Go out and vote! The fate of the Second Amendment and the Republic as a whole are at stake. iStock-1271805899
As I write this, we are fast approaching the 2026 midterm elections. Sounds like a lot of time, but it’s not.
The conventional wisdom says Congress changes parties at the midterms. With the razor-thin margins Republicans hold now, damage control has to be a priority.
There’s a four-seat majority in the House; all 435 seats are up for grabs. Fifty-one representatives are retiring or leaving to run for other offices. The majority of them are Republican.
There’s a six-seat majority in the Senate. However, that includes at least two RINOs (Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski), who can be counted on to join the Democrats on 2A issues.
Thirteen Democrats and 20 Republicans are retiring. Mitch McConnell is among them, but that probably won’t keep the Senate Red. It may well be the best strategy is to do everything in our power to prevent the Democrats from winning 60 seats.
Gun owners and pro-Second Amendment advocates made a difference in the 2024 general election. According to the 2021 National Firearms Survey, there are about 81.4 million gun owners in the United States. Out of a population of 342 million, that doesn’t seem like much, but looking at data from the 2022 midterms, that 81.4 million would equal more than 72% of the total number of ballots counted.
After four years of possibly the most anti-gun administration in history, Donald Trump pledged to support the Second Amendment, undo the damage done by Biden, Harris, & Co., and recover gun rights in general.
Being the most 2A-friendly administration in U.S. history wasn’t much of a challenge. Based on the past 100 years, simply doing nothing would have ensured a ranking near the top.
The President made a good start right out of the gate, though there was concern about his choice of Pam Bondi as Attorney General. When she was Florida’s AG, she had a very uneven track record on 2A issues.
Bondi’s bad habits followed her from Tallahassee to Washington. Over the past year, she’s taken a lot of the shine off of the administration’s 2A claims by her inconsistent and sometimes perplexing positions.
When the DOJ opposed dropping the registration and approval requirements for short-barreled rifles and shotguns, it argued that the NFA tax still produced revenue for the federal government. But that revenue came from an entirely different tax.
There is no longer any revenue from the transfer tax on SBRs and SBSs. The Supreme Court ruled the National Firearms Act was a revenue measure nearly 89 years ago. Without the tax, there is no reason to impose the processes intended to ensure compliance and payment of the tax.
To be sure, the Trump Administration, including Pam Bondi, has done more to secure gun rights than any administration in recent memory. However, disappointment often has a greater impact than satisfaction on public perceptions: It certainly generates more traffic on social media.
The current Congress can’t pass gas, let alone any pro-2A legislation. The Supreme Court seems to be content to smile benignly on lower courts’ defiance of its decisions. The burden of inspiring pro-2A voters to show up at the polls falls squarely on President Trump, the actions of his administration, and the efforts of pro-gun groups and gun owners to persuade them to get back on track.
Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.
A federal judge in Missouri has partially dismissed a high-profile Second Amendment lawsuit challenging a now-repealed Jackson County ordinance that restricted firearm sales and possession for young adults under 21, allowing only a narrow claim for nominal damages to proceed.
In an order issued February 10, 2026, U.S. District Judge Beth Phillips granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion to dismiss the case brought by 18-year-old Leonard Wilson Jr., Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the State of Missouri against Jackson County, the county sheriff, and prosecutor (in their official capacities). The court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.
The lawsuit, filed in June 2025, targeted Jackson County Ordinance No. 5865 (the “Prior Ordinance”), enacted in November 2024 after the county legislature overrode County Executive Frank White Jr.’s veto. That measure prohibited sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to anyone under 21 and generally barred those under 21 from possessing semiautomatic long guns with certain features, with limited exceptions such as safety courses or military service. Violations carried potential criminal penalties.
Plaintiffs argued the ordinance violated the Second Amendment, was unconstitutionally vague, and was preempted by Missouri state law (§ 21.750, RSMo), which reserves firearm regulation to the state and prohibits stricter local rules. The suit highlighted Wilson, an 18-year-old GOA member from Miller County, who alleged he was blocked from buying a handgun and ammunition from his uncle in Jackson County during family visits, despite an agreed-upon price and legal status under state and federal law. Wilson also expressed intent to acquire and possess a semiautomatic rifle in the county.
Former Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey joined the litigation alongside GOA and GOF, framing the ordinance as an unconstitutional overreach that criminalized protected conduct for adults aged 18-20. Bailey’s office emphasized state preemption and characterized the measure as “lawfare” intended to provoke a legal challenge.
The county repealed the Prior Ordinance about three and a half weeks after the preliminary injunction motion was filed, replacing it with Ordinance No. 6002 (the “Current Ordinance”). The new version applies only to minors under 18, regulating firearm sales to and possession by minors, while leaving adults 18 and older unrestricted. Plaintiffs did not amend their complaint to challenge the replacement ordinance.
Judge Phillips ruled that Wilson established initial standing for his handgun purchase claim, citing concrete plans for a specific transaction with his uncle, which the Prior Ordinance directly prohibited. This satisfied the injury-in-fact requirement under precedents like Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, as Wilson faced a credible threat of prosecution. His injury was traceable to the ordinance, and nominal damage could redress the past violation.
However, the court found requests for injunctive and declaratory relief (equitable remedies) moot because the Prior Ordinance no longer exists, and the Current Ordinance does not affect Wilson (over 18) or anyone else in the same way. The judge rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that the “voluntary cessation” doctrine required the county to prove it would never reenact the old rule. Citing Eighth Circuit precedents like Phelps-Roper v. City of Manchester, Teague v. Cooper, and Roth v. Austin, Phillips held that repeal or amendment of challenged legislation generally moots equitable claims unless reenactment is “virtually certain,” a high bar not met here according to the judge.
GOA established associational standing to seek equitable relief based on Wilson’s membership and injury, but lacked standing for damages claims on his behalf, as § 1983 does not abrogate the prudential rule requiring individual participation for monetary relief.
The judge said that GOF, a nonprofit without traditional members, failed to show “indicia of membership” akin to Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission or identify any specific supporter with standing. The court dismissed GOF without prejudice.
The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state preemption claim (Count III), citing novel or complex Missouri law issues that are better suited to state courts.
The State of Missouri’s standing was left unresolved for now, as its equitable claims are moot and nominal damages overlap with Wilson’s claim. Wilson’s nominal damages claim proceeds, with the State’s similar claim potentially subject to later review.
The ruling underscores ongoing tensions between local gun-control efforts and Missouri’s strong state preemption statute, as well as the post-Bruen Second Amendment litigation dynamics. The case’s narrowing to nominal damage reflects how repeal can limit remedies even when initial claims appear strong.
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Personal Data Gun Registration Paperwork Privacy iStock-solarseven 1048264146
BELLEVUE, Wash. — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania in support of defendant SIG SAUER’s motion for reconsideration in Hall v. Sig Sauer, Inc., a product liability case in which plaintiffs seek to force disclosure of gun owners’ identities without their consent.
SIG SAUER was ordered to divulge the identities of some of its customers to the Plaintiffs in the case as part of the discovery process and seeks reconsideration of that order. SAF is joined in the brief by the National Rifle Association.
“The Second Amendment has always protected not just the right to keep and bear arms, but the privacy necessary to exercise that right without fear of government-compelled exposure or social ostracism,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “Our history and tradition confirm that Americans reasonably expect their status as gun owners to remain private. Forcing a manufacturer to divulge customer identities in civil litigation – without consent or adequate safeguards – violates that long-standing expectation and infringes the right itself. We urge the Court to reconsider and protect gun owners’ privacy.”
This dispute is important to SAF as it threatens the privacy of law-abiding Americans who contact manufacturers for assistance with their firearms, possibly chilling them from seeking help with potential safety issues and exposing them to unwanted scrutiny. Moreover, it presented an excellent opportunity to assist in the development of privacy in gun ownership as an aspect of the Second Amendment right.
“We fought this same issue recently in our own lawsuits, and just like we argued in those cases, there is absolutely no need to hand over a list of gun owners’ names to the government,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is committed to ensuring that exercising this fundamental right does not come at the cost of forced disclosure to third parties. This brief defends the privacy that has always been inherent in the right to keep and bear arms.”
The Second Amendment Foundation (saf.org) is the nation’s oldest and largest tax-exempt education, research, publishing and legal action group dedicated to safeguarding and promoting the fundamental rights of individuals enshrined in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution. SAF engages in aggressive legal action to ensure the principles of armed self-defense, personal liberty, and the ownership of arms are defended, secured, and restored. Through public education initiatives, SAF teaches the importance of the Second Amendment to promote a society that values and exercises the right to keep and bear arms.
I Voted sticker on a SIG P365XL 9mm handgun. IMG Jim Grant
In most of the world, voting requires an ID. As John R. Lott has discussed in one of his papers, “[v]irtually all of Europe and almost all developed countries require in-person voters to use photo IDs to vote.” Here in the United States, each individual state operates its own elections, and so we have a patchwork quilt of different laws. In total, 35 states require some form of ID to vote, with 22 of those requiring photo ID.
California is not one of those states. In fact, when a city recently tried to implement its own voter ID laws following a majority vote of its residents to adopt such a measure, Governor Gavin Newsom and the legislature acted quickly to pass Senate Bill 1174. The bill prohibits local governments from requiring voters to present identification when casting their ballots at the polls.
In California, it’s accepted as fact by Newsom’s party that voter ID laws are racist or otherwise suspect. In a statement promoting his earlier lawsuit against the city that passed the voter ID law, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said that “[i]mposing unnecessary obstacles to voter participation disproportionately burdens low-income voters, voters of color, young or elderly voters, and people with disabilities.”
When it comes to voter ID laws, many argue that they are pointless because there is no serious amount of voter fraud. Others (myself included) respond that whether or not there is fraud, voter ID laws are worth having because they raise confidence in our elections and help to avoid the appearance of impropriety. They are the most minimal burden imaginable, as everyone in the modern era has an ID on hand.
But I can respect that Newsom, Bonta, and their allies in Sacramento feel very strongly about the right to vote, so much so that they don’t want even the tiniest risk of people being denied their vote, especially when it could affect “low-income voters” and “voters of color” disproportionately.
Or rather, perhaps I could have respected them, if their inaction when it comes to CCW permit abuses didn’t expose them as complete hypocrites.
California’s CCW permit regime.
In the overwhelming majority of states, getting a CCW permit is only slightly more complicated than registering to vote. You fill out a form, perhaps submit your fingerprints, pay a fee (usually under $100), and in some states, take a training course. Permits are usually issued in no more than a couple of months, though many states issue them far more rapidly than that.
In fact, 29 states are now “constitutional” or “permitless” carry, meaning that if you can legally own a firearm, you can carry it without needing a permit (though many people still opt to get one so they can carry in certain other states, which honor their home state’s permit).
Suffice it to say, California is NOT a constitutional carry state, nor does it honor any permits besides its own. And unlike most other states, California issues permits on a city and county level. Sheriffs and Chiefs of Police are authorized to issue CCW permits directly to applicants, subject to the requirements set by the state. Before Bruen, this meant that conservative counties were effectively shall-issue; so long as the applicant jumped through the necessary hoops and passed their background check, they would get a CCW permit which is valid statewide.
But in several large coastal counties and cities, the situation was far different. Regular citizens usually could not get a permit. And in some of them, there was “corrupt issue”, i.e., only the rich and well-connected qualified. The most notorious example of this was former Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith. In 2019, The Mercury News uncovered evidence that CCW permits were issued in a “pay-to-play” fashion to those who donated money to her campaign reelection funds. Smith was later convicted of corruption for this.
Bruen changed things, to an extent. All of a sudden, counties that had denied regular citizens the right to carry had to begin issuing permits on a shall-issue basis. So, California’s antigun politicians proceeded to try to undermine that right through two main tactics as part of Senate Bill (“SB”) 2:
They tried to make getting a CCW permit pointless by making it illegal to carry everywhere relevant, except for streets, sidewalks, and the few businesses willing to post a sign affirmatively allowing carry. My colleagues and I filed a lawsuit on behalf of the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) and other plaintiffs, called Reno May, et al. v. Bonta, to stop the law. We have partially succeeded in stopping some of its worst aspects, but the Ninth Circuit allowed several other parts of it to go into effect. Litigation is ongoing.
They decided to make a permit harder to get than before, adding increased training requirements (16 hours), a minimum of three personal references who are each also interviewed, social media searches, and more. In addition, California law has long allowed Sheriffs and Police Chiefs to require a psychological examination if they so choose. Most jurisdictions do not, but several coastal cities do opt to require one, including Santa Clara, Alameda, San Francisco, and more. But before, the law at least mandated that this exam could cost the applicant no more than $150, and the local authority would have to pay the difference. SB 2 removed that cap.
It’s critical to note here that our politicians didn’t do this because they feared violence would break out due to there being more people legally carrying firearms with permits. In fact, in our lawsuit against SB 2, we presented data from several states demonstrating that Americans with CCW permits are overwhelmingly law abiding, and the California DOJ didn’t even try to rebut that data, conceding the point. (For more on that topic, see my prior article here.)
In the Bruen ruling, the Supreme Court explained that while requiring a permit for the right to carry was acceptable, “because any permitting scheme can be put toward abusive ends, we do not rule out constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”
Perhaps taking that warning as a suggestion, long wait times and high fees are exactly what several California counties and cities have done to undermine the right to carry.
High fees
In most of the country, fees for CCWs permits are modest. In Arizona, a CCW permit costs applicants $60. For Oregon and Nevada, it’s around $100, plus the cost of a training course. Most other states are similar.
Not so in California. Even the CCW-friendly counties in California are much more expensive than other states thanks to the minimum requirements set out by state law. For example, Riverside County, led by Sheriff Chad Bianco, charges applicants $195, plus the cost of their training course, which thanks to the new state law minimum of 16 hours for first-time applicants, will now typically cost around $200-$400 (depending on the provider the applicant selects). But Riverside, like other pro-2A counties, is what happens when the Sheriff does his best to respect the rights of his fellow citizens despite the burdensome requirements of state law. Other cities and counties have no such concerns.
The City of La Verne caught a lot of initial attention (and a lawsuit from us) because the total expense to an applicant for a CCW permit would exceed $1,000. At the time – La Verne has since reduced some of its fees following the lawsuit – the fees consisted of $398 for “processing,” a $150 administrative fee, a $93 licensing fee, $20 for fingerprint scanning, $150 for a department-approved psychological review, an estimated $250 for an approved training course, and a $20 fee for the physical CCW card—$1,081 in total. Renewals, which for California CCW permits is every two years, would run the applicant over $600 in added expense biennially.
As bad as those fees are, things have now gotten even worse. One particularly bad actor is Santa Clara County, the very same county whose prior sheriff was convicted for corrupt issuance of CCW permits. There, following a recent increase, applicants will now pay a $488 initial fee, a $488 issuance fee, a livescan fee (about $100), the training course expense ($200-$400), and a psychological examination fee (around $500). Applicants can thus expect to pay around $2,000 in Santa Clara to exercise their constitutional right to carry, so long as they remember to renew it every two years ($477 plus an eight hour training course).
img Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office | https://ift.tt/NkBMWmh
Cities and counties with high fees argue that they are just charging their true processing expenses and not making a profit. That is difficult to believe given that most jurisdictions charge far less. But even if their claim is true, it is constitutionally irrelevant. Bruen says that what counts is whether the fees “deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry”, not whether the government is merely charging its true costs.
Clearly, an expense of $2,000 is going to deny a large amount of people their right to public carry. Probably the very same “low-income voters” and “voters of color” that Attorney General Bonta pretended to care about when discussing the potential effect of voter ID laws.
Long wait times
Even if Bruen didn’t exist, exceedingly long wait times for a CCW permit really shouldn’t be an issue in California, because the state sets a time limit in its laws. Under Penal Code section 26202(a), licensing authorities in most circumstances must approve or deny an application within 120 days.
The problem is that the law is completely ignored. Several counties and cities take over a year to issue a permit. The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department takes about two years, which is why we sued them as part of the same lawsuit I referenced earlier. But before we filed that lawsuit, we had sent Attorney General Bonta a letter demanding that he enforce the time limit of the Penal Code against Los Angeles and every other issuing authority taking more than 120 days.
He never even bothered to respond to the letter. And even after our lawsuit, which he is also a Defendant in due to the issue of nonresident carry, he has still taken no action to actually enforce the Penal Code’s time limit. Clearly, this is one California law that Bonta and Newsom have no desire to see faithfully executed.
Thus, nonprofit gun rights groups like CRPA are left to try and do his job for him, through litigation.
What’s next?
Despite all their grandstanding when it comes to the modest requirements of voter ID laws, Sacramento politicians will not lift a finger when cities and counties violate the Second Amendment rights of their citizens. Bonta quickly sued Huntington Beach to stop its local voter ID law, but he refuses to enforce existing state law when it comes to the Second Amendment.
If it is “racist” to require a voter to show ID, then what do you call a CCW process that requires a police interview, training course, fingerprinting, sometimes a psychological exam, as much as two years in wait times, and up to $2,000 in expense? I’d love for Governor Newsom or Attorney General Bonta to answer that for me, but I won’t hold my breath.
We will continue to do our best in the courts. A federal judge granted us a preliminary injunction against Los Angeles’ wait times, but only as to the named plaintiffs in our lawsuit for now. And we have not yet secured relief from the court as to the high fees issue. Progress is coming, but it is slow. Thanks to California’s locally-based CCW permit issuance, we are left playing whack-a-mole, trying to make precedential caselaw even as we know we can’t possibly sue everyone.
But someone else can: President Trump’s Justice Department.
As I’ve urged on X before, I believe United States Attorney General Pam Bondi should launch a federal civil rights lawsuit against each and every city and county in California charging too much for a CCW permit, or taking too long to issue one. Failing that, they could make a high profile example out of some of the worst offenders.
Attorney General Bondi could earn a lot of goodwill by suing antigun states and cities to vindicate Second Amendment rights.
Some very low-hanging fruit exists in California. Several cities and counties charge over $1,000 for CCW permits, and others have wait times exceeding a… https://t.co/kOIcARQbUB
This would also be smart tactically because Newsom asked the legislature to set aside $50 million to fund lawsuits against the Trump administration and obstruct the President’s agenda. The President should go on offense against California, and there are few worthier causes to wage such a fight over than vindicating the constitutional rights of California’s long-abused Second Amendment community.
It’s a longshot, as I know the new administration has a lot on its plate. So don’t hold your breathe of this actually happening. But it’s a wonderful thought.
For the time being, support CRPA in its litigation efforts against long wait times, high fees, and a plethora of other infringements.
Editor’s Note: This article is adapted from commentary by Kostas Moros on X.
About Kostas Moros
Kostas Moros is the Director of Legal Research and Education at the Second Amendment Foundation(SAF). You can find him on X @MorosKostas.
Adamiak Remains Behind Bars, Guiltless but Ignored by the Trump Administration
Federal inmate #95252-509, Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, is starting the third year of his 20-year sentence behind bars at a decrepit prison in Fort Dix, New Jersey.
Adamiak’s appellate attorney, Matt Larosiere, is enraged.
“Tate did absolutely nothing wrong, aside from exercising his rights, and not even his Second Amendment rights,” Larosiere said Monday. “Apparently, the Biden administration and now the Trump administration ratifies punishing people for engaging in lawful commerce.”
Adamiak has a resentencing hearing scheduled in June.
“Nothing is happening there,” Larosiere said. “The government is still holding fast to their ‘We want to kill this guy’ attitude. We still need to file a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court, and within 45 days it will be filed.”
Larosiere does not think much of the government’s subtle, behind-the-scenes interest in Adamiak’s case.
“It was really disruptive,” he said. “Words without action really took a lot of effort away from preparing the actual case—chasing empty promises.”
Biden-era ATF arrest
Adamiak, who at the time was an active-duty Navy E-6, was arrested and charged by the ATF during the height of the Biden Administration’s war on guns, gun owners, gun rights and the Second Amendment.
After ATF agents kicked down his doors, they found nothing illegal or even suspected of being illegal. As a result, the ATF brought in a specialist, ATF Firearm Enforcement Officer Jeffrey R. Bodell, who discombobulated the actual items that the agents had found—all of which are still sold legally online, most do not even require an ID—and turned them into machineguns and destructive devices.
For example, Adamiak was charged with illegally possessing a machinegun for a toy STEN submachinegun found during the search warrant. He paid $75 for the non-firing Spanish replica—or toy—which was made by Denix and is still sold online. Bodell inserted a real STEN barrel and receiver, neither Bodell nor his assistant could make it fire more than one round at a time. Despite their hard work, the toy STEN would not even accept a real magazine. Still, Bodell officially ruled that the toy was a machinegun.
Adamiak was charged with illegally possessing two destructive devices, two inert RPGs that had holes drilled into their receivers and were stripped of internal parts. ATF’s “expert” added parts from real RPGs until they would fire a single subcaliber 7.62x39mm round. As a result, he classified the RPGs as destructive devices. The judge who oversaw Adamiak’s trial actually wrote that Adamiak “did not possess all parts of destructive devices,” which should have killed the charges. The fake RPGs are still legally sold today without an FFL or any other paperwork
Adamiak was charged with illegally possessing four machineguns for possessing four legal and highly sought after “pre-ban” open-bolt semi-auto pistols and carbines, which are still legally sold today.
Adamiak was charged with illegally possessing 977 machineguns or MAC flats, which were nothing more than flat pieces of metal. Fortunately, former ATF senior official Daniel G. O’Kelly testified about these charges and explained the federal rules as they applied to the case. O’Kelly was able to prove that the pieces of stamped metal did not legally qualify as firearm receivers. His testimony saved Adamiak from an additional 10 years in prison. O’Kelly strongly believes Adamiak should be a free man. The flats are still legally sold today without an FFL or any other paperwork.
Adamiak’s current plight
Adamiak had been accepted to attend BUD/S (Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL training) and would likely be leading a Navy SEAL platoon, if the ATF had just left him alone or admitted they found nothing illegal in his home. That alone is a massive loss for this country.
It also needs to be stressed that today’s ATF agents under President Donald J. Trump have stopped these types of arrests. ATF technicians no longer convert commonly sold legal items into machineguns or rocket launchers. However, even though today’s ATF agents are 100% aware of Adamiak’s horrific legal situation that their own agency caused, he remains behind bars.
Adamiak spends his days like any other federal inmate. However, there’s one massive difference. The entire prison system knows he’s not guilty of committing any crime.
His imprisonment hasn’t really affected his attitude, at least not yet. He remains incredibly polite and keeps himself in high spirits, or at least that’s how he wants to be perceived, especially by his dad and brother. His mother died shortly after his arrest.
He had hoped that President Trump or those he put in charge of federal agencies like the ATF would notice his innocence and act, but so far, nothing substantive has materialized. Adamiak remains federal inmate #95252-509.
There have been some changes at ATF since President Trump was elected. The agency has taken some positive, albeit small, steps. Unfortunately, none of it matters because Adamiak remains behind bars.
If ATF’s new leadership wants their agency to be viewed as a real federal law enforcement agency, they must clean up the mess left by the previous administration. Its victims, like Adamiak, cannot be left to rot in prison, and they most certainly cannot be ignored.
“I did nothing wrong. I broke no laws, but I have 17 more years to spend in prison,” Adamiak said Monday. “I hope the new administration takes a look at what actually happened here, reviews the evidence and does the right thing. I am not asking for anything special. Nothing I owned was illegal. I should not be in prison.”
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
The Third Circuit Court of Appeals will set an en banc hearing in cases challenging New Jersey’s “sensitive places” carry prohibition.
PHILADELPHIA — (AmmoLand.com) — The consolidated Koons and Siegel v. Platkin cases were heard en banc by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Formerly, a three-judge panel upheld the majority of New Jersey’s law.
The two cases were originally filed in federal district court on December 22, 2022. Both the Koons and Siegel complaints were in response to the New Jersey legislature and then Governor Phil Murphy’s response to NYSRPA v. Bruen. The law that was enacted severely limited the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally possess and carry their firearms. This was after the state was forced to issue permits to carry to everyday citizens.
The Carry Killer
Among other things, A4769/S3214 made legal carry virtually impossible in the Garden State. The law enumerated some 25 statutized so-called “sensitive locations” where carry would be prohibited. The law also prohibited the carry of loaded firearms in vehicles, created a vampire rule, imposed insurance requirements, and quadrupled the price for permits to carry.
The reactionary measures were quickly realized to be punitive towards any gun owner who wished to exercise their Second Amendment right. Temporary restraining orders were secured shortly after filing, and a preliminary injunction was ordered by May of 2023. The 235-page opinion eviscerated New Jersey’s law.
Appeal to the 3rd Circuit
The State appealed federal district court Judge Renee Marie Bumb’s order to the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. In their appeal, the State requested a temporary restraining order from the lower court’s opinion, and much of Bumb’s order was stayed.
Oral arguments in the combined cases were heard by a three-judge panel on Oct. 25, 2023. An opinion on the preliminary injunction wasn’t delivered until Sept. 10, 2025 — nearly two years later. On Sept. 17, both the Koons and Siegel plaintiffs petitioned the court for a full en banc review, which was granted on Dec. 11.
The arguments before the en banc panel were heard on Feb. 11, 2026.
NJ Advocates at Koons en banc – Credit John Petrolino
The Plaintiffs
The Siegel plaintiffs include individuals Aaron Siegel, Jason Cook, Joseph DeLuca, Nicole Cuozzo, Timothy Varga, Christopher Stamos, and Kim Henry. The filing also included the organizational plaintiff , the Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs, and the National Rifle Association, which is supportive of the case.
The Siegel plaintiffs are represented by Andrew C. Lawrence, Daniel L. Schmutter, Erin E. Murphy, and Paul D. Clement.
Nick Gaudio and Ronald Koons – Credit John Petrolino
The Koons plaintiffs are represented by David D. Jensen, David H. Thompson, Peter A. Patterson, and William V. Bergstrom.
The State
The New Jersey defendants include former Attorney General Matthew Platkin and former State Police Superintendent Patrick J. Callahan. The State defendants is/were represented by former Executive Assistant Attorney General Angela Cai.
There are two intervening parties in the case, the president of the N.J. Senate and speaker of the N.J. Assembly. The legislative intervenors are represented by Edward J. Kologi and Leon J. Sokol.
The En Banc Hearing
The Feb. 11 arguments and examination from the panel lasted a little over an hour. Angela Cai spoke for the majority of the time, about 36 percent of the time. Erin Murphy on behalf of the Siegel plaintiffs spoke for 27 percent of the time. Pete Patterson on behalf of the Koons plaintiffs spoke for 12 percent of the time.
The State’s Argument
Angela Cai tried to argue that a modern approach was needed when examining such laws. Besides grasping at analogues that were irrelevant or could hardly be appreciated as a national tradition, Cai went out of her way to say that the post-Civil War Reconstruction Era in the United States was the appropriate timeframe.
The assertion that the postbellum United States is the relevant timeframe was made by Cai, who stated that the 1791 period cited in Lara was not applicable. In Lara, 1791 was twice affirmed by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals as the correct timeframe for historical analogues.
Cai attempted to argue that the prohibition on the carry of arms wasn’t widespread until the availability of certain arms were more prevalent. The best that Cai could do was compare libraries and zoos to bakeries — as well as bring up four outlier regulations from four states.
When arguing, Cai would shift her weight from side to side, swaying as she spoke. Cai would also spring on her toes and bob, as if she were catapulting her answers to the judges when examined closely.
Attorney Leon Sokol represents the intervening parties. Sokol was queried about the arguments and he said that he’s “keeping [his] fingers crossed.” Sokol further stated: “We’re optimistic that the en banc panel will uphold the decision of the three-judge panel.”
Attorneys Pro-Liberty Arguments
Erin Murphy carried the gross majority of the pro-liberty arguments that day. The Siegel filing is much broader than the Koons filing and does require more attention. Murphy did not waver in standing by her clients’ stances.
When necessary, Murphy would reiterate that hypothetical scenarios about prohibiting the carry of firearms on school grounds were not being challenged by those she represented; however, she did not cede that such prohibitions were constitutional either. The judges seemed to be hyper-focused on the possession of firearms at school-related events that don’t occur on school property, and the matter of playgrounds.
“I want to be clear again, it’s not that we’ve excluded them from our challenge,” Murphy explained. “We don’t understand the provision that we’re challenging to cover them. We understand playgrounds on schools to be covered by the school’s provision that we’re not challenging. So it’s not that that’s an as applied aspect of our playgrounds challenge, it’s that I understand New Jersey to have added a separate provision for playgrounds to ensure that it also reached playgrounds that are not covered by the provision that already deals with school property.”
Attorney Dan Schmutter is on the Siegel legal team. He was upbeat about how things went. “The judges asked questions that were highly focused on the key issues in the case,” Schmutter told AmmoLand News. “So, we are hoping they see things our way.”
Pete Patterson spoke less than half the amount of time as Murphy; however, he did expertly slice up the State’s arguments for the Koons plaintiffs.
“I have an individual right to self-defense if the government is not handling self-defense itself by ensuring that bad actors are not going to be in a place with a firearm,” Patterson quipped. “I have a right to defend myself with a firearm in that place.”
After the arguments, Patterson was queried. “We are pleased we had the opportunity to present our arguments to the en banc Third Circuit this morning, and we look forward to the Court’s decision,” Patterson told AmmoLand News.
Pro-Liberty Observers
NJ Women For Gun Rights – Credit John Petrolino
There were 11 pro-liberty observers at the circuit court that day. Of those observers, both plaintiffs, Koons and Gaudio, were present to witness the arguments. The majority of the Koons and Siegel supporters were clad in teal Women for Gun Rights shirts.
Nick Gaudio and Ronald Koons at Liberty Bell – Credit John Petrolino
Theresa Inacker is the N.J. delegate for WGR and is also an NRA board member. Inacker serves as a trustee for the Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners — one of the organizational plaintiffs in Koons.
NJ Women For Gun Rights Representing – Credit John Petrolino
“The state does not have a leg to stand on, and that was evident from not only the questioning from the bench, but from the responses from Assistant Attorney General Angela Cai,” Inacker told AmmoLand News. “We are confident that the Koons and Seigel plaintiffs will succeed, and we look forward to our carry rights being restored.”
Moms Demand Action
There were plenty of red Moms Demand Action shirts in the gallery observing the proceedings that day. It was hard to catch an exact number; however, it did appear that there were more teal shirts than reds sitting in on the arguments.
A number of women wearing Moms Demand Action shirts were asked if they had a comment about how they thought the arguments went. They all declined to comment, stating that they can’t speak without their spokesperson being present.
The Likely Outcome?
Listening to the line of questions coming from the judges and the makeup of the court, it’s very likely that the majority of what was stayed by the three-judge panel will be reversed. How far will the panel go in enjoining New Jersey’s law? That’s a great question. Those who have been following these cases with optimism would like to see the district court’s injunction reinstated, but they simply won’t know until an opinion is delivered.
Will the full en banc panel take nearly two years to render an opinion and order in this case? That’s not probable. However, it’s realistic to expect the court to only deliver its opinion after the U.S. Supreme Court gives its opinion on the Wolford case sometime prior to the summer recess.
Previously reported, New Jersey, and the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals is a great place to raise litigation against onerous laws that limit the Second Amendment. Cases from these jurisdictions may create circuit splits that the High Court might be looking for to take up a number of controversial cases.
According to a new media push against gun rights, it’s ammo manufacturers that are responsible for what Mexican cartels do. iStock-2201153592
U.S.A. – (Ammoland.com) – “Mexican Cartels Overwhelm Police with Ammunition Made for the U.S. Military,” The New York Times claims in yet another hit piece attempting to blame the right of peaceable citizens to keep and bear arms for the homicidal depredations of lawless foreign degenerates. “Drug syndicates have used .50-caliber ammunition, produced at a plant owned by the U.S. Army and then smuggled across the border, in attacks on Mexican civilians and police.”
The target is the Lake City Army Ammunition Plant, and to make its case, The Times presents a handful of anecdotes along with herd-spooking handwringing over “armor-piercing incendiary .50-caliber rounds” and the like.
“True” to form, the article barely addresses foreign sources and leaves unacknowledged the astounding corruption driving the cartel/Mexican government alliance. That’s so readers can be led to the conclusion that the problem is with U.S. gun laws and the U.S. commercial supply chain.
It’s the same tactics that led to Operation Fast and Furious “gunwalking,” and ATF’s homicidal plot to smooth the way for more citizen disarmament edicts by ensuring guns found at cartel crime scenes could be traced to U.S. gun stores. (Note: Some of the links in this post are from discontinued websites, now only available via the Internet Archive, and as such, may load slowly.)
Admittedly, guns and ammunition can still be transported south from the U.S. to Mexico, but that’s more an issue of border control than anything else, and the Trump administration has done much to secure the open borders left deliberately unattended by Democrats in terms of both people and contraband. Back in 2011, it had been documented that ordnance was crossing into Mexico over border—its southern one, including hand grenades, which can’t be bought at gun stores, and leading to the conclusion that “Some have been taken/bought/stolen from the Mexican army itself.”
And not just the army. Corruption and criminality in government are ways of life. Mexico’s top enforcer, former Public Security Secretary Genaro Garcia Luna and his top commander, were embedded assets. A good rule of thumb for Mexican politics is that attaining and retaining power can depend on whether the cartels want someone in or out.
So, just because some seized ammunition casings are stamped with the initials “L.C.” doesn’t tell us how the ammo ended up in criminal hands. And it’s hardly surprising that The Times showed no interest in investigating authorized sales to the Mexican government.
It’s also not surprising that this renewed attack is being picked up by other media outlets, creating in effect a narrative to be promulgated and amplified. Again, another tactic used to attack “gun rights” from the Fast and Furious playbook is being dusted off.
“Nearly 80% of weapons seized by Mexico’s current administration come from the US,” El Pais International declares.
We’ve seen such claims before, including assertions that “American gun sellers supply the cartels with 95 to 100 percent of their guns, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.” Here’s the trick they’re pulling:
According to ATF’s Tracing Center, 90 percent of the firearms about which ATF receives information are traceable to the United States.
Do you get that? The ones submitted for tracing. That’s very different from the total number.
From a report a year-and-a-half before Fast and Furious “gunwalking” was exposed:
In all, the military has 305,424 confiscated weapons locked in vaults, just a fraction of those used by criminals in Mexico…
A fraction? You mean there are…millions?
The Mexican government has handed over information to U.S. authorities to trace 12,073 weapons seized in 2008 crimes…
This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.
What we’re seeing is a practical repeat of what the anti-gunners and their media amplifiers were telling the American public prior to “Gunwalker” in an attempt to swindle them out of their rights, one only (temporarily) halted when the murderous criminal scheme was exposed.
It’s incumbent on Second Amendment advocates to be aware of what the arms prohibitionists and what the DSM (Duranty Streicher Media), of which The Times is a “leader,” did then so they can defend against and refute what they’re doing now. Understand that .50 caliber hysteria is a ploy—the same bad actors don’t want you to have .223 or 5.56, or 7.62×39, either, as the goal—revealed through their own past words and actions, is a monopoly of violence everywhere in Everytown.
It also opens the door to another question. Since it’s documented that .50 BMG rifles “represent an extremely small fraction of total firearm homicides” in this country where they can be legally owned, what are the prohibitionists telling us they think about Mexican nationals, and why is it that Democrats clamoring for gun bans are also so violently against deporting illegal aliens?
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.
