The Supreme Court’s Sneaky-Important 2A Ruling is a Big Win for Gun Rights

“The Supreme Court declined to disturb a ruling that freed a man disarmed for life over unpaid child support. In its silence, I read a deliberate SCOTUS strategy: spend the Court’s scarce political capital in the Second Amendment space on law-abiding Americans, not on the endless parade of bad actors who litigate Section 922(g) cases.” – Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

The Supreme Court handed the Second Amendment a big victory by doing nothing at all. The Justices denied certiorari in United States v. Cockerham, No. 24-60401 (5th Cir. Dec. 17, 2025), declining the Justice Department’s petition to review a Fifth Circuit ruling that struck down the federal lifetime felon-in-possession ban as applied to a man whose qualifying offense was failing to pay child support.

A cert denial sets no precedent and explains nothing. But its practical effect here is unmistakable: the narrow, “text first, and then history second” ruling of potential future Supreme Court justice (now Judge) James C. Ho remains, and the federal government’s effort to defend disarmament on these facts is over.

What Judge James Ho Actually Held in the Court of Appeals

Edward Cockerham pleaded guilty under Mississippi law for failing to pay child support. He was sentenced to five years of probation, served not a single day in prison, eventually repaid the debt, and was released. Years later, he was found with a firearm and prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) — the statute that disarms, for life, anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year’s imprisonment, whether or not he ever sees the inside of a cell.

Writing for the Fifth Circuit, Judge Ho applied the “text first, and then history second” framework of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), and United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024). His opening line set the register of the whole opinion: “The right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment is a fundamental civil right, comparable to other provisions of the Bill of Rights.”

The government analogized failure to pay child support to theft. Judge Ho found the analogy historically false. Further, at America’s Founding, debtors could not be permanently disarmed — they were released once the debt was paid. Because Cockerham had eliminated his debt before he was found with a firearm, the Fifth Circuit held:

So there’s no historical justification to disarm him at that moment — never mind for the rest of his life.

That is an as-applied holding to Cockerham himself, narrow by design, and exactly the kind of disciplined ruling that survives review.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 5.56 Bulk Ammo 55 Gr FMJ, 1000rds - WM1931000	Palmetto State Armory	$ 649.99 $ 499.99
	Winchester - 5.56 Nato - 5.56x45mm - 62 Grain - FMJ	True Shot Ammo	$ 110.00
	Winchester 5.56 MM M855 62 FMJ Lake City 420RDs STRIPPER CLIP (GREEN TIP)	Bereli	$ 569.00
	Winchester 5.56 NATO 55 Gr FMJ BT 500 Projectiles	Ammunition Depot	$ 68.99

A 2A Rights Claimant Need Not Be Sympathetic, but it Sure Helps!

Here is the reality that the pro-2A community should embrace: most people who challenge § 922(g)(1) are unsympathetic.

The docket of aggrieved folks wanting to litigate under this federal gun control statute is filled with convicted felons, domestic violence defendants, and illegal aliens — claimants who, in one variation or another, present the same uncomfortable fact pattern of “a bad guy with a gun.” Cockerham is no exception. The opinion itself records that he has been charged with aggravated assault, domestic violence, drug trafficking, and stalking but those were unproven allegations. The Supreme Court cases of U.S. v Rahimi and U.S. v. Hemani further prove the point since both arose from bad facts in the § 922(g) context. Of course, although the Second Amendment should not turn on whether we like the litigant, the reality is that judges are people too and can be swayed by sympathetic or unsympathetic fact patterns.

Conserving the Court’s Political Capital in 2A Cases

This is why the denial matters beyond one defendant. The Supreme Court has, I believe, made a deliberate choice: it will not spend its limited political capital adjudicating the rights of the § 922(g) population one bad fact pattern at a time. It prefers to leave a clean circuit ruling in place and reserve its 2A-related docket for the cases that move the law for ordinary Americans — the AR-15 bans, the magazine bans, the carry restrictions imposed on people who have done nothing wrong. In other words, the Supreme Court may be more interested in deciding Second Amendment cases arising from victimless, malum prohibitum criminal statutes.

Moreover, for those individual claimants interested in attacking the loss of their 2A rights under 922(g), there is now an alternative to an expensive civil lawsuit. The restoration-of-rights mechanism in 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) — dormant since Congress defunded it in 1992, and revived in 2025 when Attorney General Pam Bondi reclaimed the authority to process petitions directly. This vehicle offers an administrative road back to one’s rights without the expense and years of federal litigation. But it is not a perfect remedy. A man like Range, convicted of a paperwork offense decades ago, should never have to petition anyone to restore a right he never should have lost. But for many, § 925(c) is now the faster path, and the Supreme Court appears content to point them toward it.

Justice Clarence Thomas Draws the Same Line in the Criminal Case of Whitton v. Florida.

The same philosophy of the Supreme Court protecting lawabiding Americans as much as criminals runs through a recent dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, in Whitton v. Dixon, 608 U.S. ___ (2026). There, the majority granted relief to a Florida death-row inmate over a minor lower-court error. Thomas objected — not out of sympathy for the criminal, but out of principle:

It is unfortunate that the Court chose to intervene at the request of a convicted murderer to correct the Eleventh Circuit’s inconsequential foot fault. What makes it even worse is that the Court does so even while it refuses to correct far more consequential errors for law-abiding citizens.

That is the through-line connecting Whitton and Cockerham. A judiciary that races to fix trivial errors for the worst offenders, while law-abiding citizens wait years for relief from plainly unconstitutional gun laws, has its priorities inverted. The cert denial in the Cockerham case is a small correction in the right direction. It is time for the courts to stop hunting for loopholes that benefit criminals and to put the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans first.

Fifth Circuit Strikes Down a Lifetime Firearm Ban

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

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web

 

---

from https://ift.tt/ZE7IXzk
via IFTTT

NRA Foundation Rebrands as 1791 Foundation Amid Fight Over $200 Million Treasury

The former NRA Foundation, now the 1791 Foundation, is at the center of a new fight over donor-funded assets and control of the NRA’s charitable legacy. iStock-Sergii Zysk 2204081219

The NRA faces yet another epic battle, this time with an entity that it originally created as its own charitable foundation. The prize in the latest struggle is not the political power of the NRA, but the Foundation’s treasury, with assets estimated to be well above $200 million. The new drama features some convoluted plot twists and an unfortunately familiar cast of characters.

A court-imposed consent judgment allowed the Foundation’s Trustees to create a new set of bylaws, allowing those Trustees to break away from the NRA and take the Foundation’s money with it. The Foundation has since rebranded itself as the “1791 Foundation.”

The story is complex, but becomes easy to understand with an explanation of tax law and a bit of NRA history.

While the NRA is a not-for-profit corporation, it is not considered a charity for tax purposes. Its tax status falls under 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code which designates it as a social welfare organization allowed to engage in political activity. Contributions to the NRA are not tax-deductible, and some of its income and expenditures may be taxable.

It is routine for a “C4” organization to set up a parallel foundation as a charity registered under IRC 501(c)(3). A C4 often has projects that qualify as “charitable” as defined in the tax code. The foundation typically operates on a track similar to the parent organization, but money the C3 charity receives and hands out is subject to stricter rules. As a qualified charity, the foundation, like a church, pays no taxes, and contributions are “tax-advantaged,” meaning donors may be able to deduct contributions. The charitable activities of the C4 organization are typically funded through grants from the C3 foundation that specify in detail how the money is to be spent.

Although the C3 is legally independent of the C4, it is also routine for their governing boards to “interlock,” that is, they may have members in common, as well as for certain C4 officers to hold ex officio positions on the C3 board that often include voting rights. For example, the American Civil Liberties Union is a C4 advocacy organization with a large board of around 80 members. The ACLU Foundation has around a dozen members, all of whom also serve on the board of the C4.

The 1990 creation of the NRA Foundation allowed the NRA to develop a dedicated vehicle for raising tax-deductible contributions to support charitable and educational activities aligned with its mission. Like charities established by other C4 organizations, the NRA Foundation designed its governance to align with its parent organization. Prior to the court-ordered changes of 2024, the Foundation’s bylaws required that a majority of Foundation Trustees be NRA Directors. The NRA President and Executive Vice President (CEO) served as ex officio trustees with full voting rights.

In 2020, the DC Attorney General filed suit against both NRA and the Foundation, alleging in the original complaint that “the Foundation has allowed itself to be financially exploited through, among other things, unfair loans and management fee payments to the NRA,” in effect plundering the Foundation’s assets through questionable grants, multi-million-dollar loans, and unjustified fees. So, in other words, business as usual under the LaPierre regime.

The case ended in a 2024 consent judgment that required the Foundation to strengthen its governance, adopt formal policies ensuring arm’s-length decision-making on grants and shared services, and adhere strictly to its own articles and bylaws. It looked great on paper. The Foundation would become independent of the Association’s proven corrupt management and the sycophants on its Board.

In reality, the judgment turned the Foundation and its treasury over to members of the same crew that had been narrowly prevented from running the National Rifle Association into the ground.

NRA officers and Directors, most of whom had been voted off the Board by a furious membership, had migrated to the Foundation, and now appear on the masthead of the 1791 Foundation’s website. The Foundation’s leadership now boasts three former NRA presidents, all of whom either stood idly by, or actively abetted the worst of LaPierre’s financial chicanery for at least the past dozen years, and a bevy of NRA Directors, most of whom, like the ex-Presidents, failed in their fiduciary responsibility to the Association. They were not backbenchers who can plausibly claim ignorance of the corruption that happened on their watch.

The ex-Directors include former NRA Second Vice-President David Coy who now serves as the Foundation’s Treasurer and CFO. A Certified Public Accountant and tenured professor of accounting, Coy served on the NRA Audit Committee that failed to find anything suspicious about LaPierre’s spending habits, or his dealings with NRA’s former public relations firm Ackerman McQueen. Several other Directors-turned-Trustees went on the record, some of them here on Ammoland, to defend the past regime before the 2024 NRA Board election which swept in the first slate of reform candidates, including my brother Jeff Knox. I’m not really a conspiracy buff, but it’s hard not to believe that this crowd moving to the Foundation was just happenstance. As my dad used to say, “I know the wind’s blowing because I see the trees moving.”

With the good intentions of separating the Foundation from the then-corrupt NRA Board, the court simply created a new pocket of corruption and threw in a fat bankroll. Citing court orders, the “reformed” Board of Trustees changed the process of electing Trustees to selecting its own members. Money contributed over the past 30-plus years, mostly by NRA members, is now controlled by a self-selected cabal of refugees from Wayne’s world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

NRA Sues the NRA Foundation as Internal Power Struggle Freezes Program Funding

NRA Reform Gains Steam, But the Fight to Restore Trust Continues

---

About Chris Knox

Chris Knox has a lifelong interest in every aspect of guns, ranging from the history of firearms technology to hunting to competition. Brother to regular Ammoland contributor Jeff Knox, Chris considers protection of gun rights the family business. “Gun owners don’t need to like politics,” he says, “but ignoring politics is how you become a former gun owner.” Chris serves on the board of Arizona Citizens Defense League and competes in practical shooting, high-power rifle, and shotgun games.

---

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

Holloway v. Katz: Virginia Gun Ban Lawsuit Argues Banned Arms Are Militia Arms

Holloway v. Katz challenges Virginia’s SB 749 / HB 217 gun and magazine ban under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. IMG Duncan Johnson

While four Second Amendment-based cases challenging Virginia’s semiautomatic gun and magazine ban are on hold pending a decision by a three-judge panel on whether they should be consolidated, another case, taking a different approach, is still “scheduled to be argued next Wednesday, June 17th at 9am,” Counsel for Plaintiffs Kenneth T. Cuccinelli stated in a June 10 “Non-client specific case update” email.

The Holloway v. Katz complaint (see embedded document, below), filed in the Circuit Court of the County of Spotsylvania, asks for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against SB 749 / HB 217 because  the “ban provisions of the Act  violate the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia.”

That’s where the important difference from the other challenges comes in:

“Plaintiffs challenge these prohibitions solely under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. They do not rest their case on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor on the individual right to keep and bear arms also embodied in Article I, Section 13. Their argument is simpler and more fundamental: the militia clause guarantees the existence of a “well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” That guarantee is self-executing. It necessarily presupposes that the body of the people may acquire and possess the arms with which they must be trained. The General Assembly cannot, consistent with that guarantee, prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.”

Simply put, as noted in the Statement of Facts, “The weapons banned by the act are the arms of the citizen militia.”

Along with the update email came a welcome bonus.

“The Commonwealth Attorney Defendant in our case, Ryan Mehaffey, filed a blockbuster brief in our case arguing that WE should get our preliminary injunction,” Cuccinelli informed. “It’s a good piece of work and a very pleasant surprise.  I’ve attached it for your reading pleasure (merged in the embed below).

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Billet 13.7" .308 Mid-Length 13" Sabre Rail w/ B5 Sop-Mod Furniture & JMAC GFHCE-R Pin/Weld	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1369.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Forged 13.7" .308 Mid-Length 13" Sabre Rail w/ Magpul SL-S Furniture & JMAC GFHCE-R Pin/Weld	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1319.99
	PSA "Sabre" Forged 14.5" 5.56 FN CHF CL 13.5" Geissele MK14 Pin/Weld with Sabre Furniture Rifle	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1299.99
	PSA "Sabre" Billet 14.5" .223 Wylde M4 13" Knurled Slant Rail with 3 Prong, B&T, 1/2"-28 Rifle & Sabre Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1099.99

While Mehaffey was named in the complaint because he is the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Spotsylvania County, it should be noted he is one of the brave Virginia prosecutors who has gone on record saying he will not enforce the ban. (While his brief is, indeed, “a good piece of work” his contention that “a sawed off shotgun is not protected because it does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” is historically arguable, as is what some of us might see as overreliance on limiting small arms to those that “are lawfully in common use today,” which suggests bans on machineguns and limiting developing technologies to the standing army would be consistent with Founding intent instead of potentially rendering the Second Amendment moot. That said, the brunt of Mehaffey’s brief is outstanding and educational.)

“I will let you all know if I hear anything about consolidation or our case schedule,” Cuccinelli advised his email recipients. “If you don’t hear from me, that means we’re still on the schedule above.”

Gun owners who agree that this unique and innovative approach merits pursuing and want to support the case can donate via Rights Watch.

Also see:

• Virginia Judge Stays Crump v. Katz Hearing as July 1 Gun Ban Deadline Looms
• Ignoring Core Purpose Makes 2nd Amendment More Vulnerable to Infringements: The Militia Aspect, Part 1, Part 2

Virginia Judge Stays Crump v. Katz Hearing as July 1 Gun Ban Deadline Looms

---

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/pq6uNrn
via IFTTT

Democrats’ HEAR Act Would Turn Millions of Lawful Suppressor Owners Into Felons

The HEAR Act would not merely ban future suppressor sales. It would ban possession by ordinary citizens and create a federal buyback program for already registered suppressors. IMG Duncan Johnson

Democrats in Congress are not just trying to stop future suppressor sales. They are trying to criminalize suppressor ownership itself.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, a New Jersey Democrat, has reintroduced the so-called Help Empower Americans to Respond Act of 2026, better known as the HEAR Act. The bill is being sold to the public as “gun safety” legislation aimed at “silencers,” but the text tells a much more serious story.

This is not simply a sales ban. This is a suppressor confiscation bill.

Watson Coleman’s press release says the HEAR Act would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearm suppressors or silencers. That last word is the key: possession.

The bill does not merely say that ordinary Americans could no longer buy new suppressors. It says they could no longer lawfully possess the ones they already own.

Americans did exactly what the federal government told them to do to legally obtain suppressors. They went through the National Firearms Act process, filed paperwork, submitted fingerprints, and photos. They waited for ATF approval. Some even paid the old $200 tax when it still applied. They registered their property with the federal government.

Now, a Representative from a state that bans suppressor ownership wants to ban commonly owned safety equipment nationwide.

The HEAR Act would amend federal law to make it unlawful for a person to “import, sell, manufacture, transfer, or possess” a firearm silencer or firearm muffler in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce. The exceptions are narrow and predictable: government agencies, law enforcement, campus law enforcement, nuclear facility security, and certain licensed manufacturers or importers for testing or experimentation. Ordinary citizens are not on that list.

There is no broad grandfather clause for the hunter who bought a suppressor to protect his hearing. No exception for the homeowner who keeps one mounted to a defensive rifle so he does not destroy his family’s hearing during a home invasion. There is no carveout for the competition shooter, firearms instructor, veteran with hearing damage, or gun owner who simply followed the law.

Instead, the bill gives the Attorney General 90 days to establish and implement a nationwide suppressor “buy-back” program for people “seeking to comply” with the new law.

That is political language for surrender your property or become a criminal.

As a reminder for anyone unfamiliar with the word “buyback.” The government cannot “buy back” something it never owned in the first place. These suppressors were bought by private citizens with their own money after completing a federal approval process. Many buyers waited months or years under the old system. Others rushed into the market after Congress reduced the NFA transfer tax on suppressors to $0. Gun owners saw that reform as a step in the right direction. Anti-gunners saw it as a reason to panic.

Watson Coleman’s release attacks Republicans for trying to roll back suppressor restrictions and complains that gun-rights advocates succeeded in eliminating the $200 tax. That is the real political context here. Gun owners won a fight over the tax, so now Democrats are responding with a bill that would wipe out lawful ownership altogether.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Huxwrx Flow 45 M Multi-Caliber Suppressor W/ Booster Assembly	Bereli	$ 708.00
	Huxwrx Flow 762 Ti Rifle Suppressor - FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1185.00
	HUXWRX Flow 7.62 TI Suppressor with Muzzle Device - Black.	Primary Arms	$ 1299.00
	Huxwrx Flow 556k Suppressor W/ Flash Hider, 5.56/17hmr/5.7, Black (BLEM)	Bereli	$ 979.00

Suppressor ownership has exploded because Americans want practical hearing protection.

ATF’s own updated NFA data showed more than 6.1 million silencers registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record as of May 4, 2026. The American Suppressor Association’s May 2026 Suppressor Commercial Market Analysis, reviewed by AmmoLand News, put the figure at approximately 6.14 million registered suppressors and reported that the number had grown by more than 1.7 million since January 2025. That is not some obscure criminal tool or an uncommon item to possess. That is millions of registered suppressors owned by Americans who went through one of the most intrusive firearm-purchase processes in the country.

The gun-control argument still depends on the Hollywood myth that suppressors make firearms whisper-quiet. They do not. Suppressors reduce sound. They do not eliminate it. Anyone who has actually shot suppressed firearms knows they remain loud, especially with supersonic ammunition. Their real-world value is hearing protection, recoil reduction, better communication on the range, and safer shooting conditions for hunters, instructors, competitors, and defensive gun owners.

But anti-gun politicians do not want to debate reality. They want scary words.

Watson Coleman called suppressors “tools of murder” and claimed they have “no legal application.” That statement is absurd on its face. Millions of suppressors are legally registered in the United States. Suppressors are legal for civilian ownership in most states. They are used every day by law-abiding Americans for hunting, training, sport shooting, and personal defense.

If they had “no legal application,” the federal government would not have spent decades approving, taxing, and registering them.

The most dangerous part of the HEAR Act is not just what it bans. It is what it proves about registration.

For years, gun owners have warned that registration leads to confiscation. Anti-gun politicians and their media allies sneered at that warning. They called it paranoia. They insisted that registration was just about safety and accountability.

Now comes a bill aimed directly at a category of already-registered items, with no grandfather protection for ordinary citizens and a federal surrender program attached.

The bill also amends 18 U.S.C. § 924(d), meaning suppressors possessed in violation of the new ban would be subject to federal seizure and forfeiture.

Because suppressors are registered with ATF, the government already has records showing who lawfully acquired them. The Form 4 process ties the item, serial number, transferee, and registration record together. The government knows who bought them and where they live. That makes enforced confiscation the next step.

There are not enough votes in the current Congress. But gun owners should not miss the lesson. The policy goal is now written down in black and white: ban possession, force surrender, and criminalize refusal.

The HEAR Act is also a warning to every gun owner who has ever been told, “Nobody is coming for your guns.” They are not even hiding the playbook anymore.

Today it is suppressors. Tomorrow it will be magazines, semi-automatic rifles, homemade firearms, braces, ammunition, or whatever else the gun-control lobby decides to rebrand as unacceptable.

The same politicians who claim suppressors are too dangerous for ordinary Americans still carve out exceptions for government agents. That tells you what they really believe. The problem is not the device. The problem is civilian ownership.

Gun owners should treat the HEAR Act as more than another doomed anti-gun press release. It is a preview of where the gun-control movement wants to go when it has power.

Registration first. Confiscation later. Felony charges for anyone who refuses.

ASA Report: Suppressor Demand Explodes After $200 Tax Stamp Drops to $0

---

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/lMmfXFk
via IFTTT

Will a Texas Democrat Replace a Gun Control RINO in the U.S. Senate?

With the ballots counted in the Republican run-off elections at the end of May, the race is on to become Texas’s new junior U.S. Senator.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton ended John Cornyn’s quarter-century incumbency, taking 63.8% of the run-off votes.

In reality, Cornyn ended his time in office all by himself when he sold out to Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy and helped send the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to Joe Biden in 2022.

Paxton comes with a bit of baggage, so gunners and 2A advocates are paying close attention to Texas State Representative James Talarico, the Democratic Party nominee.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Va - Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Value Pack 5bx/Cs	Brownells.com	$ 43.99
	WINCHESTER 9MM LUGER 115 GRAIN FMJ (1,000 Rounds) + Winchester Silvertip 9mm Luger 115 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point (200 Rounds)	Bereli	$ 389.00
	Winchester 9mm 124 Gr FMJ / Winchester Ranger T-Series 9mm 147 Gr JHP 150 Rounds in Heavy Duty Ammo Can Bundle	Ammunition Depot	$ 99.99 $ 77.99
	Winchester 9mm 115gr Full Metal Jacket Ammo - Box of 200	Primary Arms	$ 54.99

On Monday, June 8, Talarico had a conversation with Houston attorney Dan Cogdell. Among the topics was Talarico’s position on gun control:

“So, um, and then you mentioned guns. I am a believer in the Second Amendment. I don’t pick and choose between the Bill of Rights.

“I believe in the Second Amendment just as much as I believe in the first. We have a right to bear arms, to protect ourselves, our families. We have a right to own weapons for sport or for hunting.

“But like any freedom in the Bill of Rights, it’s not absolute. Um, you have a freedom of speech, but you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a crowded building.¹ Um, you have a freedom to assemble, to protest, but you you need a permit uh before you go, you know, start a rally on a street corner somewhere.²

“The same is true for our Second Amendment. We’ve got to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals. We’ve got to make sure that we’ve got safe storage laws and and background checks so that we’re keeping everybody safe.

“My my granddad, my grandpa Talarico, taught me how to shoot in Harper, Texas on his ranch. And the thing he emphasized the most was safety. How to how to operate a firearm safely.

“And so I think that’s a common value that we all share in this conversation is how do we how do we defend and protect the Second Amendment while also keeping everyone safe. And it’s going to be a balance.

“Uh, but right now, we have we have extremes on this issue. We have people on the left who are trying to take away people’s guns and we have people on the right uh like the NRA, that don’t want to see any regulations. And so what I’m looking for is kind of a middle path, a common sense path to defend our constitutional rights and also protect our safety.”

When he was campaigning for the nomination, Talarico had a “town hall” meeting on YouTube channels Twobilee and Jubilee. He added in the obligatory mention of Uvalde but, like most Democrats, neglected to mention the scandalous law enforcement response.

So Talarico talks the talk. In fact, he tries to hit every Democrat talking point. But does he really walk the walk?

In the 2018 midterm elections, Talarico was elected to the first of four terms as a member of the Texas House of Representatives. That was the 86th session of the Texas Legislature and gun rights and gun control were hot topics. The session included the first big push for constitutional carry (I wrote a white paper supporting James Stickland’s HB 357).

Talarico authored three gun-related bills in that first session. All three died in committee.

The 87th Session was the one in which both constitutional carry and Second Amendment Sanctuary bills became law. The 88th Session was the first after Uvalde. Both sessions had lots of gun control bills introduced, but Talarico didn’t author any of them.

His final gun-related bill was HB 5025, which would have prohibited the carrying of guns and other weapons in public libraries. Like his earlier bills, HB 5025 died in committee.

Based on everything we’ve seen, James Talarico will be a faithful gun-grabber if Texas voters send him to the Senate in November.

The silver lining in Talarico’s victory is the fact he knocked outspoken loose cannon Jasmine Crockett out of the running.

One thing Ken Paxton will need to counter Democrat claims is Texas’s outcomes after constitutional carry went into effect in September 2021.

According to data from the FBI and the Texas Department of Public Safety, the state’s violent crime rate is down 13 percent, the aggravated assault rate dropped about nine percent, and the murder rate plunged 26 percent. These are all better than the national improvements.

1. Nonsense! There is nothing to prevent you from yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, especially if there is actually a fire. There are unpleasant consequences only if your alarm is a joke or intended to create a panic and then only after you’ve done it.

2. Once again, this is a false equivalency. If you own a piece of property large enough to hold a demonstration, you don’t need a a government permit. It’s only when your group wants to use public property, like a park or street, that a permit might be required, and that’s so the permitting authority can allocate resources, such as cordoning off the area or providing police services.

The right to keep and bear arms is the only Enumerated Right a citizen has to get government permission before it can be exercised. With all the other rights, the assumption is that you won’t misuse or abuse the right (innocent until proven guilty). When it comes to Second Amendment rights, the assumption is that you will .

ATF Reform Package Sends Everytown Into Full Gun-Control Meltdown

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

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

Delaware Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Gun Ban on Adults Under 21

The Delaware Supreme Court heard arguments in a major challenge to HB 451, the state law restricting firearm ownership and possession by adults ages 18 to 20. iStock-2200672379

On June 10, 2026, the Delaware Supreme Court heard oral arguments in DE Department of Safety and Homeland Security, et al. v. Birney, et al., a dispute over whether Delaware can stop adults under 21 from buying or owning most firearms. The justices convened for a case that gun rights advocates treat as a defining test of how far state constitutional protections stretch for young adults.

The fight began with House Bill 451, which then-Governor John Carney signed on June 30, 2022. The law raised the minimum age to purchase, own, possess, or control most firearms in Delaware from 18 to 21.

A 1968 federal statute already blocked anyone under 21 from buying handguns, but HB 451 reached further—covering rifles and broadening the handgun rules to include ownership and possession—while carving out exceptions for shotguns and muzzle-loading rifles, as well as for active-duty military, law enforcement, and concealed-carry permit holders. It also required hunters between 18 and 20 to stay under the direct supervision of a person 21 or older.

Gavin J. Birney, a Delaware hunter who wanted to buy a firearm before turning 21, challenged the measure right after Carney signed it. The Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, the NRA’s state affiliate, joined him along with the Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club. After the Court of Chancery dismissed the matter, the Kent County Superior Court took it up.

On August 29, 2025, Superior Court Judge Reneta L. Green-Streett granted summary judgment for the challengers and struck down HB 451’s age restrictions, finding that they clashed with Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution, which provides that “a person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for hunting and recreational use.”

She concluded that “at a minimum, some provisions of HB 451 infringe on the right of a subsection of adults, aged 18 to 20,” leaving intact the parts of the law that don’t touch that age group.

The state appealed, which flipped the caption and put the Department of Safety and Homeland Security in the lead as appellant. The challengers filed a cross appeal, signaling they want broader relief than the trial court delivered.

Gun rights organizations believe the case goes beyond one hunter. They argue that Article I, Section 20 protects more than the federal Second Amendment because it spells out defense of self, family, home, and state alongside hunting and recreation.

In their lawsuit, the challengers said lawmakers passed HB 451 “in defiance” of both the U.S. Supreme Court and the Delaware Supreme Court, courts that had already recognized a fundamental right to self defense.

The DSSA’s complaint described the statute as turning young adults into “criminals—felons—for exercising one of their most exalted rights.” DSSA president and executive director Jeff Hague called the law “downright despicable” and said the group went to court “to vindicate those rights and to put an end” to unconstitutional gun rules.

After the Superior Court win, Hague told Spotlight Delaware, “We believe that all the laws that they passed back in 2022 are unconstitutional, and this just affirms our beliefs from three years ago.” He welcomed the result yet voiced frustration that the case had “been in limbo for a number of months,” landing just days before the 2025 hunting season opened.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Va - Winchester 9mm Nato 124gr Fmj 150rd Value Pack 5bx/Cs	Brownells.com	$ 43.99
	WINCHESTER 9MM LUGER 115 GRAIN FMJ (1,000 Rounds) + Winchester Silvertip 9mm Luger 115 Grain Jacketed Hollow Point (200 Rounds)	Bereli	$ 389.00
	Winchester 9mm 124 Gr FMJ / Winchester Ranger T-Series 9mm 147 Gr JHP 150 Rounds in Heavy Duty Ammo Can Bundle	Ammunition Depot	$ 99.99 $ 77.99
	Winchester 9mm 115gr Full Metal Jacket Ammo - Box of 200	Primary Arms	$ 54.99

Across Delaware’s gun litigation, advocates lean on the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which requires the government to show that a firearm rule fits “consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The DSSA’s attorneys argued “there is no historical tradition of banning arms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” noting that nearly every young adult in the Founding era was expected to own and carry firearms.

The DSSA treats HB 451 as one piece of a 2022 regulatory scheme, and it is simultaneously challenging Delaware’s semiautomatic weapons ban, large capacity magazine limits, and permit to purchase law. The Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition have brought up related cases, with the SAF warning that Delaware’s laws have “literally criminalized ownership of these popular arms” and that “each day these laws remain in effect means one more day when Delaware citizens are deprived of their rights.”

Now the dispute reaches the state’s highest court. The record holds opening, answering, and reply briefs on both the appeal and cross appeal, plus an amicus brief from the Giffords Law Center backing the state. If the justices affirm, HB 451’s age limits stay struck down. If they reverse, the ban on purchases and possession by 18- to 20-year-olds returns.

Either way, the ruling will stand as a closely watched marker for how state constitutions shape gun rights for young adults.

Gun Owners Sound Alarm Over New Jersey Glock Subpoenas

Ninth Circuit Rules Suppressors Are Not Second Amendment Arms

---

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/NV5l8mE
via IFTTT