Cook County Tries to Derail Supreme Court AR-15 Ban Case, but Its Own Brief Undermines the Argument

Cook County’s attempt to dismiss its Supreme Court rifle ban case centers on the distinction between AR-15-pattern rifles and the AK-based IMI Galil. IMG Duncan Johnson

Cook County, Illinois, is attempting to get its AR-15 ban case dismissed just weeks before the U.S. Supreme Court hears arguments that could determine whether governments can prohibit Americans from possessing commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. However, the county’s latest legal maneuver has exposed an apparent contradiction in its own Supreme Court filings. After previously grouping AR-15s and AK-47-style rifles together when defending its firearm restrictions, Cook County is now arguing that the differences between those platforms could prevent the remaining plaintiffs from challenging the ban.

On November 5, Cook County filed a Suggestion of Mootness in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, asking the justices to dismiss the case following a request by lead petitioner Cutberto Viramontes to withdraw from the litigation. The county contends that his departure would leave the remaining challengers without standing to pursue the specific constitutional question before the Court. Yet, as Second Amendment attorney Stephen Halbrook explained in a November 8 analysis published by Reason, Cook County’s own description of the prohibited firearms complicates its latest argument.

Cook County Seeks Dismissal Ahead of Supreme Court Arguments

The procedural dispute began October 29, when Viramontes filed a motion under Supreme Court Rule 46.2 requesting his dismissal as an individual petitioner. The filing did not explain why he wanted to withdraw, but it specifically stated that no other petitioner was seeking dismissal and that the litigation remained pending as to the remaining parties. Cook County responded by arguing that Viramontes’ departure would eliminate the necessary legal basis for continuing its portion of the case.

The county’s argument centers on the firearms sought by the two individual petitioners. Viramontes wanted to purchase a Smith & Wesson M&P15, a conventional AR-15-pattern semiautomatic rifle, while Christopher Khaya, the remaining individual petitioner, wants to own an Israeli-made IMI Galil. Although the Galil is also a semiautomatic rifle, its design is largely based on the AK-47 platform rather than the AR-15. Cook County is using that distinction to argue that Khaya lacks a sufficient personal stake in the particular question the Supreme Court agreed to decide.

The county also questions whether the existing record establishes that Khaya’s desired rifle is commonly possessed for lawful purposes and whether his stated interest in recreational shooting supports the constitutional claim presented. These arguments are part of Cook County’s attempt to establish that the remaining challengers cannot satisfy Article III standing requirements. They are not findings made by the Supreme Court, which has yet to rule on the county’s request.

Cook County’s Own Brief Creates a Problem

The most revealing aspect of the dispute comes from Cook County’s earlier arguments defending its firearm restrictions. In its October 27 corrected merits brief, the county identifies several prohibited rifle designs, including the AK-47 and AR-15, before collectively referring to them as “AR-15 platform weapons.” That terminology appears on page 8 of the brief and demonstrates how broadly the county previously characterized the firearms covered by its restrictions.

Halbrook points to that language as a significant weakness in Cook County’s latest position. When defending its ban, the county treated multiple semiautomatic rifle designs as belonging to the same broad category. Now, when attempting to avoid Supreme Court review, it emphasizes the mechanical differences between an AR-15 and Khaya’s AK-based Galil. The county cannot erase that earlier characterization simply because a narrower definition might now serve its procedural argument.

There are legitimate mechanical differences between these platforms. The AR-15 generally uses a rotating bolt and direct-gas or piston-operated system, depending on the model, while the Galil uses a long-stroke gas-piston action derived from the Kalashnikov design. Those differences are familiar to knowledgeable gun owners, but they do not change the fact that both are semiautomatic rifles, and both fall within the broader category of firearms targeted by Cook County’s restrictions.

More importantly, the question accepted for Supreme Court review is not limited exclusively to AR-15-pattern rifles. The justices agreed to consider whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the possession of “AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.” That broader language is central to Halbrook’s argument that Khaya retains standing to challenge the county’s prohibition. Although the county’s earlier terminology does not independently settle the jurisdictional issue, it provides a substantial reason to question the narrow distinction Cook County now seeks to establish.

The litigation also includes the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation, which remain petitioners despite Viramontes’ requested withdrawal. Cook County challenges whether those organizations can independently maintain the lawsuit, making the dispute about more than the ownership preferences of one remaining individual plaintiff. Ultimately, the justices must determine whether the remaining parties satisfy the constitutional requirements for continuing the case.

The Supreme Court’s AR-15 Ban Challenge Remains Alive

Even if Cook County succeeds in having its portion of the litigation dismissed, the larger constitutional challenge will remain before the Supreme Court. On June 30, 2026, the justices consolidated Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, with Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, which challenges Connecticut’s restrictions on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. Both cases present the Court with an opportunity to address whether governments can prohibit firearms that millions of law-abiding Americans possess for lawful purposes.

Cook County itself acknowledges that distinction in a footnote to its November 5 filing. The county concedes that dismissing its case would not prevent the Supreme Court from addressing the underlying constitutional question through Grant. In other words, the county’s attempt to escape review of its own ordinance would not eliminate the broader legal battle over bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles.

According to the Supreme Court docket, oral arguments remain scheduled for December 2, 2026. The Court has not granted Cook County’s request to dismiss the case, and on November 9, the justices granted the U.S. Solicitor General’s request to participate in oral arguments. The consolidated litigation therefore continues toward a major constitutional showdown, even as Cook County attempts to resolve its own case through a procedural argument.

The Second Amendment Does Not Depend on a Rifle’s Brand or Platform

The underlying constitutional dispute reaches far beyond the mechanical differences between an AR-15 and an IMI Galil. In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects arms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The Court subsequently reinforced the historical framework for evaluating firearms restrictions in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, requiring the government to justify restrictions through the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The petitioners contend that bans on AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles violate those constitutional protections because the prohibited firearms are commonly owned and used for lawful activities, including self-defense, recreation, and competitive shooting. Cook County maintains that its restrictions are constitutional and argues that the prohibited rifles present dangers that justify regulation. The Supreme Court will now have an opportunity to examine those competing legal positions and determine whether such prohibitions can survive constitutional scrutiny.

For Second Amendment supporters, the county’s latest filing illustrates how the definitions used to defend firearm bans can become considerably narrower when the same government seeks to avoid a constitutional challenge. Cook County previously grouped several rifle platforms together to justify restricting them, yet now relies on distinctions between those platforms to argue that one of the remaining petitioners cannot challenge the prohibition.

Whether that argument succeeds remains for the Supreme Court to decide. Regardless, the larger question remains firmly before the justices as December 2 approaches: whether the Second Amendment permits governments to ban commonly owned semiautomatic rifles simply because officials object to their design or features.

Related: New Survey Finds 60 Million AR-Style Rifles as Supreme Court Weighs AR-15 Bans

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

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

New York Glock Ban List Includes PSA Dagger, Ruger RXM, and More

New York State Police have identified numerous semiautomatic pistols, including most Glock models, the PSA Dagger, and Ruger RXM, for dealer sales restrictions beginning May 31, 2027. IMG Ryan Hodges

New York State Police have released their list of so-called “convertible pistols,” identifying most Glock handguns and numerous competing designs for dealer and gunsmith restrictions that begin May 31, 2027. The list includes the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, Ruger RXM and several Shadow Systems models, even though these firearms are semiautomatic pistols, not machine guns.

The three-page document is dated October 30, 2026, for both its initial publication and last update. State Police posted it on their publications page. It applies to New York State, not just New York City, and identifies pistols the agency says meet the state’s definition of a “convertible pistol.”

Despite what gun owners might assume from hearing about a list of banned guns, appearing on this list does not make a pistol illegal to possess. State Police expressly acknowledge that in the document. The restriction targets dealers and gunsmiths handling these firearms, with exemptions that leave certain transactions available after the deadline.

That does not eliminate the problem for lawful buyers. New York is restricting the sale of a semiautomatic handgun because someone could modify it into a different firearm. The owner does not have to make that modification for the dealer restriction to apply.

Most Glocks, With Specific Exceptions

The Glock entry reads: “All Glock models, except V Series, Slimline Series, and Gen6 pistols.”

Those exceptions matter. The agency did not list every Glock, and owners should not assume that it did. At the same time, an exception here does not mean a pistol is exempt from New York’s other firearm laws.

The table also names PSA’s Dagger series, Ruger’s RXM, Polymer 80’s PFC9 and PFS9, and ZEV’s OZ9 series. Shadow Systems entries include the CR920, DR920, MR920 and XR920 series. Lone Wolf’s Dusk, Timberwolf and LTD series appear as well.

Other manufacturers named include Anderson Manufacturing, Derya, Faxon, Rock Island Armory, Sarsilmaz/SAR ARMS and Stoeger. Their listed models include the Kiger 9C, DY9 series, FX-19 series, STK series, SAR 9 series and STR series, respectively. The complete manufacturer-and-model table occupies pages two and three of the PDF.

For a gun shop trying to determine what it can sell next year, checking that table is only part of the job. State Police say the list is not exhaustive. A pistol can meet the statutory definition without appearing anywhere in the document, and the absence of a model does not mean the agency has determined it falls outside the restriction.

Restricting a Pistol Based on a Possible Modification

Under Penal Law § 265.00(37), a “convertible pistol” is a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily altered to accept a pistol converter. The definition excludes hammer-fired semiautomatic pistols and striker-fired pistols lacking that component.

The state’s approach puts the handgun itself under scrutiny before anyone converts it. A pistol can leave the factory as a semiautomatic, remain a semiautomatic in its owner’s hands, and still fall within this category. Gun owners buying the firearm for lawful purposes are affected by what someone else might do to the design.

State Police also say changing a trade name, model designation or stock-keeping number will not change whether a pistol qualifies. A redesigned or materially different version must be evaluated on its own characteristics. Manufacturers and dealers cannot rely solely on whether the name printed on a box matches the current list.

What Dealers and Owners Need to Know

The criminal restriction appears in Penal Law § 265.10(10). Beginning May 31, 2027, a dealer or gunsmith who sells, transfers, disposes of, or transports or ships a convertible pistol as merchandise faces a class D felony, unless an exemption applies.

The exemptions are in Penal Law § 265.20(f). They include specified dispositions to military personnel, police officers and peace officers, along with dispositions to licensed dealers and gunsmiths. Private-party transactions conducted through a duly licensed dealer are also exempt.

The law allows a private owner to transfer a pistol lawfully owned before May 31, 2027, to a licensed dealer or gunsmith. It separately allows a dealer or gunsmith to transfer a pistol whose immediately preceding private owner lawfully owned and possessed it before that date. Qualifying immediate-family transfers also have an exemption tied to lawful ownership and possession before the deadline.

An owner looking to sell a pistol after May 31 should therefore read the exemptions, not assume every transaction is prohibited. Dealers will need to account for the pistol’s ownership history as well as its model. These exceptions preserve some lawful transfers, but they do not remove the restriction on the ordinary sale of covered pistols outside those exemptions.

For current owners, the agency’s wording is clear: “Inclusion on this list does not, by itself, make possession of the pistol unlawful.” Other firearm laws still apply.

Gun Rights Groups Have Already Sued

As AmmoLand reported in August, The Firing Pin, gun owners, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation filed a federal challenge in the Western District of New York.

The complaint in The Firing Pin, LLC v. James argues that the restriction violates the Second Amendment. The plaintiffs contend that the right to possess commonly used handguns includes the ability to acquire them. Allowing existing owners to keep their firearms does not answer that challenge.

The October list also differs from allegations in the August complaint. That filing discussed Gen6 and V Series Glocks as covered designs, while State Police now expressly exclude them from the Glock entry.

The agency says it will review and publish the list at least annually and may add determinations before then. Dealers preparing for May 31 will have to follow those changes along with the statutory exemptions, since the agency warns that an unlisted pistol can still qualify under the law.

Related: Maryland Judge Finds Glocks Are Protected Arms, Yet Lets Sales Ban Proceed

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. 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/Gay0FB4
via IFTTT

New Research Finds Armed Citizens Stop 37% of Active Shooter Attacks

New Crime Prevention Research Center research identifies 225 active-shooter incidents stopped by armed citizens between 2014 and 2025. AI-generated illustration created with OpenAI’s ChatGPT for AmmoLand News.

For years, Americans have been told that armed citizens rarely stop active shooters. The FBI’s own statistics have helped reinforce that narrative, with federal reports crediting armed civilians with stopping fewer than 4% of active-shooter incidents. But research from the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) paints a dramatically different picture.

According to the CPRC’s latest research, armed citizens stopped 36.6% of identified active-shooter incidents between 2014 and 2025, nearly ten times the percentage reflected in FBI reporting. The discrepancy raises serious questions about the federal government’s accounting of defensive gun use and the media’s reliance on those statistics.

In an October 23 article published by National Review, CPRC President Dr. John Lott challenged the FBI’s numbers and the resulting portrayal of armed civilian intervention as an exceptionally rare occurrence.

FBI Statistics Tell a Very Different Story

Between 2014 and 2025, the FBI identified 408 active-shooter incidents nationwide. Of those, the bureau credited armed citizens with stopping just 16 attacks, representing 3.9% of the total.

The CPRC conducted its own examination of incidents during the same period, identifying 615 active-shooter attacks, 225 of which were stopped by armed civilians. That produces a rate of 36.6%. During the most recent five years, the CPRC found that the percentage increased to 42.5%.

The organization also identified another 35 incidents in which armed citizens stopped attackers before they fired a shot. Those encounters were excluded from the calculations because the attacks never progressed to an actual shooting.

These aren’t simply competing interpretations of the same 408 incidents. The CPRC identified hundreds of additional cases that it argues satisfy the FBI’s definition of an active shooting, along with incidents the bureau allegedly misclassified.

The distinction matters because an active-shooter incident does not necessarily involve multiple fatalities. Under the FBI’s definition, an individual attempting to kill someone in a populated area can qualify, even if no one is struck by gunfire. The CPRC says it applied that same definition when compiling its research.

Armed Citizens Overlooked or Misclassified

The CPRC attributes the discrepancy primarily to two problems: incidents missing entirely from federal reports and cases in which armed civilians were incorrectly classified.

One example is the December 29, 2019, attack at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. When a gunman opened fire during a church service, armed congregant Jack Wilson fatally shot the attacker, ending the assault.

Rather than classifying the intervention as an armed civilian stopping an attack, the FBI identified Wilson as security personnel. According to the CPRC, Wilson was a volunteer church member, not a professional security guard.

A similar dispute surrounds the June 22, 2025, attack at CrossPointe Community Church in Wayne, Michigan, where armed volunteer church members confronted an attacker. The FBI again classified the intervention as involving security personnel rather than ordinary armed civilians.

The CPRC also identified incidents in which armed citizens confronted attackers and caused them to flee, only for the FBI to attribute the ultimate resolution to law enforcement because officers later apprehended the suspects.

These distinctions may sound technical, but they have real consequences. When an armed citizen stops an attack and the intervention is not counted, the resulting statistics fail to capture that defensive use of a firearm.

The FBI has acknowledged limitations in its reporting. When journalist John Stossel questioned the bureau about missing incidents in 2024, it explained that its data were intended to provide a baseline understanding rather than an exhaustive list of every active-shooter incident.

Lott argues that the problem extends beyond ordinary data-collection limitations, particularly because previously identified omissions have remained uncorrected.

Gun-Free Zones Change the Numbers Even More

Perhaps the most significant finding concerns locations where law-abiding Americans are legally permitted to carry firearms.

According to the CPRC, armed civilians stopped 52.9% of identified active-shooter incidents between 2014 and 2025 when the analysis was limited to places where citizens could legally carry guns.

During the most recent five-year period, that figure increased to 56.3%.

The distinction is critical. A law-abiding gun owner cannot be expected to intervene with a firearm in a location where carrying one is prohibited. Including those locations without accounting for the restrictions can obscure how frequently armed civilians intervene when they have the opportunity.

The CPRC’s findings do not establish that every gun-free zone would have experienced a different outcome had lawful carry been permitted. They do, however, demonstrate why carry restrictions matter when examining armed civilian intervention.

For Americans who take responsibility for their own safety, the practical issue is straightforward: A firearm carried lawfully for self-defense can also provide the means to stop an attacker before additional innocent lives are lost.

The Greenwood Mall Attack Wasn’t an Isolated Example

The July 17, 2022, attack at Greenwood Park Mall in Indiana remains one of the most recognizable examples of an armed citizen stopping a mass shooting.

When a gunman opened fire inside the mall, killing three people, 22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken responded with his legally carried handgun. According to the CPRC, Dicken fired his first shot just 15 seconds after the attack began, engaging the attacker from approximately 40 yards.

Dicken’s actions received national attention, but much of the reporting characterized his intervention as an unusual exception.

The CPRC argues that cases like Greenwood are far less exceptional than FBI statistics suggest. Its research includes a publicly available list of incidents with links to underlying news reports, allowing readers to examine the cases themselves.

That documentation is important. The FBI and CPRC use different incident lists, and determining which cases qualify involves classification decisions. But those differences should be examined rather than ignored while one set of statistics is treated as definitive.

Americans Deserve Accurate Defensive Gun Use Statistics

The debate over armed citizens stopping mass shootings is about more than numbers. It concerns whether Americans are receiving an accurate picture of how firearms are used to protect innocent lives.

For years, reports describing armed civilian intervention as rare have relied on federal statistics that the CPRC says exclude numerous documented incidents. The organization has now identified 225 active-shooter attacks stopped by armed citizens between 2014 and 2025, compared with the 16 credited in FBI reporting.

That is a substantial discrepancy deserving public scrutiny, particularly when federal crime data influence discussions surrounding concealed carry, gun-free zones, and the Second Amendment.

Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms. That right does not depend on demonstrating that armed citizens stop a particular percentage of attacks. But when the effectiveness of armed self-defense becomes part of the public debate, the evidence needs to be accurately represented.

The CPRC’s findings offer a powerful reminder that the actions of armed citizens cannot be measured solely by the incidents federal reports choose to count.

Related: Armed Citizen Fights Back in Deadly Baltimore Attack as Maryland Gun Laws Fail Again

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

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

Klobuchar Pushes Minnesota AR-15 Ban as Supreme Court Prepares to Rule on Gun Rights

Minnesota Governor-elect Amy Klobuchar has pledged to revive gun-control legislation as the Supreme Court prepares to hear challenges to bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. iStock-2281848109

Minnesota Governor-elect Amy Klobuchar is wasting no time pushing for new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, even as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles violate the Second Amendment.

Just one day after winning the November 3 election, Klobuchar told reporters that legislation targeting firearms and magazines would be a top priority for her incoming administration.

“The gun safety bill is going to get passed,” Klobuchar declared during her November 4 press conference.

The timing is particularly significant. On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated cases addressing whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect possession of AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles.

Rather than waiting for clarity from the Supreme Court, Klobuchar is pressing ahead with legislation that could place Minnesota on a collision course with the Court’s eventual decision.

In one of her first acts as governor-elect, Sen. @amyklobuchar affirmed that she will go after Minnesotans’ firearms under the guise of “safety.”

“The gun safety bill is going to get passed…it certainly should be one of our top priorities.” https://t.co/9fVkxn33ne

— NRA (@NRA) November 6, 2026

Minnesota Democrats Revive Failed Gun Ban

The legislation Klobuchar wants to resurrect closely follows Senate File 4067, which passed the Minnesota Senate by a narrow 34-33 vote in May but never reached a House floor vote.

The proposal would have prohibited licensed firearms dealers from selling firearms classified as “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” and ammunition magazines holding more than 17 rounds. Existing owners would have been required to obtain state certification for covered firearms and magazines, renewing that certification every three years.

Violations could result in criminal penalties.

With Democrats now controlling the Minnesota governorship and both legislative chambers, the political roadblock that stopped the legislation in 2026 has been removed.

However, controlling the legislature does not give lawmakers unlimited authority over rights protected by the Constitution.

Supreme Court Showdown Looms Over AR-15 Bans

The timing of Klobuchar’s announcement is difficult to ignore.

The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment protects AR-15-platform rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms commonly possessed by Americans for lawful purposes.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects weapons in common lawful use. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices reaffirmed that governments must justify firearm restrictions through the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The upcoming Viramontes and Grant decisions could have major consequences for states attempting to outlaw commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

Klobuchar has not explicitly stated that she would defy an adverse Supreme Court ruling. Nevertheless, her commitment to pursuing another rifle ban before the Court decides the issue places Minnesota’s legislative agenda directly against a constitutional question awaiting resolution.

NRA Warns Klobuchar of Legal Fight

The National Rifle Association has already promised to challenge Klobuchar’s gun-control agenda. John Commerford, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) reacted to Klobuchar’s promise with the following statement.

“Governor-elect Klobuchar’s promise to ram through gun control in Minnesota is a direct assault on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Minnesotans. The NRA and law-abiding gun owners will fight this every step of the way in St. Paul, and if Klobuchar gets her way, we will see her in court. We will not back down, and we will not allow the Second Amendment to be dismantled in the North Star State. Minnesota gun owners can count on us to stand shoulder to shoulder with them to defend their freedom.”

For gun owners, the stakes go well beyond one governor or one state. A Supreme Court ruling recognizing constitutional protection for commonly owned semiautomatic rifles could undermine similar bans across the country.

The question for Minnesota Democrats is whether their legislative ambitions will survive that constitutional scrutiny.

Klobuchar may have won an election and gained legislative allies, but the authority of state government remains limited by the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision could determine just how far Minnesota can go in restricting the firearms its citizens have a right to keep and bear.

Related: Gun Sales Surge Ahead of Midterms, With More Demand Expected Under Democrat-Controlled Congress

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/3nDSM5m
via IFTTT

Florida AG Declares Short-Barreled Rifles and Shotguns Legal Without NFA Registration or Tax Stamps

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier says law-abiding residents may possess SBRs and SBSs without NFA registration or tax stamps. IMG Tim Potter

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has officially confirmed that law-abiding Floridians can possess short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) without National Firearms Act (NFA) registration, ATF approval, or federal tax stamps. The November 6, 2026, memorandum goes further than simply recognizing changes in federal enforcement. It directs law enforcement agencies and prosecutors throughout Florida to stop treating possession of these firearms without NFA paperwork as a crime.

In the five-page memorandum, addressed to Florida’s law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities, Uthmeier declared:

“I am issuing this memorandum to inform law enforcement and prosecuting authorities that all law-abiding residents of the State of Florida may now possess a short-barreled rifle (‘SBR’) or short-barreled shotgun (‘SBS’) without fear of prosecution.”

The announcement resolves a significant state-law question left after the federal government’s decision to stop enforcing major provisions of the NFA.

Law-abiding Floridians may possess SBRs and SBSs without NFA registration, a tax stamp, or fear of prosecution under Florida law.

We are issuing guidance and will not defend a conviction on appeal. This office will always defend the Second Amendment rights of peaceable citizens. https://t.co/wgAEq4ylVM

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) November 6, 2026

Florida Removes the State-Law Obstacle

Under Florida Statute § 790.221, possessing an operable short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun is generally a second-degree felony. However, the statute contains an exemption for firearms lawfully owned and possessed under federal law.

That exemption became particularly important after Congress reduced to zero the NFA’s making and transfer taxes on SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, and certain other firearms through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

On August 5, 2026, a federal judge in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF ruled that the federal government’s registration and prior-approval requirements could no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power after those taxes were reduced to zero.

The Justice Department declined to appeal, and on October 9, ATF announced that it would stop enforcing those requirements nationwide for the affected firearms.

Uthmeier’s memorandum concludes that because SBRs and SBSs may now be lawfully possessed under the federal government’s current interpretation and enforcement policy, Florida’s existing statutory exemption applies.

He also argues that treating Florida’s prohibition as an independent ban on these firearms would implicate the Second Amendment and likely fail the constitutional test established in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

No NFA Paperwork, No Grounds for Search or Seizure

The most consequential portion of Uthmeier’s memorandum establishes specific statewide enforcement guidance.

Effective immediately, the attorney general instructs Florida law enforcement that mere possession of an SBR or SBS does not establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a search or seizure. Likewise, discovering one during an otherwise lawful encounter does not, by itself, justify seizing the firearm as evidence.

Uthmeier also makes clear that his office will not defend a conviction under § 790.221 on appeal when the sole basis for that conviction is the owner’s lack of NFA approval, registration, or a federal tax stamp.

The memorandum further explains that Florida’s firearms preemption statute, § 790.33, prevents local governments from imposing additional restrictions on SBR or SBS possession.

These directives give gun owners something the federal announcement alone could not provide: a statewide interpretation of Florida law from the state’s chief legal officer.

What Florida Gun Owners Still Need to Know

The announcement does not eliminate other federal firearms laws. Licensed dealers must continue complying with applicable Gun Control Act requirements, including background checks and firearm transfer records. Federal restrictions on prohibited possessors and possession in restricted locations also remain applicable.

Interstate transportation of SBRs and SBSs still requires prior ATF authorization on Form 20 where federal law mandates it. Machine guns and destructive devices remain subject to applicable NFA requirements.

Uthmeier also notes that voluntary NFA registration does not guarantee future registration or grandfathering protections if federal policy changes.

The memorandum does not repeal Florida’s existing statute or constitute a new court ruling. Instead, it establishes the attorney general’s interpretation of that statute and directs statewide enforcement accordingly.

For Florida gun owners, the practical result is substantial. The state’s chief legal officer has confirmed that law-abiding residents may possess SBRs and SBSs without the federal paperwork that previously accompanied their ownership.

Florida’s law enforcement agencies have now been told to recognize that right rather than treat the absence of an NFA tax stamp as evidence of a crime.

Related: Gun Sales Could Surge After Democrats Win Congress in 2026 Midterms

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/wHSI4ir
via IFTTT

Should Alito and Thomas Resign? Midterm Results Put Future Supreme Court Second Amendment Rulings at Risk

“Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has told people close to him that he does not intend to retire immediately from the Supreme Court, despite Democrats’ commanding win in Senate contests on Tuesday, which means Republicans will hold the chamber for only a short time longer,” The New York Times reports. “As a result, Republicans may have missed the window for President Trump to name a fourth or even a fifth justice to the Supreme Court in the final two years of his presidency.”

Also not ready to retire, per the report, is Clarence Thomas.

That puts a quick end to a speculative recommendation made Wednesday by attorney and Four Boxes Diner host Mark Smith, who made a compelling case that, due to their ages, Alito, 76, and Thomas, 78, “should consider making this personal sacrifice for the good of the country” and resign immediately contingent on suitable replacements being confirmed.

Smith’s reasoning is that once Democrats take control of the Senate on January 3, 2027, there is no way another Trump nominee would be confirmed if a court vacancy arose, and if Democrats go on to hold the legislature and win the White House in 2028, future vacancies will be filled by confirmed anti-gunners.

Were that the case, look for Second Amendment “wins” to be reversed and new bans upheld as Constitutional.

If Alito and Thomas would agree to fall on their swords for the good of the Republic, the confirmation process would need to be accelerated—something Smith acknowledges has been done before, noting Amy Coney Barrett’s 2020 nomination and confirmation happened in less than a month.

If such a scenario were to play out, the question of “Who?’ would become paramount. Arguably foremost among potential candidates would be Lawrence Van Dyke of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whom Bloomberg Law acknowledges as “the court’s most vocal defender of gun rights,” and who called for the Supreme Court to administer some “benchslaps” against the inferior court’s “wayward Second Amendment decisions.” There’s also U.S. Appeals Court Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, whom The Washington Post tells its readers is “seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist,” and Judge Raymond Kethledge, whom National Review credits as a justice who “vigorously defends — and exercises — individual rights under the Second Amendment.”

What would complicate such a scenario are potential Republican turncoats.

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (once more!) betraying the Republican party by endorsing a Democrat in Alaska’s gubernatorial race comes to mind. And per The New York Times report:

“A nominee would have faced the newfound independence of departing Republican senators such as John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who were defeated in primaries by Trump-backed challengers, in addition to Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate who lost on Tuesday. The group may have had little appetite to help Mr. Trump ram through a nominee of his choice.”

The bottom line: Thomas and Alito have been blessings for gun owners but Smith is right. Once vengeance-minded Democrats assume power, expect any move by an increasingly harassed President Trump to be blocked, and don’t be surprised to see serious moves to “expand” and “pack” the High Court.

As always, our freedom is not ultimately in the hands of any politician or of any judge. The saving grace in all this is that the Second Amendment is still working. As long as we refuse to give up our guns “they” don’t have the power to take them.

Related: Republicans Lost Congress. What Does the 2026 Election Mean for America’s Gun Owners?

---

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/FtZcEIj
via IFTTT

DOJ Gun Rights Restoration Portal Hits 5,000-Applicant Limit on First Day

The Justice Department’s Federal Firearm Rights Restoration program reached its initial 5,000-applicant limit on November 4, 2026. The next intake is scheduled for January 4, 2027. AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand News.

The Justice Department (DOJ) opened its Federal Firearm Rights Restoration application to the public on November 4, 2026, and by the end of that day the portal was full. According to DOJ’s application page, the Department has reached its limit of 5,000 new applicants and cannot accept any new starts. The site will reopen in January 2027. People who already began an application can still log in, finish, and submit; anyone who didn’t start before the cap hit will have to wait for the next window.

That first public opening is the start of a program that’s been effectively dead for more than 30 years. Congress left 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) on the books, but appropriations riders dating to the early 1990s starved the old ATF process until it stopped. The Attorney General’s authority never went away; the funding did. On August 17, 2026, DOJ announced a final rule putting the process back online through the Office of the Pardon Attorney rather than Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives(ATF).

Section 922(g) is the federal prohibited-person list covering felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users, certain mental health findings, certain aliens, dishonorable discharges, citizenship renunciants, and qualifying domestic violence orders or misdemeanors. Section 925(c) is the relief valve. It lets the Attorney General restore federal firearm rights if the applicant is not likely to endanger public safety and if granting relief is consistent with the public interest.

That standard is discretionary. A grant isn’t automatic just because someone finished a sentence. DOJ’s rule also sets out presumptive disqualifiers, some permanent and some that run for five or ten years after a sentence is complete. Extraordinary circumstances can overcome a presumption in some cases.

One important limit, according to DOJ: federal relief doesn’t wipe out a separate state or tribal firearm ban. If a state still bars someone, that person may need a state process too.

DOJ chose a phased launch on purpose. The Department’s FAQ says a working restoration program hasn’t been in place for over 30 years, and DOJ wants to test the platform and its procedures before opening the floodgates. September 25, 2026, was invite-only. November 4 opened the first public slot for 5,000 applicants, first come, first served. That slot is now closed to new starts. On January 4, 2027, DOJ plans to take 500 more applicants and start collecting the $30 fee, specifically to test the payment portal. After that, the Department says it will open access more broadly once it trusts the process.

For people who missed the November rush, the next hard date is January 4, 2027, and even then the window is only 500 deep.

There’s no paper form. Applications are online only, OMB Form 1123-0017, through justice.gov/ffrr. According to DOJ, applicants should collect documents first. Once the electronic application is started, there’s a 30-day clock to finish and submit. Miss that window and the application has to be started over. If an applicant loses the link and PIN, the Office of the Pardon Attorney says it cannot recover them, and the person may have to begin again.

Fingerprints come after the first part of the e-application, not before. DOJ emails a QR code, and electronic fingerprints are then taken at a participating U.S. Post Office. Showing up at a post office before that QR code arrives doesn’t help, the Department said.

Applicants also need three character references. The references can’t be related by blood or marriage, must have known the applicant for at least three years, and can’t themselves be prohibited under § 922(g). After the application is submitted, those references get a link and PIN and affirm a checklist under penalty of perjury. DOJ’s FAQ advises confirming they’ll fill it out before naming them. If one declines, the applicant can swap them on the status page, but DOJ won’t email when a reference fails to respond.

The $30 fee begins with the January 2027 stage. Fingerprints and record pulls can cost more on top of that. Fee waivers for indigency are supposed to be available; DOJ says more waiver details are coming.

Mental health cases under § 922(g)(4) have an extra gate. If a state or territory runs a relief-from-disabilities program that meets the NICS Improvement Amendments Act standard, applicants generally have to exhaust that first. If the jurisdiction offers no relief at all, they can go federal without the state stop. DOJ’s current no-relief list is Arkansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Wyoming, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. That list can change.

A grant means the Attorney General or a designee decided restoration isn’t likely to endanger the public and is consistent with the public interest. DOJ publishes the names of people granted relief in the Federal Register, as § 925(c) requires. The Office of the Pardon Attorney keeps those records and shares them with NICS. Granted applicants may also get an RPIN to use when buying a firearm. PARDON still won’t call a gun dealer or override a NICS decision.

A denial can be challenged in the U.S. district court where the applicant lives. Waiting periods before reapplying depend on why the person was denied, and some presumptions are permanent while others are timed.

For three decades, prohibited people who’d rebuilt their lives had almost no federal path back, and state restorations often didn’t clear a federal disability. The November 4 open-and-close showed both that demand is real and that DOJ is still metering access in the hundreds and thousands, not the tens of thousands. That metering will frustrate people who waited years for this window, and it also means the January 4, 2027, reopen is likely to fill fast. Anyone serious about applying should have court records, criminal history reports, proof that every sentence term is finished, and three willing references lined up before hitting start. Thirty days isn’t a lot of time to chase paperwork that should’ve been gathered first.

For now the portal is closed to new applicants. According to DOJ’s application page, it reopens in January 2027, with the next intake of 500 set for January 4.

Related: Harmeet Dhillon Resigns From DOJ, Leaving Future of Second Amendment Section Uncertain

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. 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/mZPs7M0
via IFTTT