SCOTUS Refusal to Address School Ban on Gun Imagery Puts Freedom 250 Art Contestants at Risk

The Supreme Court declined to review a Michigan student’s “Come and Take It” hat case, leaving unresolved questions about pro-gun student speech in public schools. AI-generated editorial illustration.

“The hat a Michigan third grader wore for her school’s ‘Great Kindness Challenge’ in 2022 featured an image of an AR-style rifle and the phrase ‘come and take it,’” USA Today reported Wednesday. “The Supreme Court on June 8 declined to review lower court rulings that the school did not violate the student’s free speech rights by prohibiting the hat.”

“In the Michigan student’s unsuccessful appeal, her lawyers argued school officials provided no evidence that the hat was disruptive because their real motivation was to silence a viewpoint with which they disagreed,” the report – a rare story from USA Today/Gannett Publications that does not kneejerk attack the right to keep and bear arms – elaborates. “Rather than take the opportunity to convey to a bright, politically aware 8-year-old that her voice and thoughts matter, school officials instead told her to sit down and shut up − presumably because they personally don’t like the Second Amendment or the rights it protects,” it goes on to quote lawyers for the student’s father.

It’s emblematic of the bullying that teachers and administrators subject any student to who deviates from the anti-gun propaganda being used to indoctrinate young minds and manipulate developing political beliefs and attitudes. It typically stays below the radar until events bring it to the fore, such as adult-organized, publicized and funded student walkouts against guns, or on a more up-close, personal, and ludicrous level, suspensions over LEGO guns and the like.

And now, with the advent of the (“gun-free”) United States Semiquincentennial celebrations, and the opposition by all who view them as opportunities to disparage President Donald Trump (and anyone who believes in the America First principles he campaigned on), they’ll have another opportunity to attack children who believe the nexus between the right to arms and freedom merits being recognized.

Freedom 250 has announced its American Heroes Student Art Contest, noting the eligibility of “Any student in grades 3–12 who is a legal resident of any of the 50 states or 6 U.S. territories is eligible to enter.”

“Participating students should create and submit an original, handmade two-dimensional artwork and a 200-word artist statement (100 words for elementary students),” the submission requirements state. And while the “heroes” to be honored come from a pre-selected list (which is arguably a presumptive and un-American bit of censorship), it’s not hard to see why submissions for legendary names like Daniel Boone, “Buffalo Bill” Cody, Davy Crockett (talk about “Come and take it”!), Audie Murphy, or Alvin York would appropriately include guns in the design. Noting actor and former NRA President Charlton Heston is also on the list, a “From my cold dead hands” poster would seem a natural.

“With the help of a parent, guardian, or teacher, submit your artwork onto the ArtCall Submission Platform with a high-resolution photo or digital scan, along with the artist statement,” the rules further instruct.

Teachers have been known to report students over perceived off-campus gun concerns before, even when no cause for them existed. Cases in point:

• 4th grader suspended for having a BB gun in his bedroom during virtual learning
• What Teachers Spy in Homes over Zoom Winds Up in Court (Visible guns, Trump banners get students in trouble)
• 12-year-old suspended in Colorado over toy gun seen in virtual class

We could go on, but the point is made. Who thinks the envisioned Heston poster would result in anything other than a world of hurt if a prohibitionist teacher or administrator got wind of it?

Now imagine such an entry actually winning an award:

“Up to 168 first-place awardees (up to 1 student from each age group category representing 56 each state and territory) and their designated parent/guardian will receive a travel and lodging allowance to travel to Washington, D.C., July 7-9, 2026, to attend a Student Art Exhibition and Award Ceremony at the Great American State Fair, recognizing state, regional, and overall winners.”

That would certainly seem to be an achievement worth their school’s recognition, approval and praise. Who thinks that’s how  a win would be treated in a “deep blue” school district?

By taking a pass on the “Come and Take It” hat challenge, the Supreme Court has left the greater portion of “our Posterity” in public schools at the mercy of the Randy Weingarten-types for “approved” ideologies on guns and more.

Ninth Circuit Rules Suppressors Are Not Second Amendment Arms

---

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/pdSH3RN
via IFTTT

Baird v. Bonta: Ninth Circuit Weighs California Open Carry Ban Again

The en banc Ninth Circuit heard argument in Baird v. Bonta, and California’s position came through loud and clear: the state believes it can criminalize open carry so long as it leaves gun owners with a government-permission slip for concealed carry.

Mark Baird is challenging California Penal Code sections 25850 and 26350, which restrict the open carry of firearms. A Ninth Circuit three-judge panel previously ruled that California’s open-carry ban in counties with more than 200,000 people violated the Second Amendment. California then sought rehearing en banc, and the full court has now taken up the fight.

Baird’s attorney, Amy Bellantoni, opened by asking the court to reverse the district court and enter judgment for Baird.

“The district court never addressed the threshold constitutional defect in this case,” Bellantoni argued. That defect, she said, is California’s “criminalization of presumptively protected conduct” under the Second Amendment.

She told the court the challenged statutes “criminalize presumptively protected conduct protected by the Second Amendment right to bear arms.” When asked whether concealed carry is also protected, Bellantoni answered that the conduct at issue is public carry, while making clear that this case is focused on open carry.

“I would say it’s presumptively protected because the plaintiff’s proposed conduct is to carry in public,” she said.

California’s lawyer, Samuel Harbert, predictably, took the opposite approach. He argued that Bruen allows states to regulate the “manner of carry” so long as they do not ban public carry altogether.

California’s argument is that the state is not destroying the right to bear arms because licensed concealed carry remains available.

“Far from prohibiting public carry altogether,” Harbert argued, “California law allows for licensed concealed carry in every county across the state.”

That answer did not go unchallenged. Judge Nelson asked how many concealed carry licenses California has issued.

“For concealed carry? I’m not sure, Your Honor,” Harbert answered.

California wants the court to accept its limited “shall-issue” concealed carry license as a substitute for open carry, but its lawyer could not tell the court how many people are actually getting licenses.

The court also spent considerable time on the procedural posture of the case. Judges pressed Bellantoni on whether Baird was bringing a facial challenge, an as-applied challenge, or something in between. Bellantoni emphasized that the case is not a challenge to one sheriff’s licensing decision, but a challenge to criminal statutes as they apply to open carry.

“This is not a licensing challenge,” she said. “This is a challenge to criminal statutes.”

California argued that Baird is seeking facial relief, which would trigger a tougher standard. Harbert said California views the test as the Salerno “all applications” standard. That issue could give the en banc court an off-ramp if it wants to avoid directly admitting that California’s historical argument is weak.

The strongest part of Baird’s case came in history. Bellantoni argued that even if Bruen allows one form of carry to be regulated, the historical tradition supports restrictions on concealed carry, not open carry.

“There’s no longstanding tradition of affecting or infringing on or regulating the open carriage of weapons,” she told the court.

That is the problem California cannot get around. The historical record goes against the state. Old laws and cases disfavored concealed carry because it was seen as stealthy. Open carry was the accepted mode of bearing arms. California is now trying to flip that tradition upside down.

Judge Lee pressed California hard on that point. He noted that “open carry was not regulated at all in the founding era or post-14th Amendment,” while concealed carry was restricted. He later pointed out the obvious distinction: “One was regulated, one was not.”

California’s response was to broaden the level of generality. Harbert argued that under Rahimi, courts should not look for a perfect historical twin but should instead identify a broader principle. The broader principle California wants is that governments historically regulated the manner of carry.

That kind of argument is exactly how anti-gun states try to water down Bruen. If the government can define the historical tradition broadly enough, almost any modern restriction can be squeezed into some vague category of “regulation.”

When asked whether California treats open carry and concealed carry as essentially interchangeable, Harbert answered, “I think that is the practical consequence of our view.”

California does not have a founding-era tradition of banning peaceable open carry. Instead, it wants the court to say concealed carry is good enough, and therefore open carry can be criminalized.

California also leaned on public safety. Harbert argued that modern firearms are “far more dangerous,” “more accurate,” and “more fast-loading.” He also argued open carry creates problems for police responding to shootings because officers must quickly determine “who the bad guys are and who the good guys are.”

Bellantoni rejected that kind of interest balancing on rebuttal.

“The Supreme Court has been very clear that the interest balancing took place at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified,” she said. “This Court respectfully cannot consider public safety concerns.”

In closing, Bellantoni noted that open carry went unregulated in California for 117 years after statehood.

“That just leaves us with no protected right at all if the government can just flip-flop on exactly what the right means,” she argued.

If the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms, and the historical record protects open carry rather than banning it, then California should not be allowed to criminalize open carry by pointing to concealed carry as a government-approved substitute.

California’s entire theory depends on stretching Bruen beyond what the Supreme Court actually said. The state insists Bruen, through footnote 9, allows a government to “lawfully eliminate one kind of public carry,” so long as another form remains available. But that language came in the context of historical restrictions on concealed carry and modern shall-issue licensing, not a green light for states to criminalize open carry.

Baird’s counsel correctly pointed out that the historical examples discussed in Bruen involved concealed weapons, which were viewed as stealthy and dangerous, while open carry was treated as the protected and accepted mode of bearing arms.

California’s reading turns that history on its head. It takes a discussion about concealed-carry restrictions and converts it into permission to ban open carry, even though the state could not identify a comparable historical tradition of banning peaceable open carry. That is not applying Bruen; it is rewriting it.

The case is now submitted. The Second Amendment Foundation, watching the argument live and posting a thread on X, was not optimistic. SAF’s thread suggested the vote count may be “maybe 3 votes for Baird, 4 at very best,” calling it a “likely loss.” That is only a prediction, not a ruling, but it tracks the danger in this case. The Ninth Circuit may use the facial-challenge issue or California’s broad “manner of carry” theory to uphold the ban.

If that happens, the transcript will still clearly show the issue. Baird had the history. Under Bruen, that should matter. Whether the en banc Ninth Circuit will let it matter is the question gun owners are now waiting to see answered.

Virginia Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban — and They’re Dead Right

---

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/qzOvnB9
via IFTTT

Does Your Church Advocate Against Your Second Amendment Rights?

By Jeff Knox

He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people: and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks: nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more. — Isaiah 2:4

He said to them, “But now let the one who has a moneybag take it, and likewise a knapsack. And let the one who has no sword sell his cloak and buy one. — Luke 22:36

As more churches rely on armed security teams, gun owners should ask whether their local church—or national denomination—is standing for self-defense or helping the gun control lobby. iStock-1505706481

Does your church advocate against your right to arms? Perhaps your church doesn’t directly call for citizen disarmament, but what about the denominational hierarchy? How about its most respected scholars?

American culture has displayed opposing trends on this topic for years, even as crime had been falling from the record levels of the 1980s and early ‘90s. That decline briefly reversed during the combined craziness of the Covid scare and the George Floyd “Summer of Love,” then resumed its downward trajectory.

Nonetheless, it is now routine for churches and other houses of worship to post security teams to defend their flock. Even as individual congregations arm up, the largest Christian denominations in the country are among the loudest voices calling for stricter gun control laws. The United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, American Baptist Churches USA, and the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, all have official positions supporting gun control laws, as does the Union of Reformed Judaism, along with many smaller denominations and independent churches.

The Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the US, has mostly steered away from any broad gun control advocacy. Several resolutions have been introduced, but none has passed, though there has been strong support from some quarters. The Presbyterian Church in America is more conservative than the PCUSA, and does not advocate for gun control. The non-denominational Churches of Christ are independent, but are very uniform in doctrine and practice. Those congregations generally either don’t take a position on guns or are supportive of individual rights. That fellowship includes the West Freeway Church of Christ, where Jack Wilson shot an attacker who had shot two church members. In the video of that horrific event, at least seven guns can be seen being drawn by congregants.

So where does your church stand? If you don’t know, you should find out.

If your local church leadership supports your rights, but the national organization doesn’t, are you and your local leaders actively pushing back against the national organization’s position? Are you actively working to educate your church leaders about the fallacy of gun control laws, and the doctrinal error of pacifism and disarmament?

Regardless of where your local and national church leadership falls on the question of self-defense and individual arms, I highly recommend that you get a copy of “A Time to Kill” by my friend Greg Hopkins and share it with your church leaders, or better yet, get them their own copies. Greg digs into scripture and shatters the myth of Judaeo-Christian pacifism.

If your church leadership insists on advocating against your rights, it’s time to start looking for a new church. And like when dealing with businesses that post “No Guns” signs, I encourage that you don’t just go away mad, but that you make it a point to make sure their leadership knows why you’re leaving and going to their “competition.”

It’s no surprise that many of the same churches that are considered doctrinally liberal, are in the forefront of those advocating for firearms restrictions. This is especially true regarding churches that have embraced women in their clergy, an issue which has divided many churches in recent decades.

The fact is, the gun control movement is dominated by people who know little to nothing about guns or righteous violence, predominantly women. That is also true of the pacifist movement within broader Christianity. Both movements get support and assistance from some men, primarily soft men who have never had to, or wanted to, stand against violence, or occasionally, stronger men who have been broken by war or the pain and grief of not being strong enough to save a loved one.

The combination of technical ignorance, excessive empathy, and an irrational fear and loathing of violence – and those who engage in it, whether justified or not – is at the heart of much of what’s tearing down our country. If a person in a position of influence or control thinks that being understanding and caring is all that’s required to stop evil, if they don’t understand the value of righteous violence and the importance of good men and women (like Jean Assam) willing and able to wield it for the protection of innocents, and if they have no concept of the tools and technology those good people need in order to accomplish their mission, things are not going to go well.

Gun control groups are composed of phobic individuals. Their phobias include hoplophobia (irrational fear of weapons), cainophobia (irrational fear of violence), and androphobia (irrational fear of men or masculinity). The commonality is irrational fear, with emphasis on irrational. These phobic individuals are as eager to proselytize their doctrine of fear as Christians are anxious to fulfill Jesus’s Great Commission. They are actively recruiting like-minded people in your church. They’re weaponizing compassion and fear, and they’re contributing to the destruction – not only of liberty and security, but of Western civilization itself.

The only way to block this pernicious corrosion is for good, strong men – and the wise women who love them – to stand up, take control, and refuse to tolerate this nanny-state nonsense.

Don’t withdraw. Don’t walk away. Don’t surrender. Stand and fight.

Reject religious “leaders” who think turning the other cheek means being passive in the face of violence. Reject public school policies that insist on punishing your kid for defending against a bully. Reject the idea that “violence is never the answer,” because you know damn well that sometimes violence is the only answer.

And when one of them quotes Isaiah 2:4 at you, demanding that you “beat your swords into plowshares,” remind them that Isaiah was talking about the end times, after the Messiah establishes His earthly kingdom, not a symbolic gesture to make yourself defenseless. On the other hand, it was the Messiah himself who instructed his followers in Luke 22:36 to sell their cloak to buy a sword.

You are your and your family’s “first responder,” so be strong, share your conviction, stay calm, and carry on.

Armed Citizens Stop Alleged Florida Church Kidnapping

---

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a dedicated political activist and the director of The Firearms Coalition, following in the footsteps of his father, Neal Knox. In 2024, Jeff was elected to the NRA Board of Directors, underscoring his lifelong commitment to protecting the Second Amendment. The Knox family has played a pivotal role in the ongoing struggle for gun rights, a legacy documented in the book Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War, authored by Jeff’s brother, Chris Knox.

Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, The Firearms Coalition is a network of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs, and civil rights organizations. The Coalition supports grassroots efforts by providing education, analysis of current issues, and a historical perspective on the gun rights movement. For more information, visit www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

---

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

Gun Owners Sound Alarm Over New Jersey Glock Subpoenas

The New Jersey Attorney General’s office reportedly wants Glock sales records for the past ten years from licensed dealers in the state. iStock-1761427153

The office of New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport is reportedly sending subpoenas to firearms dealers across the state demanding records of Glock pistol sales to Garden State residents over the past ten years.

The National Rifle Association revealed this effort last month in an alert from the organization’s Institute for Legislative Action. Somehow, NRA suggested, the subpoenas are connected to a lawsuit New Jersey filed against Glock more than a year ago, under the state’s public nuisance law.

That lawsuit was filed by former New Jersey AG Matthew Platkin, alleging “multiple violations of the State’s firearms industry public safety law through the knowing manufacture, sale, and distribution of its namesake pistols, which can easily be configured to fire automatically as illegal machine guns…”

NRA suggested the effort to get those records would be to “make these transactions a matter of public record.” As a result, the identities of gun owners would then become available to the media.

“This is being done solely for the purpose of harassing and doxxing residents who purchased the most popular pistol in America,” NRA said.

“Subpoenaing law-abiding firearm dealers to help build a state gun registry is unconstitutional and utterly outrageous,” said John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director, in the alert. “If New Jersey believes it can trample the Second Amendment and federal law with impunity, they are gravely mistaken. The NRA will not stand idly by while progressive politicians attempt to implement this dangerous, Orwellian scheme to dox, track, and harass honest, law-abiding Americans, and we are prepared to take any action necessary to protect the rights of New Jersey gun owners.”

Ammoland News spoke with Glassboro, NJ gun dealer Wayne Viden, proprietor at Bob’s Little Sport Shop, which has been a family-owned operation for more than 60 years. He goes along with the theory that this is an effort to make gun owner information part of the public record.

“We have not gotten a subpoena, yet,” Viden told Ammoland in a telephone interview. “The only thing I know is what I’ve read (from NRA).”

However, he said the scenario clearly suggests NRA’s doxxing theory is correct, because “New Jersey already has that information” about handgun purchases. The only reason for this information to be added to any legal action would be for the purpose of placing it in the public domain.

Viden recalled how New York gun permit holders’ identities were revealed by a newspaper article many years ago. It created a firestorm.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 17rd Pistol, 4.49" GMB Barrel	Bereli	$ 620.00
	Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 17 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.49" Barrel 17+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 45 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 17+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00

New Jersey’s lawsuit against Glock is not the only such action. Minnesota also sued Glock last year, as did the City of Seattle. At issue is the complaint that Glock pistols can be illegally converted to fire fully-automatic with the insertion of a device called a “Glock switch.”

California-based attorney Kostas Moros discussed the implications of this move by New Jersey recently in a 2,600-word essay in which he accused the state of waging “lawfare” against Glock, Inc.

“The state is claiming the over 40-year-old design of the gun is too easy to illegally convert into a machine gun,” Moros writes. “Other states have filed similar lawsuits, and some like California have now banned the sale of Glocks, which are the most popular handguns in the country. These efforts are a way to coverup the failures of leadership in antigun states.”

A few lines later, Moros explains, “For many people who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights, their status as a gun owner remains an intensely private matter. Americans have a variety of reasons for wanting to keep their gun ownership to themselves. For some who live in high crime neighborhoods, they may fear that the very firearms they own for self-defense could be an enticing target for burglars when they are not home. Others may not want their friends, family, or local community to know they own firearms because they fear the potential social ostracism that may occur in the places where gun ownership remains controversial.

“Whatever their reasons for secrecy,” Moros writes, “our historical tradition supports the idea that Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their status as gun owners.”

In his summation, Moros observes, “Americans have always had the implicit right to keep their status as a gun owner confidential, often even from the federal government itself. That right has been subject only to narrow exceptions.”

In early May, Davenport’s office issued a press release about guns and the state’s Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) law, announcing “the launch of a multi-year public awareness campaign to raise awareness about the life-saving potential of New Jersey’s Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) law that allows for the temporary removal of firearms from individuals who pose a danger of causing bodily harm to themselves or others. New Jersey’s ERPO Act of 2018 serves as a mechanism to seek the temporary suspension of firearms access for at-risk individuals.”

There was nothing in the release about subpoenas for gun dealer records.

Last year, after Glock moved to dismiss the New Jersey lawsuit, Superior Court Judge Lisa M. Adubato rejected the motion.

Great American State Fair to Celebrate Freedom by Suspending Second Amendment

---

About Dave Workman

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

---

from https://ift.tt/NDibp5Z
via IFTTT

LaPierre Appeal Fails: NRA Members Win Back Millions, But Trust Still Must Be Rebuilt

A New York appellate court upheld the judgment requiring Wayne LaPierre to repay millions to the NRA and barring him from NRA fiduciary roles for ten years.

Wayne LaPierre’s attempt to undo the New York judgment against him has failed. On June 2, 2026, the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the judgment against LaPierre.

The court upheld an order requiring him to repay more than $4.3 million plus prejudgment interest directly to the NRA. It also upheld a 10-year ban preventing LaPierre from holding any fiduciary position as an officer or director of the NRA, or any entity under the NRA’s direct control.

LaPierre appealed the December 2024 judgment after a jury found that he violated his fiduciary duties to the NRA. But according to the appellate court, he did not challenge the sufficiency or weight of the evidence, nor did he challenge the jury’s findings. Instead, he raised legal arguments over whether the statute allowed monetary damages, whether any settlement with the NRA over the amount owed needed court approval, and whether the 10-year ban was proper.

The appeals court rejected all three arguments.

On the money issue, LaPierre argued that New York’s Not-for-Profit Corporation Law did not authorize the damages imposed against him. The court disagreed, holding that forcing an officer to “account for” his conduct includes more than merely explaining what happened. It can also mean a reckoning of funds and responsibility for harm caused. On settlement, the court upheld the requirement that any agreement between LaPierre and the NRA over the amount owed must receive court approval.

On the 10-year ban, the court said LaPierre’s resignation did not make the issue moot. He resigned on the eve of trial, but the court said the jury’s findings showed he would have been removed for cause had he not left. The appellate panel also noted that while LaPierre claimed he had no plan to return, he still argued that he should be allowed to do so. That door is now shut for ten years, although further appeals are possible.

Letitia James was wrong to target the NRA for political destruction. The state of New York has a long record of hostility toward the Second Amendment, and the NRA’s separate Supreme Court win in NRA v. Vullo proved that government officials cannot use regulatory threats to choke off gun-rights groups from banks, insurers, and financial services because they dislike their political speech.

But the LaPierre case is a different lane. This was not a Second Amendment merits case. It was a nonprofit governance case about fiduciary duty, waste, and whether NRA leadership put the organization and its members first. The answer, according to the jury and now the appeals court, was no.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Forged 16" .308 Mid-Length 15" Sabre Lock Up Rail w/ MOE SL-S Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1249.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Forged 16" .308 w/ 15" Sabre QD Rail & B5 SOPMOD Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1199.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Billet 18" 6.5 Creedmoor Rifle w/ 15" Knurled Slant Rail & Magpul SL-S Furniture	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1399.99
	PSA Sabre AR-10 Rifle Forged 18" .308 w/ 15" Knurled Slant Rail & B5 CPS Stock	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1349.99

AmmoLand has covered this fight for years, and the consistent theme has been simple: the NRA’s members are the NRA. Not Wayne LaPierre, or the boardroom. Not the vendors, or the consultants. The members.

The people who mail in $25 because they believe in the Second Amendment deserve an organization that fights for them. They deserve leadership that treats member money like sacred trust, not personal privilege. They deserve transparency and accountability. And they deserve an NRA strong enough to fight the gun control lobby without being dragged down by the baggage of the LaPierre era.

The anti-gun left would love to use this case to smear every NRA member as corrupt. That is garbage. NRA members did not create this mess. They were the victims of it. They were the ones who kept showing up for the cause while insiders burned trust, drained resources, and handed New York a loaded political weapon.

The question now is whether NRA 2.0 is real or just a slogan.

AmmoLand contributor and current NRA Board Member, Jeff Knox, has been saying this plainly for years. NRA 2.0 cannot be a slogan slapped on top of the same culture.

It has to mean real board oversight, real financial controls, real transparency, and real accountability to members. The NRA is not a private club for executives, consultants, and old-guard board factions. It is supposed to be a member organization dedicated to defending the right to keep and bear arms.

The NRA is still needed. Anyone who says otherwise is not paying attention. GOA, SAF, FPC, CCRKBA, NAGR, state groups, local clubs, and independent gun-rights activists are all doing vital work. But the NRA remains a major institution, with history, infrastructure, training programs, political reach, and a name that still terrifies the people who want to disarm America.

That is why cleaning house matters. A weak NRA helps the gun control lobby. A corrupt NRA helps the gun control lobby. An NRA that cannot earn back the trust of its own members helps the gun control lobby. The people who want magazine bans, semi-auto bans, carry bans, waiting periods, gun-owner registries, and eventually confiscation would love nothing more than for the NRA to stay distracted by internal rot.

LaPierre’s loss at the Appellate Division should be treated as one more step in ending that chapter.

Millions are owed back to the NRA. LaPierre is barred from returning to a fiduciary role for ten years. The old excuses are dead. The members who kept the faith through scandal, lawfare, and media attacks deserve an organization worthy of their support.

The anti-gun left tried to use the LaPierre scandal to kill the NRA. They failed. Now the NRA has to prove that the reformers, whistleblowers, and rank-and-file members did not fight this battle for nothing.

“I Am the NRA”: The Membership Demands a Better NRA

---

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/qz2Mpw6
via IFTTT

New Jersey Glock Subpoenas Are Part of Nationwide Push Against America’s Most Popular Pistol

New Jersey’s demand for Glock sales records has gun rights groups warning that lawful gun owners’ private information could be exposed through anti-gun litigation. IMG Duncan Johnson, AmmoLand

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport recently sent subpoenas to firearms dealers across the state demanding customer records for lawful Glock pistol sales to New Jersey residents over the past ten years. Gun rights groups are calling the move an unconstitutional attack on privacy that has nothing to do with the state’s legal theory and everything to do with exposing gun owners to public harassment.

The subpoenas appear to stem from the state Attorney General’s Office’s 2024 public nuisance lawsuit against Glock, Inc., but the demand for individual customer records goes well beyond what that lawsuit’s legal theory would seem to require. The state claims that Glock’s design, which has remained largely unchanged for over 40 years, is too easy to illegally convert into a machine gun using aftermarket switches. Other states have filed similar lawsuits, and some, like California, have now banned the sale of Glocks entirely.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action argues that the records are completely unconnected to the state’s case theory. The NRA-ILA points out that since New Jersey’s pistol permitting system already operates as a de facto handgun registry, the Attorney General can produce those records from the office’s own database without subpoenaing FFLs.

The critical distinction involves how subpoenaed records are treated under New Jersey law. Unlike registry records, which are exempt from public disclosure, subpoenaed documents become a matter of public record. The NRA-ILA argues this “is being done solely for the purpose of harassing and doxxing residents who purchased the most popular pistol in America.”

John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director, did not mince words in a legislative alert. “Subpoenaing law-abiding firearm dealers to help build a state gun registry is unconstitutional and utterly outrageous,” Commerford said. “If New Jersey believes it can trample the Second Amendment and federal law with impunity, they are gravely mistaken. The NRA will not stand idly by while progressive politicians attempt to implement this dangerous, Orwellian scheme to dox, track, and harass honest, law-abiding Americans, and we are prepared to take any action necessary to protect the rights of New Jersey gun owners.”

The Second Amendment Foundation reached the same conclusion through a different analytical path. Kostas Moros, SAF Director of Legal Research and Education, suggested in a detailed thread on X that the only explanation for the subpoenas, given the state’s existing registry infrastructure, is that the AG’s office wants to make gun owner records publicly accessible.

“It is not immediately clear why New Jersey needs these records, given the state already maintains a de facto registry for handguns through its pistol permitting system,” Moros wrote. “It could be that the Attorney General wants to make these records public, as under New Jersey law and in a small nod towards respecting privacy, firearm registration records are exempt from public disclosure under the state’s laws.”

Moros argued that regardless of the AG’s actual motive, the subpoenas constitute an “unconstitutional attack” on gun owner privacy and one that runs counter to the historical tradition the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision requires gun regulations to fit within.

“For many people who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights, their status as a gun owner remains an intensely private matter,” Moros wrote. “Americans have a variety of reasons for wanting to keep their gun ownership to themselves… Whatever their reasons for secrecy, our historical tradition supports the idea that Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their status as gun owners.”

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 17rd Pistol, 4.49" GMB Barrel	Bereli	$ 620.00
	Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 17 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.49" Barrel 17+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 45 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 17+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00

The New Jersey subpoenas fit into a broader pattern of state attorneys general in restrictive gun law states using litigation against firearm manufacturers as a vehicle to access information about individual gun owners. The mechanism varies from subpoenas to public nuisance suits to civil discovery, but the result tends to be the same. Lawful gun ownership becomes a matter of state interest beyond what existing registration regimes already capture.

This coordinated approach extends beyond litigation. Maryland recently passed SB 334, a bill banning the sale or transfer of “machine gun convertible pistols” that can be converted with illegal switches. Governor Wes Moore signed the legislation on May 26, 2026, with the Act taking effect October 1, 2026 and the ban on commercial activity beginning January 1, 2027. New York had already enacted a similar Glock ban through its 2026-27 state budget, and Connecticut enacted parallel legislation the same day as Maryland, with Governor Ned Lamont signing Substitute House Bill 5043 on May 26. The NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation have since filed a federal lawsuit challenging Maryland’s law, arguing it effectively bans nearly every Glock and Glock-style handgun on the market.

For New Jersey gun owners who purchased a Glock at any point in the last decade, the practical exposure is real. Records identifying individuals as Glock owners, made public under New Jersey’s open records law, would be searchable, indexable, and effectively permanent. Whether the AG’s office actually intends to make the records public or whether the subpoena is a procedural step that will not result in disclosure remains the central unanswered question.

However, after public pressure from gun-rights groups and media coverage, the Attorney General’s Office reportedly narrowed or clarified the demand, stating through counsel that it was not seeking customer-identifying information and would accept aggregate sales data.

The NRA-ILA, SAF, and other gun rights organizations are signaling they will challenge the subpoenas before any disclosure happens. Whether affected FFLs comply, resist, or seek protective orders will shape what comes next in what has become a multi-front battle over America’s most popular handgun.

CPRC: Murders Committed With “Glock Switches” Are Very Rare

---

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/Ip3VT5t
via IFTTT

Armed Citizens Stop Alleged Florida Church Kidnapping

On May 31, 2026, before 11 a.m., a woman who had obtained a domestic violence injunction escaped kidnapping in a church parking lot. Two armed Samaritans intervened and prevented an armed man from dragging the woman away. In a news conference, Police Chief Leo Niemczyk identified the suspect as Jose Tsu Zamora, 64, who had been in a long-term prior relationship with the victim.

Zamora is a convicted felon who is reported to have said to the victim something to the effect of: If I can’t have you, nobody can. The suspect is reported as knowing the victim attended the church in Port St. Lucie and intercepted the victim as she exited a vehicle.

From cbs12.com:

Two male bystanders, who told police they were armed, intervened and confronted Zamora. Chief Leo Niemczyk with PSLPD credited the two bystanders for saving the woman’s life.

Several people are reported as seeing the attempted kidnapping. One man is seen confronting the suspect, seconds later, another runs into the scene. The video appears to show what may be a holster on the second armed Samaritan.

Before 1987, it would have been unlikely that two people in a church parking lot in Florida would have been armed and able to respond to a kidnapping by an armed man. The suspect was reported to have held a handgun against the victim’s side as the kidnapping was attempted.

In 1987, Florida passed a shall-issue concealed carry permit bill, which is credited with being the start of the shall-issue revolution in the United States. Another change since 1987 is the increase in the number of church security teams. News coverage has not mentioned whether the armed Samaritans were part of a church security team.

As of 2025, over 20 million concealed carry permits were active in the United States. In 29 states, no permit is needed for people to carry loaded handguns, either openly or concealed, in most public spaces.

John Lott and others have published peer-reviewed papers that show an increase in concealed carry permits is correlated with a drop in violent crime. Other academics dispute this finding. Papers sometimes claim to show a limited increase in very specific types of crime in particular states.

Most of the literature shows either a decrease in violent crime or no measurable change.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Remain Among America’s Most Law-Abiding Citizens

---

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/Bt8SXgN
via IFTTT