieve a de facto ban on concealed carry.

In Wolford, the Supreme Court did not merely evaluate a specific state statute; it reinforced the common-law baseline and delineated the precise boundaries of historical inquiry under the “text and historical tradition” standard.

The Common-Law Baseline and the Shifting of the Evidentiary Burden

The core legal mechanism of the Wolford decision rests upon the codification of the traditional common-law rule regarding implied licensing. The majority opinion directly shatters the revisionist property theories advanced by hostile jurisdictions by re-establishing two critical boundaries for federal challenges:

1. The Implied License Doctrine

The Court held that commercial and retail establishments held open to the general public carry a historical presumption of access. A state cannot retroactively alter fundamental tenets of property law for the explicit purpose of neutralizing a codified constitutional right. Because the general public possesses an implied invitation to enter public-facing commercial spaces, a licensed permit holder retains that baseline right by default.

Consequently, the burden of proof is permanently redirected: under the standard derived from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the state must independently demonstrate that a specific location meets the narrow, historical criteria of a “sensitive place” (Bruen, 597 U.S., at 30). Justice Alito noted that a law-abiding citizen cannot be forced to navigate a minefield, where visiting a gas station, a dry cleaner, or a grocery store exposes them to criminal liability at every turn.

2. Disqualification of Pretextual Historical Analogues

Under the methodology established in Bruen, the government bears the burden of identifying relevantly similar historical traditions to justify modern restrictions. In Wolford, the Court provided much-needed clarity on what constitutes a valid analogue, explicitly rejecting the state’s reliance on early colonial anti-poaching regulations and discriminatory Reconstruction-era codes, such as the 1865 Louisiana Black Codes.

The majority clarified that statutes designed to address distinct agricultural harms, such as unauthorized hunting or wildlife management on private lands, cannot be structurally analogized to justify a sweeping prohibition on self-defense in modern commercial centers. This sets a binding precedent for lower courts currently reviewing challenges to public park, transit, and open-space restrictions where states routinely rely on identical, non-analogous historical artifacts.

The Clean Map: The Jurisprudential Path to Reciprocity

A persistent challenge to the implementation of National Concealed Carry Reciprocity has been the administrative complexity of state-level variations regarding property defaults. Opponents of federal reciprocity frameworks, such as the proposed Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act (H.R. 38 / S. 214), frequently argue that a uniform national standard is unworkable because an out-of-state traveler cannot reasonably navigate the distinct statutory presumptions of varying jurisdictions.

While the Wolford ruling does not directly legislate reciprocity, its constitutional framework systematically demolishes this argument by establishing what can be defined as “The Clean Map.”

The Clean Map

1. State-Issued CCW Permit – Step 1: Origin.

The individual holds a valid concealed carry weapon (CCW) permit issued by their home state.

2. Crosses State Lines – Step 2: Trigger Event.

The permit holder travels across state boundaries into another jurisdiction.

3. Uniform Constitutional Baseline – Step 3: Legal standard applied.

A standardized federal or constitutional baseline takes effect, overriding individual state reciprocity discrepancies.

4. Location Evaluation – Step 4: Final determination.

The right to carry is split cleanly based on the specific location type:

• • • • Commercial & Public Spaces: Entry is treated as presumptively valid.
      • Sensitive Places: Restrictions are strictly limited only to defined core spaces like courthouses and legislative chambers.

By ruling that a concealed carry permit remains valid by default across all private property held open to the public, the Supreme Court has established a uniform definition of what it means to “bear arms” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because the Second Amendment carries an identical meaning across all fifty states, local legislative hostility can no longer be used to shrink the baseline of a federal right, aligning with the principles of constitutional supremacy outlined in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).

By removing the ability of individual states to manipulate property defaults into a de facto carrying prohibition, the Court has provided the exact uniform structure necessary to support a federal reciprocity framework under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (U.S. Const. art. IV, § 1).

Pending Confrontations: Hardware and the Consolidated Fall Docket

The structural utility of the Wolford blueprint becomes immediately apparent when applied to the Supreme Court’s upcoming docket. On June 30, 2026, the Court granted certiorari and consolidated two landmark challenges to semi-automatic firearm restrictions: Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (appealed from the Seventh Circuit’s decision upholding Cook County Ordinance No. 06-O-50) and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (challenging Connecticut’s ban under Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53-202a).

As these cases head toward oral arguments for the October Term 2026, the historical boundaries reinforced in Wolford will serve as the primary framework to address lower-court resistance:

• The Presumption of Common Use: Under the Heller and Bruen formulations, if a class of firearms is overwhelmingly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, a threshold indisputably met by the over 32 million modern sporting rifles currently in domestic circulation, the hardware is presumptively protected. The burden shifts entirely to the state to justify its prohibition under the “text and historical tradition” standard.
• The Pincer Effect: The Court’s strategic alignment of its docket suggests a systematic, nationwide reconciliation of Second Amendment litigation. While Wolford defines where a citizen may carry, the consolidated fall cases are highly likely to definitively resolve what a citizen may carry.

Furthermore, the Court’s decision to hold major standard-capacity magazine cases, including Duncan v. Bonta (9th Cir. No. 24-15338) and Gator’s Custom Guns v. Inslee (9th Cir.), indicates that the legal conclusions reached in Viramontes and Grant will inevitably control the resolution of secondary accessory bans. A state cannot logically respect the right to possess a protected platform while simultaneously criminalizing the standard feeding devices required for its operation.

Conclusion: A Mandate for Uniform Application

The professional vanguard of Second Amendment litigation, including the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), and the National Rifle Association (NRA), are already systematically integrating the Wolford framework into pending challenges across the country. The era of treating Bruen as a flexible set of guidelines rather than a strict constitutional mandate has concluded.

For federal jurists evaluating the next wave of local zoning loopholes, public transit prohibitions, and parking lot restrictions, the roadmap is now absolute. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to public carry cannot be subjected to a death by a thousand logistical cuts. The default rule of the United States is freedom; the historical
methodology has been refined, and the path toward complete national uniformity has been clearly paved.

---

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/Be1S6bW
via IFTTT

Everytown Data Shows Washington Gun Homicide Rate Rose 33% Despite Tougher Laws

In Washington state, the media is a “gun-free zone,” where failure is success on a different scale, which the press never questions. iStock-1295573667

Has Everytown for Gun Safety unintentionally just acknowledged that increasingly strict gun control laws adopted in Washington state since 2014 have delivered less than stellar results?

Take a careful look at statistics and comments posted on Everytown’s data page, EveryStat and reach your own conclusion.

The Evergreen State has become something of a test tube for all manner of gun control schemes. A November 2014 citizen initiative (I-594) started the piecemeal shift with its “universal background check” mandate, although there were exemptions for immediate family members. The law took effect in December 2014 and the following year, 2015, was the first full year of its effectiveness.

Washington’s Decade-Long Gun-Control Experiment

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2015, Washington state recorded 209 total homicides, of which 141 involved firearms. In 2016, the number of homicides dipped to 195, again according to FBI data, but in 2017, the number of Evergreen State homicides jumped to 228 and in 2018, it spiked to 232.

In 2018, Washington voters approved Initiative 1639, an even tougher gun control law regulating so-called “assault weapons” and adding restrictions on purchasers. Also, the Democrat-controlled legislature has adopted a string of strict gun policies which, if one believes social media, have caused many gun owners in the state to relocate to Idaho, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Tennessee, Arizona or some other rights-friendly jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, the number of homicides in Washington dropped again in 2019 to 194, but in 2020, the number shot right back up again, dramatically.

• KING in Seattle reported 302 homicides in 2020.
• The Tacoma News Tribune reported 327 murders in 2021.
• The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) reported 394 murders in 2022.
• For the following year, 2023, WASPC reported 376 slayings, a decrease of 5.8%, but still well above pre-gun control numbers.
• Seattle’s KING reported 312 murders in 2024, the most recent year for which data is available.

Here’s how EveryStat reported things: “The rate of gun deaths has increased 12% from 2015 to 2024 in Washington, compared to a 15% increase nationwide. This means that in 2024 there were 197 more gun deaths than in 2015.”

EveryStat also noted, “In Washington, the rate of gun suicide increased 4% and gun homicide increased 33% from 2015 to 2024, compared to a 16% increase and 14% increase nationwide, respectively.”

And, yet, Everytown contends, “After passing a slate of new gun safety laws in the past decade, Washington is among the top 10 states in terms of gun law strength.”

There were other observations. “In an average year, 950 people die by guns.” Notice how the firearm is blamed, instead of the person pressing the trigger.

Recent data provided to Ammoland News by the Washington Department of Licensing revealed the number of active concealed pistol licenses remained steady through May and June, with a slight bump last month. At the end of May, the agency reported 691,336 active CPLs, and at the end of June, the number had crept up to 691,443 active licenses.

Washington’s Rifle Ban Faces a Supreme Court Reckoning

In 2023, former Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee signed legislation banning so-called “assault weapons.” While people who already owned modern semiautomatic rifles were not affected, no new guns may be manufactured, imported or sold in the state. Inslee did not run in 2024, and he has been succeeded by fellow Democrat Bob Ferguson, the former attorney general who has repeatedly bragged he has never lost a case to the “gun lobby.”

However, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pair of gun ban cases in the fall, the future of Washington’s gun ban is in question, even though this state’s ban is not part of the high court’s review, set for hearing during the October 2026 session. Washington is among 10 states with such bans, and if the high court rules banning such firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, those states—all controlled by Democrats—will have to adjust their laws, although the more likely course of action—based on recent past history following the 2022 Bruen ruling—will find those states scrambling to dance around the Court decision.

Historic FBI data has always shown that rifles of any kind, including semi-autos, are used in a fraction of all homicides. Indeed, more people are murdered every year with knives, or are beaten or bludgeoned to death, than are killed with rifles.

One fact routinely overlooked or simply ignored by the gun prohibition lobby and their allies in the Washington legislature is the number of convicted felons arrested in Seattle and elsewhere in the state for illegal possession of a firearm. Type in the phrase “Seattle police arrest felon with gun” and see what pops up on your search engine. We used Google, and immediately saw reports from March 3, April 12, April 27, and May 19. Clearly, none of these suspects obeyed any Washington gun laws, and none of the state’s strict Democrat-adopted gun laws prevented them from obtaining firearms.

As for the original question, the answer is ‘No, Everytown nor any other gun prohibition lobbying group has acknowledged—nor would they ever admit—that their gun control schemes have lived up to expectations, or legislative sales pitch.”

The truth is that anti-gunners deny they’ve failed to deliver, and instead juggle the data or simply develop lockjaw, same as when a legally-armed citizen intervenes in a criminal incident and saves lives by taking out the criminal or crazy person trying to harm innocent people. Their silence is, as usual, deafening.

---

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/b6SnQK5
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Ducks the 1791 vs. 1868 Second Amendment Fight—Again

“The United States Supreme Court has now refused again to decide this big fight between when you interpret the Second Amendment, whether it’s the year of our Lord 1791 when it was written, or is it 1868 after the Civil War, with the adoption of the 14th Amendment,” constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner Mark W. Smith informed his followers Monday. “After the Civil War, there were three constitutional amendments that were adopted to basically expand the Bill of Rights … to all Americans, not just as applied against the federal government, preventing the federal government from stopping you from exercising these rights, but also making sure that states and local governments could no longer impact or infringe on your rights as well.”

The technical holdup is essentially one of emphasizing due process and ignoring privileges and immunities, which to a layperson seems a bit like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Legal precedents aside, there’s a more basic argument: The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified based on the understanding of the people and their representatives with debates based on arguments posited in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist essays. There has never been a magic crystal ball that allows decisions to be based on what will happen in the future.

And while it’s inarguable that the Fourteenth Amendment mandates “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” another basic question needs to be explored:

Would the Framers have thought it necessary?

“The Founders Intended for the Bill of Rights to Apply to the States,” Second Amendment writer Brian Puckett concluded back in 2001. “[I]f we set aside any Supreme Court decisions relating to that matter, we are left with the writings of the Founders and – most important of all – the actual legal document they produced, the Constitution and its first ten Articles of Amendment.”

“Who is this guy and what are his legal qualifications to make such an assertion?” seems a legitimate question only if one ignores the arguments he makes and the questions he raises, which then makes such a challenge ad hominem, that is, a logical fallacy. What has to be refuted and dismissed are his assertions, not the man, and he offers some that naysayers need to refute, if they can.

Proof of this understanding is contained in a passage from William Rawle. In his book View of the Constitution, published in 1829, Rawle wrote about the Second Amendment: “No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [emphasis added].

In other words, Rawle says that the Second Amendment may be used as a legal argument to quash an attempt by either Congress or a state legislature to disarm the people. It cannot be any clearer that Rawle – a contemporary of the Founders and the man to whom George Washington offered an appointment as the first U.S. Attorney General – understood that the Second Amendment (and by extension the entire Bill of Rights) applied to the state governments as well as to the federal government. Keep in mind that View of the Constitution was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860.

Rawle’s was not the only voice.

“The man most involved in writing the Constitution, James Madison  [argued] for adding a national bill of rights by pointing out that some states have insufficient bills of rights,” Puckett added. “The logical implication is that this national bill of rights will correct the problem of states that have insufficient bills of rights. Therefore, he is acknowledging that the national bill of rights will apply to the states.”

There’s another historical/legal example – from the Supreme Court — that predates the Fourteenth Amendment that must also be considered, and that was in the Dredd Scott decision, which noted:

 “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” [Emphasis added]

Stipulating that I’m not a lawyer versed in the intricacies of case law, just a citizen who somewhat knows how to read, I’ve seen those who are qualified admit stare decisis über alles may not be what the Founders intended, particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights. So don’t take this as a critique of  admittedly more formally educated Second Amendment scholars. I’m not trying to start a fight.

Consider it instead a hope that they’ll add the Rawle, Madison, and Scott examples to the arguments they’ll want the High Court to consider – or cogently explain to the rest of us why they’re irrelevant in determining Founding intent.

---

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/0Uopbz1
via IFTTT