Virginia Gun Ban Faces NSSF-Backed Lawsuit and Emergency Injunction Request

Virginia’s SB749 gun and magazine ban is now facing multiple Second Amendment lawsuits ahead of its July 1 effective date. iStock-1249586568

A new NSSF-backed lawsuit, Black v. Hook, is challenging Virginia’s SB749/HB217, the sweeping ban on so-called “assault firearms” and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds. The complaint was filed in Fauquier County Circuit Court on behalf of Virginia gun owners, a gun shop, a firearms manufacturer, and a magazine manufacturer.

According to NSSF, the plaintiffs have filed an emergency motion for a preliminary injunction asking the court to block enforcement before the law takes effect on July 1, 2026. The plaintiffs requested a hearing by June 19, giving the court only a narrow window to stop Virginia from enforcing one of the most aggressive gun-control laws in the country.

Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed SB749 into law on May 14, 2026. Her office described it as legislation prohibiting the future sale and manufacture of “assault firearms” and the sale of magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

The lawsuit names Scott C. Hook, the Commonwealth’s Attorney for Fauquier County, as the defendant in his official capacity. If the law takes effect, county prosecutors would be responsible for bringing criminal cases against ordinary Virginians, gun shops, and manufacturers who violate the new restrictions.

The plaintiffs include Eric Black, Britton Condon, Clark’s Gun Shop Inc. d/b/a Clark Brothers, Optimus Arms, LLC, and Hexmag USA, LLC. This is a strong plaintiff lineup that includes individual gun owners and Virginia businesses directly harmed by the ban. Clark Brothers sells firearms to law-abiding Virginians. Optimus Arms manufactures firearms. Hexmag manufactures magazines. The law does not just affect what Virginians can buy. It tells gun shops, firearm makers, and magazine manufacturers what they cannot sell, transfer, import, or, in the case of covered firearms, manufacture for the Virginia market after July 1.

Black v. Hook is not the only legal fight now aimed at Virginia’s gun ban.

AmmoLand previously reported that GOA, GOF, VCDL, the VCDL Foundation, AmmoLand contributor John Crump, and other plaintiffs filed a separate state-court challenge (Crump v. Katz) in Lancaster County, followed by an emergency motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction to stop the law before July 1. SAF, NRA, and FPC have also filed a federal lawsuit, McDonald v. Katz, challenging the same SB749 ban on common semiautomatic firearms and magazines over 15 rounds.

Virginia Democrats have turned the Commonwealth into a major Second Amendment battleground, with gun owners, gun-rights groups, retailers, manufacturers, and the firearms industry now attacking this unconstitutional scheme from multiple directions.

SB749 bans the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of firearms that Virginia Democrats have labeled “assault firearms.” It also bans the importation, sale, barter, transfer, or purchase of magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds, while grandfathering magazines lawfully purchased and possessed before July 1, 2026. Violations can be charged as Class 1 misdemeanors, carrying up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine.

The complaint’s central point is simple: Virginia is banning common arms.

The lawsuit argues that the firearms covered by SB749 are not unusual. They include AR-15-style rifles, common semiautomatic pistols, and semiautomatic shotguns used for self-defense, hunting, competition, training, and recreation. The complaint repeatedly relies on Heller, Bruen, and Caetano. Plaintiffs argue that arms commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes are protected by the Second Amendment.

Virginia’s law treats normal features found on modern firearms as evidence of criminality. A pistol grip. A threaded barrel. A collapsible stock. An arm brace. A detachable magazine. These features often make firearms safer, more controllable, more accurate, or more usable for smaller shooters, disabled shooters, and ordinary people who want a firearm that fits them.

The plaintiffs will not let Virginia hide behind scary political labels. They argue that the banned features are often functional, safety-related, or accessibility-related. In plain English, Virginia is criminalizing design features that help lawful owners use their firearms responsibly.

The magazine-ban argument is just as important. The complaint rejects the idea that magazines are some optional accessory outside the Second Amendment. For many modern firearms, magazines are part of how the firearm operates. A rifle or pistol designed around detachable magazines is not meaningfully protected if the state can ban the magazines needed to feed it.

NSSF’s update reinforces that point with hard numbers. NSSF says there are more than 32 million Modern Sporting Rifles in circulation in America and nearly 1 billion detachable magazines in private possession, with hundreds of millions holding more than 15 rounds. Those numbers are devastating to Virginia’s position. The state is not targeting fringe items. It is targeting what Americans already own.

SB749 uses a broad and complicated definition of “assault firearm,” tied to feature tests and open-ended language that could leave gun owners, retailers, and manufacturers guessing. When a bad guess can mean criminal prosecution, that is not a minor drafting problem. It is a constitutional problem.

The plaintiffs’ emergency motion argues they will suffer irreparable harm if the law is allowed to take effect while the case proceeds. That harm is obvious. Individual plaintiffs lose access to commonly owned firearms and standard capacity magazines. Retailers lose lawful sales. Manufacturers lose customers and markets. Virginians lose the ability to buy arms and magazines that remain legal and ordinary in much of the country.

This is exactly why the court should act before July 1. The state should not be allowed to enforce an unconstitutional gun ban. The Second Amendment is not a government suggestion. It is a constitutional limit on government power.

Virginia’s politicians made the decision to target peaceable citizens, gun shops, manufacturers, and the firearms and magazines millions of Americans own for lawful purposes.

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

---

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/f9iGV05
via IFTTT

Florida AG Warns Port St. Lucie HOA Over Gun Ban in Common Areas

Lawsuit Challenges Hawaii’s Ban on Concealed Carry Permits for Non-Residents, iStock-2196791813

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has issued a strong warning to a Port St. Lucie homeowners’ association regarding its recent ban on firearms in common areas. The association’s policy is not allowed under state law, specifically Florida Statute 790.33, and could prompt the attorney general to take legal action against the HOA.

In a formal letter sent on Thursday to the Tradition Community Association Inc., Attorney General Uthmeier informed the HOA that its rule prohibiting firearms in shared spaces directly conflicts with Florida Statute 790.33. This statute protects the right to keep and bear arms. The policy applies to all residents, guests, and contractors. It covers common areas such as parks, trails, recreation spaces, and gathering facilities.

“Tradition Community Association Inc. is on notice,” Uthmeier stated. “Enforcement of its discriminatory policy against anyone for exercising the constitutional right to keep and bear arms will be met with legal action by my office.”

Tradition Community Association, Inc. is on notice:

Enforcement of its discriminatory policy against anyone for exercising the constitutional right to keep and bear arms will be met with legal action by my office. pic.twitter.com/1j4hjeoeUf

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) May 21, 2026

Earlier this month, the Tradition Community Association notified residents that firearms would be prohibited in common areas. The ban applies to both open carry and concealed carry of guns. The rule does not exempt concealed carry permit holders.

This decision quickly sparked significant controversy among community members. Many residents complained that the association implemented the policy without sufficient notice or public discussion. Some homeowners expressed concerns about their personal safety and Second Amendment rights in shared community spaces.

Florida law is clear on this matter. In addition to Florida Statute 790.33, which broadly preempts state firearms regulation, the rule also violates Florida Statute 790.251. This statute prohibits private employers from taking action against employees or expelling invitees for lawfully exercising their constitutional right to keep and bear arms. According to Uthmeier, the association qualifies as a private employer. Both its staff and visitors receive protection under state law.

The law states that employees and contractors cannot be disciplined for carrying firearms if they are legally permitted to do so. Residents, guests, and prospective homebuyers are considered invitees under the law. Therefore, the HOA cannot bar these invitees from possessing firearms in common areas. The HOA rules are in direct conflict with Florida state law. The attorney general claims that the policy is unenforceable and lacks a lawful basis. It infringes on Floridians’ constitutionally protected rights.

The Port St. Lucie Police Department also weighed in on the controversy. Officials stated that they will not enforce the private HOA policies. The department said its officers will follow Florida law and uphold constitutional rights. The police emphasized that those rights include protections under the Second Amendment. This refusal to intervene further complicates the HOA’s ability to enforce the rules. Without local law enforcement support, the association may struggle to address any violations of its policy.

The Port St. Lucie Police Department Statement

Attorney General Uthmeier has given the Port St. Lucie homeowners association until June 1 to provide written confirmation that it will not enforce the policy.

If the HOA fails to comply, Uthmeier warned that his office will take legal action against the association. This action aims to block the unauthorized enforcement of rules that contradict Florida state law. Such legal proceedings could include court orders preventing the HOA from enforcing the ban. They might also result in financial penalties or other consequences for the association.

This situation highlights ongoing tensions between private community rules and state protections for gun rights. Homeowners’ associations often claim to create guidelines to maintain safety and order in their neighborhoods. However, when those rules clash with broader state statutes, they risk legal challenges. In Florida, strong preemption laws limit local or private entities from imposing stricter firearms regulations than the state allows. This case serves as a reminder to other HOAs across the state to carefully review their policies against current statutes.

The controversy has drawn attention from gun rights advocates and community members alike. Many residents value the ability to carry firearms for self-defense in everyday settings. The attorney general’s intervention underscores Florida’s commitment to safeguarding Second Amendment rights at the state level. It also sends a clear message that private organizations cannot override these protections.

AmmoLand News reached out to the Port St. Lucie homeowners’ association for comment. However, the HOA did not return the request. As the June 1 deadline approaches, all eyes remain on the Tradition Community Association. Its response could shape future interactions between HOAs and state authorities on similar issues. Residents continue to voice their opinions in community forums. The outcome may influence how other associations handle firearms policies moving forward.

This battle is about balancing individual rights with community governance. In Florida, state law prioritizes constitutional protections. Homeowners’ associations must align their regulations accordingly to avoid costly legal battles.

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

---

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/cxeEISp
via IFTTT

Freedom from Taxes Act Would Zero Out Remaining NFA Tax Burden

The Freedom from Taxes Act would cut remaining NFA taxes to $0, but it does not repeal Hughes or reopen the machine gun registry. That may be the next fight. IMG Jim Grant

Rep. Lauren Boebert has introduced the Freedom from Taxes Act of 2026, a bill aimed at stripping out the remaining tax penalties attached to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Boebert’s bill does not tear down the entire NFA, reopen the machine gun registry, or repeal the Hughes Amendment. But it does take a direct shot at one of the government’s oldest excuses for keeping this unconstitutional scheme alive: the tax.

The bill would reduce the remaining NFA transfer tax from $200 to $0 and eliminate the Special Occupational Tax paid by Federal Firearms Licensees who deal in, manufacture, or import NFA-regulated firearms.

The text of the bill amends the Internal Revenue Code by changing the NFA transfer tax under Section 5811 and the making tax under Section 5821 from “$200” to “$0.” It also adds language ending the special tax under Section 5801 for years beginning after the bill takes effect.

Boebert’s office described the legislation as a bill to “fully repeal” the remaining excise taxes imposed on machine guns and destructive devices under the NFA. Her office also said it would reduce the annual Special Occupational Tax burden from $1,000 to $0 for importers and manufacturers and from $500 to $0 for dealers.

“Taxing our constitutional rights is unacceptable and unconstitutional,” Boebert said in announcing the bill. “The Freedom from Taxes Act builds on the progress we made in the One big Beautiful Bill by completely eliminating the final NFA taxes on machine guns and destructive devices. My bill also eliminates the burdensome Special Occupational Tax that’s been crushing our small businesses and manufacturers. The government should not be imposing penalties on law-abiding citizens exercising their Second Amendment rights.”

Gun Owners of America endorsed the bill and framed it around the 40th anniversary of the Hughes Amendment, the 1986 law that shut down new civilian registration of machine guns. GOA said Boebert’s bill would reduce the $200 NFA tax on machine guns and destructive devices to zero.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, said GOA opposed the Hughes Amendment from the beginning and still opposes infringements on the right to keep and bear arms. Pratt called the NFA tax an unconstitutional “sin tax” and said Boebert’s bill would restore the right to own a machine gun without paying that tax.

“From its inception, GOA opposed the Hughes Amendment when it was signed into law. Forty years later, GOA still opposes any infringements on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That’s why Gun Owners of America is proud to endorse Representative Boebert’s bill that would reduce the $200 NFA tax on machine guns. Under this GOA-backed legislation, the right to own a machine gun without paying a ‘sin’ tax would be fully restored—just like the Founding Fathers intended.”

This bill would remove the tax burden. It would not, by itself, undo 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the federal machine gun ban added by the Hughes Amendment. That section still says, with limited exceptions, that it is unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun, while protecting lawful possession of machine guns possessed before the effective date of that subsection.

This bill would not suddenly make post-1986 machine guns available to ordinary gun owners. It would not end the ATF approval process. The underlying registration requirement of the NFA would still exist.

The NFA’s $200 tax was designed to be punitive. In 1934, $200 was an enormous sum of money. Congress knew exactly what it was doing. It used taxation as a weapon against gun ownership.

That creates the next legal problem for the federal government. The Supreme Court upheld the NFA’s dealer registration and tax provisions in Sonzinsky v. United States in 1937 by treating them as a valid exercise of Congress’s taxing power. The Court did not bless a free-floating federal power to register and restrict every firearm Washington dislikes. It upheld the law as a revenue measure. If Congress reduces the NFA taxes to $0, the government’s old excuse starts to collapse.

That argument is already spreading among gun-rights advocates. Brandon Herrera pointed out on X that if the NFA taxes are reduced to zero, the government has a much harder time defending a registry supposedly tied to tax collection. That does not mean Boebert’s bill repeals the NFA by itself, but it sharpens the constitutional attack against it.

Once the tax is gone, the registry looks less like revenue collection and more like what gun owners have always said it is: a federal gun-control scheme hiding behind the tax code.

And just like the NFA taxes that were removed from SBR’s and suppressors by the Big Beautiful Bill, why are these items being registered if there are no taxes?

According to the Supreme Court in a ruling from 1937, the NFA is only constitutional because Congress has the legal… https://t.co/fi825osWnA

— Brandon Herrera (@TheAKGuy) May 21, 2026

The bill also matters for small firearms businesses. The Special Occupational Tax is one more annual federal burden on FFLs operating in an already hostile regulatory environment. Between ATF inspections, shifting rulemaking, recordkeeping requirements, compliance traps, and constant political attacks, the firearms industry is treated like a suspect class for doing business in constitutionally protected arms.

The bill is backed by Gun Owners of America and the National Rifle Association. Boebert’s office listed Reps. Scott DesJarlais, Barry Moore, Thomas Massie, and Eric Burlison as cosponsors.

This bill is not the finish line. Full repeal of the NFA, along with the Hughes Amendment, is required.

If lawmakers believe the Second Amendment means what it says, they should zero out the taxes, repeal Hughes, dismantle the NFA’s unconstitutional treatment of commonly possessed arms and accessories, and stop allowing ATF to act like a national gun-control legislature.

The Freedom from Taxes Act is a step in the right direction. It attacks the tax scheme. It exposes the absurdity of making Americans pay a federal penalty to own arms. And it gives gun owners another opportunity to force Congress to answer a simple question:

If the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, why is Washington still charging them to exercise it?

The Hughes Amendment Explained: How a 1986 Voice Vote Banned New Machine Guns for Americans

---

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/NlvmGDy
via IFTTT

CPRC: FBI Active Shooter Reports Undercount Armed Citizens Who Stop Attacks

The CPRC says FBI active-shooter reports undercount incidents where armed citizens stopped attackers. iStock-1899043269

On July 30, 2024, the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) published a paper showing massive errors in the FBI Active Shooter Reports from 2014 through 2023.

In that time, I have personally been following the issue throughout. The first viral post I wrote about the subject of armed civilians stopping mass murders was published on December 15, 2012. It had 16 incidents documented from October 1997 to 11 December 2012. All of these incidents occurred before the FBI started collecting data on “active shooter” incidents.

The CPRC paper, with a solid institution and organization behind it, does a better job than a single blogger did at the end of 2012. 

The Crime Prevention Research Center report claims the FBI’s active shooter reports from 2014 through 2023 badly undercount armed citizens who stopped attacks. According to the CPRC, the FBI listed only 14 active shooter incidents stopped by defensive gun use during that period, while the CPRC found 180 such cases.

The CPRC shows how badly the FBI has bungled the job of tracking these events. The first FBI report was published ten months later, during the Obama administration, in September 2014. The CPRC covered the problems with the FBI report in October 2014.

The reason for the difference in the numbers reported by the FBI is not immediately obvious. It happens because the FBI structured its approach to identifying incidents and determining whether they qualify for inclusion.

According to the FBI, under the Obama administration, the FBI started to report “active shooter incidents” as part of the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012, 28 USC 530C(b)(1)(M)(i). The research for the report appears to have been done at Texas State University, with an overview by FBI Agent Katherine W. Schweit. Later reports were also contracted to and researched at Texas State University.

The FBI definition of an “active shooter” is stated below:

From the 2016-17 report:

“The FBI defines an active shooter as one or more individuals actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a populated area. Implicit in this definition is the shooter’s use of one or more firearms.”

From the 2013 Study:

“Incidents identified in this study do not encompass all gun-related situations; therefore caution should be taken when using this information without placing it in context. Specifically, shootings that resulted from gang or drug violence—pervasive, long-tracked, criminal acts that could also affect the public—were not included in this study.” 

Those definitions, together, create a system that is inherently subjective. It is a system that depends on a great deal of judgment on the part of the people grading the incidents. John Lott investigated the process, seeking answers from the FBI on why certain incidents were included while others were excluded.

Here is an answer he received from an FBI administrator. From email to John Lott in response to queries about incidents, by Shayne E. Buchwald of the FBI, dated May 16, 2018, 7:36 AM:

“The selection of cases for inclusion in these reports is the result of a consensus vote of analysts and Law Enforcement professionals using the methodology stated in the original 2013 study. In some cases, a level of interpretation is required with which all may not agree. The FBI notes your differing opinion in the stated cases.”

My understanding of consensus voting depends on the specific method used. In a small group, it usually means everyone agrees with the decision. If such is the approach, any member of the group has veto power over whether an incident is included. Any member may exclude incidents, but all members must include any incident.  Such a system minimizes the number of incidents that are included.

The CPRC article gives example after example of incidents that were excluded, while others that are very similar are included. There is a high correlation between incidents stopped by armed “civilians” and incidents that are excluded. Incidents are also mislabeled. In the West Freeway Church incident, the volunteer church security action was labeled a “defense” by a “security guard” rather than an armed civilian, even though the defender was an unpaid volunteer.

The CPRC reports 515 active shooter incidents, which they believe meet the FBI definition. This is 165 more incidents than those judged by the FBI to meet the definition. The FBI shows only 14 incidents where “active shooters” were stopped by defensive gun use. The CRPC shows 180 incidents stopped by defensive gun uses, or 166 more than the FBI.

Because of the subjective nature of identifying and including incidents and the nature of “consensus voting”, the FBI can justify its selection of some incidents and exclusion of others. The CPRC report shows how subjective and exclusionary this process is.  The selection of incidents to be voted on by consensus is subjective.  The grading of chosen incidents is subjective. It is not surprising that those who value armed defense of self and others grade the incidents differently.

The FBI was created in the Progressive ideological era, where government was seen as the solution, and never as the problem. Progressive ideology believes restrains on government are bad. The earliest report of justified homicide statistics found by this correspondent by the FBI is dated 1976.

Clayton Cramer does an excellent job of showing how the FBI undercounts justifiable homicides by a factor of 5-1 in his 2016 academic paper. Only 15%-20% of justified homicide are recorded in the FBI Uniform Crime Reports. This correspondent wrote about the undercount problem in 2015.  The undercount of justified homicides is part of the institutional bias at the FBI. The undercount of armed defenders who stop active shooters appears to be an extension of such a bias.

It is not hard to understand how people who believe the population is unable to govern itself, are reluctant to admit armed civilians are a significant part of an effective defense against mass murder.  It is not hard to understand how people with such an ideology are subject to confirmation bias by excluding such incidents from their reporting.

Whether such bias is justified can be determined by each reader. Go to the CPRC website and look at the incidents that were excluded from the FBI report. Draw your own conclusions.

The problem is larger than the FBI. The old media had/has a progressive ideological bias that minimizes coverage of such incidents. I once had a naive belief that when a mass murderer was stopped by an armed defender, it would be national news, a “man bites dog” story. It would go “viral”.

The opposite happened in 1999 when a gun store employee stopped a mass murder by shooting the would-be murderer. The story was covered locally. With the internet in its infancy in 1999, the story quickly disappeared.  You can find an excerpt on freerepublic, where it was placed in 2012. How quickly the story disappeared convinced this correspondent to start keeping track.

Today, the CRPC does an excellent job of tracking incidents of armed defenders.

Six Seconds and Forty Yards: Armed Citizens Who Saved Lives

---

About Dean Weingarten:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/qB4xkGI
via IFTTT

SAF, FPC Ask Supreme Court to Stop Maryland’s Post-Bruen Carry Ban Scheme

Gun owners and Second Amendment groups ask the Supreme Court to review Maryland’s sweeping “sensitive places” carry bans after Bruen. iStock-499330617

Maryland could no longer deny ordinary citizens the right to carry after Bruen, so the state tried the next best thing: issue the permit, then ban carry almost everywhere people actually go.

That is the heart of Novotny v. Moore, a new Supreme Court petition filed by gun owners and Second Amendment groups challenging Maryland’s sweeping “sensitive places” carry restrictions. The petition asks the U.S. Supreme Court to decide whether Maryland’s long list of public carry bans violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

The case is not just about Maryland. It is about whether anti-gun states can openly defy New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen by replacing “may issue” carry-permit schemes with a new strategy: declare ordinary public life off-limits to armed citizens.

Maryland’s law blocks even permitted gun owners from carrying in or around mass transit facilities, public demonstrations, state parks and forests, healthcare facilities, museums, stadiums, racetracks, amusement parks, casinos, places selling alcohol for on-site consumption, government buildings, school grounds, and more. The state also tried to flip the rule on private property open to the public, making carry illegal unless the property owner gave express permission.

Maryland’s message to gun owners was simple: You may have a carry permit, but do not expect to actually carry.

The Post-Bruen Workaround

Before Bruen, Maryland used its “good and substantial reason” requirement to keep most ordinary citizens from obtaining carry permits. After the Supreme Court made clear that Americans have a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense, Maryland had to retreat from that system.

Maryland did not suddenly respect the right to bear arms. It changed tactics. The petition notes that Maryland itself admitted there had been “little practical need for broad locational restrictions” when the state could already sharply limit who received carry permits. Once Bruen made it easier for ordinary citizens to obtain permits, Maryland created broad location-based bans instead.

That is the whole game. If the state cannot deny the permit outright, it can try to make the permit worthless.

The Second Amendment Foundation, one of the groups backing the challenge, described Maryland as one of the states forced to change its carry laws after Bruen, only to pass a new carry ban covering “a long list of overlapping ‘sensitive place’ categories.”

“Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Bruen, states have found novel ways to circumvent not only the Court’s holdings, but to continue infringing on the core rights protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “By labeling essentially all areas open to the public ‘sensitive places,’ municipalities have attempted to completely ban the possession and carry of firearms in public all over again. We are hopeful presenting this case to the Supreme Court provides an attractive opportunity for the Court to once and for all clarify what places are, and are not, sufficiently ‘sensitive’ to justify extinguishing peoples’ rights.”

Maryland is not regulating carry at a few genuinely sensitive locations. It is trying to turn the exception into the rule.

The Fourth Circuit Gave Maryland Most Of What It Wanted

The lower courts split the case, but the Fourth Circuit ultimately gave Maryland most of what it wanted.

The district court initially blocked parts of the law, including the private-property default rule, the ban on carry in places selling alcohol for on-site consumption, and the ban near public demonstrations. But it upheld several other restrictions.

The Fourth Circuit went further for the state. It upheld Maryland’s challenged bans on public transit, demonstrations, parks and forests, healthcare facilities, places of amusement, museums, and places selling alcohol. The court did strike down Maryland’s private-property default rule as applied to private property open to the public, the provision Firearms Policy Coalition calls the “Vampire Rule.”

Maryland’s rule treated lawful carry on private property open to the public as forbidden unless the owner invited it in.

The Fourth Circuit accepted Maryland’s broad theory that a wide range of normal public places can be treated as “sensitive” and placed off-limits to lawful carry. If that view survives, Bruen becomes a hollow victory in states hostile to the Second Amendment.

“Sensitive Places” Cannot Mean Everywhere

The Supreme Court has recognized that some places may be sensitive. Courthouses and legislative assemblies are the usual examples. Those are limited, historically grounded categories.

Maryland wants something far broader. It wants to treat crowded places, public gathering places, transit systems, restaurants, parks, forests, museums, stadiums, and entertainment venues as places where the right to bear arms can be extinguished.

The petition warns that if the right to carry “in public” does not include public places owned by the government, places where First Amendment activity occurs, places where people eat and drink, or places where people gather for amusement and recreation, then it is hard to know what the right to carry in public actually protects.

That is the question the Supreme Court needs to answer.

A right to carry that disappears in public transit, parks, restaurants, public gatherings, and entertainment venues is not a real public-carry right. It is a legal trap.

“Even with permits, residents in Maryland still face five years in jail for carrying a firearm just about anywhere people actually need or want to go out in public,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “This infringement cannot be allowed to stand, and we encourage the Supreme Court to provide guidance to these senseless laws.”

That is not a narrow sensitive-place rule. That is a backdoor public-carry ban.

FPC Calls It Open Defiance

Firearms Policy Coalition was even more direct.

FPC President Brandon Combs said:

“When the Supreme Court held that states must issue carry licenses, Maryland simply banned carry everywhere people actually go instead. Same result, different method. That’s not following the law—that’s open defiance of the Supreme Court, and we’re going to make them answer for it. We will end these carry bans in Maryland and throughout the United States.”

Maryland is not confused about Bruen. Maryland knows exactly what Bruen said. The state just does not like the answer.

The Supreme Court said ordinary, law-abiding Americans have a constitutional right to carry firearms in public for self-defense. Maryland’s response was to make “public” mean less and less until the right barely functions.

Judge Agee Saw The Problem

Even at the Fourth Circuit, not every judge was willing to go along with Maryland’s theory.

Judge Agee agreed with some restrictions, but he strongly criticized the majority’s approach to Maryland’s broader carry bans. He warned that Maryland’s laws would convert the sensitive-place exception into a broad license to ban firearms wherever people gather, as long as the state separately lists enough categories to make the ban look limited.

Anti-gun lawmakers can take almost any ordinary location and slap a “sensitive place” label on it.

At that point, the word “sensitive” has no connection to the Founding Era. It becomes a political label used to disarm the public.

Judge Agee also criticized reliance on scattered 19th-century and later laws to justify modern restrictions, arguing that the analysis should focus on the Founding-era understanding of the Second Amendment.

That is exactly where many lower courts have gone wrong after Bruen. Instead of applying the historical test honestly, they rummage through history for anything that can be stretched into a modern gun-control excuse.

Crowded Places Are Not Automatically Sensitive Places

One of the most dangerous arguments accepted by lower courts is the idea that firearms can be banned in “crowded” places.

The Supreme Court already rejected that logic in Bruen. If crowding alone were enough, the government could declare much of public life off-limits to carry. Manhattan could be labeled sensitive. So could a downtown district, a bus station, a park, or any popular public event.

The petition argues there is no historical tradition of banning firearms in crowded places or places where “vulnerable” people are present. In fact, the petition points out that American history often went the other direction, with laws permitting or even requiring arms in places of public assembly.

The Founders did not believe citizens became less deserving of self-defense when they entered a crowd. They understood that public places are exactly where threats can arise.

Maryland’s position flips that logic upside down. The state disarms the people who obey the law while pretending that criminals will respect the boundary lines in the Maryland Code.

The petition draws an important distinction between genuinely secured places and ordinary public locations. A courthouse with armed guards and magnetometers is one thing. A public park, bus stop, restaurant, museum, or state forest is something else entirely.

If the government is going to disarm citizens, then the government should at least be taking responsibility for security. Maryland’s law does not do that. It simply tells lawful permit holders they are disarmed and on their own.

Supreme Court Must Answer “Sensitive Places” Question

The petition argues that lower courts are badly divided over how to analyze sensitive-place laws after Bruen. Courts have reached different conclusions on public transit, healthcare facilities, public gatherings, parks, government-owned property, private-property default rules, and the use of history from 1791 versus the Reconstruction period.

If the Supreme Court takes Novotny v. Moore, it could finally draw a line. It could make clear that “sensitive places” are narrow exceptions, not a permission slip for states to ban carry everywhere useful.

Gun owners should watch this case closely. Maryland’s law is part of the same playbook used in other anti-gun states. Lose the permit fight, then attack the places where the permit can be used.

Maryland tried to make peaceable carry functionally impossible while pretending to comply with Bruen.

The state did not ban carry permits. It just banned carry in the places where those permits matter.

That is why Novotny v. Moore deserves Supreme Court review. The right to bear arms cannot exist without the right to carry in public places.

Virginia “Assault Firearm” Ban Challenged With Emergency Injunction

---

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/gJj0DuT
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Denies Patrick Tate Adamiak Case as Resentencing Looms

Former Navy sailor Patrick Tate Adamiak is still fighting for his freedom after a 20-year sentence tied to demilled gun parts, ATF overreach, and serious double-jeopardy concerns.

On Monday, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Patrick Tate Adamiak’s case. His only hope remains a June resentencing or a presidential pardon.

Mr. Adamiak was a decorated Navy sailor who served as a Petty Officer 1st Class (E-6, Master-at-Arms). He was slated for BUD/S training to become a Navy SEAL. In 2016, he started a side business selling firearm parts and military surplus on GunBroker.com and his own website, Black Dog Arsenal. He rose to one of the top 500 dealers on GunBroker, generating over $10,000 in legal sales per month. He never sold functional firearms or National Firearms Act (NFA) items.

In late 2021, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) started an investigation into Adamiak after a paid informant (facing his own charges) told the ATF that Adamiak was selling machine guns. The paid confidential informant hired Adamiak to broker a deal between a GunBroker seller and an undercover ATF agent. Mr. Adamiak sold the undercover agent cut-up/demilled receivers (e.g., PPSh-41, PPS-43, Thompson) and other parts. The parts were cut with a bandsaw and not a torch. The ATF claimed that these cuts were insufficient to render the items inert.

On April 7, 2022, the ATF and more than 40 law enforcement officers raided Adamiak’s Virginia Beach home. The agents seized demilled machine gun parts (e.g., cut-up WWII-era kits), inert anti-tank missile launchers, and other non-functional replicas or display items. None of the items were functional, but to the ATF, it did not matter.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) under the Biden administration indicted the young sailor. They charged him with receiving and possessing unregistered firearms, possessing and transferring machine guns, and possessing unregistered destructive devices. Prosecutors claimed he dealt in illegal machine guns online. The ATF rebuilt each gun to prove it was a machine gun. For an RPG, the ATF welded closed the holes cut in the tube and added a trigger pack to make it functional. Gun owners viewed it as the definition of overreach.

A jury convicted him, and in June 2023, he received a 20-year sentence (with a projected release around 2042). He has been held at FCI Fort Dix in New Jersey.

After unsuccessful appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and a denial of certiorari from the Supreme Court, his only hope is a resentencing hearing in June or a presidential pardon. The case is fraught with problems. None of the items was functional; the informant was desperate to reduce his own charges; and, most importantly, his case might violate double jeopardy.

Petty Officer Adamiak was charged with receiving and possessing an unregistered firearm (primarily a PPSh-type machine gun) in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) (National Firearms Act), and possessing and transferring a machine gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). He received 10 years on each charge, but both charges were identical, meaning he was sentenced twice for the same crime.

The 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d) charge was for having an unregistered NFA firearm. Since the passage of the Hughes Amendment in 1986, it has been impossible to add any machine guns to the registry. The items that Adamiak had—in the ATF’s eyes—were machine guns, which were impossible to register. This means he was charged with violating a law he could not comply with.

The second charge was a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), which is the same offense under the Hughes Amendment. Adamiak should never have been charged with both. In fact, the United States Attorney’s Manual forbids the DOJ from charging defendants with both. This contradiction leads directly to double jeopardy, which violates Petty Officer Adamiak’s constitutionally protected rights.

9-63.516 of the U.S. Attorneys’ Manual

The manual reads: “Section 922(o) of Title 18 makes it unlawful to transfer or possess a machinegun made after May 19, 1986. In addition, under the NFA, it is unlawful to manufacture or possess a machine gun without first registering it with the Secretary of the Treasury and paying applicable taxes. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5822, 5861. As a result of the enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary of the Treasury no longer will register or accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986. Accordingly, because it is impossible to comply with the registration and taxation provisions in the NFA, prosecutors should charge the unlawful possession or transfer of a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, under § 922(o).”

Since the charges never should have been filed, his sentence should be significantly reduced at resentencing in June. It is also a smoking gun pointing to a political prosecution rather than one in the name of public safety. The U.S. Attorney’s Manual isn’t something federal prosecutors never consult.

According to AmmoLand News sources inside the DOJ, the charges had to go through multiple levels of approval before they could be levied against the defendant. It is much more likely that the Biden-era Justice Department intentionally ignored the guidelines than that extreme incompetence caused the failure to consult them. It is believed that the DOJ and ATF wanted to send a message to other sellers by getting the harshest sentence possible, even if that meant locking away for decades a person who dedicated their life to defending the country from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

None of the items Adamiak had were ever traced to any crimes. The items that led to Adamiak’s arrest were brokered between an ATF informant and an ATF agent. The destructive device was demilled and purchased at a California flea market. These charges appear to be trumped up to set an example.

This case was prosecuted under the Biden DOJ. A sailor who dedicated his life to the defense of liberty has had his freedom stolen. If the Trump administration wants to prove that it is different from the anti-gun Biden regime, then it should fix the injustice that has stripped Petty Officer Patrick Tate Adamiak of his freedom. It is time to free him and let him rebuild his life.

Why the US Supreme Court Skipped AR-15s This Term — And Why It’s Coming

---

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/HWOU8Zo
via IFTTT

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

“The U.S. Court of Appeals just took the Heller and Bruen playbook — founding-era text, founding-era dictionaries, founding-era silence — and ran it through a First Amendment case. Every yard they gained for the Establishment Clause is a yard also banked for the Second Amendment.” – Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has handed down an en banc decision in Nathan v. Alamo Heights Independent School District, No. 25-50695 (5th Cir. Apr. 21, 2026), upholding a Texas law requiring public-school classrooms to display a poster of the Ten Commandments. The 9–8 majority, written by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, held that the Texas law does not violate the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. That alone is a big deal. But more importantly for Second Amendment supporters, the en banc court embraced the “text and history” methodology used by the Supreme Court in its Second Amendment decisions.

In other words, the high court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence is being injected more and more into the bloodstream of American constitutional law.

A Bruen-Style Inquiry, Just Pointed at the First Amendment

The Fifth Circuit did exactly what District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), tell courts to do with the Second Amendment — only this time the target was the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The majority started with the constitutional text, locked in the founding era (1791) as the relevant time period, and asked what an ordinary American at ratification would have understood the words to mean.

Judge Duncan’s majority opinion put it this way: “If a modern law is challenged under the Establishment Clause, courts must test that law against what the founding generation would have regarded as an establishment of religion. … That is a familiar task. Courts often decide whether modern practices fall within the original public meaning of constitutional phrases — for instance, ‘search and seizure,’ ‘keep and bear arms,’ ‘Recess of the Senate,’ or ‘Officers of the United States.’”

Read that again. The en banc Fifth Circuit just dropped “keep and bear arms” into the same originalist sentence as “search and seizure” — treating the Second Amendment as one more constitutional phrase whose meaning was fixed when the Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. That is the methodological lockstep our right to self-defense needs.

The Dictionaries Heller Used

Further proof of how Second Amendment precedents are going mainstream can be found in Nathan’s footnotes. To define what “an establishment of religion” meant in 1791, the Fifth Circuit reached for two founding-era dictionaries: Samuel Johnson’s A Dictionary of the English Language (4th ed. 1773) and Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) — the exact same two dictionaries Justice Antonin Scalia leaned on in Heller to define “keep,” “bear,” and “arms.” Footnote 14 of the Nathan opinion cites Noah Webster by name. The court even pulled William Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England (another source cited by SCOTUS in Heller) off the shelf to explain what an established church looked like in pre-revolutionary England.

When a federal court deploys Johnson, Webster, and Blackstone to interpret the meaning of the 1791 Bill of Rights, the anti-gun lobby’s favorite cheat code — relying on late-19th-century Black Codes and post-Reconstruction disarmament statutes — gets harder to play.

Justice Joseph Story, Across the Hall From Himself

This is the part I most want you to see. The Fifth Circuit’s majority quotes Joseph Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution § 1874 (1833): “An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation, if not universal indignation.”

Joseph Story is not a random treatise writer. He is one of the most famous Supreme Court justices of all time. Story was appointed to the Supreme Court by President James Madison — the architect of the Constitution itself — and confirmed at age 32, making him the youngest justice ever to sit on the Court. And the same Joseph Story, in the same 1833 Commentaries, wrote the sentence every Second Amendment lawyer should know by heart: “The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.”

One book. One author. One founding-era authoritative voice for interpreting the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment.

The End of the Myth of the “Expert Historian” in Constitutional Litigation

Personally, I intend to spike the ball here because the Fifth Circuit found that testifying “expert” historians should not be viewed as authoritative in legal fights over constitutional meaning. In my article in the Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy, I explain in detail why it is improper for courts to outsource to “expert historians” their decisions about the meaning of the Second Amendment. And I am happy to report that the Fifth Circuit agrees with me!

The district court in Nathan had let hired law professors testify about whether displaying the Ten Commandments was historically an “establishment.” The Fifth Circuit shut that down, explaining the difference between “legislative facts” and “adjudicative facts.” Legislative facts are historical facts relevant to the legal question about what a law, such as the Second Amendment, means. Adjudicative facts are facts about the parties themselves for juries to decide, such as “Did Mark run the red light?” or “Did Mark rob the bank?”

By finding that historical questions about the meaning of the First Amendment could not be decided by just asking a historian, the Fifth Circuit made clear that testifying experts are unnecessary for interpreting and applying the Constitution. This is borne out by Supreme Court precedent, given that no testifying experts were used in any modern Second Amendment cases from Heller to McDonald to Bruen to Caetano to Rahimi, and so on.

The Spider Web

Here is why Second Amendment supporters must understand all areas of constitutional law, including the First Amendment.

Constitutional methodology is a spider web — when one strand moves, the whole web moves.

The Fifth Circuit just yanked the originalism strand hard, and every other strand, including the Second Amendment strand, moved with it. Nathan v. Alamo Heights is likely going to the Supreme Court. When it gets there, it will land on a bench whose 6–3 conservative majority handed down Bruen and Rahimi and whose precedent shelf already holds Heller, McDonald, and Caetano. The Bruen “text and history” methodology is consolidating.

The road into 1791 is becoming the only road for constitutional interpretation, and supporters of the right to bear arms should rejoice at this trend.

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on YouTube, is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. His Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen and in U.S. v. Rahimi.

His most recent book is DISARMED: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms.

---

from https://ift.tt/yY0sejE
via IFTTT