DOJ Warns Virginia on Gun Bills as Harmeet Dhillon Expands 2A Civil Rights Push

The Department of Justice has launched an unprecedented campaign to dismantle state and local gun restrictions across the country, deploying the federal government’s civil rights apparatus in defense of Second Amendment rights.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, has publicly declared her intention to challenge every state regulation inconsistent with pro-Second Amendment Supreme Court precedent, aiming to have them struck down, settled, or withdrawn before she leaves office.

The latest battleground is Virginia, where Gov. Abigail Spanberger faces a direct federal challenge over a sweeping package of more than 25 gun reform bills passed by the Democrat-controlled General Assembly during its 2026 legislative session.

Dhillon tweeted a pointed warning to the new governor. “@SpanbergerForVA is on notice: 2A rights SHALL NOT BE infringed. We are closely watching—in the event any unlawful legislation is enacted, we will sue. @CivilRights will protect the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens in Virginia. 2A Section Lawyers are standing by…”

@SpanbergerForVA is on notice: 2A rights SHALL NOT BE infringed.

We are closely watching—in the event any unlawful legislation is enacted, we will sue. @CivilRights will protect the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens in Virginia.

2A Section Lawyers are standing by… pic.twitter.com/h2DfXwgaKC

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) April 10, 2026

On April 10, 2026, Dhillon sent a formal letter to Governor Spanberger putting her and the Commonwealth “on notice.” The letter stated plainly that “This letter provides formal notice that the Civil Rights Division will commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans’ individual right to bear arms.” Dhillon specifically cited President Trump’s Executive Order 14206, which directed the administration to actively protect Second Amendment rights.

The centerpiece of Virginia’s gun package is SB 749 and its companion HB 217, which would criminalize the purchase, sale, manufacture, import, or transfer of AR-15-style rifles in Virginia starting July 1, 2026. Other bills targeted ghost guns, expanded red flag laws, restricted firearms in public spaces and hospitals, and tightened rules around domestic abusers. Many of these same bills had been vetoed by the previous Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin.

Despite the DOJ warning, Spanberger proceeded to sign a batch of gun bills, including ghost gun regulations, domestic violence firearm protections, and gun industry liability legislation. On the night of April 13, facing her legislative deadline, Spanberger declined to sign or veto the assault weapons bill and instead sent it back to the General Assembly with amendments — a move that keeps the bill’s central framework intact while making some adjustments to its definition of “assault firearm.”

Dhillon’s confrontation with Virginia is part of a broader strategy that has reshaped the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. In December 2025, she created an entirely new Second Amendment Section within the division — a first in DOJ history. The concept treats the Second Amendment as a civil right equivalent to speech or religion, deploying the DOJ’s litigation power to challenge state-level gun restrictions.

The DOJ has already filed lawsuits against Washington, D.C., the U.S. Virgin Islands, Los Angeles County over their gun restrictions. The division is also monitoring Colorado, New Jersey, and New York for potential legal action.

Dhillon has been hiring aggressively, building what she calls a “cadre of lawyers trained in enforcing these laws all over the country.” Recent additions include Barry Arrington, the former Texas Gun Rights Board Chairman and Chief Legal Counsel for the National Association for Gun Rights.

Dhillon’s campaign rests on a series of Supreme Court decisions that have dramatically expanded Second Amendment protections over the past two decades. The 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller ruling established that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense in the home, overturning D.C.’s handgun ban.

The 2022 New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen decision went further, striking down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for concealed carry permits and mandating that all gun regulations must be rooted in the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation going back to 1791. This standard has rendered many existing state laws, rooted in twentieth-century public safety logic, legally vulnerable.

Dhillon’s letter to Spanberger also cited the Court’s June 2025 ruling in Smith and Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos — a PLCAA liability case that incidentally described AR-15s as “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers” — and Justice Kavanaugh’s statement on the Court’s denial of certiorari in Snope v. Brown, in which he wrote that “tens of millions of Americans own AR–15s” and called the Fourth Circuit’s upholding of Maryland’s AR-15 ban “questionable.”

The Supreme Court has not yet issued a definitive national ruling on “assault weapons” bans, but Dhillon and pro-gun advocates believe the Court’s existing language strongly suggests such bans are unconstitutional. The Illinois case Barnett v. Raoul at the 7th Circuit, where Dhillon personally argued in September 2025, could accelerate clarity on this question.

Dhillon’s office is targeting several specific types of state obstruction. In Los Angeles, the DOJ’s investigation revealed that the Sheriff’s Department had approved only 2 out of more than 8,000 concealed carry applications, with interview wait times stretching up to two years after receipt of a completed application.

The U.S. Virgin Islands required home inspections and “proper cause” showings nearly identical to what the Supreme Court already struck down in Bruen. Massachusetts bans the commercial sale of many common handguns, including popular Glock models, through its “Approved Firearms Roster” scheme, which the DOJ argues is flatly unconstitutional.

Washington D.C.’s categorical ban on AR-15s and similar semi-automatic rifles prompted a direct DOJ lawsuit, with Dhillon arguing these are the most commonly owned rifles in America and thus constitutionally protected.

For gun rights advocates, the DOJ’s intervention represents a historic shift. Pro-gun activists have spent years litigating against state governments largely as private plaintiffs. Having the full weight of the U.S. Department of Justice argue alongside them, and even initiate suits on their behalf, is unprecedented.

The confrontation with Virginia encapsulates this new reality. The federal government, acting through its civil rights enforcement apparatus, is now actively threatening to sue states that enact gun restrictions the administration considers unconstitutional. Governor Spanberger and other Democratic governors face a choice between their policy preferences and the prospect of expensive federal litigation.

Massie Tells Senate the Second Amendment Exists to Thwart Tyranny

---

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/g62Euv1
via IFTTT

Wyoming Self-Defense Reimbursement Bill Dies in House Vote

handgun self defense glock pistol iStock-VasilevKirill 1053113926

Wyoming lawmakers introduced a bill this year that would have given real protection to people dragged through the criminal justice system after using lawful self-defense. House Bill 14, titled Protecting self-defense-reimbursement and amendments, would have required counties to reimburse defendants who were found not guilty, had charges dismissed, or were otherwise released from prosecution because they reasonably used defensive force under Wyoming law.

But the bill did not make it out of the House. HB0014 failed introduction on February 10, 2026, by a 29-32-1 vote.

HB0014 was aimed at one of the most abusive realities of modern self-defense law: even when a peaceable citizen does everything right and ultimately beats the charge, the state can still leave that person financially wrecked. Lawyer bills, bail costs, lost work, and the stigma of arrest do not disappear just because a prosecutor loses.

This bill tried to address that by making the government pay when the system comes after someone who lawfully defended himself, his family, another person, or property. The bill text says the county “shall reimburse” reasonable costs, including attorney fees, bail costs, loss of time, and even costs tied to seeking expungement. From wyoleg.gov:

If a person who is subject to criminal prosecution is found not guilty, has had the charges dismissed or is otherwise released from custody or further prosecution because the person reasonably used defensive force in accordance with W.S. 6‑2‑602, the county where the person was charged or subject to criminal prosecution shall reimburse the person for all reasonable costs, including loss of time, bail costs, attorney fees and other costs and expenses involved in the person’s defense, including the costs of seeking or receiving an expungement under W.S. 6‑2‑605.

Under proposed W.S. 6-2-604, reimbursement would have been available when a defendant was found not guilty, when charges were dismissed, or when the person was otherwise released from custody or further prosecution because the person reasonably used defensive force in accordance with W.S. 6-2-602. That is broader than a simple acquittal-only rule and would have covered cases that never made it to a full trial.

If a defendant was acquitted at trial, the trier of fact would decide whether the person was eligible for reimbursement because the acquittal rested on lawful self-defense, but the court would determine the amount of the award. In dismissal or no-prosecution cases, the defendant could file a petition in the county court where the case arose, and the court would decide both eligibility and the reimbursement amount. In other words, the bill did not make the jury set the dollar value of the award.

HB0014 also would have added an expungement mechanism tied specifically to successful self-defense cases. A person found not guilty, released, or whose charges were dismissed because of lawful defensive force could petition for expungement in the county where the prosecution occurred. If the person was acquitted because of lawful self-defense, the bill says the court would advise that person upon acquittal of the right to immediately file for expungement. There would be no filing fee for the expungement petition.

(g)  If the court enters an order of expungement under this section, the person shall be deemed to have never been arrested, charged or prosecuted with respect to the matters and charges that are subject to the order of expungement, and the person may so swear under oath.

Bill HB14 is sponsored by 23 representative(s): Brown, G, Allemand, Banks, Brady, Campbell, K, Guggenmos, Haroldson, Heiner, Hoeft, Knapp, Locke, Lucas, Ottman, Riggins, Schmid, Smith, S, Strock, Styvar, Wasserburger, Webb, Webber, Wharff and Winter. The bill is sponsored by 4  Senator(s): French, Ide, Laursen, D and Pearson.

The Wyoming Senate has 31 members: 29 Republicans and 2 Democrats. The Wyoming House of Representatives has 62 members: 56 Republicans and 6 Democrats.  Governor Gordon of Wyoming took time to appear at the Governors Forum at the SHOT Show. He appeared to be a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. He does not appear to have made a statement for or against this bill.

Wyoming is following Washington State’s lead. In Washington, there is a self-defense reimbursement statute, RCW 9A.16.110. The Washington statute is used infrequently. The Wyoming bill goes a bit further than the Washington statute, as it includes particulars for expungement. The bill’s supporters expect it will also be used infrequently. The bill is expected to prompt prosecutors to be more careful in prosecuting self-defense cases.

For gun owners, the principle behind HB0014 is easy to understand. The right to armed self-defense means less if the state can prosecute a lawful defender, fail to convict, and still leave him bankrupt and branded. Anti-gun politicians and activist prosecutors love to talk about “process,” but process itself becomes punishment when the innocent are forced to spend months or years and tens of thousands of dollars proving what should have been obvious from the beginning.

A reimbursement statute does not give anyone a free pass for criminal violence. It simply tells the government that if it comes after a person who lawfully used defensive force and loses, taxpayers—not the innocent defendant—should bear the cost.

HB0014 is dead for now, but the idea behind it is sound. If states are serious about recognizing self-defense as a fundamental right, they should also recognize that an innocent person cleared on self-defense grounds should not be left holding the bill for his own vindication. Wyoming had a chance to move in that direction this year. The House chose not to.

---

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/7TcBWCw
via IFTTT

ATF Gun Registry Exposed, Senate Hearing Raises Alarm Over 1 Billion Records

The Biden-era ATF spent years insisting it was not building a federal gun registry. That line gets a lot harder to sell when congressional testimony says the agency has amassed nearly 1 billion firearm records, with 94 percent already digitized, and senators are openly asking what else you would call that besides a registry.

Those figures were laid out in prepared testimony by Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt at the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee’s April 15, 2026, hearing on “The Second Amendment.”

If the federal government is sitting on a mountain of gun-owner records approaching a billion files, and almost all of it is digitally searchable in one form or another, gun owners have been correct all along. Basically, if it stinks like sh**, that’s because it is.

The federal government possesses an enormous, digitized pool of firearm transaction records that can be used to identify guns and, potentially, the people connected to them. Pratt’s testimony explicitly argued that ATF’s accumulation of those records amounts to “gun owner registration pure and simple.”

Gun owners have always understood that registration is not some harmless administrative exercise. Registration is how a government moves from regulating arms to tracking them. Tracking is how it moves from tracking to targeting. And targeting is how confiscation ends up at your front door.

Pratt drove that point home in his testimony when he warned senators that this is “not a registry in name only” but “a confiscation list waiting to be used.” That language is strong, but the historical concern behind it is very real. Gun control advocates have spent years dismissing registry fears as paranoid, even as past and present examples show exactly why Americans refuse to hand the government a ready-made inventory of lawfully owned arms. Pratt’s testimony pointed senators to the historical example of New York City’s long-gun registration regime and later bans, while Hawley referenced Australia’s registry and mandatory buyback structure as another warning sign gun owners should not ignore.

This is where the ATF’s recent behavior makes the whole thing even harder to shrug off.

This is the same agency that tried to turn millions of brace owners into potential felons with the stroke of a pen. It is the same agency that has fought in court over the pistol-brace rule, the “engaged in the business” rule, and the frames-and-receivers rule. Even in 2026, litigation over those Biden-era policies is still shaping the fight over how far federal firearms bureaucracy can reach. AmmoLand has already covered the DOJ’s recent retreat from defending the “engaged in the business” rule, along with the government’s latest reversal on the frames-and-receivers rule.

Pratt told senators that GOA obtained ATF materials showing the system could be searched by manufacturer, model, and serial number. He also testified that former ATF Director Steve Dettelbach had indicated the agency paid extra to suppress searchability by purchaser name, which only raised the obvious question: what happens if a future administration decides to stop paying for that limitation or otherwise changes the rules?

The ATF is not some neutral records custodian that gun owners have reason to trust. It is the same agency that tried to reclassify braced pistols by executive fiat, threatening millions of peaceable owners with felony exposure overnight. It is the same agency that has spent years defending Biden-era overreach in court, from the pistol-brace rule to the “engaged in the business” rule and the frames-and-receivers rule.

GOA obtained ATF materials showing the records system could be searched by manufacturer, model, and serial number, Pratt claimed. In the hands of an agency with a recent history of trying to criminalize ordinary conduct through regulation, that kind of search capability looks like the infrastructure for future enforcement.

Further, in Pratt’s testimony, he stated that former ATF Director Steve Dettelbach said the agency paid extra to suppress name-based searches, which only makes the point more alarming: if that safeguard depends on policy choices or software settings, then it is not much of a safeguard at all.

All it would take is one hostile administration, one internal change, or one bureaucratic decision to turn a supposedly limited records system into something far more dangerous.

In his dissent in Heller II, then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh argued that D.C.’s gun-registration system failed the history-and-tradition test because there is no American tradition of registering all lawfully possessed firearms. That dissent has become increasingly relevant in the post-Bruen era, where text, history, and tradition are supposed to govern Second Amendment analysis instead of balancing tests dressed up as constitutional law. Mark Smith focused on that point in the video, and it is one worth emphasizing: registration of ordinary, lawfully possessed firearms has always stood on shaky constitutional ground because it is not part of this nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

Congress does have a direct option on the table. Pratt used his testimony to call for the passage of Sen. Jim Risch’s S.119, the No REGISTRY Rights Act, which would stop further federal retention of certain firearm transaction records from discontinued FFLs and require the destruction of records already collected under the bill’s framework. The Senate version was introduced in January 2025, and allied lawmakers described it as legislation aimed at blocking a federal gun registry and dismantling what they view as ATF overreach.

Whether Congress actually has the stomach to do that is another matter.

Gun owners have heard enough excuses, enough word games, and enough promises that there is nothing to worry about. If the federal government is sitting on a massive digitized archive of firearm records that can be searched and repurposed by hostile bureaucrats, then the time for polite concern is over. Congress needs to act, the database needs to be destroyed, and the ATF’s backdoor registry scheme needs to be shut down for good.

Pratt was right to warn senators that this issue carries political consequences. In his testimony, he made clear that if Republicans want gun owners energized for the midterms, they need to stop tolerating a DOJ and ATF that continue defending and preserving Biden-era infringements.

Gun owners are one of the most reliable voting blocs in the country, but that loyalty is not unconditional. If nothing changes, and if Washington keeps treating the right to keep and bear arms like a bargaining chip instead of a constitutional command, Republicans should not be surprised when enthusiasm drops, and the gun vote starts looking for fighters, not talkers.

If there is an illegal gun registry, it must be destroyed.

ATF’s Hidden Gun Registry: How a ‘Tracing System’ Became a Billion-Record Database

---

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/YeKC7qt
via IFTTT

5.7 Million Suppressors Registered: ATF Data Shows Massive Growth in Ownership

Springfield Echelon 9mm handgun equipped with a SilencerCo Spectre 9 Suppressor and a Shield RMSc red dot.

According to the American Suppressor Association (ASA), the number of silencers/suppressors registered in the United States of America was 5,776,685 as of the time the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) responded at the SHOT Show in January of 2026.

This correspondent obtained information from the ATF on January 22, 2026. At that time, it was stated that the information had already been released and that over 150K National Firearms Act (NFA) applications had been approved through January 2026.

The graph of registered silence numbers was created using cumulative January counts from 2011 to 2026. When numbers were unavailable for January, linear interpolation was used to estimate the January number. Each year had at least one reference number. 2017 had three reference numbers, none of them for January.

Cumulative Registered Silencers National Firearms Act by YearImage by Dean Weingarten

The number of registered silencers has been growing at about 22.6% per year.  That rate is roughly equivalent to doubling every 3.2 years.  If such a rate continues, there will be about 50 million registered silencers ten years from now.

It is unlikely there will be 50 million registered silencers ten years from now. This correspondent believes the registration requirement will be removed well before 10 years. It could be removed within two years, given the lawsuits now in play. 50 million silencers in the hands of American gun owners, ten years from now, is plausible.

Silencers are very popular firearm safety accessories when they are not restricted by oppressive governmental policies.  Silencers can be made inexpensively with economies of scale. Even the best, most technologically advanced silencers/suppressors will come down in price as economies of scale come into play.  In New Zealand, silencers had, until 2019, been an over-the-counter commodity, similar to purchasing a rifle scope in the United States. Silencers were relatively cheap.  From a Gun Watch article in 2015:

Silencers are often referred to as suppressors. The best descriptive term is gun muffler. In New Zealand, which has a strong tradition of gun ownership, gun mufflers are unregulated and cheap. They are for sale over the counter or in the mail. The above ads or similar ones can be seen on the online buying and selling site for New Zealand, trademeco.nz. From trademe.co.nz . . .

This Silencer will fit any centrefire rifle with 17CM of exposed barrel with a diameter smaller than 19mm.

Takes away the loud crack (down to about a 22 magnum noise) and helps protect your ears from permanent hearing loss.

Super strong tooling grade alloy construction designed to withstand bursts of Full Auto fire, making it virtually indestructible on a hunting rifle and keeping the weight down to just 370 grams.

There is no licence required to purchase these in New Zealand.

Rimfire gun mufflers are commonly available for under $20. Consider that a New Zealand dollar is current valued a .65 U.S. dollars.

Silencer prices in New Zealand have increased, but they are still available through the mail.  The exchange rate is now about .59 USD to 1 New Zealand Dollar. At the current exchange rate, quality .22 rimfire suppressors can be had for about $36 USD, and quality high power rifle suppressors can be purchased for prices ranging upward from $120. The highest price showing was about $450 USD.  The New Zealand market is tiny compared to the United States. About 400,000 people in New Zealand are firearms owners, with about 1.77 million firearms.

Current prices for a silencer in the United States run about $350 to $2000. Those prices will drop with deregulation and economies of scale.

There are over a hundred million gun owners in the United States, with over 540 million firearms. A market for 50 million silencers in the United States, once the regulatory burden is removed, is entirely possible.

---

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/KZ7kGXh
via IFTTT

Massie Tells Senate the Second Amendment Exists to Thwart Tyranny

Testifying before the United States Senate, Representative Thomas Massie did not hedge, soften, or apologize for the plain meaning of the right to keep and bear arms. He said, “The simple and direct language of our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There are no qualifiers on who may keep arms, what types of arms they may keep, or for what purposes.”

He also cut through one of the oldest anti-gun talking points in the book, saying, “It certainly doesn’t say that the right to bear arms is about trivial matters like deer hunting or skeet shooting.” Exactly right.

What made Massie’s testimony important was not just that he defended the Second Amendment, but that he defended it in the way the Founders understood it. As Massie told senators, “The Second Amendment exists for one clear reason: defense. For the defense of one’s home, one’s family, and one’s community, for the defense of liberty and safety, not only from a lone assailant, but from the whole of tyrannical government.”

That is not extreme rhetoric. That is the core American understanding of why an armed citizenry matters.

The generation that wrote the Constitution had lived through a government attempt to seize arms and powder from the people. Before Lexington and Concord became part of our national memory, British authorities were already moving against colonial military stores. The men who framed the Second Amendment knew very well that disarmament was not some neutral administrative act. They understood it as a tool of domination.

Massie captured that point when he warned, “Our founders understood the greatest risks to liberty are not always found outside a nation’s borders… but oftentimes from within, when a corrupt and dangerous few grow too ambitious and attempt to subjugate the masses.”

That is the part advocates of gun control never want to discuss. They do not want to talk about what happens when the government itself becomes the danger.

Massie underscored that by invoking George Mason’s famous warning that disarming the people is the surest path to enslavement. Whether the threat comes from a criminal predator, a violent mob, or a tyrannical government, the underlying principle is the same: a population stripped of the means of defense is easier to control.

Rep. Massie did not stop at principles. He used the hearing to connect the constitutional argument to specific federal policy fights that matter right now. That is what makes his testimony more than a good speech. He put actual legislative priorities on the table.

One of the biggest was the National Constitutional Carry Act.

Massie pointed out that the old concealed-carry reciprocity model was developed in a very different political environment, when most states still required permits to carry a firearm. That has changed. Today, a majority of states recognize some form of permitless carry. As Massie put it, “29 states now recognize that the right to keep and bear arms should not require permission from your government to bear those arms.”

Constitutional carry is no longer a fringe idea. It is the logical expression of a constitutional right. If the right exists, government permission should not be the precondition for exercising it. Massie’s proposal would extend that principle nationwide, applying the same basic understanding of the Second Amendment across all 50 states and the territories.

That was easily one of the most important policy points in his testimony, because it moves the debate beyond abstract praise for the Second Amendment and into the real question: does Washington actually believe this is a right, or just a slogan Republicans recite during election season?

Massie also called for repeal of the Gun-Free School Zones Act, and that matters for both practical and political reasons. He argued that so-called gun-free zones too often function as advertisements for vulnerability rather than real deterrents against evil. His point was that disarmament policies often leave law-abiding people defenseless while doing nothing to stop those already willing to ignore murder laws, gun laws, and every other law on the books.

He also raised the federal ban preventing adults ages 18 to 20 from purchasing handguns from federally licensed dealers. Massie put the contradiction plainly: if young Americans can be compelled to serve their country in uniform, they should not be denied the ability to buy a handgun for lawful self-defense. That is one of those issues where even many nominally pro-gun politicians still talk themselves into accepting a rights carveout that makes no constitutional sense.

Another important issue Massie highlighted was the federal NICS background check system. Massie argued that sloppy matching and false denials can keep law-abiding Americans from purchasing firearms, and he specifically pointed to concerns that minority buyers may be disproportionately affected because of phonetically similar names. Gun control advocates routinely treat the background check system as untouchable, but Massie used the hearing to point out that a bureaucratic process can still be deeply flawed even when politicians call it “common sense” and deprive law-abiding Americans of their rights.

In his testimony, Massie was not just defending the Second Amendment as a historical concept or a rhetorical symbol. He was arguing that if Congress really believes what the Constitution says, federal law should begin to reflect that belief more honestly.

That is why one of his most important lines came near the end, when he reminded senators, “When we look to our Constitution, remember it’s a document by our people for the purpose of constraining our government, not the other way around.”

The Second Amendment is not an odd side provision to be tolerated so long as it stays politically quiet. It is part of the architecture of liberty. Massie said it plainly: “The Second Amendment is the ultimate check on our government.”

Government should not be expanding “gun-free” disarmament zones that leave good people exposed. It should not be telling legal adults they are old enough to fight wars but too young to buy handguns from licensed dealers. It should not be hiding behind flawed bureaucratic systems that deny rights through error and opacity. And it certainly should not be forcing Americans to ask permission before exercising a right explicitly protected by the Constitution.

Massie also tied the issue back to the rest of the Bill of Rights, warning, “Any attack on those core tenets, whether it’s the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, or the Fourth Amendment, or any other provision of our Constitution, is dangerous and wrong.”

That is exactly right, and it is something too many lawmakers forget. The people who treat one constitutional protection as expendable rarely stop there.

This was a good day for the Second Amendment, not because one Senate hearing will change everything overnight, and not because the anti-gun movement is suddenly going to abandon its long campaign against armed citizenship. It was a good day because a sitting member of Congress said, in clear language and before the country, what more elected officials should have been saying all along: the Second Amendment exists to help keep a free people free.

And unlike many politicians, Thomas Massie did not leave that truth floating in the abstract. He tied it to actual legislation, actual policy fights, and the actual question facing Congress right now—whether it is willing to treat the Second Amendment like a real right.

Maryland Democrats Move to Ban Glock-Style Pistols

---

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/klfCqdp
via IFTTT

‘Commonsense Gun Safety Advocate’ Kills Wife and Self in Murder-Suicide

“Former Democratic Virginia Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax killed his wife and then himself in a shocking murder-suicide early Thursday morning, according to the Fairfax County Police Department,” Fox News reports. “Justin Fairfax shot and killed – shot several times –  and killed his wife, ran to a different part of the home and then killed himself with the same firearm he just got unseen,’ said police chief Kevin Davis during a press conference on Thursday morning.”

While some may say it’s too soon, it can’t go without mentioning that Fairfax was a big proponent of citizen disarmament edicts, including those ostensibly purporting to be enacted to prevent domestic violence. The Fox News story itself notes, “He supported Virginia’s first red flag preventing individuals who show signs of being a threat to themselves or others from purchasing, possessing or transporting any kind of firearm.”

“We have given commonsense tools like the ‘red flag’ law to law enforcement, the courts and our communities to help keep our families safe even as we ensure due process and protect Constitutional rights,” Fairfax lied on Twitter (it was still called that back then) in 2022, and no, “lie” is not too strong a word.

Nor is it unfair to point out that Fairfax had exhibited all kinds of signs—for years—that showed when he was pointing fingers at gun owners, there were three pointing back at himself.

Start with the murder-suicide in a house while his two teenage children were present. Then consider allegations he’d made earlier that his wife had attacked him that were proven to be false. Then go back to 2019 when two women came forward with allegations he had sexually assaulted them, with one attack happening in 2004, where an accuser claimed he forced her to perform oral sex.

Fairfax was a member of a party that proclaims #MeToo and #BelieveWomen, or as Hillary Clinton declared, “Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed, and supported.”

Fairfax’s response to his accuser?

‘F**k That B*tch’

That and he played the victim/race card:

Lt. Gov. Justin Fairfax focused his answer on the 2019 calls for his resignation that came after two women accused him of sexual assault. Fairfax said the calls for him to step down demonstrated how “African American men are presumed guilty” and “given no due process.” “Everyone here on this stage called for my immediate resignation, including Terry McAuliffe,” Fairfax said. “He treated me like George Floyd. He treated me like Emmett Till. No due process. Immediately assumed my guilt.”

None of that has stopped Moms Demand Action from giving him their …um…full-throated support.

‘We have got to reduce gun violence in our communities and implement some commonsense gun control reforms while everyone enjoys a Second Amendment constitutional right to bear arms,”  Fairfax asserted in 2013, confident that anyone swallowing that cognitively dissonant claim wouldn’t notice they were being had. “So, I believe we need to start by implementing universal background checks on gun purchases, and also by banning high-capacity magazines. We don’t want to lose another child or another family to senseless gun violence.”

It wasn’t “gun violence” that killed Fairfax and his wife, it was him. Since there are no reports at this writing that the gun he used was illegally owned, it’s fair to presume he went through a background check when he bought it. And he only needed a few rounds.

Time and again, it is shown that those who don’t trust us with guns and demand to control them really can’t trust and control themselves.

Bridging the Divide on Guns a Bridge to Nowhere

---

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/kir7GVq
via IFTTT

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

The DOJ’s motion to dismiss Texas v. ATF marks a major setback for the Biden-era ATF rule expanding who must obtain a federal firearms license. iStock-2187744341

The Department of Justice has filed a motion to dismiss the landmark federal lawsuit Texas v. ATF. This is a big triumph for gun rights, as the administration appears to be dropping its defense of a controversial ATF regulation that overreached on private gun sales (EIB rule). It amounts to a significant victory in the fight to protect Americans’ constitutional right to keep and bear arms without excessive federal interference.

Gun Owners of America (GOA), a co-plaintiff, insinuated the filing is a major victory for law-abiding gun owners and clearly repudiate regulatory overreach by the previous Biden administration. This move would largely end the 2024 ATF rule, preserving the longstanding distinction between occasional private gun sales and commercial dealing that requires a Federal Firearms License (FFL).

“The DOJ’s decision to drop its appeal is all thanks to the grassroots pushing back and making their voices heard,” Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, said. “This Biden rule was never about safety. It was a move to disarm law-abiding Americans through bureaucratic decree. GOA and GOF [Gun Owners Foundation] have once again triumphed over ATF – and we will not stop until this rule is dead and buried.”

The final rule was released in April 2024 under then-President Joe Biden. It broadened what it means to be “engaged in the business” of selling guns, slapping on stricter background check, record-keeping, and licensing requirements. GOA warned that the vague new presumptions could turn regular hobbyists, collectors, and folks who sell a gun here and there into accidental criminals, even if they’re not running an actual gun shop.

The plaintiffs were Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Utah, Gun Owners of America, the Tennessee and Virginia state firearms associations, plus a handful of private citizens. They argued the ATF had gone way beyond its legal authority, broken basic administrative rules, and stepped all over Second Amendment rights protected by the Constitution.

In June 2024, Texas Federal District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk issued a preliminary injunction (PI) blocking enforcement of the flawed rule against the plaintiffs. The judge would later expand his order in a subsequent filing, beginning his PI. The DOJ would appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit would agree with Kacsmaryk’s main arguments by pointing out that Congress clearly meant to protect everyday private gun sales between regular folks. This created a significant roadblock to ATF enforcement of the rule.

As of early 2026, the rule was still mired in procedural fights, and the DOJ kept trying and failing to drag out the briefing schedule.

The DOJ’s motion to dismiss shows that things are shifting on some gun rules under Trump while it continues to defend other Biden-era rules. Since he took office, his team has ordered reviews of several Biden-era ATF regulations, including this “engaged in the business” rule and the stabilizing brace rule. In April 2025, the DOJ and ATF killed the old “zero tolerance” policy that was hammering dealers over tiny paperwork errors. ATF bosses are now calling it a new era of reform, saying they’d rather work with the industry than keep beating them down.

Before the EIB rule, gun owners could sell firearms from their personal collection without an FFL, as long as they weren’t doing it mainly to turn a profit through repeated sales. The new rule introduced a bunch of factors that created automatic presumptions that you were “in the business,” putting casual sellers at real risk of stricter rules and even prosecution.

Although the dismissal will not be a nationwide vacatur, unless new rulemaking occurs, the current injunction and administrative review make it unlikely the regulation will return in the same form. The ATF could further ensure this by formally rescinding the rule through additional procedures.

Despite regulatory rollback, core federal statutes remain enforced. The DOJ has said NFA provisions apply to short-barreled rifles in some braced-pistol cases, even as related rules face scrutiny. Gun rights groups persist in being concerned unless some definitions are repealed.

For millions of gun owners who were at risk of federal overreach, the DOJ’s new position is a relief. Private sales will be regulated primarily by state law, and a new layer of federal bureaucracy will be removed. Federal background checks apply only to licensed dealers. Ending the expanded definition lets collectors and sport shooters buy, sell, or trade without as much worry, unless they show clear commercial patterns.

“By forcing the DOJ to abandon its appeal, the rights of millions continue to be protected.” John Velleco, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation, said. “The government will think twice before they rewrite federal law to turn law-abiding gun owners into felons overnight.”

Gun Owners of America has long argued the rule was a backdoor move toward universal background checks without legislation. Congress debated and rejected broader requirements according to GOA. They contend that the ATF can’t do by regulation what Congress didn’t pass.

As the DOJ prepares its filing, court watchers expect the case to close within weeks, barring any unexpected objections. This development coincides with Congress’s examination of multiple Second Amendment-related bills, though executive and judicial action primarily drive the regulatory rollback.

ATF Raid That Killed Airport Exec Sparks Explosive Federal Lawsuit — Here’s the Full Story ~ VIDEO

Judge Stays “Engaged In The Business” Case Until Robert Cekada Is Confirmed

---

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/V10IMtd
via IFTTT