Virginia Assault Firearms Law Sparks Chaos as Sponsors Contradict Each Other

Virginia’s new “assault firearms” ban is so poorly written that even the lawmakers behind it can’t agree on what it does. IMG Hank Strange

The architect of the Senate version of Virginia’s “assault firearms” laws has made the new regulations more confusing by describing what the law does and when it will be enforced. His statements directly contradict the architect’s comments on the House of Delegates version of the same bill. Not even law enforcement is sure what the truth is, leading to confusion among Virginia gun owners and those traveling into the Commonwealth.

Sen. Saddam Salim (D-Fairfax) said the law only becomes relevant if a firearm falling under the state’s definition of an assault weapon — one acquired after July 1 — is tied to another criminal act. Sen. Salim was the author of the Senate version of the bill, but it does not contain the language he referenced. This has left many confused about whether they would be violating the law if stopped for a traffic violation while transporting a covered firearm into Virginia from another state. This includes transporting the firearm to or from a range or gunsmith.

“If you happen to get (a firearm) from North Carolina, and then you come to Virginia, and you don’t commit any crimes, none of us know that you have this,” Salim said. “Law enforcement in Virginia is never going to go knock on your door and ask you, ‘Do you have a gun at your home? When did you get that?’”

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA JAKL Knurled Charging Handle - ODG	Palmetto State Armory	$ 34.99
	PSA Upper JAKL, 10.5" 5.56 NATO 1:7 Nitride, With BCG and Lower Build Kit, JAKL Smoke MOE EPT w/ Brace, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 899.99
	PSA Upper JAKL, 10.5" 5.56 NATO 1:7 Nitride, With BCG and Lower Build Kit, JAKL MOE EPT w/o Brace, ODG	Palmetto State Armory	$ 799.99
	PSA Upper JAKL, 10.5" 5.56 NATO 1:7 Nitride, With BCG and Lower Build Kit, JAKL Smoke MOE EPT w/o Brace, Smoke	Palmetto State Armory	$ 799.99

Although Salim believes the law only applies to firearms tied to a criminal act, rabidly anti-gun Del. Dan Helmer (D-Fairfax), who authored the House of Delegates version, says gun owners can be prosecuted for violating the law even if no other crime was committed. This stance directly contradicts Salim’s statements and has left many wondering how law enforcement officials will enforce the new law.

“Anybody who brings an assault weapon into Virginia after July 1 is committing a misdemeanor and could face consequences,” Helmer said. “And if you choose to break the law, you should do so knowing full well that doing so could get you caught, could land you with hefty fines, and even in jail.”

Law enforcement agencies across the state have been fielding questions from concerned citizens about the lack of clarity in the law. Many agencies and Commonwealth’s Attorneys have already said they will not enforce the new gun laws, which many view as a violation of both the United States and Virginia Constitutions. Even those who plan to enforce the ban will have to interpret the vague language, likely leading to inconsistent application across the Commonwealth. Police in Fairfax County might apply one standard, while those in Loudoun County might view the law differently.

CONFUSING ANTI-2A VIRGINIA LAWS: EVEN THE LAWS’ SPONSORS CAN’T AGREE!

RTD: Virginia law enforcement fielding questions about incoming assault weapons ban

… “Across multiple jurisdictions, officials say most questions from residents are about how it will apply in everyday… pic.twitter.com/29xAe2QIq5

— Virginia News Vanguard (@VaNewsVanguard) June 14, 2026

The stakes for gun owners are high. Violating the law can lead to a costly court battle or even the loss of one’s freedom. It also puts law enforcement officers in a precarious position — charged with enforcing a law that lacks clarity — even as some officers have vowed to uphold their oath and not infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of their fellow citizens.

There are several lawsuits at the state and federal levels challenging the new law. The state cases, including Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) backed case (Crump v. Katz) that involves this journalist, have been paused after Commonwealth Attorney General Jay Jones — who in the past has advocated for the murder of his political opponents and their children — asked the Virginia Supreme Court to merge the cases. A three-judge panel will decide whether to allow the cases to continue individually or as a merged action.

Virginia Claims State Constitution Does Not Protect Individual Gun Rights in Crump v. Katz

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

---

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/nBv3dUY
via IFTTT

Maryland Court Finds Gun Possession Alone Not Enough For Police Stop

The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that police cannot stop a citizen based solely on firearm possession without reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. IMG Scott

In Steven Hicks v. State of Maryland, the Appellate Court of Maryland delivered a post-Bruen warning to police and prosecutors: the mere sight of a gun is not a blank check to stop, handcuff, disarm, and search a citizen.

The Appellate Court of Maryland, sitting en banc, reversed the conviction of Steven Hicks after ruling that Baltimore police violated his constitutional rights when they stopped and searched him based on the alleged sight of a handgun “printing” through his shirt. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is applauding the ruling as another post-Bruen sign that courts are starting to understand a basic point: exercising a constitutional right is not suspicious behavior.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb called the Hicks ruling a “wake-up call” for Maryland police and said officers can no longer treat a constitutional right like a “regulated privilege.”

On July 5, 2023, Baltimore City police were in the area of St. Charles and Belvedere for an investigation unrelated to Hicks. Detective Mitchell Ramsey, a member of the department’s Group Violence Unit, was riding in an unmarked vehicle when he saw a group of people congregating. Hicks began walking away as the vehicle approached.

Hicks was wearing a satchel across the front of his body. According to the court opinion, Detective Ramsey said he saw the rear handle of a handgun in Hicks’ waistband and could see the angular outline of the firearm “physically printing” through Hicks’ shirt.

Ramsey got out, activated his body-worn camera, and ordered Hicks to put his hands up. Hicks asked why and immediately said he had a license. Ramsey told him he was being stopped because a firearm was printing in his waistband. Hicks was handcuffed. He repeated that he had a permit and asked if he could retrieve it.

Hicks was not a prohibited person in this case. The permit later produced had an expiration date of February 28, 2026, and no restrictions. The State stipulated that it was the permit recovered that day.

Police removed a holstered handgun from Hicks’ waistband. Officers then continued searching. A second firearm was found in Hicks’ satchel, and suspected cocaine was recovered from his pants pocket. Hicks was charged with multiple firearm and drug offenses. After the trial court denied his suppression motion, he entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm with a nexus to drug trafficking and received a five-year sentence without parole. The appellate court reversed.

The key question was not whether police can protect themselves during a lawful stop. The court said they can. The problem was more fundamental: police need a lawful basis for the stop in the first place.

Before New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Maryland courts routinely treated gun possession as enough to justify a stop. That was easier for the state under the old anti-carry regime, when Maryland made ordinary people prove a “good and substantial reason” before they could exercise the right to carry a handgun in public.

Bruen changed the landscape. The Supreme Court made clear that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Maryland was forced to abandon its “good and substantial reason” requirement and move into a shall-issue world.

If public carry is presumptively lawful, police cannot automatically treat the sight of a gun as evidence of a crime. The Appellate Court of Maryland said the mere possibility that someone with a gun might not have a permit is not enough. Officers need reasonable suspicion that the person is illegally possessing the firearm or is otherwise involved in criminal activity.

Hicks was licensed to carry, and the search went beyond what the Constitution allows. Armed citizens do not lose their Fourth Amendment rights simply because they are carrying a firearm.

The court did not leave much room for Maryland to spin what happened. This was not a case where police had a report of a crime, recognized Hicks as a prohibited person, or had some independent reason to believe he was carrying illegally. The State defended the stop as a gun-possession stop, and the appellate court addressed it that way.

As noted by the Appeals Court, “The case was presented…as a stop justified solely on the possession of a gun, and it was presented in the briefs on appeal the same way. That is the argument that we have addressed, and it is the basis for our conclusion that the stop was unconstitutional.”

Judge Kathryn Grill Graeff put the rule plainly.

“The police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is possessing the gun illegally or otherwise engaged in criminal activity,” Graeff wrote. “Because the officers here stopped appellant based solely on his possession of a gun, without reasonable suspicion that he was possessing the gun illegally or otherwise involved in criminal activity, they did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. The stop, therefore, violated appellant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures.”

A firearm is not probable cause and a citizen exercising the right to bear arms does not automatically become a criminal suspect.

The ruling is not a blanket statement that armed people can never be frisked. If police lawfully stop someone for another reason and know the person is armed, the court said officers may conduct a protective frisk for safety. Gun owners should understand that distinction.

What police cannot do, at least under this ruling, is treat a gun as an automatic reasonable suspicion.

A right is not much of a right if exercising it gives the government permission to seize you. That is true for speech, religion, travel, and self-defense. The government does not get to say, “You may carry, but the moment we notice it, we can handcuff you, disarm you, search your bag, and rummage through your pockets.”

Maryland presented this case as a stop justified solely by possession of a gun, and the court rejected that theory.

Maryland officials may not like it, but the Constitution is not suspended because a citizen is armed. If the state wants to stop and search someone, it needs more than anti-gun assumptions. It needs actual reasonable suspicion.

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

---

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/PF34JKN
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Lets New York’s Anti-Gun Lawfare Continue in NSSF v. James

The Supreme Court denied review in NSSF v. James, leaving New York’s public nuisance law against the firearms industry standing for now. iStock-1304844629

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. James, leaving New York’s gun-industry public nuisance law standing for now and giving anti-gun states a dangerous opening to continue their lawfare campaign against lawful gun makers, distributors, and dealers.

The Court’s June 15 order in docket No. 25-1026 says only two words that matter here: “Petition DENIED.”

That is not a ruling on the merits or an endorsement of New York Attorney General Letitia James’s attack on the firearms industry. It is not a declaration that Congress’s Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is meaningless. But in practical terms, it leaves the Second Circuit’s bad decision in place and allows New York’s anti-PLCAA workaround to survive another day. That should concern every gun owner in America.

New York’s law was signed in 2021 by then-Governor Andrew Cuomo and was designed to expose firearm industry members to civil lawsuits under a so-called public nuisance theory. The law targets gun makers, wholesalers, distributors, and dealers for allegedly endangering public safety through the sale or marketing of firearms and ammunition.

New York wants to hold the lawful firearms industry responsible when criminals misuse guns.

That is exactly the sort of lawsuit Congress tried to stop when it passed PLCAA in 2005. Congress understood what gun-control politicians and trial lawyers were doing. They were not merely trying to win traditional lawsuits based on actual wrongdoing. They were trying to bankrupt the firearms industry through endless litigation over crimes committed by third parties.

A gun manufacturer does not commit a robbery. A distributor does not pull the trigger in a gang shooting. A licensed dealer who follows the law is not responsible because a criminal somewhere down the line breaks the law. That basic principle should not be difficult, unless the real goal is not justice but destruction of the industry.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CCI 9mm Shotshell Ammunition 10rds- - -3790	Palmetto State Armory	$ 19.99
	Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Reflex Sight - Enclosed and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 603.53
	Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Reflex Sight and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 589.22
	Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Miniature Reflex Sight and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 437.58

NSSF and 14 additional plaintiffs sued New York Attorney General Letitia James to stop enforcement of the law. The plaintiffs argued that New York was trying to overrule the judgment of Congress, regulate out-of-state businesses, and trample constitutional limits.

The case made its way through the federal courts, and the Second Circuit upheld the law in July 2025. The panel said NSSF had not met the burden for a facial, pre-enforcement challenge. It also held that New York’s statute fit within PLCAA’s “predicate exception,” did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, and was not unconstitutionally vague.

That “predicate exception” is the heart of the fight. PLCAA generally blocks lawsuits against the firearms industry for harms caused by criminal misuse of firearms. But it allows certain lawsuits when a gun industry defendant knowingly violates a law applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms and that violation causes the harm.

New York’s trick is to write a broad, gun-specific nuisance law and then claim that any lawsuit brought under that law falls inside PLCAA’s exception. If that maneuver works, the exception swallows the rule. Congress closes the front door, and New York crawls through a side window.

That is why the Supreme Court petition mattered. AmmoLand reported in March that a major amici brief, including the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, Independence Institute, Montana, and 23 other states, warned the justices that New York’s law was not merely a local consumer-protection measure. It was an attempt to revive the same junk lawsuits Congress barred in 2005 and let one hostile state pressure the national firearms market.

The danger is not limited to New York. Once one blue state gets away with this scheme, others can copy it. The formula is simple: pass a statute aimed only at the firearms industry, dress it up as public nuisance law, claim it fits within PLCAA’s predicate exception, and then let government lawyers and private plaintiffs drag gun companies into expensive lawsuits over crimes they did not commit.

The firearms industry is not asking for special treatment. It is asking for the same basic fairness every other lawful industry receives. Ford is not sued out of existence because a drunk driver kills someone in an F-150. Anheuser-Busch is not blamed every time a criminal drives drunk after drinking beer. We do not hold kitchen knife makers responsible for stabbings. We do not sue baseball bat manufacturers every time a thug uses a bat as a weapon.

But when the product is a firearm, the left suddenly throws causation, personal responsibility, federal law, and constitutional rights into the trash.

That is the real issue here. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but that right depends on the ability of Americans to acquire arms, ammunition, parts, and accessories through a functioning lawful market. If anti-gun politicians cannot ban guns outright, they try to attack the supply chain. If they cannot confiscate every rifle and handgun, they try to sue the companies that make and sell them into submission.

The end result is the same: fewer dealers, fewer manufacturers willing to serve hostile states, higher prices, less access, and a constitutional right that exists on paper while becoming harder to exercise in real life.

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari does not end the fight, or that future application of New York’s law is lawful. It does not stop as-applied challenges if New York or private plaintiffs use the statute to pursue the exact sort of blame-the-industry lawsuits Congress meant to prohibit.

But it does mean New York’s law remains alive. It means the Second Circuit’s decision remains the law in that circuit. And it means gun owners should expect anti-gun states to take the denial as encouragement.

This is how the modern gun-control machine works. When regulations fail, they litigate. When Congress protects lawful commerce, they relabel the same old lawsuits as “public nuisance” claims and pretend nothing has changed.

The Supreme Court had a chance to stop that tactic now. It chose not to.

Gun owners, the firearms industry, and pro-Second Amendment lawmakers should treat that as a warning. PLCAA was passed because the left’s anti-gun lawfare campaign was real. New York is proving it still is.

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

---

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/zfx6Dri
via IFTTT

Ukraine Considers Civilian Firearms Reform and Armed Self-Defense

A deadly Kyiv supermarket attack has renewed Ukraine’s debate over civilian gun ownership, armed self-defense, and handgun restrictions. iStock-1899043269

On April 18, 2026, a mass murderer killed seven people in Kyiv, Ukraine. He took hostages and barricaded himself in a supermarket. Two police officers fled the scene. He killed the victims with a legally registered firearm. The killer was 58 years old. Police attempted to negotiate for an hour before storming the position and killing the murderer.

One day later, on April 19, 2026, Ukraine’s Interior Minister, Ihor Klymenko, expressed support for relaxing Ukraine’s controls on firearms, allowing citizens to possess firearms, including handguns, for self-defense. Klymenko promised the mass murder would not be used to conduct mass checks of weapons owners. He deplored the action of the two police officers.

Klymenko also said he supported the loosening of restrictions on the ownership of defensive firearms, especially handguns. Civilian ownership of handguns is banned in Ukraine.

From Ukrainska Pravda:

On the question of granting civilians the right to possess firearms, including handguns, the interior minister said: “I believe that people must be given the right to armed self-defense. Especially after the experience of the early days of the full-scale invasion, when civilians received weapons for national resistance”.

The push to liberalize the Ukrainian law on the ownership and carry of handguns did not start with Kylmenko. Ihor Fris, a member of the ruling Servant of the People Party, proposed a reform in 2022. Polls on the subject indicate 59% of the public supports the right to carry a handgun for self-defense. Only 22% reject the idea entirely.

Klymenko’s words have been followed by actions. On May 6, 2026, President Zelensky said he had been briefed by Interior Minister Klyenko. He supported a reform law.

From kyivpost.com:

“Ukraine needs a modern and strong law on civilian firearms that will protect citizens without weapons and realistically regulate the situation for those who own weapons,” Zelensky said.

The Czech Republic serves as an example. It has some of the least restrictive firearms laws in Europe. In the Czech Republic, a permit to carry a handgun for self-protection is shall issue. According to Wikipedia, about 83% of gun owners were authorized to carry concealed weapons at the end of 2025. Once authorization to own guns is approved, the permission is for the lifetime of the owner. The total number of gun owners in the Czech Republic is a little over 3% of the population.  The Czech Republic has one of the lowest crime rates in Europe.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA Dagger Micro C-1 9mm Pistol - Shield Cut, W/Holosun 407k, FDE Slide, 2-Tone	Palmetto State Armory	$ 559.99
	PSA Dagger Micro C-1 9mm Pistol - Shield Cut, W/Holosun 407k, Sniper Green Slide, 2-Tone	Palmetto State Armory	$ 559.99
	PSA Dagger Micro 9mm Pistol - Shield Cut W/Holosun 407k, FDE Slide, 2-Tone	Palmetto State Armory	$ 539.99
	PSA Dagger Micro 9mm Pistol - Shield Cut W/ Holosun 407K, Sniper Green Slide, 2-Tone	Palmetto State Armory	$ 539.99

A major motivator to reform the Ukrainian law is the number of firearms that exist in the Republic because of the war. It could be difficult to keep them out of citizens’ hands.

For now, a published report shows that Ihor Klymenko signed an order to create a working group to consider how to regulate citizen ownership of firearms, how to obtain permits to own firearms, and how to address issues of responsibility and self-defense.  Once rules are drafted, they will be presented to the Ukrainian parliament to be considered.

Eastern Europe has trended toward a more liberal model of firearms ownership than Western Europe. The Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Lithuania, Slovakia, and  have shall issue concealed carry laws. Permits to carry concealed weapons are almost impossible to obtain in the rest of Europe.

California Father Shoots, Kills Armed Intruder During Break-In

---

About Dean Weingarten:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/5Z3BfJp
via IFTTT

Court Delivers Crushing Blow to ATF’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule

A federal judge vacated ATF’s “Engaged in the Business” rule, handing gun owners a major win against agency overreach. iStock-1528484408

A Texas Federal District Court has issued a final judgment striking down key aspects of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ controversial “Engaged in the Business” (EIB) Final Rule. Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Texas took the fight straight to the ATF, and the results speak volumes about the agency’s repeated attempts to rewrite federal law through bureaucratic fiat.

The ruling in Texas v. ATF isn’t just procedural. It exposes flaws in an overreaching regulation that threatened to turn millions of Americans into felons for exercising Second Amendment rights through private sales. The agency likes to stretch statutes beyond recognition, and this EIB rule was no exception. It had vague standards and disregarded congressional intent and constitutional protections.

The EIB (Engaged in the Business) rule stemmed from changes tucked into the 2022 John Cornyn-championed Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA). Congress updated the definition of when someone is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, requiring a Federal Firearms License (FFL) for those who sell with the intent to earn a profit. In April 2024, the agency rolled out a final rule packed with subjective criteria that would ensnare casual sellers, collectors, and even inheritors of firearms.

Under the rule, factors like the frequency of sales, the use of online platforms, or even how quickly someone sold a gun after acquiring it could trigger FFL (Federal Firearms License) requirements and National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background checks. Private sales between friends and family, private transfers not involving licensed dealers, suddenly looked suspicious in the eyes of the feds.

The presumption was clear: if you sell even one gun, you must be a dealer. Never mind that many gun owners simply rotate their collections or sell inherited pieces without turning a massive profit.

This approach ignored the realities of the firearms community. Gun shows, online forums, and local classifieds have long facilitated lawful transfers without turning every participant into a licensed dealer. The rule’s vagueness created a chilling effect. Law-abiding citizens, unsure where the line was drawn, faced the impossible choice of registering as an FFL with all the paperwork, inspections, and record-keeping burdens that entail – or risking federal prosecution.

GOA, together with Texas, challenged the rule in federal court, arguing it exceeded the ATF’s statutory authority, violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), and raised Second Amendment concerns. The court’s judgment addresses these arguments.

Post-Bruen, judges have become skeptical of ATF rulemaking. The Supreme Court’s decision emphasized that gun regulations must align with historical tradition. The EIB rule was found inconsistent with this standard, as there is no historical basis for federal regulation of private, non-commercial transfers in this manner.

The judgment highlights how the rule’s “profit motive” test and multi-factor analysis created arbitrary enforcement. ATF agents could cherry-pick criteria to target disfavored sellers while ignoring others. This isn’t the rule of law; it’s an administrative whim. Multiple courts have now called out similar overreaches, including pistol braces, frames, and receivers. The pattern is unmistakable: the ATF under previous leadership treated law-abiding gun owners as the enemy rather than partners in public safety.

This rule was fraught with problems. Its vagueness invited abuse. How many sales constitute “repetitive” activity? What constitutes a “profit”? The rule left these questions dangerously open-ended, forcing gun owners to guess at compliance, a recipe for selective prosecution.

The rule imposed undue burdens on small-scale sellers and hobbyists. Obtaining an FFL isn’t trivial. It involves background checks, zoning compliance, years of record retention, and opening one’s business to ATF inspections. For someone selling a few family heirlooms or trading at a gun show, this is overkill. The rule effectively criminalized common behaviors without evidence of widespread harm.

It also altered the legislative intent of the underlying statute. Congress had intended to regulate commercial operations without licensing, but the ATF’s expanded definition included private citizens. This regulatory change was implemented without traditional legislative debate or public input.

Observers, including those within the current administration, acknowledged the rule’s shortcomings. The agency continued to defend the policy throughout the legal process. The final judgment vacates or enjoins certain key provisions, limiting immediate enforcement and clarifying that new restrictions cannot be enacted without legal basis.

For many Americans, this ruling provides clarity. Private sales may proceed with less uncertainty regarding federal oversight. Collectors and inheritors are not subject to additional regulatory requirements when transferring property lawfully.

Ongoing monitoring is important. The ATF may seek to implement similar rules in the future under a different Administration. This judgment is significant, but related legal challenges could arise. Organizations like GOA and others have played a role in shaping this outcome through legal advocacy and mobilization.

This decision reflects recent legal trends. Since Bruen, courts have reconsidered some administrative actions related to the Second Amendment. The change to the EIB rule is another example of this shift.

DOJ Drops Defense of ATF ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule in Texas v. ATF

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

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

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

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