LA Sheriff Settles Carry Rights Lawsuit After Years of Permit Delays

A gun-rights coalition has reached a settlement resolving the remaining claims against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over its concealed carry permitting system. iStock-2196791813

The Second Amendment Foundation and its partners have reached a settlement resolving the remaining claims against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in a major lawsuit challenging California’s obstruction of the right to bear arms.

The agreement in California Rifle & Pistol Association v. Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department follows LASD’s representation that it is now processing concealed carry weapon applications within the 120-day period required under California law.

The settlement is not yet final. It remains subject to approval by the Los Angeles County Claims Board, according to the Second Amendment Foundation.

“This settlement marks meaningful progress, but our work to secure full recognition of the right to carry—including true interstate reciprocity—continues,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said.

The separate lawsuit filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against LASD over its carry-permit delays is not resolved by this settlement and remains pending.

A Settlement Built on Real Concessions

SAF, the California Rifle and Pistol Association, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, and several individual plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in December 2023.

The case challenged a collection of barriers California officials erected around the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. Those included LASD’s extreme processing delays, California’s refusal to provide most nonresidents with a way to obtain a carry permit, high licensing costs, psychological examinations, and other subjective requirements.

The settlement resolves the remaining claims against LASD after the department represented that it had brought its processing times into compliance with the state’s 120-day deadline. That is a major change from the delays that helped trigger the litigation.

When the plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction, some applicants had been waiting approximately 18 months for LASD to act. The federal court concluded that such delays went too far and granted relief to two individual plaintiffs.

The court also ordered California to allow qualified nonresidents who belonged to the plaintiff organizations to apply for California carry permits. California lawmakers later enacted AB 1078, creating a broader nonresident licensing process and largely codifying that part of the court’s injunction.

The case therefore ends with more than a negotiated dismissal. It produced changes that directly affect Californians and visitors seeking to lawfully carry a firearm for self-defense.

The Right Does Not Belong to the Bureaucracy

California officials have spent years treating the Second Amendment as though it were a privilege they may ration through delays, costs, and paperwork.

The Second Amendment protects the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. It contains no California-residency exception and no bureaucratic-convenience exception. It does not permit a sheriff to suspend the right for a year or longer because the department is understaffed or has failed to build a functional application system.

A permit does not create the right. The right existed before the application was submitted, before the sheriff reviewed it, and before California wrote its licensing statutes.

Hostile jurisdictions learned an obvious lesson after the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Once officials could no longer demand that applicants prove some special “good cause” to carry a handgun, they looked for other ways to slow the process.

A licensing system may say “shall issue” on paper while operating as “shall wait” in practice.

Years-long delays accomplish much the same thing as an outright denial. Citizens who need to defend themselves today receive no protection from a permit that might arrive two years from now.

The Supreme Court anticipated that problem in Bruen, warning that supposedly objective licensing systems could still face constitutional challenges when lengthy processing times or exorbitant fees prevent ordinary citizens from exercising the right to public carry.

That warning was not an invitation for California officials to test exactly how long they could make people wait.

More Than One Lawsuit Pressured LASD

The settlement also comes amid federal scrutiny of LASD’s carry-licensing operation.

The Justice Department sued the department in September 2025, accusing it of using administrative delay to deny citizens their Second Amendment rights. According to the federal complaint, LASD received 3,982 new carry applications between January 2024 and March 2025 but issued only two permits from that group during the period examined.

Applicants allegedly waited an average of 281 days merely for LASD to begin processing their applications. Some reportedly waited as long as 1,030 days—nearly three years.

LASD attributed its backlog to staffing shortages and its transition from a paper-based process to an online system. Those explanations may describe how the failure occurred, but they do not excuse it. The government cannot avoid its constitutional obligations by pointing to problems of its own making.

The DOJ case remains active despite SAF’s settlement, leaving additional pressure on the department to maintain its claimed compliance.

Progress, Not Full Reciprocity

The settlement should not be mistaken for California recognizing carry permits issued by other states.

Nonresidents now have a path to apply for a California permit, but they must still submit to California’s licensing process. That is a meaningful improvement over excluding nonresidents altogether, but it falls short of true interstate reciprocity.

Likewise, forcing LASD to act within 120 days is better than allowing applications to collect dust for 18 months or three years. Four months, however, should not be treated as the constitutional gold standard for exercising an enumerated right.

This settlement is nevertheless a significant conclusion to a lawsuit that forced one of the country’s most anti-gun jurisdictions to change its conduct. LASD says it is finally processing applications within the law. California now allows qualified nonresidents to apply. Other statutory barriers were changed while the case was pending.

Those results were not offered voluntarily. Gun owners had to sue for them.

SAF and its partners say they will continue monitoring the situation to ensure LASD does not return to its old practices. That vigilance is necessary because California’s respect for the Second Amendment has too often lasted only as long as an injunction, settlement, or federal lawsuit remained hanging over the state.

The Constitution says the right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” After years of delay and litigation, Los Angeles County is finally being made to act like those words mean something.

---

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/LcpyFXm
via IFTTT

School Official Says “Anything Above Zero” Is Reasonable Suspicion in Gun-Owner Truck Search

Jack Harrington argues that school officials searched his truck without reasonable suspicion or voluntary consent after learning he lawfully possessed a handgun away from campus. The search found no firearm. iStock-1445552933

A New Hampshire school administrator testified that anything “above zero”—even a one-percent possibility—could amount to reasonable suspicion to search a student’s vehicle for a firearm, according to a new federal court filing.

That admission is now at the center of Jack Harrington’s reply supporting summary judgment in Harrington v. Crawford, a Second Amendment Foundation lawsuit against Hillsboro-Deering school officials. Administrators searched Harrington’s truck after learning that the then-18-year-old student had lawfully possessed a handgun away from campus. They found no firearm.

AmmoLand previously reported that the dispute began with Harrington discussing an off-campus traffic stop during which his handgun had been in his glovebox. An assistant coach overheard part of that conversation and later passed it along. By the time the account reached the administrators who ordered the April 24, 2025, search, Harrington argues, it contained no information connecting the handgun to school property.

“Anything Above Zero” Is Not Reasonable Suspicion

In the reply filed August 5, Harrington says the defendants still cannot identify a fact known to the decision-makers showing that he possessed a gun at school, violated the law, or broke school policy.

The filing instead points to Assistant Principal Brian McGinn’s deposition testimony. Asked whether “anything above zero” constituted reasonable suspicion, McGinn answered yes. He also agreed that a one-percent chance would suffice. Principal James O’Rourke reportedly admitted that his claimed suspicion was based on “speculation or guess” and that the timing of the earlier traffic stop “wouldn’t have mattered.”

If the school’s theory is accepted, any student known to hunt, compete, visit a range, or come from a gun-owning household could be placed under permanent suspicion. Lawful exercise of the Second Amendment would become the government’s excuse to disregard the Fourth.

“The school’s knowledge that Jack was a lawful gun owner outside of school did not justify their search of his truck,” SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said in an August 6 statement. “They had no information to indicate he had ever brought the gun to school or had done anything illegal or against school policy whatsoever.”

Five Refusals Do Not Become Consent

The defendants also argue that Harrington consented. Their own testimony, as presented in the reply, makes that defense difficult to square with the facts.

School officials allegedly decided to conduct the search before Harrington was removed from class. A uniformed, visibly armed police officer stood near the only door of the small office. Harrington was not told he could leave or refuse. He reportedly rejected the search four or five times, while his parents also refused consent over the phone.

O’Rourke testified that officials presented the search as something that was going to happen and merely explained why. McGinn testified that refusing consent meant “automatic suspension.” After officials continued pressing him, Harrington asked whether they only needed to inspect the glovebox before he could return to class.

The defendants point to his eventual “okay.” Harrington calls it submission to asserted authority, not voluntary consent.

“Administrators ignored repeated insistent refusals by Jack to provide consent and now rest their hat on the fact that after telling him the search was going to happen regardless, he replied ‘okay,’” Sack said. “That is not consent in the eyes of the law.”

The Second Amendment Does Not Cancel the Fourth

Public-school searches ordinarily operate under the reduced reasonable-suspicion standard recognized in New Jersey v. T.L.O. Harrington argues that probable cause should apply here because the police officer was enlisted before he was questioned and was present to take custody of any weapon and pursue possible criminal “next steps.” The Supreme Court left that precise law-enforcement question open in T.L.O.

The reply maintains that the search fails under either standard. The defendants do not claim they had probable cause, and “anything above zero” cannot satisfy reasonable suspicion.

“Being perceived as a lawful gun owner does not place you in a class of second-class citizens who are subject to search at any time,” SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb said. “These school officials overstepped their authority here.”

School safety does not create a blank check to discard the Bill of Rights. Government must possess facts indicating wrongdoing before it searches a citizen’s property. It cannot use the exercise of one enumerated right as evidence justifying the invasion of another.

The Second Amendment does not erase the Fourth, and lawful gun ownership is not a perpetual search warrant. The court has not yet ruled on Harrington’s summary-judgment motion.

---

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/M5uOE6t
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Blocks ATF Enforcement of NFA Registry After Tax Drops to $0

A federal court has blocked ATF from enforcing major NFA registration provisions against the plaintiffs after Congress reduced the tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms to zero. IMG Duncan Johnson, AmmoLand

A federal judge has permanently enjoined the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)from enforcing major registration and transfer requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934 against a broad coalition of plaintiffs after Congress zeroed out the longstanding $200 tax on short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and “any other weapons.”

In Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled that the challenged regulatory scheme is unconstitutional because it no longer functions as a revenue measure under the Taxing Clause—the sole constitutional foundation Congress invoked when it passed the NFA more than ninety years ago.

The National Firearms Act was enacted in 1934 (NFA) purely as a tax statute. Congress imposed a $200 making and transfer tax on certain firearms and devices—short-barreled shotguns (SBS), short-barreled rifles (SBR), silencers, and any other weapons (AOWs)—and layered on extensive administrative requirements: Form 1 and Form 4 applications, fingerprints, photographs, local law-enforcement notification, and entry into the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Machine guns and destructive devices remained subject to the same $200 tax. The stated purpose was to raise revenue while simultaneously constricting the market for these items through the heavy tax and regulatory burden.

Congress Eliminated the NFA Tax but Left the Registry

That tax framework changed with the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, signed into law on July 4, 2025. Effective January 1, 2026, the legislation set the transfer and making taxes for SBS, SBR, silencers, and AOWs at zero dollars. Machine guns and destructive devices continue to carry the $200 tax. Once the revenue justification disappeared, Silencer Shop Foundation and a large group of co-plaintiffs filed suit. They argued that the registration, application, and approval requirements that had been justified solely as tax-enforcement mechanisms could no longer stand.

The plaintiffs include Gun Owners of America, the National Rifle Association, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, and fifteen states, as well as the Silencer Shop Foundation itself.

The government attempted to salvage the regulations by pointing to the still-existing special occupational tax paid by manufacturers, importers, and dealers. Officials claimed the remaining regulatory apparatus remained “necessary and proper” to the collection of that occupational tax. Judge Hendrix rejected the argument. He found the recharacterization neither “plainly adapted” nor “proper” under the Necessary and Proper Clause. The court refused to allow the agency to rewrite the constitutional basis of a statute after Congress had removed its original revenue foundation.

Judge Rejects Government’s Commerce Clause Argument

The ATF and Department of Justice also invoked the Commerce Clause. Judge Hendrix rejected that claim as well. He emphasized that Congress never relied on the Commerce Clause when it enacted the NFA. The statute’s text, structure, and placement in Title 26 of the United States Code—the Internal Revenue Code—demonstrate that it was conceived and passed exclusively as a tax measure. Unlike the Gun Control Act of 1968, which contains explicit jurisdictional hooks for interstate commerce, the NFA contains none. The court held that judges may not retroactively recharacterize a statute under a power Congress never exercised. Earlier Fifth Circuit dicta suggesting a broader reading were deemed non-binding, pre-dating the Supreme Court’s decisions in United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison, and inconsistent with earlier circuit precedent.

Notably, the plaintiffs abandoned their Second Amendment claims after prevailing on the enumerated powers argument. With the court’s agreement, Judge Hendrix exercised judicial restraint and declined to reach the Second Amendment issues. The ruling, therefore, rests solely on the absence of a valid taxing power once the tax itself was eliminated, leaving any constitutional challenge under the Second Amendment for another day and another case.

Who Is Protected by the NFA Injunction?

The permanent injunction bars the ATF, the Department of Justice, Acting Attorney General Blanche, ATF Director Cekada, and anyone acting in concert with them from enforcing the challenged provisions—specifically 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b), 5822, 5841(a)–(c) and (e), 5842(b), 5861(b)–(f) and (i), and the related regulations—against the plaintiffs, their agencies and political subdivisions, their members, and their current and future customers in transactions involving the plaintiffs or their commercial members.

Consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Casa, the relief is limited to the parties before the court and does not extend nationwide.

Judge Hendrix stayed the injunction for seven days to give the government an opportunity to seek emergency appellate relief. The decision marks a significant, if currently party-limited, curtailment of the administrative machinery that has governed short-barreled firearms, silencers, and AOWs for generations. Whether higher courts will expand, narrow, or reverse the ruling remains to be seen, but the district court’s core holding is clear: once Congress removed the tax, the regulatory superstructure built solely upon that tax lost its constitutional footing.

---

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/v4Kt76g
via IFTTT

Illinois Judge Rules Foster and Daycare Homes Are ‘Sensitive Places’

A federal judge ruled that Illinois may restrict access to operable firearms inside private residences used as licensed foster homes or in-home daycare centers. iStock-1489034470

A federal judge for the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, Springfield Division, ruled without trial that foster homes and in-home daycare centers are sensitive areas and that guns can be regulated in these private residences.

The case, Miller v. Mueller (18-cv-3085), challenged the Illinois Day Care Home Rule (89 Ill. Admin. Code § 406.8(a)(17)–(18)) and Foster Home Rule (related provisions under 89 Ill. Admin. Code § 402). The Day Care Home Rule prohibited handguns in any home that offers home daycare (with limited exceptions for peace officers or certain employment-required possession by residents). Other firearms must be kept disassembled, unloaded, and in locked storage inaccessible to children. Ammunition must be locked separately and inaccessible to children. Parents must be notified of the presence of firearms and ammunition, as well as the storage arrangements. Residents must also display “No Firearms” signs.

The Foster Home Rule requires that firearms and ammunition be kept locked and inaccessible to children. Loaded guns are generally prohibited (with limited exceptions) within residences. The maximum penalty for violations is license revocation.

Illinois residents and licensed foster parents Jennifer and Darin Miller, joined by the Second Amendment Foundation, Illinois State Rifle Association, and Illinois Carry, sued Heidi Mueller (Acting Director, Illinois DCFS) and Kwame Raoul (Illinois Attorney General). They claimed that the state codes violate the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in the home under Heller and Bruen. Jennifer Miller also runs an in-home daycare center, giving her standing to challenge the Day Care Home Rule. The lawsuit was originally filed in 2018. A district court granted summary judgment for the defendants in 2022 (pre-Bruen). The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for reconsideration in light of New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022).

The plaintiffs claimed that the rules could not survive a Bruen analysis. They succeeded at step one because the plain text of the Second Amendment presumptively covers the Millers’ desire to keep firearms operable in their home for self-defense. The judge, Obama-appointed Sue E. Myerscough, however, found that day-care homes and foster homes qualify as “sensitive places” analogous to schools (a category Heller and Bruen treat as presumptively lawful for firearm restrictions). She reasoned that both are environments overwhelmingly dominated by children; both involve learning, education, supervision, and skill-building; and both are already subject to extensive state safety regulation precisely because of the presence of children.

The judge wrote:

“The Court finds that the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule, that day care homes and foster homes are sensitive places analogous to schools where firearms may be restricted, and, therefore, that the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule restricting firearms kept in day care homes and foster homes, respectively, are constitutional. The Court also finds that both the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule are reasonable restrictions on government contractors’ and licensees’ assumedly implicated Second Amendment rights.”

Judge Myerscough said the rules are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation in analogous sensitive places. They impose a comparable burden (not a total ban on possession in the home; limited to the licensed activity; discrete application to a narrow class of licensees/contractors; temporary while the license is held). She said the rules are conditions attached to government licenses (day care) and to government contractor status (foster care).

According to the judge, the government has greater latitude to impose conditions on those who voluntarily seek state benefits or contract with the state, especially when the conditions further the state’s interest in protecting children under its regulatory or custodial responsibility. The judge also said the Millers are not treated as “ordinary” law-abiding citizens in the Heller/Bruen sense because they have voluntarily invited intensive state regulation into their home in exchange for the privilege of providing licensed child care. They remain free to forgo the licenses if they prefer unrestricted firearm possession.

The court upheld both the Day Care Home Rule and the Foster Home Rule as constitutional under Bruen (sensitive-places analysis + historical tradition) and under the unconstitutional-conditions doctrine. The judge said the restrictions are treated as reasonable, place- and role-based regulations tied to the state’s child-protection responsibilities rather than as general bans on the right to keep arms in the home.

Judge Myerscough’s decision prioritizes the state’s interest in regulated care environments over the full exercise of Second Amendment rights by licensees while they hold those licenses. This decision appears to apply interest balancing, which is explicitly prohibited by the Bruen decision. To many, this is a district court rejecting Supreme Court precedent. More shockingly, the judge ruled without a trial after deciding one was not needed. The plaintiffs are expected to appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

---

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/UyuNLSG
via IFTTT

California’s New Glock Ban Returns to Judge Who Blocked Handgun Roster

The plaintiffs in Renna v. Bonta are asking a federal judge to block California’s ban on Glock and Glock-style pistols with cruciform trigger bars. IMG Duncan Johnson

A coalition of gun-rights organizations, California firearm owners, and licensed dealers is asking the federal judge who previously blocked major portions of California’s Handgun Roster to stop the state’s new ban on Glock and Glock-style pistols.

The plaintiffs in Renna v. Bonta filed a motion for preliminary injunction on August 4, asking U.S. District Judge Dana Sabraw to enjoin California Penal Code § 27595(a). The plaintiffs include the Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, National Rifle Association, San Diego County Gun Owners PAC, individual California gun owners, and firearm dealers.

The challenged law prohibits licensed dealers from selling, offering for sale, transferring, or delivering what California calls a “semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” According to the filing, that definition effectively covers every factory-stock Glock semiautomatic pistol and many Glock-pattern handguns, including the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, Ruger RXM, and several Shadow Systems models.

Those are not obscure or unusually dangerous weapons. They are ordinary semiautomatic handguns commonly selected by Americans for lawful purposes, particularly personal and home defense.

The plaintiffs are asking the judge to block enforcement of the law while the case proceeds. A hearing on the preliminary-injunction motion is scheduled for September 4.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	GLOCK 48 MOS Optic Ready 9mm Pistol with Aimpoint COA - 4.17" - 2x 10rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 834.00
	GLOCK 43X MOS Optic Ready 9mm Pistol with Aimpoint COA - 3.41" - 2x 10rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 834.00
	GLOCK Blue Label G45 MOS Gen 5 Optic Ready 9mm Pistol with Aimpoint COA - 4.02" - 2x 17rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 893.00
	GLOCK Blue Label G43 9mm Pistol - 3.39" - 2x 6rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 411.00

California’s Handgun Roster Workaround Returns to Renna

The Renna lawsuit originally challenged California’s Unsafe Handgun Act and its government-controlled Handgun Roster. California generally prohibits licensed dealers from selling a handgun model unless the Department of Justice has approved that exact model for placement on the Roster.

The system excluded newer handguns while permitting some older models to remain available through grandfathering. That is why Californians could purchase certain Gen 3 Glock pistols but not newer Gen 4 and Gen 5 versions sold throughout most of the country.

In April 2023, Judge Sabraw preliminarily enjoined the Roster’s loaded-chamber-indicator, magazine-disconnect, and microstamping requirements. He found that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in showing that those mandates violated the Second Amendment by preventing Californians from commercially acquiring modern semiautomatic handguns in common use.

The court specifically discussed the Glock 43 and Glock 17 Gen 5 among the commonly owned pistols restricted by the Roster. That preliminary-injunction ruling remains under review by the Ninth Circuit.

Rather than accept the constitutional limits exposed in Renna, California enacted Assembly Bill 1127. The law took effect July 1, 2026, and created a separate prohibition aimed at both newer Glocks already blocked by the Roster and older Gen 3 models that remained available because they had been grandfathered.

The August 4 motion therefore places California’s attempted workaround before the same judge who previously found that major parts of the state’s handgun-control system were likely unconstitutional. As the plaintiffs state in the filing, “There is no Glock exception to the Second Amendment.”

The Filing Is Separate From the DOJ Lawsuit

The new Renna motion is separate from the Justice Department’s lawsuit challenging California’s Glock ban and portions of the Handgun Roster.

DOJ sued California on July 1 and sought a temporary restraining order against AB 1127. A judge denied that emergency request without finally resolving whether the law survives the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment test.

The Renna plaintiffs are now seeking a preliminary injunction in a different federal court and before a judge already familiar with California’s Roster restrictions. Their motion is also supported by declarations from Californians who want to purchase covered pistols for lawful purposes, including self-defense, and from firearm dealers forced to stop selling a major category of popular handguns.

The dealer plaintiffs told the court that Glock and Glock-style pistols represented a substantial part of their lawful business. They stopped selling or transferring the covered firearms because they face fines, criminal exposure, and possible suspension or revocation of their licenses if they violate the law.

That makes this more than a theoretical dispute over firearm design. Californians are currently being denied access to common defensive handguns, and licensed dealers are being threatened with punishment for selling them.

California Blames the Handgun for an Illegal Modification

California’s justification for the ban is that criminals can install devices commonly called Glock switches that cause some pistols to fire automatically. Those conversion devices are already illegal under state and federal law. California classifies pistol converters as machine guns and prohibits them. Federal law likewise treats the devices as machine guns, with unlawful possession, manufacture, or transfer carrying serious felony penalties.

AB 1127 does not close an overlooked loophole. It bans the original, unmodified handgun because someone might later attach a separate device that lawmakers have already prohibited. That is not a focused response to criminal conduct. It imposes the consequences of illegal modifications on peaceable people who have committed no crime.

Many lawful firearms can be illegally altered. That does not give the government authority to prohibit everyone else from acquiring the unaltered firearm. California could prosecute criminals who possess illegal switches or illegally convert pistols without banning millions of ordinary handguns.

The cruciform trigger bar targeted by the law is also not a machine-gun conversion device. It has been integral to Glock’s design since the early 1980s and serves legitimate functions, including helping prevent the handgun from firing if dropped.

California took a common mechanical feature found in millions of defensive pistols, attached the politically useful label “machinegun-convertible” to it, and used that label to shut down lawful commercial sales.

FPC President Brandon Combs provided the following statement regarding the filing:

“California is the unmistakable leader in innovating new and creative ways to impose tyranny. Rather than protect the rights of peaceable people, Gavin Newsom and his anti-rights regime are working to put people in cages and ban some of the most popular handguns in America. FPC and our Grassroots Army will defeat this latest attack on the right to keep and bear arms and continue to Fight Forward until every unconstitutional and immoral gun control law is eliminated.”

The Right to Keep Arms Includes the Right to Acquire Them

The constitutional analysis begins with the Second Amendment’s text. Glock pistols are bearable arms. Californians seeking to purchase them are among “the people.” A law that prevents them from acquiring those arms burdens their right to keep and bear them.

A right to possess a firearm would mean little if the government could prohibit every practical method of obtaining it. The Ninth Circuit has itself recognized that unless firearm acquisition receives some Second Amendment protection, the right to keep and bear arms becomes meaningless.

Because the text covers the plaintiffs’ proposed conduct, California bears the burden of demonstrating that its ban is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The state cannot satisfy that burden through policy arguments, crime statistics, or a court’s judgment that Californians do not need a particular handgun.

Under District of Columbia v. Heller, arms in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned. Handguns are the quintessential self-defense weapons, and semiautomatic pistols make up the overwhelming majority of the modern handgun market.

Glocks are among the most popular handguns in the United States. The motion points to hundreds of thousands of pistols manufactured domestically, substantial imports, widespread civilian ownership, and extensive use by law-enforcement agencies.

California cannot transform one of America’s most commonly owned handgun designs into a “dangerous and unusual” weapon simply by giving it an inflammatory name in the Penal Code.

California’s Model Is Spreading

California’s theory is already being copied elsewhere. Maryland enacted a similar restriction targeting Glock and Glock-style pistols with cruciform trigger bars, and gun-rights groups have moved for a preliminary injunction before that law takes effect.

The Renna motion also states that Connecticut, Massachusetts, and New York have taken legislative or regulatory action mimicking California’s restriction. The filing does not explain the details of each state’s measure, so they should not all be described as identical. The broader pattern, however, is clear.

States that cannot openly prohibit handguns increasingly rely on approved-product lists, mechanical design mandates, and model-specific definitions to narrow the lawful handgun market one restriction at a time.

California may prosecute people who possess illegal machine-gun conversion devices. It may prosecute criminals who illegally modify firearms. What it cannot do is use those crimes as a pretext to ban unmodified handguns owned by millions of peaceable Americans.

Judge Sabraw has already found that California’s government-approved handgun market likely conflicts with the Second Amendment. The state has now returned with a new law aimed at many of the same pistols.

The statutory name changed. The constitutional defect did not.

---

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/7geLo0p
via IFTTT

RCMP Seize 439 Guns as Former MP Inky Mark Faces Canada’s Firearms Dragnet

The longtime gun-rights advocate admits transferring three firearms outside Canada’s legal process but denies selling them as a broader RCMP investigation continues. iStock-1162371641

Former Member of Parliament, 78-year-old Inky Mark, has been a long-time and vocal opponent of the increasingly restrictive Canadian firearms laws. Mark’s father and grandfather had immigrated to Canada from China in 1923. Mark and his mother came to Canada when he was five years old, fleeing Chinese communist oppression in 1953. Mark could not immigrate earlier due to the Chinese Immigration Act of 1923.

Inky Mark served as a member of Parliament for 13 years, 3 months, and 15 days. He was fiercely independent with a strong conservative bent. He criticized highly restrictive Canadian firearms laws and Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

On March 21, 2026, at a gun show in Newfolden in the northwestern corner of Minnesota, about 50 miles south of the Canadian border, Wilfred Kachurowski, 73, was looking at the items in the show. Wilfred is a Canadian citizen who has a residence in Dauphin, Manitoba. Inky Mark also has a residence in Dauphin.

Merely looking at firearms or purchasing a firearm may not have been Kachurowski’s intention. He is reported by inews.tv as taking a .38 caliber firearm from one of the gun show tables and placing it in a bag attached to his walker. The owner of the firearm followed him and tackled him to the floor. The police were called. Later reporting by CBC.com stated the revolver was a Taurus Judge chambered for .45 Colt/.410 shotgun rounds. Kachurowski was arrested and taken to jail.  He was later released on bail. He returned to Canada on March 28.

Taurus Judge revolvers, by Weingarten

U.S. Customs and Border Protection notified the Manitoba RCMP that Kachurowski had been charged with the theft of a handgun on March 23. Kachurowski was still in custody at that point. The owner of the handgun stated Kachurowski matched the description of a suspect in a previous theft from a Grand Forks, North Dakota gun show in 2025.

The RCMP used the information to obtain a search warrant for Kachurowski’s home in Dauphin, Manitoba. The search was conducted on April 15. During the search, the police found seven firearms, two of which had been reported as stolen in the United States.  On one, the serial number had been altered. The firearms were not stored as required by Canadian law. Some of them were loaded.

Firearms seized from Wilfred Kachurowski’s residence. Image courtesy of the Manitoba RCMP.

The firearms appear to be a pistol caliber carbine, a revolving shotgun, and five revolvers. Revolvers with a barrel less than 105mm are highly restricted in Canada. The short-barreled shotgun may not be legal in Canada, as short barreled shotguns are legal in Canada only if they come from the factory with a short barrel. The shotgun in the image appears to have had its barrel shortened by simply cutting the barrel off at a convenient point. The RCMP is reported as saying the firearms were not stored in compliance with Canadian law.

One or more of the guns found at Kachurowski’s residence were linked to former Member of Parliament Inky Mark.

RCMP investigators allege that the firearms had been purchased by a second suspect and were never lawfully transferred to Kachurowski. The RCMP obtained a warrant to search former MP and gun collector Inky Mark’s residence. On July 7, 2026 the RCMP executed the search warrant.

At Inky Mark’s residence, they found and seized 439 guns. Some are alleged not to have been stored properly by Canadian standards. Some were antiques. RCMP investigators allege that at least three firearms had been illegally trafficked and that one firearm had a tampered serial number. Canadian and U.S. media have made much of the fact that Inky Mark’s collection contained a muzzle-loading antique cannon. Police described the cannon as an antique. If it legally qualifies as an “antique firearm” under Canadian law, it may be subject to different licensing, registration, and transfer rules than modern firearms.

Police also seized more than C$300,000 in cash. The RCMP release did not explain whether authorities allege the money represented proceeds of firearm sales, and possession of a large amount of cash is not by itself proof of criminal activity. Given the size of the collection and the apparent presence of collectible firearms, its value may be substantial. From the pictures in the media, many of the firearms are valuable antiques and high-dollar modern firearms.

The RCMP charged Inky Mark with 12 firearms-related offenses. The offenses included: Unsafe storage of firearms, careless use of a firearm, possession of a property obtained by crime, and possession of a firearm with a tampered serial number.

A 78-year-old, former Member of Parliament (MP), firearms collector, and refugee from the People’s Republic of China has been released under conditions. In Canada, this is essentially the same as being released on bail in the USA. Former MP Inky Mark has admitted to the illegal transfer of three firearms. In a cbc.ca article, Mark states that the $300,000 came from property sales in Dauphine. He says the illegal transfers were not sales. From Inky Mark:

 “I didn’t sell anything. I transferred — according to them illegally, which it was,” he said. “I did it three times, stupid me.”

Inky Mark’s legal problems likely stem from the highly restrictive firearms laws in Canada. So far, it appears that three firearms have been found to have been stolen at some point during their existence. The charges include requirements for storing the firearms. Those requirements are nearly non-existent in the USA. Over the course of a long and successful life, I do not find it unusual for a man who fled Communist China to have $300,000 Canadian (213,000 U.S. dollars) in cash at his residence. It is hard to discount the political symbolism of the case. A man who fought the highly restrictive firearms laws, in the name of liberty, is caught in their tentacles. While three firearms are said to have been “illegally trafficked”, it is not clear if two or all of them may be from the case of Wilfred Kachurowski. The charges mostly appear to be malum prohibitum, (bad by definition of law). With the restoration of Second Amendment rights ongoing in the American courts, such cases are becoming less likely south of the Canadian border.

---

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/DC098IT
via IFTTT

Todd Blanche’s Attorney General Nomination Advances, Gun Owners Want Results

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination to lead the Justice Department permanently advanced from the Senate Judiciary Committee on a 12–10 party-line vote. iStock-1312189737

Todd Blanche’s nomination to become the next attorney general of the United States cleared the Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday, moving President Donald Trump’s nominee one step closer to taking permanent control of the Department of Justice.

The committee advanced Blanche on a 12-10 party-line vote, with every Republican voting in favor and every Democrat voting against him. His nomination now moves to the full Senate, where a final confirmation vote has not yet been scheduled. For gun owners, however, the confirmation drama surrounding Blanche is mostly background noise.

The important question is whether he will use the power of the Justice Department to dismantle unconstitutional gun-control policies—or merely oversee them while issuing friendlier press releases.

Republican Holdouts Clear Blanche’s Path

Blanche’s nomination had been stalled by Republican Sens. John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina. Their objections centered on a controversial $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” compensation fund connected to the settlement of Trump’s lawsuit over the leaking of his tax records.

Blanche formally rescinded the fund, clearing the way for Cornyn and Tillis to support moving his nomination out of committee. Democrats remained united against him, focusing on his prior work as Trump’s criminal-defense attorney and allegations that he had allowed politics to influence the department.

Those issues will dominate Beltway coverage. Gun owners should be watching something else.

Blanche is already serving as acting attorney general while retaining his confirmed position as deputy attorney general. That means he currently oversees more than 100,000 Justice Department employees, including the FBI, ATF, U.S. Marshals Service and 93 U.S. attorneys’ offices.

He is not asking for an opportunity to prove himself from scratch. He is asking the Senate to make permanent the authority he is already exercising.

Bondi Left More Announcements Than Victories

Blanche replaced Pam Bondi after Trump removed her as attorney general in April. Bondi presided over a department that continued defending federal gun restrictions and Biden-era legal positions in court. Even as the administration promised relief, Justice Department lawyers remained willing to argue for infringements against young adults, gun owners, and manufacturers. This eventually led major gun rights organizations to call for Bondi’s removal.

AmmoLand was already asking just 60 days into Bondi’s tenure why DOJ attorneys were still advancing anti-gun arguments. By the time she left office, the central problem remained: the administration talked about defending the Second Amendment while federal lawyers continued defending restrictions that violated it.

The Second Amendment Section may become a useful weapon against state and federal gun control. Its creation, however, does not erase Bondi’s record or entitle her to credit for victories that had not yet been won.

A new nameplate on a Justice Department door does not restore a right.

Blanche Must Decide Which Side DOJ Is On

Blanche has taken several actions that suggest the department may finally be moving in a better direction. During his time as acting AG, the DOJ has challenged state restrictions on commonly owned rifles and handguns, announced ATF regulatory reforms and said federal power should no longer be weaponized against lawful gun owners. Yet the record remains mixed.

The administration has allowed portions of the Biden-era frames-and-receivers rule to remain in place, and federal attorneys have continued defending National Firearms Act restrictions and other gun-control positions that cannot be squared with the Second Amendment’s text or original meaning.

The attorney general does not get to pick which constitutional rights are politically convenient to defend. The Second Amendment commands that the right of the people to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed.” It does not authorize the Justice Department to preserve infringements because government lawyers have defended them for decades.

Blanche’s nomination advancing is not a victory for gun owners. It is an opportunity, and a test.

Gun owners do not need another attorney general who praises the Second Amendment from a podium while DOJ attorneys undermine it in court. Blanche has shown signs that he may be willing to change course. If confirmed, he will have the authority and responsibility to prove it.

---

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/4eQ9cHf
via IFTTT