Atrius Says ATF Is Using Patent Lawsuits as Backdoor FRT Regulation

The Justice Department argues that restricting competing forced reset triggers through Rare Breed’s patent litigation would advance ATF’s interest in limiting FRT sales and distribution. This is an AI-generated illustration and does not depict an actual ATF investigation. AI-generated illustration created with OpenAI for AmmoLand News.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives will not publicly identify which forced-reset products it believes are machine guns, but the agency is asking a federal court to help Rare Breed Triggers shut competing products out of the market.

Atrius Development Group fired back Thursday, accusing the Department of Justice and ATF of using Rare Breed’s private patent litigation as a backdoor means of restricting forced-reset technology.

The dispute is part of In re: Rare Breed Triggers Patent Litigation, a consolidated multidistrict case pending before Chief U.S. District Judge Amos Mazzant in the Eastern District of Texas. Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP are asserting seven patents against multiple manufacturers and sellers of forced-reset-related products, including Atrius.

DOJ entered the case on ATF’s behalf through an August 31 Statement of Interest. The government says it has a “strong interest” in discouraging the unregulated manufacture of FRTs that allegedly infringe Rare Breed’s patents.

The government is not merely recognizing Rare Breed’s right to protect a valid patent. ATF is urging the court to treat the removal of competing products from the market as a public benefit.

“The ATF has an interest in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs,” the government told the court.

DOJ went further, arguing that successful Rare Breed patent-enforcement actions “would support ATF’s public safety efforts” if they result in injunctions against third-party manufacturers.

Atrius Says ATF Is Using Patent Law as Backdoor Regulation

In its September 24 response, Atrius called the intervention an improper attempt to manipulate private patent enforcement and suppress lawful competition.

“Executive agencies never serve the public interest when they manipulate private patent enforcement to create a government-backed monopoly,” the company stated.

Atrius argues that its product is a Forced Reset Selector, or FRS, rather than a traditional forced reset trigger. The company says its selector-based design has material structural and operational differences from the mechanisms covered by Rare Breed’s asserted patent claims.

Those are Atrius’s positions, not findings the court has made. Atrius maintains that its FRS does not infringe the patents and that the asserted patents are invalid. Rare Breed and ABC IP contend that competing devices fall within their patent rights. Those questions will have to be decided through evidence, claim construction, and the normal patent-litigation process—not through an ATF policy declaration.

The government acknowledges that limitation. Its Statement of Interest does not take a position on whether Atrius or any other defendant infringed a valid patent. DOJ also declined to address most of the factors required for a preliminary injunction or say whether the court should ultimately issue one.

Instead, the government confined its argument to the “public interest” factor and asked the court to weigh that factor heavily in Rare Breed’s favor.

That is precisely what makes the intervention so troubling. ATF wants the practical benefit of removing products from the market without first proving that those products are illegal—or even taking a position on whether they infringe Rare Breed’s patents.

Rare Breed’s Settlement Became an ATF Enforcement Tool

The federal government’s argument grows out of its May 2025 settlement with Rare Breed. That agreement ended several years of litigation after a federal court rejected ATF’s sweeping attempt to classify forced reset triggers as machine guns.

Under the settlement, Rare Breed agreed not to develop or design FRTs for handguns as defined by the agreement. It also agreed to make reasonable efforts to enforce its patents and seek injunctions against other parties manufacturing, selling, or distributing FRTs.

ATF is now citing that second promise as a reason courts should assist Rare Breed’s patent campaign.

There is nothing improper about a company enforcing a valid patent against an actual infringer. The constitutional power to protect inventors exists to encourage useful innovation. The problem begins when a federal enforcement agency tries to transform one company’s private patent rights into a substitute for legislation or lawful rulemaking.

Congress has not prohibited forced reset triggers. A federal court held in National Association for Gun Rights v. Garland that the devices at issue did not meet the statutory definition of a machine gun because they still fired only one shot for each function of the trigger. The government eventually settled rather than continue its appeal.

Now ATF is attempting to achieve through private injunctions at least part of what it failed to achieve through direct enforcement: fewer competing forced-reset products in the hands of American gun owners.

AmmoLand previously reported on both the government’s January intervention in Rare Breed’s lawsuit against Hoffman Tactical and its August filing in the consolidated Texas litigation.

ATF Says Some FRTs May Still Be Machine Guns

Atrius’s response arrived the same day AmmoLand reported new comments from ATF Director Robert Cekada at The Briefing, an FFL compliance event in Dallas.

Cekada said some products sold as FRTs are genuine forced reset triggers, while others on the market may be machine guns. He refused to identify the products or designs ATF believes cross that line. According to Cekada, the agency will examine how each mechanism works and apply the statutory definition of a machine gun.

That means a manufacturer cannot settle the classification question simply by calling its product an FRS instead of an FRT. It also means ATF has not publicly classified the Atrius FRS as a machine gun. Nothing in the government’s Statement of Interest makes such a determination, and DOJ identified no safety incident or criminal misuse involving Atrius or its selector.

Nevertheless, gun owners and firearm businesses are again being left to guess. ATF claims some unnamed products may be prohibited machine guns while simultaneously supporting civil lawsuits that could remove competing products without a classification ruling.

That is not regulatory clarity. It is the same dangerous uncertainty firearm owners have endured for years: the government refuses to draw a clear public line, retains the threat of criminal enforcement, and then invokes “public safety” to support restrictions it has not persuaded Congress to enact.

The Second Amendment does not authorize ATF to decide which lawful firearm technologies Americans should be permitted to buy. Patent disputes should turn on valid patents and actual infringement. Machine-gun classifications must turn on the words Congress enacted—whether a weapon fires more than one shot automatically by a single function of the trigger—not an agency’s hostility to rate of fire.

Atrius says it will continue defending its FRS, its customers, and its right to compete. The company is entitled to make that case in court without ATF placing a federal thumb on the scale merely because the agency wants fewer forced-reset products available to the public.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/VJYkbg0
via IFTTT

ATF Says Suppressor and SBR Guidance Could Arrive Within Weeks

ATF officials addressed Form 4473 suppressor transfers, SBRs, interstate travel, FFL inspections, forced reset triggers and coming changes to the federal firearms form. IMG John Crump

During “The Briefing,” an FFL compliance event hosted by FastBound, several high-ranking officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) attended, including ATF Director Robert Cekada, who answered industry questions.

Most attendees wanted guidance on transfers of suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs). Director Cekada could not give specifics, but he offered hints about what is coming down the pike.

The biggest question is when the ATF will release the guidance. According to Cekada, the rule is not done, but it is close. He highlighted that the ATF is only one stakeholder involved in the new guidance. The other two are the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House. AmmoLand sources believe the White House is delaying the guidance’s release. According to the director, he believes the guidance will be released in the next couple of weeks.

Breaking News: ATF’s Guidance on NFA Coming Soon!

During The Briefing, an industry event for FFLs in Dallas, Texas, AmmoLand reporter John Crump asked ATF Director Robert Cekada what guidance was given to IOIs during inspections when they encountered suppressors that had been… pic.twitter.com/Iuk5bBrKta

— AmmoLand News (@AmmoLand) September 24, 2026

The goal of the guidance is to cover as many Americans as possible while protecting the gun owners covered by it from future anti-gun administrations.

The ATF will most likely not expand the injunction to a universal level. The guidance will address several big questions and issues. With more than 2.3 million suppressors sold this year, according to former NFA Chief Steve Albro, the need for guidance is immense.

One issue the guidance will address is the transfer of SBRs and SBSs. Currently, although these items are protected under the Silencer Shop Foundation case, an ATF Form 4 is required to transfer them because of the Gun Control Act (GCA) attorney general notification requirement. The guidance will “fix” that carve-out, which seems to imply that SBRs and SBSs can be transferred on a Form 4473 alone.

Cekada was clear that these items, and long guns in general, are not an issue. At the Briefing, Cekada called out groups whose goal is to demonize these guns.

Another issue the guidance will address is interstate travel with covered NFA items. The regulation will cover those situations. Also, 15 states require buyers of some covered items to comply with federal law. According to Cekada, the guidance may address that issue, although ATF Chief Legal Counsel Robert Lieder clarified that the ATF cannot force these states to take the bureau’s advice.

AmmoLand asked Director Cekada about guidance for industry operations inspectors (IOIs) on how to handle dealers they find transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 during an inspection. Cekada was adamant that a federal firearms licensee (FFL) found to be transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 will not be cited for violations. Former NFA Chief Albro later echoed this, saying the ATF’s policy is to presume all suppressors transferred via a Form 4473 were legally transferred.

One interesting topic that was brought up was forced reset triggers (FRTs). Cekada said some FRTs are true FRTs, but some on the market are machine guns, and he declined to name the specific FRTs the ATF thinks might be machine guns. He said the ATF has to look at how the trigger mechanism works but will go by the statutory definition of a machine gun.

Throughout the meeting, the ATF discussed changes to Form 4473. Those changes are still in progress. Things like the “County” box will be eliminated. According to Lieder, the ATF is making changes to the forms to comply with court rulings such as the Supreme Court’s Hemani case, which invalidated the firearms prohibition on marijuana users. The new Form 4473 will not be out until after the holiday season.

Mr. Lieder also covered the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion letter on sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to 18- to 20-year-olds. Lieder says the ATF is working on its systems to allow those transfers. The ATF was not informed that the letter would be issued.

Although the ATF will allow transferring handguns to these young adults, the ATF is likely to keep the age for transferring machine guns and destructive devices at 21. The ATF will release guidance in the coming weeks, according to Lieder.

The ATF will continue working on NFA rules dealing with suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. He wanted to make it clear they are not working on these rules despite the injunction. The goal of these rules is to backstop the current injunction in case something changes in the future. It is basically trying to future-proof against a future anti-gun administration. During this discussion, someone asked whether the ATF has plans to make the injunction “fairer” to those not covered. Lieder said their goal is to try to make any guidance as fair as possible without exceeding its power.

Mr. Lieder sees the biggest threats to the Second Amendment as private regulations and lawsuits. He highlighted monopolies and duopolies like common carriers and ride-share companies. He highlighted Waymo calling the police on a rider for having a gun. He also pointed to state lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

Another hot topic was internet sales. According to Lieder, the industry is split. They are still considering comments from the rulemaking process, but he said those transfers are already legal under the law. The roadblock was ID verification, which is no longer an issue.

Another rule was hinted at but not confirmed: changes to “sporting purposes.” Lieder said they have been researching the law and might be reaching out for comments soon. These statements point to the rulemaking process, although nothing was confirmed.

Overall, the ATF answered many questions throughout the day, though some remain.

---

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/MjS04X3
via IFTTT

Plain Truths in Amicus Brief, Court Rulings Underscore 2A as First-Class Right

Court cases appear to be trending toward restoring the Second Amendment to its status as protective of a first-class fundamental right. Original AI-generated editorial illustration created for AmmoLand News.

Buried well into the text of a federal court ruling striking down Delaware’s ban on so-called “ghost guns” is a paragraph which literally guts an argument made by gun prohibitionists about unserialized firearms being a greater threat to public safety.

“Indeed, there is no record evidence here that untraceable or self-manufactured guns pose any danger that serialized or traditionally manufactured guns do not,” wrote U.S. District Court Judge Maryellen Noreika, a 2018 Donald Trump appointee. “If anything, the evidence tends to show that law-abiding citizens commonly use these types of firearms for self-defense.”

Judge Noreika quoted from another ruling, which stated, “The presence or absence of serial numbers on firearms has no effect on their functionality…”

The notion that somehow firearms pose a greater public safety risk appears to be an invention of the gun control crowd and their allies in Congress and state legislatures, whose ultimate goal is registration, and it’s tough to register an unserialized firearm.

As former talk radio host John Carlson repeatedly stated during his years at Seattle’s KVI-AM, “There are only two reasons to register firearms, to tax them and/or to take them.”

Another ruling, by U.S. District Court Judge James O. Browning recently struck down New Mexico’s 7-day waiting period. A spokesperson for Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told The Source she will “almost certainly” appeal the ruling.

Two New Mexico residents, Paul Ortega and Rebecca Scott, with support from the National Rifle Association, sued over the waiting period. The Browning ruling applies to them, but it might lend some influence to an ongoing challenge of Maine’s relatively new waiting period.

The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation have just submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court urging the court to grant review of a case known as Beckwith v. Frey. The case challenges Maine’s 72-hour waiting period, and opens with a compelling recount of the Berlin Township, New Jersey case of Carol Bowne. On June 3, 2015, after waiting 42 days with no action on her application for a gun permit—which state law required to have been acted upon within 30 days—Bowne was brutally murdered in her own driveway by ex-boyfriend Michael Eitel, against whom she had a no-contact order. The slaying and foot dragging by police made embarrassing national news.

As noted by a subhead in the NRA/SAF amicus brief, “Waiting Periods Are a Historical Anomaly, and Firearms Were Readily Available Even in the Founding Era.”

A ruling against Maine’s waiting period would have an impact on similar laws in other states—the wait in California and Washington is ten days, for example—making this case one of widespread importance.

Add to this expanding pattern of pro-rights rulings and briefs involving Second Amendment issues is the 2-1 Fifth Circuit panel decision that the federal ban on interstate handgun sales is unconstitutional. This ruling was reported by Ammoland News just days ago, and readers are reminded that—as was noted four years ago after the Supreme Court struck down New York’s century-old arbitrary “may issue” gun permit scheme—the finding that a law is unconstitutional doesn’t mean it is suddenly in violation, it was always in violation, and it is likely supporters of such laws know it. But here, as elsewhere, anti-gunners have been getting away with treating the Second Amendment as a second-class right.

Until now, that is.

Interestingly, the Delaware ruling got the attention of a radio talk host out in distant Washington state, where Democrat lawmakers have also passed legislation banning so-called “untraceable firearms,” or “ghost guns.” According to the report in Seattle Red, “a…review of the opinion shows Washington enforces nearly every provision (Judge) Noreika threw out, and the judge flagged the legal hurdle a challenge here would face.”

While the Delaware decision has no immediate or direct impact on Evergreen State gun laws, it sends a signal that, after more than 200 years—the Second Amendment might be growing some teeth.

This brings the discussion around to Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s letter to Democrat Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and other officials about the state’s laws on purchase permits and carry permits, which can delay someone from exercising their rights to keep and bear arms for 30 to even 60 days, as noted by Valley News in Fargo, N.D. As Dhillon stated in a post on ‘X,’ “A right delayed is a right denied. Minnesota cannot deny Americans the right to purchase commonly owned firearms with weeks-long waiting periods. The @CivilRights Division’s Second Amendment Section will challenge these violations of fundamental rights!”

NEWS: The Trump Justice Department is putting Minnesota on notice over firearm-purchase delays, arguing that residents in Minneapolis and St. Paul can be forced to wait too long before taking possession of commonly owned guns.

In a Sept. 17 letter to Gov. Tim Walz and the mayors… https://t.co/PKgOUy4XqJ

— MDBayNews (@MDBayNews) September 17, 2026

Successful legal action against Minnesota on these issues would also have an impact on similar restrictions in other states, again including California and Washington. The problem is a blue state issue. Where Democrats are in control, such laws have been popping up.

This is something grassroots Second Amendment activists are using to remind their lethargic gun-owning friends and neighbors to vote Nov. 3. A heavy turnout of “gun voters” could definitely tilt some elections and prevent anti-gunners from gaining or keeping power.

The time to turn the tide is fast approaching, and the fight over Second Amendment rights is not a spectator sport.

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

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

SAF, NRA Ask Supreme Court to Strike Maine’s 72-Hour Gun Waiting Period

SAF and the NRA have asked the Supreme Court to review Maine’s 72-hour firearm waiting period in Beckwith v. Frey. iStock-1182677203

Even after a buyer clears a background check, Maine makes the dealer hold the firearm for three days. The First Circuit upheld that delay without requiring the state to justify it against America’s history of gun laws.

A woman facing a stalker went to a Maine gun store after police suggested she buy a firearm for home defense. According to the petition now before the Supreme Court, she selected a gun, arranged training, passed her background check immediately and paid. She still went home without it. Maine required the dealer to hold the firearm for 72 hours; because the store closed Sunday and Monday, she could not pick it up until Tuesday.

That is what a government-mandated “cooling-off” period looks like to someone who needs to defend herself now.

On September 22, the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association filed a brief urging the Supreme Court to hear Beckwith v. Frey, the challenge to Maine’s firearm waiting-period law. Their brief targets a ruling with implications far beyond a three-day delay: The First Circuit held that laws regulating the acquisition of firearms do not directly regulate conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text.

If a court can place acquiring a gun outside that text, the government can burden gun ownership at the counter while claiming it has left the right to “keep and bear” arms untouched.

Maine’s Clock Runs After the Background Check

Maine law generally bars a seller from delivering a firearm until 72 hours after reaching a purchase agreement. The clock runs concurrently with a required background check, but an instant approval does not end the wait. The statute exempts certain sales, including sales to law enforcement officers, corrections officers, specified security personnel and dealers, as well as certain family transactions and sales for which no background check is required. It contains no general exception for a buyer who has cleared a check and faces an immediate threat. Sellers face civil fines for violating the delivery rule.

As AmmoLand reported when the First Circuit ruled in April, a federal district judge had preliminarily blocked the law after finding the challengers likely to prevail. The appeals court vacated that injunction and sent the case back. It did not decide whether Maine could identify a historical tradition supporting a mandatory delay. Instead, it characterized the wait as a condition on the commercial sale of firearms, presumptively lawful unless plaintiffs show it is “abusive” toward Second Amendment rights.

SAF and the NRA argue that this “abusive” threshold lets judges decide how much of an infringement they will tolerate before the government ever has to account for history. Bruen rejected judicial interest balancing in Second Amendment cases. A buyer cannot keep a gun the state refuses to let the dealer deliver.

The History Maine Never Had to Defend

The SAF–NRA brief also challenges an argument Maine made below: that ready access to firearms is a modern development, so historical buyers effectively faced built-in waits caused by travel, limited inventory or production time. The groups point to newspaper advertisements offering stocked firearms for sale, including muskets in 1745, pistols in 1792 and thousands of muskets in 1806. A buyer’s travel time or a mail-order shipping delay was never the equivalent of a law ordering a local dealer to withhold a gun already available for sale.

Those advertisements show firearms being offered in quantity; they do not document every individual transaction. The legal question is whether Maine can identify a historical tradition of imposing a mandatory delay on peaceable purchasers otherwise eligible to take possession. The First Circuit never required the state to answer it.

Other courts have confronted that question more directly.

In Ortega v. Grisham, the Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period implicated the Second Amendment and rejected the state’s historical defense. A federal judge subsequently ruled for the two purchasers in that lawsuit, but AmmoLand reported that the resulting injunction protects those plaintiffs, not every New Mexico buyer.

Colorado’s three-day waiting period is also under challenge. AmmoLand documented a concrete consequence this summer: the existing wait moved the practical deadline to begin certain purchases ahead of the effective date of Colorado’s new restrictions on specified semiautomatic firearms. A delay on paper can close a real window to take possession.

The Supreme Court has not granted review in Beckwith. Maine’s response to the petition is due September 28. The justices now have an opportunity to decide whether a state can force a lawful buyer to wait after clearing a background check—and whether a lower court can avoid Bruen’s historical test by calling acquisition merely a step that happens before keeping and bearing arms.

The Second Amendment does not begin three days after a background-check approval. A right that depends on the government’s clock is a right the government controls.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

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

Uber Eats Driver Shoots Knife-Wielding Attacker After Parking Dispute

Port St. Lucie police say an Uber Eats driver fired once after a man followed him from a restaurant, shoved him and produced a knife. iStock.com/[Pratchaya]

A defensive gun use outside a Florida restaurant shows why the right to carry matters when an ordinary workday turns dangerous. An Uber Eats driver was picking up an order in Port St. Lucie when a man he had encountered over a parking spot followed him into the restaurant, then pursued him outside. Police say the man shoved the driver and pulled a knife as the driver backed away. The driver fired one shot.

Port St. Lucie’s police chief called the shooting self-defense. The driver faces no criminal charges. He had a gun when he needed one, a fact that now puts this case at odds with Uber’s policy prohibiting delivery workers from carrying firearms while using its app.

Parking Dispute Turns Into an Armed Confrontation

Officers responded at about 3:43 p.m. to a Pollo Tropical at 1365 NW St. Lucie West Boulevard. Police identified the delivery driver as Isaiah Davis, 25, and the other man as Christopher Harris, 37. According to Niemczyk, the encounter began over a parking spot. Harris followed Davis into the restaurant as Davis went to collect an order, then followed him outside.

Exterior surveillance footage showed Harris pushing Davis and advancing as Davis backed away, according to police. Witnesses reported seeing Harris with a knife shortly before Davis fired. Niemczyk told WPBF that Harris pulled a knife after shoving the driver. Davis fired a single round, striking Harris in the chest.

Harris returned inside the restaurant, where bystanders provided aid and called 911. He was flown to HCA Florida Lawnwood Hospital with injuries police described as non-life-threatening. Investigators said one knife had been removed from his waistband while people were helping him; they found another in his front pocket. Police detained Davis at the scene and recovered his firearm during their investigation.

The surveillance video, witness statements and physical evidence led detectives to identify Harris as the primary aggressor. Harris faces attempted aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and felony battery based on a prior battery conviction. Police said he would be booked into the St. Lucie County Jail after his release from the hospital. No charges were pending against Davis in the reports reviewed.

Police See Self-Defense; Uber Prohibits Carry

Niemczyk was direct about the driver’s actions. “It’s self-defense,” he told WPBF, adding that Davis had tried to avoid the confrontation while Harris pursued him. The chief said the shooting also fit Florida’s stand-your-ground rule. The driver was backing away from a man who advanced on him with a knife.

The armed citizen had the means to stop a threat that retreat had not ended. Davis fired once, ending the threat and police say the evidence supports his account. That is the practical value of the right to bear arms: it belongs to someone earning a living as an Uber driver as surely as it belongs to anyone else.

But Uber’s firearms policy prohibits passengers, drivers and delivery partners from carrying while using its app, to the extent permitted by applicable law. It says a person who violates the rule may lose access to the platform. There is no indication in the reporting that Uber has removed Davis or decided what action, if any, it will take.

Police have answered the criminal question for now: Davis faces no charges. Uber still has an policy that would have disarmed a worker when a knife-wielding aggressor came after him. A company policy could have left him defenseless at the moment he needed his gun.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

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

Supreme Court Already Rejected the “AR-15s Didn’t Exist in 1791” Argument

The Supreme Court will hear consolidated challenges to AR-15 bans on December 2. Heller rejected limiting the Second Amendment to arms that existed at the founding. IMG Jim Grant

The AR-15 did not exist in 1791. Neither did the modern handgun, the electric stun gun, or the internet. That has never meant the Bill of Rights protects only the technology Americans had when it was ratified.

Yet with the Supreme Court preparing to hear two challenges to bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, that is effectively the argument being offered against gun owners. Law professor Rory Little says a few words in District of Columbia v. Heller could keep modern rifles outside the Second Amendment. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley took issue with that reading this week. The text of Heller gives him good reason to do so.

The cases are Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated for one hour of argument on December 2. They ask whether the Second Amendment protects possession of AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles in the face of bans imposed by Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut. AmmoLand has covered the cases and the Justice Department’s support for the challengers. Little’s argument raises another question gun owners should watch: Can a court erase protection for a modern arm by treating 1791 as a cutoff date?

What Heller Actually Says

In a SCOTUSblog column, Little focuses on Heller’s discussion of weapons “in common use at the time.” He reads “at the time” as the founding era. Because semiautomatic rifles did not exist in 1791, he argues that the federal government’s brief supporting the challengers changes Heller’s rule when it asks whether AR-15s are in common use today.

But Heller did not leave that question to guesswork. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion expressly rejected the notion that the Second Amendment protects only arms that existed in the eighteenth century. It said the right extends, at least presumptively, to bearable arms that did not exist at the founding. The opinion compared that principle to the First Amendment’s protection of modern communication and the Fourth Amendment’s application to modern searches.

“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” – Justice Scalia, OPINION OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER

The Court’s reference to arms “in common use at the time” appears in its discussion of the historical distinction between common arms and “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Reading those words as a permanent 1791 equipment list clashes with the opinion’s own explicit treatment of later inventions. It would also make the government’s ability to prohibit a firearm depend on how long ago someone designed it, even when ordinary Americans possess it for lawful purposes today.

The Supreme Court has already confronted that exact founding-era argument. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had upheld a stun-gun ban in part because stun guns were not in common use when the Second Amendment was adopted. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision and said the rationale conflicted with Heller. A right to keep and bear arms cannot be frozen at the technology available to the founding generation.

The Rifle Ban Cases Put Common Use Before the Court

The Justice Department’s brief argues that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that governments cannot criminalize possession of a rifle so widely kept for lawful purposes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh likewise wrote in a 2025 statement concerning the Court’s refusal to hear an earlier rifle-ban challenge that those facts give owners a strong Heller argument. Neither filing decides Viramontes or Grant. The justices will hear the merits in December.

Gun owners should reject the premise that improvements in firearms design reduce the scope of a constitutional right. The Second Amendment protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Heller recognized that right as an individual one, and Caetano made clear that its protection does not end with the inventions of 1791. When the justices consider bans on America’s most popular rifle, they should apply that principle to the arms Americans actually own.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/6oiZW7N
via IFTTT

California Undersheriff Pleads Guilty in Pay-to-Play Gun-Permit Scandal

An original conceptual image depicting the favors at the center of Santa Clara County’s carry-permit bribery case. Prosecutors said the iPads were promised, not delivered. AmmoLand News / AI-generated editorial illustration

Santa Clara County’s former second-in-command admitted two felony bribery counts tied to concealed-carry permits, iPads and San Jose Sharks tickets. Ordinary applicants were left waiting.

Former Santa Clara County Undersheriff Rick Sung pleaded guilty on September 21 to two felony counts of soliciting bribes in the county’s concealed-carry permit scandal. The permits his office rarely issued to ordinary residents had become bargaining chips for people with money and connections.

One count involved a promised donation of 200 iPads from Apple to the Sheriff’s Office. The other involved access to a luxury suite and San Jose Sharks tickets for then-Sheriff Laurie Smith and her guests. Sung was Smith’s second-in-command. His plea concludes an eight-year corruption investigation that produced six criminal convictions, according to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office.

Under the negotiated disposition, Sung must permanently surrender his California peace officer certification and perform 400 hours of community service. Reporting on the agreement says he may later ask the court to reduce the felonies to misdemeanors and dismiss the charges after completing the required terms. He will not be able to work again as a California peace officer.

Ordinary Applicants Waited While Insiders Got Permits

The contrast could hardly be sharper. In a separate 2024 prosecution arising from the same investigation, the DA said testimony established that nearly all first-time carry-permit applications submitted by members of the public in 2018 and 2019 were completely ignored. Meanwhile, prosecutors said, then-Captain James Jensen arranged for an executive-protection company to donate as much as $90,000 in exchange for permits for its personnel. A jury convicted Jensen of bribery and conspiracy.

The iPad and Sharks-suite allegations against Sung were distinct transactions in the broader investigation. Prosecutors said the iPad promise was tied to permits for Apple security personnel. The suite case concerned a businessman’s permit and access to his box at the Sharks’ arena.

Sung’s earlier trial did not convict him: jurors deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Apple security chief Thomas Moyer was acquitted in the iPad case. Sung’s conviction comes from his own guilty plea ahead of a retrial, not from a jury verdict against the other defendants.

Smith resigned in 2022 before a civil jury found that she had engaged in misconduct in office. She was not criminally charged in this permit scheme. Those distinctions matter. The proven point here is already damning enough: the man who served immediately below the sheriff has admitted felony bribery solicitation involving permits that ordinary residents struggled to obtain.

The Problem With Government Permission to Carry

For gun owners, this is what discretionary “may-issue” licensing looks like when officials control who gets to exercise a right. An applicant seeking to carry a handgun for self-defense could be ignored while people with access to the sheriff’s office found a path through. A constitutional right should never depend on whether its holder can deliver campaign money, gadgets or hockey tickets.

AmmoLand raised concerns about the Santa Clara permit investigation in 2019. The later trial evidence put sworn testimony behind the disparity between the public’s applications and permits steered to connected applicants.

The scandal belongs to the pre-Bruen licensing era. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen rejected discretionary “proper cause” requirements for public carry. Sung’s criminal plea does not itself change California’s current carry laws or decide any Second Amendment lawsuit.

It does, however, show why gun owners keep scrutinizing the systems that replaced overt discretion. AmmoLand has covered the challenge to Santa Clara County’s costly permit process and the Justice Department’s separate lawsuit over San Jose’s $1,591 municipal permit fee. Those are separate legal disputes; neither is resolved by Sung’s plea.

The right to bear arms belongs to the people. Santa Clara’s old system gave officials the power to treat it as a favor.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/ZA2JVys
via IFTTT