Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is Defending Gun Rights

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is Defending Gun Rights, iStock-884197090

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier is under intense fire from anti-gun politicians, the legacy media and even a Parkland parent for defending gun rights, this time for 18-20-year-old Floridians.

Uthmeier has a demonstrable history of taking strong steps to ensure that the Second Amendment protects all Floridians.

The Attorney General recently intervened in a teen’s criminal case by asking a state appeals court to uphold the defendant’s right to carry—a move that even the anti-gun media already admits constitutes a victory for Floridians’ gun rights.

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier. (Photo courtesy Florida Attorney General’s Office).

The issue is a 1987 state law, which bars 18, 19 and 20-year-olds from carrying concealed firearms.

Uthmeier actually opposed state prosecutors, which mystified Florida’s anti-gun community, like Broward County State Attorney Harold Pryor, who asked Uthmeier for permission to get involved in the case. Pryor, who was elected in 2020, frequently mentions “gun violence” whenever he speaks publicly.

Uthmeier refused Pryor’s request, which further blew the anti-gunners’ minds. They, of course, quickly turned to the media to strike back.

Several media stories were soon published, which included interviews with Pryor, who attacked Uthmeier’s decision for a host of frivolous reasons, none of which made any legal sense.

One Democratic state representative even asked Florida Governor Ron DeSantis to intervene, but DeSantis has given no sign he disagrees or opposes his AG’s decision

Parkland parent Fred Guttenberg—an anti-gun advocate and frequent Second Amendment critic—accused Uthmeier of “undermining public safety efforts.”

I contacted Attorney General Uthmeier’s office this week and received the following statement from his press secretary, Jae Williams:

“As Attorney General Uthmeier said, this office will not defend a law that prevents men and women who are old enough to fight and die for our country from defending themselves and their families. We recently filed a brief on behalf of the State that takes the position the Attorney General said we would.

At the time of the offense, Florida’s open carry ban was still the law of the state, so the defendant had no legal means of carrying a firearm at all—either openly or concealed. Per the U.S. Supreme Court, state laws are unconstitutional when they entirely foreclose ‘general right to public carry’ as ‘guarantee[d]’ by the Second Amendment.

We have a duty to enforce Florida law and don’t make these decisions lightly. However, our first duty is to protect the God-given rights of Floridians as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution,” Press Secretary Williams said in the written statement.

Uthmeier first joined Gov. DeSantis as deputy general counsel in 2019. Within a year he became general counsel. One year later, DeSantis appointed him chief of staff. Last year, when DeSantis appointed Attorney General Ashely Moody to replace Senator Marco Rubio, he appointed Uthmeier to replace her.

Uthmeier recently oversaw a redesign of the AG’s seal, which now mentions the “Free State of Florida.

Open Carry

In September of last year, Uthmeier ended a Florida state law that criminalized open carry. He did it with a single post on X.

Once Florida’s First District Court of Appeals ruled the state’s open carry ban was unconstitutional in McDaniels v. State of Florida, Uthmeier posted an important announcement.

“I’m issuing guidance to Florida’s prosecutors and law enforcement in light of the 1st DCA’s decision in McDaniels v. State,” Uthmeier posted on X. “Because no other appellate court has considered the constitutionality of Florida’s open carry ban since the SCOTUS decision in Bruen, the 1st DCA’s decision is binding on all Florida’s trial courts. Meaning that as of last week, open carry is the law of the state.”

I’m issuing guidance to Florida’s prosecutors and law enforcement in light of the 1st DCA’s decision in McDaniels v. State.

Because no other appellate court has considered the constitutionality of Florida’s open carry ban since the SCOTUS decision in Bruen, the 1st DCA’s… pic.twitter.com/2W5Hr6EV2V

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) September 15, 2025

Everytown did some pretty interesting reporting of the decision.

“Attorney General Uthmeier is refusing to defend a critical law, going against the advice of state law enforcement and ultimately, putting our lives at risk,” Jennifer Massey, a volunteer with the Florida chapter of Moms Demand Action, said in an Everytown story. “This is a complete dereliction of duty and at the end of the day, our kids, communities and law enforcement will pay the price while we strip a decades-old law from the books meant to help keep us all safe.”

If the Demanding Moms accuse you of “dereliction of duty,” you must be doing something right.

This is certain: Florida Attorney General Uthmeier is a true Second Amendment champion. He is certainly one to watch.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

Florida Court Strikes Down Concealed Carry Ban for 18-20 Year Olds

Florida Appeals Court Strikes Down Open Carry Ban in Major Second Amendment Victory

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

 

---

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

Congress Votes to Remove Less-Than-Lethal Devices From Gun Control Act Coverage

Congress Votes to Remove Tasers and Similar Weapons From Gun Control Act Coverage, iStock-499662710

The House of Representatives voted 233 to 185 on February 9 to approve legislation exempting a new category of less-than-lethal projectile devices from federal firearm regulations and taxes, sending the measure to the Senate for consideration.

Gun Owners of America announced the development, stating “BREAKING. The House just voted 233-185 to pass H.R. 2189, a bill to exempt a new class of ‘less-than-lethal projectile devices’ from the NFA, GCA, & federal firearm excise tax. The bill heads to the Senate next.”

BREAKING

The House just voted 233-185 to pass H.R. 2189, a bill to exempt a new class of “less-than-lethal projectile devices” from the NFA, GCA, & federal firearm excise tax.

The bill heads to the Senate next. https://t.co/ITwXjtF7og pic.twitter.com/v5UzLWGa8f

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) February 12, 2026

The Law Enforcement Innovate to De-Escalate Act of 2025 creates a distinct legal classification for devices like Tasers and similar conducted energy or impact projectile weapons, removing them from the federal definition of firearm under the Gun Control Act, National Firearms Act, and Pittman Robertson excise tax scheme.

The legislation establishes specific criteria for qualifying devices. They must not be designed to fire or readily converted to fire common handgun, rifle, or shotgun ammunition. They must be designed and intended for use in a manner not likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Additionally, they cannot be capable of using standard semiautomatic firearm magazines or feeding devices.

The bill directs the Attorney General and ATF to determine whether specific devices qualify as less than lethal upon request, with a 90-day response timeline. Qualifying devices and their proprietary cartridges or shells would be exempt from Gun Control Act firearm definitions and related regulations, National Firearms Act firearm definitions including taxes and registration requirements, and firearm and ammunition excise taxes under the Pittman Robertson framework.

The legislation effectively removes Tasers and similar non-lethal projectile technology from the firearm regulatory structure and excise tax regime, operating on the principle that de-escalation tools should not receive the same legal treatment as conventional firearms.

Prior to the vote, Gun Owners of America notified followers that “A vote in the House of Representatives is expected this week on H.R. 2189, a bill to exempt certain ‘less-than-lethal projectile device[s]’ from the unconstitutional National Firearms Act, the Gun Control Act, and the Pittman-Robertson Act’s firearm excise tax.”

The organization’s characterization of the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act, and excise tax structure as unconstitutional reflects its broader stance on federal gun regulations, which it views as an unconstitutional overreach.

The measure now advances to the Senate, where it will face additional scrutiny before potentially becoming law.

The strong House vote sends a clear message that lawmakers on both sides of the aisle recognize the absurdity of subjecting Tasers and similar de-escalation tools to the same taxes, registration requirements, and regulatory red tape as rifles and handguns.

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

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

Another Canadian Mass Shooting That Strict Gun Laws Didn’t Prevent

Another Canadian Mass Shooting That Strict Gun Laws Didn’t Prevent iStock-1169526109

Once again, innocent lives have been lost in a country with the sort of strict firearm regulations the gun prohibition lobby and anti-gun politicians advocate for here in the United States, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says the tragedy in Tumbler Ridge, B.C. proves how wrong they are.

“Eight people are dead because Canadian politicians haphazardly believed that restricting millions of honest gun owners would somehow prevent a madman from committing mayhem,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “That has never worked before, it didn’t work in northeast British Columbia, and it won’t work tomorrow in Canada, the United States or anywhere else, and by now, gun control zealots in both countries should have figured that out.”

The suspect, who took his own life, has been identified as an 18-year-old transgender individual who reportedly was known to police, according to the BBC. Authorities have described the shooter as having been born a biological male, “but identified as a woman.” The suspect previously had a gun license, but it expired in 2024, and police had previously visited the suspect’s home and seized guns, which were later returned when the owner petitioned for them. Neither of the guns recovered by police at the crime scene were registered to the shooter.

“As more information about the suspected shooter is made public,” Gottlieb observed, “it is clear this individual had some serious mental and emotional problems. He reportedly murdered his mother and 11-year-old brother before going to the Tumbler Ridge Secondary School to continue the deadly rampage.

“What this and other incidents have shown us is that banning certain types of guns, requiring all sorts of paperwork, creating so-called ‘gun-free zones,’ and adopting safe storage mandates will not prevent deranged individuals from committing deadly crimes,” he continued. “Anyone who thinks otherwise is horribly mistaken, if not completely delusional.

“It is time for the gun control crowd on both sides of the border to come to their senses,” Gottlieb stated. “Penalizing law-abiding citizens with onerous gun restrictions is a social experiment which was obviously fatally flawed from the beginning, and we can only hope Canadian authorities will finally recognize that, and try some other strategy.”

---

About the CCRKBA

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

from https://ift.tt/Fqm56sz
via IFTTT

CTRL+PEW Sues California in Federal Court Over 3D-Printed Gun Files

UBARX with really neat IAR Upper. Img from Ctrlpew.com

A Florida company and its operator filed a federal lawsuit yesterday challenging what they describe as an unconstitutional attempt by California authorities to suppress their online publications about 3D-printed firearms and firearm components. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando Division), accuses the San Francisco City Attorney and California Attorney General of attempting to enforce state law extraterritorially against speech created and hosted entirely within Florida.

The plaintiffs are CTRLPEW LLC, a Florida limited liability company based in Orlando, and Alexander Holladay, an Orlando resident who operates the website ctrlpew.com. The defendants are David Chiu, San Francisco City Attorney, and Rob Bonta, California Attorney General, both of whom are sued by the plaintiffs in their official capacities.

The case centers on California Civil Code §§ 3273.61 and 3273.625 provisions that prohibit the knowing distribution of computer code or digital instructions intended for use in 3D-printing firearms, receivers, precursor parts, or certain prohibited accessories. Plaintiffs argue these sections are being weaponized to create a nationwide prior restraint on protected First Amendment expression.

According to the complaint filed February 11, 2026, CTRLPEW LLC maintains ctrlpew.com, which links written guides, photographs, and digital design files, including 3D models, hosted primarily on the third-party platform Odysee. All content is created, uploaded, and managed from Florida. The site does not specifically target California residents, does not run any California-directed advertising, and maintains no physical presence in the state. Holladay states he has not visited California since 2008 and has no intention of doing so in the future.

The dispute arose on February 6, 2026, when California officials filed a civil enforcement action in San Francisco Superior Court entitled The People of the State of California v. Gatalog Foundation Inc., et al. That suit names CTRLPEW LLC and Holladay as defendants, accusing them of unlawfully distributing and promoting “digital code” and “instructions” for 3D-printable firearms in violation of the cited Civil Code sections and California’s Unfair Competition Law. The California complaint seeks a permanent injunction, substantial civil penalties (potentially reaching $7,875,000), and other equitable relief.

California officials accompanied the filing with a public press release labeling the action a “landmark” effort to curb the spread of 3D-printed gun technology. Plaintiffs contend that this publicity, combined with the pendency of the enforcement action, even without formal service of process, creates a credible, immediate threat of prosecution that has already produced a severe chilling effect on their speech.

Holladay alleges he has:

• Refrained from publishing new works,
• Paused planned releases,
• Stopped registering copyrights with the U.S. Copyright Office (fearing that deposit copies could be accessed by California residents and used against him),
• Become unable to enforce existing copyrights (because attaching example files as exhibits in litigation could make them publicly available via PACER to Californians).
• The federal complaint frames these self-censorship measures as direct injuries traceable to the defendants’ actions.

The plaintiffs advance four causes of action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Declaratory Judgment Act:

1. First Amendment prior restraint and content-based restriction: Arguing that the California statutes and their threatened enforcement function as an impermissible prior restraint on protected speech. Plaintiffs emphasize that technical information, computer code, and 3D design files are recognized as expressive conduct under precedents such as Bernstein v. U.S. Dept. of State.
2. Fourteenth Amendment due process violation (extraterritoriality): Contending California lacks authority to regulate speech and conduct occurring wholly outside its borders, violating fair-notice principles, and inviting arbitrary enforcement.
3. Dormant Commerce Clause violation: Asserting the statutes impermissibly project California policy onto the national Internet and regulating commerce beyond state lines.
4. Second Amendment burden: Claiming enforcement suppresses information that facilitates the lawful manufacture of arms and arm components, thereby infringing the right to keep and bear arms.

The suit seeks declaratory judgments that the extraterritorial application of the California provisions violates the First, Second, and Fourteenth Amendments, as well as preliminary and permanent injunctions barring defendants from enforcing the statutes against the plaintiffs’ Florida-based publications. Plaintiffs also request costs and attorneys’ fees.

Jurisdiction is predicated on federal-question and civil-rights statutes, with venue proper in Orlando because the alleged chilling effects and self-censorship are occurring there. Plaintiffs invoke personal jurisdiction over the California officials under the “effects” test of Calder v. Jones and recent circuit precedent involving similar out-of-state enforcement attempts against online publishers of firearm-related information.

The filing notes that the action does not seek to enjoin the ongoing California state-court proceeding itself (avoiding Anti-Injunction Act concerns) but requests only prospective relief against future extraterritorial enforcement.

This lawsuit arrives amid ongoing national debate over “ghost gun” technology, 3D-printed firearms, and the ability of states to regulate Internet speech with national reach. Similar disputes have produced appellate rulings in other circuits addressing whether officials may lawfully target out-of-state publishers for content accessible to, but not specifically directed to, their residents.

No response by the defendants has been filed to the complaint, and the California state-court action remains pending. The Orlando federal court has not yet assigned the case to a specific judge or ruled on any initial motions.

Legal observers note that the outcome could have broad implications for state efforts to regulate online speech, digital publishing, and the intersection of gun-rights advocacy and First Amendment protections in the digital age.

Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files

---

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 @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

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

Still Armed, Still Free: The Citizen Militia Endures as the Founders Intended

Will Noty Comply American Flag Militia Confiscation AdobeStock_Tomasz Zajda 110451903

In Wolford v. Lopez (No. 241046), the U.S. Supreme Court granted review of whether Hawaii may presumptively prohibit licensed concealed carry holders from carrying firearms on private property that is open to the public absent express permission from the owner — a rule critics call the “vampire rule.”

As Americans await the Court’s decision, one fact is undeniable: the modern American militia is not theoretical—it is vast, practical, and alive.

The Numbers Are Unmistakable

Conservative estimates place civilian-owned firearms in the United States at roughly 500 million — more guns than people — based on manufacturing and import data compiled by industry and federal reporting agencies. Industry analysis from the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) shows that 491 million firearms were in civilian hands from 1990–2022, and this number has almost certainly grown to well over 500 million today, consistent with the estimates cited earlier in this article.

While comprehensive annual ammunition figures aren’t consolidated in a single federal database, reporting from the firearms industry indicates that U.S. ammunition production is measured in the billions of rounds each year — with past estimates showing as many as 8.1 billion rounds produced for the U.S. market in a single year. When accumulated over decades of lawful purchase and storage, civilian stockpiles of ammunition likely exceed one trillion rounds, reflecting the scale and preparedness of America’s private, law-abiding gun owners.

These are not numbers of idle hobbyists. Many Americans do not hunt, nor participate in organized shooting sports, yet continue to purchase and store firearms and ammunition. They do so because it is the fabric of who we are as a free nation. History has taught us from our earliest education that Americans have repeatedly had to fight—for independence from a tyrant king, for freedom across the world during WWII, and for the ability to pass liberty to future generations. We prepare and maintain our arms not out of fear, but because it is our responsibility as Americans, reflecting a citizen militia that is ever ready to defend the freedoms enshrined in our Constitution.

The Citizen Militia Is Not a Concept—It Is a Responsibility

Wolford v. Lopez raises a critical question under the Second Amendment and the Court’s Bruen decision framework: can a state effectively nullify the right to public carry by making “no guns” the default on private property open to the public unless invited?

The Court heard oral arguments on January 20, 2026, and the transcript is publicly available from the U.S. Supreme Court.

Founders’ Vision of an Armed Citizenry

The framers spoke repeatedly about an armed citizenry as essential to liberty:

George Mason: “To disarm the people… [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

James Madison: “The advantage of being armed… forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition.”

Thomas Jefferson: “No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”

Richard Henry Lee: “To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms…”

Samuel Adams: “Peaceable citizens [must not] be prevented from keeping their own arms.”

These historical voices remind us that an armed citizenry was essential to liberty, not optional.

Why This Matters Today

In an era of terrorism, violent crime, and emergencies, law enforcement cannot be everywhere. Seconds matter. A prepared citizen can protect families and communities when official responders are not immediately available.

“Freedom survives only in the hands of the prepared. The citizen militia envisioned by our Founders still lives.”

America’s 250th Anniversary: A Time to Reflect and Defend

As we approach the 250th anniversary of the United States, the Founders’ vision—an armed, responsible, and capable citizenry—still exists. But freedom is never self-executing; it must be defended in the courts, the culture, and in the public square.

The citizen militia lives. The Republic endures. The responsibility to protect both remains with us.

A Call to Duty for Future Generations

We are the inheritors of sacred trust. The Founders forged a nation on the principles of liberty and self-governance, and every generation since has carried that torch forward through courage, sacrifice, and, when necessary, with their lives. It is our duty to ensure that freedom does not erode, that the Constitution’s God-given rights are defended, and that the flame of liberty burns brighter in the hands of those who come after us.

We must equip future generations with knowledge, instill in them the discipline to act, and awaken in them the desire to protect what was so dearly fought for and won. The fight for liberty never finishes; it continues as long as we are willing to stand as the bedrock of freedom, safeguarding the inheritance of our children, grandchildren, and all who will call America home.

Above all, we must ensure that this great experiment in self-government endures and that the freedom we enjoy as Americans remains constant for generations to come.

Why the Ninth Circuit Keeps Losing—and Why Wolford v. Must End Judicial Defiance

Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files

---

About Sean Maloney.

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

---

from https://ift.tt/5jPwqWF
via IFTTT

CCRKBA Congratulates New Hampshire House for Adopting Campus Carry Bill

CCRKBA Congratulates New Hampshire House for Adopting Campus Carry Bill, iStock-1253189511

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is applauding lawmakers in the New Hampshire House for approving legislation allowing carry on college campuses by prohibiting colleges and universities from banning guns.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb took issue with opponents of the measure who have cited tragic campus shootings, such as the one at Brown University, as a good reason to prevent students or visitors from carrying defensive sidearms for their personal safety.

“Their logic is all wrong,” said Gottlieb. “Those incidents occurred on campuses where gun-free policies exist, leaving students and faculty unable to defend themselves. In an environment where people have not only a right but the means to fight back, it levels the field against evil doers, whether they are criminals or crazy people. We encourage people to support House Bill 1793 and tell their lawmakers to pass the measure.

“Colleges and universities can no longer masquerade as Ivory Tower institutions that are immune from attacks by evil people who belong either behind bars or in an institution,” he observed. “What once may have been considered a manifestation of cultural elitism has—because of Brown University—been shown to be a deadly case of self-delusion.

“We see one opponent of House Bill 1793 offer the argument that half of school mass shootings are done by students and the other half by campus visitors,” Gottlieb added. “What difference does it make who launches an attack? What can make a difference is whether one or more intended victims can immediately fight back and stop some madman in his tracks, thus saving innocent lives in the process.

“We’ve seen the results of an institutional ‘cower-in-fear’ philosophy,” Gottlieb concluded, “and it has been devastating. The time has come for common sense to prevail, and that includes putting an end to policies which essentially create risk-free environments for dangerous individuals to victimize young adults and their teachers solely to perpetuate an indefensible notion that people should leave their right of self-defense at a school’s property line.”

---

About CCRKBA

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

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

Delaware’s Ghost Gun Ban Leads to Wrongful Juvenile Conviction

Delaware’s Ghost Gun Ban Leads to Wrongful Juvenile Conviction iStock-gorodenkoff 1346156698

In a significant development highlighting ongoing issues with Delaware’s overreaching “ghost gun” restrictions, the state’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has admitted in a federal court filing that prosecutors unlawfully charged and convicted a juvenile under an enjoined statute banning possession of untraceable firearms. This revelation, detailed in a February 9, 2026, status update letter in the long-running case Rigby v. Jennings, underscores the risks of vague, unconstitutional gun-control laws that infringe on Second Amendment rights and lead to government overreach.

The case stems from a 2021 challenge brought by Delaware residents John Rigby and Alan Knight, along with the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), against then-Attorney General Kathy Jennings (now in a different role, but the defendant remains in the office). They argued that House Bill 125’s prohibitions on manufacturing, possessing, or assembling untraceable firearms, often called “ghost guns” by critics, violated the Second Amendment. These homemade or self-assembled firearms, built from parts or kits without serial numbers, represent a core exercise of the right to keep and bear arms, including the fundamental liberty to make one’s own firearm for lawful self-defense.

In September 2022, U.S. District Judge Maryellen Noreika granted a partial preliminary injunction, blocking enforcement of key portions of the law, including 11 Del. C. §§ 1459A(b), 1463(a), 1463(c)(1), and parts of §1463(b). The court found the plaintiffs likely to succeed on their claims that these bans lacked historical analogues under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, which requires that gun regulations be consistent with America’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” The injunction has protected law-abiding citizens’ ability to possess and build unserialized firearms ever since, affirming that the Second Amendment extends to modern methods of firearm production.

Despite this clear court order and the DOJ’s own guidance memorandum reminding law enforcement of the enjoined provisions, a New Castle County officer charged a 17-year-old juvenile on January 25, 2025, with Possession of an Untraceable Firearm under §1463(a), among other charges, like possession by a prohibited person and unsafe storage. The case moved to Family Court, where a Deputy Attorney General (DAG) inexplicably pressed forward with all charges, including the enjoined one.

To secure a plea, the DAG offered a deal: plead guilty to the untraceable firearm possession charge, which carried more lenient sentencing guidelines, no mandatory six-month detention, compared to the prohibited-person offense. On April 28, 2025, the juvenile accepted probation at “The Cottages” (a Level 4 supervised program) instead of incarceration. This plea was built on an unconstitutional statute that courts had already declared likely invalid.

The error only came to light during a routine review of criminal records for an unrelated case. Upon discovery, the prosecuting DAG promptly notified defense counsel. On January 27, 2026, the state filed, and the Family Court immediately granted a motion to vacate the conviction. The DOJ’s February 9 letter to Judge Noreika admits the mistake, attributes it to prosecutorial oversight despite internal guidance and likely discussions at Delaware Police Chiefs Association meetings, and reaffirms efforts to ensure compliance.

From a pro-Second Amendment perspective, this incident is a stark warning about the perils of anti-gun laws that criminalize common, constitutionally protected conduct. “Ghost gun” bans target everyday Americans who exercise their right to craft firearms at home, whether for sport, self-defense, or historical reenactment, without any evidence of misuse by the lawful builder. The term “untraceable” is a misnomer; these firearms are no more anonymous than cash transactions or private sales, which have long been lawful. Criminalizing possession or assembly punishes intent rather than action, chilling the exercise of a fundamental right.

This wrongful prosecution shows how such laws invite abuse: even with a federal injunction in place, overzealous officials can ensnare innocents (or in this case, a minor) in the system. The juvenile faced unnecessary legal jeopardy, a tainted record (vacated only after discovery), and pressure to plead to a charge that shouldn’t exist. It raises questions about training, accountability, and whether anti-gun zeal leads to disregard for court orders.

The Firearms Policy Coalition and similar groups have repeatedly scored victories against ghost gun restrictions nationwide, emphasizing that the Second Amendment protects the means to obtain arms, including self-manufacture. Delaware’s law, partially halted since 2022, exemplifies post-Heller and post-Bruen overreach attempts to regulate away rights without historical precedent.

Law-abiding gun owners should view this as vindication: the injunction worked by preventing further improper enforcement, and the vacatur corrects one injustice. Yet it exposes systemic flaws in gun control regimes that prioritize prohibition over precision. True public safety comes from enforcing the law against criminals, not infringing on the rights of the innocent.

As Rigby v. Jennings moves toward a potential final resolution, this status update underscores the need for courts to rigorously scrutinize such restrictions. The right to keep and bear arms includes the right to make them. Delaware’s mishap serves as a cautionary tale: when governments overstep constitutional bounds, real people suffer, and justice demands correction. Gun rights advocates will continue fighting to ensure no more such errors occur, protecting the freedoms that define a free people.

Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files

Committed Gun-Grabbers Claim to Support 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 @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

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