New Jersey Claims Restored AR-15 and Magazine Rights Would Cause ‘Irreparable Harm’

New Jersey filed a July 31, 2026, motion asking the Third Circuit to stay its mandate after the en banc court struck down the state’s bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds. iStock-2281848084

New Jersey has asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit to keep enforcing the state’s bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines—even after the en banc court ruled those laws violate the Second Amendment. The state filed a motion July 31 asking the Third Circuit to stay its mandate while New Jersey prepares a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case.

Put plainly, New Jersey lost their case in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, consolidated with Cheeseman v. Davenport. Now it wants gun owners to keep living under the unconstitutional laws while the state asks for another chance.

The Third Circuit issued its decision July 17, striking down New Jersey’s restrictions on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds. The mandate, the formal order putting that judgment into effect, would otherwise issue no sooner than August 7.

New Jersey says its Supreme Court petition is due October 15. It wants the Third Circuit to keep the bans enforceable until the Supreme Court rejects the petition or, should the justices accept the case, until they issue a final decision. Filing the motion itself temporarily pauses issuance of the mandate while the Third Circuit considers the request.

New Jersey Claims Restored Rights Would Cause ‘Irreparable Harm’

The state argues that it will suffer irreparable harm if gun stores begin selling AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines before the Supreme Court acts. That turns the Constitution upside down. New Jersey treats the continued denial of an enumerated right as a temporary inconvenience for gun owners. At the same time, it characterizes lawful commerce in constitutionally protected arms as an injury to the government.

The state warns that thousands of rifles and magazines could enter New Jersey and become “near-impossible to retrieve” if the Supreme Court later reinstates the bans.

That language deserves attention. New Jersey is not merely concerned about administrative confusion. It is worried that citizens will acquire arms the state may later want confiscated, surrendered, destroyed, or permanently removed from lawful commerce.

The state also warns that people who purchase the affected firearms and magazines could face criminal exposure if the law changes again. That is not an argument for keeping unconstitutional laws in force. It is an admission that New Jersey’s regulatory scheme creates a legal minefield for otherwise law-abiding gun owners.

The State’s Exhibits Prove Common Use

Nearly half of New Jersey’s filing consists of screenshots and social-media posts from gun stores, customers, and firearms companies. The state included posts involving gun stores in the Garden State that allegedly showed sales of standard-capacity magazines after the Third Circuit issued its opinion.

One exhibit reproduces an Instagram post announcing the first sale of what New Jersey calls a “large-capacity magazine” after the ruling. Another includes a report that a store sold a standard-capacity magazine. While another allegedly advertised that the magazines were “back” and available to order.

New Jersey also collected posts from dealers preparing to sell AR-15s and magazines as soon as legally permitted. The state specifically cited Palmetto State Armory’s announcement that it intended to begin shipping AR-15s to New Jersey “the moment” the mandate issued. New Jersey presents these exhibits as evidence of an emergency. They prove something else.

The rifles and magazines at issue are ordinary commercial products. Dealers stock them. National retailers ship them. Customers want them. Millions of Americans lawfully own them for self-defense, competition, training, hunting, and other lawful purposes. That is not evidence that the arms fall outside the Second Amendment. It is evidence of common use.

New Jersey calls the expected sales a “flood.” Gun owners might call it a lawful market returning after decades of government suppression.

Thirty-Six Years of Infringement Is Not a Defense

Throughout its motion, New Jersey repeatedly invokes the “36-year-old status quo.” The state’s theory is that because its restrictions have existed since 1990, the court should leave them in place for a few more months—or perhaps considerably longer—while Supreme Court litigation proceeds. The age of an unconstitutional law does not make it constitutional.

Thirty-six years of enforcement does not create a historical tradition dating to the Founding. It does not rewrite the Second Amendment. It does not give New Jersey a vested right to continue denying its citizens access to arms commonly possessed throughout the country.

The state also faults the plaintiffs for waiting years to challenge the restrictions. Some plaintiffs did not request preliminary injunctions, and the parties previously agreed to maintain portions of the legal status quo while earlier appeals proceeded. New Jersey argues that this conduct shows gun owners will suffer little harm from another delay. That argument is particularly weak. Constitutional rights are not forfeited because the government successfully infringed them for a long time. Nor does litigation strategy transform a prohibited law into a legitimate exercise of state power.

The government cannot spend decades burdening a right and then argue that the victims must not have needed the right very badly because they did not win sooner.

The Supreme Court Factor Is Real

New Jersey does have a serious procedural argument that the Supreme Court may become involved. The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear Viramontes v. Cook County, which asks whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-style and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Third Circuit’s decision directly addresses that issue.

New Jersey also argues that the magazine ruling created a circuit split because other federal appellate courts have upheld similar restrictions. The state cites decisions from the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuits. That division makes further Supreme Court review plausible.

But a collection of appellate judges agreeing with gun control does not create the historical tradition required by Bruen. Courts cannot manufacture an originalist justification by counting modern judicial opinions.

The constitutional question remains rooted in text and history: Are AR-15-pattern rifles and standard-capacity magazines “Arms” commonly possessed for lawful purposes, and can New Jersey identify a historical tradition supporting their prohibition? The Third Circuit concluded that the state could not carry its burden.

State Sovereignty Stops at the Constitution

New Jersey also argues that preventing it from enforcing a law causes sovereign injury because the law was enacted by the people’s elected representatives. States have legitimate sovereign interests. They do not have sovereignty superior to the federal Constitution. The Supremacy Clause resolves that question. State legislatures cannot vote away rights protected by the Constitution, and courts do not owe continued deference to a statute merely because politicians enacted it.

New Jersey’s elected officials may dislike the AR-15. They may prefer magazines holding ten rounds rather than 15, 17, 20, or 30. Their policy preferences do not control the meaning of the Second Amendment.  New Jersey’s motion asks the Third Circuit to treat lawful possession and commerce as irreparable government injuries while treating the continued denial of constitutional rights as a manageable delay. That is precisely backward.

The Third Circuit has already ruled that New Jersey crossed the constitutional line. The question now is whether the court will allow that judgment to protect the citizens who won—or keep an unconstitutional regime alive while Trenton searches for a more favorable answer.

---

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/A0KCaVO
via IFTTT

Summit County Fair’s Enclosed Entrance Ratchets Up Visitor Disarmament

Summit County Fair officials are routing visitors through an enclosed entrance with security screening, effectively forcing lawful gun owners to disarm before entering. iStock-1166005919

“Ohio State Fair Building Gun Ban Fails All Tests for Constitutionality,” my recent AmmoLand article notes. While lawfully armed visitors may carry in outdoor areas, the fair’s firearms policy bars them from entering buildings while armed, putting all enclosed exhibits and indoor restrooms off-limits to them.

Fox 8 Cleveland WJW reports Summit County Fair citizen disarmament measures will go even further. By requiring all attendees to enter via a newly built enclosed exhibit hall, fair management is essentially saying, “Hold our beer.

Citizen disarmament, enforced by “a bag checks and a mag meter” at the entrance and an increased police presence, will mandate a “gun-free zone” for the 50,000 estimated fairgoers (with law enforcement being the “Only Ones” excepted, of course).

“We’ve increased the count of deputies; we’re going to have drones in the air. The SWAT team will be here if needed,” Fair Director Howard Call declared. “And plus, the mounted patrol will be here just to ensure that everyone has a good time.”

“We’re not going to put up with any mischief,” Call added.  “You know, if people don’t obey the deputies, they will be escorted out.”

Armed enforcers coercing citizens into surrendering a fundamental right, leaving them defenseless to protect themselves and their families…? Mr. Call has a pretty cognitively dissonant definition of a good time.

So, why are they doing this?

Last year a 17-year-old was shot in the parking lot. Per a police report, “The suspect has been described as a black male wearing a Nike t-shirt with dreadlock-style hair and a tattoo on his neck. The suspect fled the scene in an unknown vehicle.”

Meaning, in order to get into the Summit County Fair, citizens, many with children, will need to leave their guns locked in their cars and proceed unarmed to and from the fair entrance in the lot where the shooting took place. Once more, criminals who don’t obey any laws will be used as an excuse to force peaceable people who observe the law into surrendering their rights.

As we’ve noted about the Ohio State Fair building ban, it is unconstitutional by any standard, particularly using the text, history, and tradition criteria the Supreme Court established in the Bruen decision. But that said, even if a strict scrutiny means-end evaluation test were to be invoked, just common sense says it should still fail, because the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right and there’s no compelling state interest that says guns are okay on one side of a door but need to be banned for public safety on the other.

Or in the case of the Summit County Fair, on one side of the enclosed entrance or the other. According to fair prohibitionists, with no evidence but just personal biases, armed citizens they encounter, mostly unknowingly, in daily life are the problem. That’s just bull.

Call and the Fair Board are imposing  their own prejudices to thumb their collective noses at the Bill of Rights and at Ohio law to impose an unconstitutional ban that ignores the Supreme Court’s findings. As the fair opened July 28 and will close on Sunday, they’ll probably get away with it, for this year anyway, unless someone can figure out a way to get an emergency injunction.

That’s something that’s got to change for next year, though. The Framers never intended for a small group of biased, unelected (by the people) bureaucrats to be able to overrule all three branches of government and deny rights to everyone. If it persists, it’s the type of civil rights violation AAG Harmeet Dhillon should put a stop to, that is, if Ohio Republicans in the legislature don’t step up first to do their job and end the fair building ban.

Perhaps they’re afraid to rock the boat before the midterms, as if Democrats aren’t going to vote against them regardless of any duties they abdicate or concessions they offer. If that’s the case, they should consider bold leadership and action could only help stoke the fires in gun voter’s bellies, whereas cowardice and inaction will only demoralize them and stifle it.

Perhaps if Mr. Ramaswamy pledged to sign such a bill…?

---

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/PCmdHzj
via IFTTT

Virginia’s AR-15 Ban Lawsuits Hit Strategic Pause as Supreme Court Takes Up AR-15 Question

Virginia’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and magazines remains blocked while major state and federal lawsuits await the U.S. Supreme Court’s rifle-ban decisions. img Duncan Johnson

Virginia’s legal campaign against commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines has reached an unusual point: The Commonwealth’s ban remains blocked, two major lawsuits have been paused, and nearly every party is now waiting for the U.S. Supreme Court to address the constitutional question Virginia lawmakers tried to avoid.

The two most important recent developments came in Santolla v. Katz, the NRA-backed state case that produced a statewide preliminary injunction, and McDonald v. Katz, the federal challenge brought jointly by individual gun owners, the NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation.

Both cases have been stayed pending the Supreme Court’s decisions in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the consolidated challenges to semi-automatic rifle bans in Illinois and Connecticut.

For Virginia gun owners, the good news is that the statewide injunction remains in place. The Commonwealth cannot presently enforce its ban while the Supreme Court prepares to decide whether state and local governments may prohibit rifles owned by millions of Americans. But delay is not necessarily a one-sided victory.

Virginia may also be betting that time will produce a more favorable Supreme Court of Virginia before the state constitutional issues return to Richmond.

Santolla Stay Leaves Statewide Injunction Intact

On July 28, Washington County Circuit Court entered an agreed order staying further proceedings in Santolla v. Katz until the Supreme Court decides Viramontes and Grant. The critical part is what the order did not do: It did not dissolve, narrow or suspend the statewide preliminary injunction.

Judge Jeffrey L. Campbell previously concluded that the Santolla plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that Virginia’s ban violates Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. He later clarified that the injunction against enforcement applies statewide, binding law-enforcement agencies and Commonwealth’s Attorneys throughout Virginia.

That means Virginians may continue purchasing and transferring the affected firearms and magazines while the case is stayed, barring some later appellate intervention.

The plaintiffs in Santolla include the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, Middletown Firearms, Middletown Training, Virginia Pride and several individual gun owners. They challenge legislation signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger that prohibits the sale, purchase, transfer, importation and manufacture of broadly defined “assault firearms” and magazines holding more than 15 rounds. In practical terms, the law targets ordinary AR-15s, other popular semi-automatic rifles and the magazines those firearms were designed to use.

Calling those rifles “assault firearms” does not change their constitutional status. They remain bearable arms overwhelmingly possessed by peaceable Americans for lawful purposes, including self-defense, training, competition, hunting, and simple readiness.

The stay preserves the best immediate position available to Virginia gun owners: The law remains blocked while the nation’s highest court considers substantially the same constitutional question.

McDonald Federal Challenge Also Paused

The federal lawsuit, McDonald v. Katz, was stayed several days earlier. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by Justin McDonald, Anthony Groeneveld, the NRA, FPC and SAF. Although the organizational announcements have sometimes caused confusion, SAF and FPC do not have separate federal Virginia rifle-ban cases. They are co-plaintiffs in McDonald.

The plaintiffs filed a consent motion on July 23 asking the federal court to pause the case pending the Supreme Court’s disposition of Viramontes and Grant. Judge Leonie Brinkema granted the stay on July 24.

Unlike Santolla, McDonald had not produced an independent preliminary injunction. The current statewide protection comes from Judge Campbell’s order in the state case. Still, staying the federal lawsuit makes sense.

The federal district court is bound by the Fourth Circuit’s en banc decision in Bianchi v. Brown, which upheld Maryland’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles. No matter how badly Bianchi conflicts with the text of the Second Amendment, the original public meaning of “Arms,” or the Supreme Court’s rejection of judicial interest balancing, it remains binding precedent within the Fourth Circuit unless the Supreme Court intervenes.

Marching McDonald toward an almost predetermined adverse ruling would accomplish little. Waiting preserves the claims and allows the plaintiffs to return after the Supreme Court has spoken directly about rifle bans.

If Viramontes holds that AR-15s and similar rifles are protected arms that cannot be banned, Virginia’s federal defense could collapse quickly. A district judge cannot ignore a controlling Supreme Court ruling simply because the Fourth Circuit previously adopted a narrower view of the Second Amendment.

Delay Could Also Help the Commonwealth

Gun owners should not assume, however, that Virginia agreed to the Santolla stay solely because it had no better option. The delay may also serve the Commonwealth’s long-term strategy.

Justice D. Arthur Kelsey’s current term on the Supreme Court of Virginia expires on January 31, 2027. Virginia Supreme Court justices are elected to 12-year terms by the General Assembly, meaning Democratic lawmakers could choose not to return Kelsey to the bench and instead select a replacement viewed as more receptive to the Commonwealth’s arguments.

The governor’s role is narrower than is sometimes suggested. Under the Virginia Constitution, the governor may make a temporary appointment when a vacancy occurs while the General Assembly is not in session, but the legislature ultimately elects the justice who serves the full term.

Kelsey recently authored the Supreme Court of Virginia’s 4-3 decision invalidating Democrats’ congressional-redistricting referendum. After that defeat, Democratic Delegate Dan Helmer publicly declared that Kelsey should not remain on the court when his term expires.

That political landscape is important to remember. By the time Santolla or another state constitutional case reaches Virginia’s highest court, its composition could be different. The Commonwealth may believe that waiting provides an opportunity to place the case before a court more willing to narrow Article I, Section 13 or limit the relief available to gun owners.

That does not mean a newly constituted state court could disregard the U.S. Supreme Court. The Second Amendment applies against Virginia through the Fourteenth Amendment, and the federal Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If Viramontes establishes that bans on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles violate the Second Amendment, no Virginia judge may lawfully invent a lower level of protection.

But a future Supreme Court of Virginia could still influence questions involving the independent meaning of Virginia’s right-to-arms provision, the scope of statewide relief, standing, procedural issues and remedies not expressly resolved by Viramontes.

The stay, therefore, cuts both ways. Gun owners keep the statewide injunction. Virginia keeps alive the possibility that a more favorable state bench will hear whatever questions remain after the Supreme Court rules.

Crump v. Katz Remains Active For Now

While Santolla and McDonald are paused, Crump v. Katz continues moving in Lancaster County Circuit Court, at least for now. The plaintiffs include John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation. The case challenges Virginia’s firearm and magazine restrictions under the Virginia Constitution.

On June 25, a preliminary injunction was granted, preventing Virginia State Police Superintendent Jeffrey Katz from implementing or enforcing the challenged provisions. The order remains effective through December 31, 2026, or until further action by the court.

Virginia then attempted to consolidate the state lawsuits before a single court, but a three-judge panel rejected that effort on July 6. The ruling allowed Crump, Santolla and the other cases to proceed independently.

Attorney General Jay Jones subsequently filed a motion to dismiss and demurrer. The Crump plaintiffs moved to enlarge the preliminary injunction and opposed the Commonwealth’s effort to stay the case. The scope of the Crump injunction has been one of the practical disputes separating it from Santolla. The Lancaster County order directly restrains Katz and the Virginia State Police, while Judge Campbell’s later clarification in Santolla expressly extended protection statewide across law-enforcement agencies and Commonwealth’s Attorneys.

Even so, Crump remains important because it keeps direct pressure on the Commonwealth and advances an independent argument under Virginia’s own constitutional text:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Those words are not a suggestion to the General Assembly. They are a command.

They do not allow judges to ask whether Richmond believes a rifle has too many features, whether a magazine holds more ammunition than a politician prefers or whether banning ordinary arms might produce some speculative policy benefit.

The text protects the people’s right to possess and carry arms. Virginia’s law targets arms. That should end the inquiry unless the Commonwealth can establish a historically grounded limitation consistent with the constitutional right as originally understood. It cannot.

NSSF’s Black v. Hook Case Continues Separately

The NSSF-funded lawsuit, Black v. Hook, remains pending in Fauquier County Circuit Court. Its plaintiffs include individual gun owners, Clark’s Gun Shop, Optimus Arms and magazine manufacturer Hexmag USA. The case challenges Virginia’s law under both the Second Amendment and the Virginia Constitution, giving it a particularly important firearm-industry dimension. These are not hypothetical injuries.

Retailers are prevented from selling lawful products. Manufacturers are blocked from making or distributing commonly owned arms and magazines. Customers are denied the ability to acquire firearms that millions of other Americans already possess.

NSSF sought emergency preliminary relief before the law’s July 1 effective date, but Black has not produced its own statewide injunction. Its plaintiffs currently benefit from the broader relief secured in Santolla.

Like Crump, the NSSF case survived Virginia’s failed consolidation effort and remains on its own track in Fauquier County.

That could prove valuable. The industry plaintiffs can develop a factual record showing the law’s real-world consequences for dealers, manufacturers, employees and customers—not merely the Commonwealth’s sanitized description of its ban.

Viramontes Now Hangs Over Every Virginia Case

Every one of these lawsuits now exists in the shadow of Viramontes and Grant. The central question is not complicated: May the government ban an entire class of rifles that are commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens? Under the Constitution’s text and original public meaning, the answer is no.

The rifles Virginia seeks to prohibit are “Arms.” They are bearable firearms commonly used for lawful purposes. Millions are in civilian hands. Standard-capacity magazines are integral components necessary to operate many of those firearms in their ordinary configuration. Once the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, Virginia bears the burden of proving that its ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

There is no Founding-era tradition of banning commonly owned rifles because the government disliked their appearance, operating system, magazine capacity or military heritage.

To the contrary, the Founding generation understood that the people were entitled to possess arms suitable for individual defense and militia service. The notion that a rifle becomes constitutionally suspect because it is effective, accurate, modular, or widely used turns the Second Amendment upside down.

Virginia’s arguments ultimately amount to the interest balancing rejected by District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Commonwealth wants courts to accept that its claimed public-safety objectives outweigh the people’s constitutional rights.

Virginia’s Ban Is Blocked, but the Fight Is Far From Over

For now, the immediate situation is favorable to Virginia gun owners. The statewide injunction in Santolla remains in effect. The federal claims in McDonald are preserved. Crump continues actively in Lancaster County, and the NSSF-backed Black case remains alive in Fauquier County. Yet the stays should not be mistaken for final victories.

Virginia may be playing for time, hoping that Democratic lawmakers can reshape the Supreme Court of Virginia before the state constitutional cases reach it. Gun owners, meanwhile, are relying on the existing injunction and the expectation that the U.S. Supreme Court will finally confront the constitutional fraud behind “assault weapon” bans.

Richmond tried to prohibit some of the most commonly owned rifles and magazines in America. Instead, it ran into multiple lawsuits, multiple injunctions and a Supreme Court preparing to decide whether states have any authority to ban those arms at all.

The law remains blocked. The cases remain alive. And no change in the personnel of a state court can place Virginia above the Second Amendment or the supreme Constitution it is bound to obey.

---

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/gcbsWZj
via IFTTT

New Jersey’s Safe-Storage Proposed Workaround Should Be Dead-on-Arrival

“New Jersey’s answer to losing on semi-automatic rifles and magazines is a bill that would render legal firearms inoperable at home — but the U.S. Supreme Court already told us that turns constitutionally-protected firearms into bricks, and the Third Circuit just quoted that ruling back to Trenton in the same opinion that struck down the state’s AR-15 ban.” — Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

New Jersey lawmakers, having just lost badly at the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, are casting about for a way to keep regulating guns out of existence without technically banning them. According to Politico’s July 23 report, Assembly Majority Leader Lou Greenwald is reviving Assembly Bill A3560, a measure that has languished in Trenton since 2021 without ever reaching a floor vote. It would apparently require gun owners to store every firearm in their home unloaded and locked, with stiff penalties for noncompliance. Greenwald told Politico the bill is “the next thing I’m looking to do” on gun control. In my view, such a law would not survive contact with the Constitution, and the Supreme Court told us why back in 2008.

A N.J. BILL REVIVED BY DESPERATION

The timing is not subtle. On July 17, 2026, the en banc Third Circuit ruled in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Attorney General New Jersey, consolidated with Cheeseman v. Davenport, No. 24-2415, that New Jersey’s bans on semi-automatic rifles — including the AR-15 — and on magazines holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment. That ruling dismantled a regulatory regime Governor Jim Florio signed in 1990.

With the assault-weapons ban and magazine ban effectively gone, Trenton Democrats are searching for a substitute that accomplishes the same disarmament by different means.

A Senate Democratic spokesperson told Politico only that the chamber is “evaluating all available legislative and legal options.” Greenwald’s answer appears to be: lock every gun up, unload it, and call it safety. It is nothing of the sort. A locked, unloaded firearm cannot be deployed against an intruder in the time a home invasion actually takes. What it can do is guarantee the law-abiding resident is unarmed at the one moment that the Second Amendment exists to address.

HELLER ALREADY ANSWERED THIS

The Supreme Court confronted this exact scheme in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), which struck down a D.C. law requiring that lawful firearms be kept “unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock.” Justice Scalia wrote for the Court: “We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.”

The Court rejected the District’s argument that the statute contained an implicit self-defense exception, noting that the D.C. Court of Appeals had already construed the statute, in McIntosh v. Washington, 395 A.2d 744 (D.C. 1978), to forbid residents from using stored firearms to stop intruders. A firearm that must be unloaded and locked before it can be fired is not a firearm at all for purposes of the emergency it exists to answer. It becomes a hammer, or a brick (at best).

Heller also forecloses the fallback argument that owners can keep one gun accessible so long as some guns are locked up. The Court held it “is no answer” that a prohibition on one class of arms is permissible “so long as the possession of other firearms (i.e., long guns) is allowed,” because Americans are entitled to choose the arm best suited to defending themselves, not the one the government deigns to leave operable.

THE THIRD CIRCUIT ALREADY QUOTED IT BACK TO TRENTON

New Jersey does not even get the luxury of relitigating this point regionally. The same en banc opinion that killed its rifle and magazine bans quoted Heller’s inoperability holding directly, describing the now-voided D.C. law as requiring “that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock at all times, rendering it inoperable.” The Third Circuit then cited Heller’s guarantee of “an individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation” — a right the Third Circuit noted, following New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), extends outside the home as well. A safe-storage mandate modeled on the D.C. law that Heller invalidated is not a novel legal theory for New Jersey to test. It is the losing argument, restated, in the circuit that just ruled against the state on the underlying weapons themselves.

SIDE BAR: A FURTHER NOTE ABOUT THE PHRASE “SEMI-AUTOMATIC RIFLES”

For the good of the order, I want to remind Team 2A that precision in terminology matters in our fight for the right to keep and bear arms. I have repeatedly explained that it is best to use the phrase “semi-automatic rifles” rather than alternative phrases such as “assault weapons” or even “modern sporting rifles.” The phrase “semi-automatic rifles” tracks the language of then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011), as well as the language of the questions now presented in the recent-cert grants before SCOTUS in the Grant v. Higgins and Viramontes v. Cook County cases. The semi-automatic rifle language ties such rifles to the semi-automatic handguns Heller already protects.

And the right to bear arms is not narrowly tailored to address only resisting government tyranny. No, the right to keep and bear arms is about protecting the ability to confront any grave threat to life, from a violent intruder to an armed assailant, to a terrorist, to a rabid animal. In that moment of confrontation, a firearm must be found, unlocked, and loaded before it functions as intended, i.e., to thwart all forms of tyranny.

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web

---

from https://ift.tt/ogfD9bd
via IFTTT

DOJ Says Virgin Islands Replaced One Unconstitutional Gun-Control Regime With Another

The Justice Department says the Virgin Islands cannot moot a federal Second Amendment lawsuit by replacing its former licensing law with Act 9113. iStock-1312189737

The U.S. Department of Justice says the Virgin Islands cannot escape a federal Second Amendment lawsuit by repealing one unconstitutional gun-control law and replacing it with another.

That argument comes in a July 29 opposition to the territory’s second motion to dismiss in United States v. Government of the Virgin Islands. The filing is the latest development in a fight AmmoLand has followed since the Justice Department first sued the Virgin Islands government, the Virgin Islands Police Department, and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks in December 2025 over excessive licensing delays, discretionary permitting, and firearm-license conditions imposed without statutory authority.

The DOJ’s original complaint accused VIPD of continuing to enforce a “proper reason” requirement after the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, while also demanding bolted-down gun safes and delaying some applications for months.

The dispute expanded after Virgin Islands lawmakers enacted Act 9113 in June. Rather than merely correcting the territory’s unconstitutional licensing system, the new law added restrictions on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, standard-capacity magazines, suppressors, firearm transportation, storage, and public carry.

On July 23, AmmoLand reported that DOJ had moved to block Act 9113’s rifle and magazine provisions after the en banc Third Circuit struck down New Jersey’s similar bans in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey, formerly known as Cheeseman v. Platkin.

The July 29 opposition answers the territory’s attempt to end the entire case. Virgin Islands officials argue that Act 9113 repealed the old licensing system and gave DOJ the relief it originally sought, leaving nothing for the federal court to decide.

DOJ says that badly misstates the case. According to the federal government, the lawsuit was never limited to one unconstitutional sentence in the Virgin Islands Code. It targets what DOJ describes as a years-long “pattern or practice” of police misconduct that deprived residents of their Second Amendment rights.

“The new statute does not address—much less remedy—all of VIPD’s misconduct,” DOJ argued. “Moreover, the new statute creates additional constitutional violations that will be the subject of a supplemental complaint.”

Act 9113, in other words, did not end the confrontation. DOJ says it created the next phase of it.

Virgin Islands Admits Former Licensing Rule Was Unconstitutional

The most significant development in the July 29 filing is DOJ’s claim that the defendants now admit the Virgin Islands’ former “proper reason” requirement violated the Second Amendment under Bruen. According to DOJ, territorial officials also admit they knew the requirement was unconstitutional more than two years ago but did not amend the statute until the federal government sued. The filing goes further. DOJ says requests for admission are deemed admitted, showing that VIPD denied one or more firearm-license applications under the unconstitutional proper-reason requirement in every year from 2022 through 2026.

That adds an important new fact. The original lawsuit alleged that VIPD maintained an unconstitutional may-issue system after Bruen. The July 29 opposition now claims the litigation record establishes that VIPD continued denying applications under that standard year after year.

This was not simply an obsolete statute gathering dust in the territorial code. According to the DOJ, it was an unconstitutional restriction that police continued to use against citizens seeking to exercise a fundamental right.

DOJ Details a Broader Pattern of Police Misconduct

The federal lawsuit is not limited to the territory’s former may-issue language. DOJ brought the case under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, which allows the federal government to seek equitable relief when law-enforcement officers engage in a pattern or practice of depriving people of constitutional rights. The July 29 filing alleges that VIPD’s misconduct extended well beyond the proper-reason requirement.

Among other things, DOJ says VIPD required firearm-license applicants to have a safe bolted to their homes even though no Virgin Islands statute imposed such a requirement. VIPD also allegedly required applicants to consent to warrantless searches, inspections, or other intrusions into their homes as a condition of obtaining a firearm license.

A citizen should never be forced to surrender Fourth Amendment protection inside his own home as the price of exercising his Second Amendment rights. But that was the choice gun owners faced in the Virgin Islands.

The filing also says VIPD:

• Routinely failed to process firearm-license applications within 120 days.
• Imposed application requirements not authorized by territorial statute.
• Used a “good moral character” standard without objective criteria.
• Refused to approve certain firearm models or types without statutory authority.
• Stopped issuing licenses for more than five weeks in 2026 because of malfunctioning equipment.
• Restricted some licensees to possessing firearms for self-defense only inside their homes.
• Regularly added discretionary restrictions not found in territorial law.

Perhaps most strikingly, DOJ says VIPD prohibited dealers from selling or distributing magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds even though the department had no statutory authority to impose such a ban.

That allegation reveals the real danger of treating the right to keep and bear arms as a police-administered privilege. Once officials believe they possess open-ended discretion over the right, the written law becomes only the beginning. Bureaucrats begin inventing restrictions that lawmakers never enacted and the Constitution never permitted.

The New 30-Day Deadline Is the Same as the Old One

The Virgin Islands argues that Act 9113 solves the licensing-delay problem because it requires the police commissioner to issue a license or provide written notice of denial within 30 days. DOJ points out one obvious problem: the old law also imposed a 30-day deadline. VIPD allegedly ignored it.

According to the complaint, some applications remained unresolved for as long as a year. DOJ also says VIPD routinely failed to adjudicate applications within 120 days.

The territory’s supposed solution to a police department that ignored the old 30-day deadline is therefore another 30-day deadline.

A statutory deadline has little value when the agency responsible for obeying it has already demonstrated that it considers such limits optional. That is why DOJ argues the court cannot simply accept officials’ assurances that the misconduct will not happen again.

Under the voluntary-cessation doctrine, defendants generally cannot moot a lawsuit merely by stopping challenged conduct after being sued. They carry the “formidable burden” of showing that the violation cannot reasonably be expected to recur. DOJ says the Virgin Islands has not come close to meeting that burden.

Act 9113 Creates New Second Amendment Problems

Act 9113 did far more than replace the Virgin Islands’ former may-issue licensing system. The law also targeted semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than 15 rounds, creating an immediate conflict with the Third Circuit’s recent en banc decision striking down New Jersey’s comparable bans.

The July 29 opposition places that earlier challenge within a broader argument: Act 9113 cannot moot the lawsuit because the new law allegedly continues the same pattern of unconstitutional enforcement while directing VIPD to commit additional Second Amendment violations.

DOJ identifies provisions involving public carry, the transportation of long guns, firearm storage, license suspensions, suppressors, magazines, and restrictions on protected firearms. The government expects to add those issues to a supplemental complaint following an August 19 hearing.

The filing also relies on the Third Circuit’s decision in Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs v. Attorney General New Jersey. AmmoLand has covered that ruling extensively because it struck down New Jersey’s bans on covered semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds.

That precedent is especially important here because the Virgin Islands is within the Third Circuit. The territory cannot dismiss Cheeseman/ANJRPC as the opinion of a distant court addressing an unrelated state law. It is the controlling appellate authority for the federal district court now considering Act 9113.

Virgin Islands Accused of Stonewalling Discovery

The federal government also accuses the defendants of refusing to provide information needed to determine the full extent of VIPD’s conduct.

DOJ says the Virgin Islands would not disclose how many applications were delayed beyond the statutory deadline, why those delays occurred, or how often the proper-reason standard was used to deny licenses. A motion to compel discovery is reportedly forthcoming.

That puts the territory in an awkward position. Officials are asking the court to trust their assurances that the unconstitutional behavior has ended while allegedly withholding evidence that could confirm or disprove those assurances.

The court should not dismiss a constitutional case based on promises from officials who have not fully disclosed what they did, how long they did it, or whether they are still doing it.

A New Chapter in the Same Constitutional Violation

DOJ offers a useful analogy in the filing. Suppose a police department faced a federal lawsuit because its officers routinely violated the Fourth Amendment by choking suspects. If the officers stopped choking people but began beating them with nightsticks, the department could not credibly argue that the case was moot because the original method of abuse had changed.

The same basic principle applies here. The alleged constitutional violation was not merely one sentence in the Virgin Islands Code. It was a governmental practice of treating the right to keep and bear arms as something police officials could delay, condition, restrict, or deny at their discretion.

Repealing the proper-reason requirement does not erase warrantless home-inspection demands, unauthorized firearm restrictions, police-created magazine bans, year-long delays, or continuing enforcement under Act 9113.

The federal government’s July 29 filing turns the Virgin Islands’ mootness argument on its head. Act 9113 is not necessarily proof that the territory corrected its conduct. It may instead become additional evidence that the same constitutional violations are continuing under a different statute.

The Second Amendment is not a licensing privilege bestowed by police. It is a fundamental right secured by the Constitution. The Virgin Islands cannot avoid judicial review by changing the label on its gun-control regime while continuing to burden the people “in the same fundamental way.”

---

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/Hb2hLyD
via IFTTT

Trump DOJ Defends NFA Gun Registry Despite Supreme Court’s Wolford Ruling

The Justice Department argues that the Supreme Court’s decision in Wolford v. Lopez does not meaningfully affect the constitutional challenge to the NFA’s regulation of suppressors and short-barreled rifles. Image Duncan Johnson

Something is not adding up inside President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice.

The administration has created a Second Amendment enforcement unit, intervened on behalf of gun owners in major constitutional cases and publicly promised to protect the right to keep and bear arms. Yet DOJ attorneys continue filing lower-court briefs that sound as though Merrick Garland never left the building.

Constitutional attorney Mark Smith, host of The Four Boxes Diner, is calling attention to the latest and perhaps most glaring example: the government’s July 27 supplemental brief in Brown v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. The case, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, challenges the National Firearms Act’s continued regulation and registration of short-barreled rifles and suppressors.

After the Supreme Court decided Wolford v. Lopez, the district court ordered the parties to explain what effect that ruling has on the NFA challenge.

DOJ’s answer could hardly have been more dismissive:

“In short, Wolford does not meaningfully affect how this Court should resolve plaintiffs’ Second Amendment challenge.”

That is an extraordinary position for a supposedly pro-Second Amendment administration to take.

The same Justice Department that supported the challengers in Wolford is now telling a lower court that the Supreme Court’s clarification of the Second Amendment framework provides “no meaningful guidance” when that guidance threatens a federal gun-control program.

DOJ Says Wolford Is Basically Irrelevant

DOJ attempts to distinguish Wolford by arguing that the case concerned where firearms may be carried, while Brown concerns what weapons the government may regulate.

The brief states:

“Wolford thus concerns how a government may permissibly regulate where firearms are possessed.”

According to DOJ, that question is “conceptually distinct” from the issues presented in Brown. But that framing sidesteps the central point raised by Smith.

Wolford did more than strike down Hawaii’s default ban on carrying firearms on private property open to the public. The decision also clarified the sequence courts must follow under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

First, courts examine the Second Amendment’s plain text. Does the law apply to “the people”? Does it concern “Arms”? And, does it restrict keeping or bearing those arms? When the text applies, the challenged law is presumptively unconstitutional. The government must then establish that its restriction is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. That division between text and history matters enormously in Brown.

The government wants courts to place the “common use” question at the first stage, forcing gun owners to prove that a particular weapon is sufficiently popular before the burden ever shifts to the government. But whether an arm is “dangerous and unusual” is a historically derived limitation. It belongs in the historical inquiry, where the government bears the burden.

As Justice Amy Coney Barrett explained in her Wolford concurrence, courts may not “smuggle additional limits” drawn from regulatory tradition into the plain-text stage.

Smith’s criticism is straightforward: DOJ is doing precisely what the Supreme Court warned courts not to do.

DOJ Stretches Miller Beyond Its Holding

The government next argues that United States v. Miller and District of Columbia v. Heller foreclose the challenge to the NFA’s regulation of short-barreled rifles.

DOJ writes:

“As Miller and Heller make clear, ‘the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.’”

The brief then claims that the principle applied to short-barreled shotguns in Miller “applies equally to short-barreled rifles.”

Miller involved a short-barreled shotgun. It did not involve a short-barreled rifle. It did not involve a suppressor. The Supreme Court heard no argument on behalf of the defendants, and the decision was rendered on an undeveloped record. The Court did not establish a blanket rule that every weapon Congress placed under the NFA falls outside the Second Amendment.

Heller itself demonstrates why DOJ’s argument is wrong. If Miller had already resolved the constitutional status of weapons outside some government-defined category, there would have been no need for the Supreme Court in Heller to examine whether handguns were commonly possessed by Americans for lawful purposes. Instead, the Court considered the specific arms banned by the District of Columbia and determined that handguns were overwhelmingly chosen for lawful self-defense.

The district court in this case must likewise analyze short-barreled rifles as short-barreled rifles–not simply pretend they are constitutionally indistinguishable from the shotgun involved in Miller.

Compact rifles, including pistols in rifle calibers, are owned by large numbers of Americans and are used for lawful purposes including home defense, vehicle defense, training, hunting and recreation. DOJ cannot evade that reality by stretching a 1939 decision beyond the weapon and record actually before the Court.

DOJ Wants Gun Owners to Carry the Government’s Burden

The Justice Department also insists that Wolford does not override Eighth Circuit precedent placing common use at Bruen’s first step.

The brief states:

“Wolford never mentions this inquiry … much less addresses how it fits within Bruen’s analytical framework.”

DOJ further argues that judges continue to debate whether common use belongs at the first or second step. That may accurately describe an ongoing judicial disagreement, but it does not answer the originalist argument. The plain-text inquiry determines whether the object is an “Arm”—a weapon customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes.

Whether an arm may be excluded as dangerous and unusual comes from historical tradition. “Common use” is relevant because an arm possessed by ordinary Americans for lawful purposes cannot reasonably be called unusual. That analysis must occur after the text is satisfied. Otherwise, the government can impose a ban or registration requirement, suppress ownership through that restriction and then argue that the arm is not common enough to receive constitutional protection. That is circular and it rewards the government for successfully burdening the right.

The Second Amendment does not protect only those arms that citizens can first prove sufficiently common to a judge. It protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms, placing the burden on the government to justify infringements through history.

DOJ Calls the NFA a “Shall-Issue Licensing Scheme”

The most disturbing portion of the brief may be DOJ’s attempt to rebrand the National Firearms Act.

The government asserts:

“The NFA is a presumptively constitutional shall-issue licensing scheme.”

That description would be laughable if the consequences were not so serious. The NFA requires Americans to obtain government approval before making or receiving covered firearms. It requires the firearm to be registered to its possessor and imposes severe criminal penalties for possessing an unregistered NFA item.

The brief concedes the central feature of the system:

“The NFA requires, among other things, that the firearm be registered to whomever will possess it.”

Yet DOJ insists the plaintiffs are wrong to distinguish registration from licensing because the registration is merely one condition for receiving government permission. That argument proves too much. A license generally establishes that a person is legally eligible to exercise a regulated activity. Registration records specific property and connects it to a particular citizen in a government database.

The NFA does both, but its firearm registry is neither incidental nor imaginary.

Then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh drew that distinction in his Heller II dissent. Kavanaugh concluded that the District of Columbia’s broad firearm-registration requirement lacked support in the Nation’s historical tradition and was substantially more burdensome than traditional licensing or dealer recordkeeping.

Kavanaugh’s opinion was a dissent and therefore not binding precedent, but his historical analysis presents the question DOJ would rather avoid:

Where is the American tradition of forcing peaceable citizens to register lawfully possessed arms with the federal government?

One Bad Brief Can Tarnish the Entire Record

Smith compares these lower-court filings to a bug landing in an otherwise excellent bowl of soup. The administration may build a strong record on the Second Amendment, but Americans will remember the cases in which its own attorneys defended federal registries, shifted constitutional burdens onto gun owners and minimized Supreme Court precedent.

DOJ lawyers do not swear an oath to preserve every federal statute. They swear an oath to the Constitution.

When the government must choose between defending inherited federal power and honoring the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, there should be no confusion about which comes first. The Trump administration has repeatedly said it intends to protect the right to keep and bear arms. The filing in Brown v. ATF does the opposite.

---

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/M7tRzVJ
via IFTTT

Colorado’s Semi-Auto Ban Says August 1–But Gun Buyers Were Cut Off July 28

Colorado’s SB25-003 formally takes effect August 1, 2026, but the state’s mandatory three-day waiting period made July 28 the final practical day to begin an ordinary purchase of a covered semi-automatic firearm. IMG Duncan Johnson

Colorado’s sweeping restrictions on purchasing common semi-automatic firearms formally take effect on August 1, 2026. For law-abiding Coloradans, however, the real deadline arrived three days earlier.

Because Colorado already forces firearm purchasers to endure a mandatory three-day waiting period before taking possession, Tuesday, July 28, was the final practical day to begin an ordinary purchase of a firearm covered by Senate Bill 25-003.

A transaction initiated on July 29 could not be completed until August 1—the same day Colorado begins prohibiting the purchase, sale, or transfer of covered semi-automatic firearms unless the buyer first navigates the state’s new permission process. Colorado has therefore used one infringement on the right to keep and bear arms to accelerate another.

The three-day waiting period did not merely inconvenience prospective gun buyers. It erased the final three days during which Coloradans were supposedly still free to acquire some of America’s most common firearms without first obtaining government approval.

Colorado’s Real Deadline Was July 28

Colorado law prohibits a dealer from delivering a firearm until the later of three days after initiating the required background check or final approval of that background check. Delivering the firearm before that waiting period expires can subject a seller to civil penalties. SB25-003 separately prohibits knowingly manufacturing, distributing, transferring, selling, or purchasing a “specified semiautomatic firearm” beginning August 1.

Put those two laws together, and the practical result is straightforward.

A buyer who began a transaction on July 28 could potentially complete the waiting period and take possession on July 31. A buyer who began the same lawful transaction on July 29 would remain trapped in Colorado’s mandatory waiting period when SB25-003 took effect.

The firearm was lawful to purchase when the transaction began. The purchaser may have passed the required background check and paid the dealer. Yet Colorado itself prevented delivery long enough for a second law to attach and prohibit completion of the transaction.

One Infringement Accelerates Another

Waiting-period advocates commonly dismiss a mandatory delay as a minor inconvenience. A citizen, they argue, can still obtain the firearm eventually. That position misunderstands the nature of a constitutional right.

A person who lawfully purchased and is legally entitled to possess a firearm should not be forced to wait three days before taking possession of his own property. The Second Amendment contains no waiting period, cooling-off period, or exception allowing the government to postpone the right until officials decide enough time has passed.

A constitutional right does not cease being infringed simply because the infringement has a scheduled expiration.

Colorado’s latest maneuver exposes the danger more clearly. Here, the waiting period does not end with the delayed buyer taking possession. Instead, the delay carries the buyer across the effective date of an additional prohibition that may prevent the transaction from being completed at all.

Colorado created a three-day legal barrier and then used that barrier to make its new acquisition ban effective three days early.

Today, CSSA demanded that CBI immediately fix firearm background-check delays now approaching two days.

With SB25-003 taking effect Aug. 1, these delays could block lawful purchases and force Coloradans into the unconstitutional permitting scheme.

We’re already fighting to… pic.twitter.com/RUMyZpcjEf

— Colorado State Shooting Association (@CSSA1926) July 27, 2026

Acquisition Is Protected by the Second Amendment

Anti-gun politicians will claim it is not a firearms ban because Coloradans who already own covered firearms are generally not required to surrender them. That argument is constitutionally hollow.

The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. A citizen cannot keep an arm he is legally forbidden to obtain. He cannot bear an arm that the government prohibits him from purchasing, receiving, or replacing.

A government could destroy the Second Amendment without confiscating a single firearm if it were permitted to outlaw all future acquisition. Existing firearms would eventually break, wear out, become unavailable, or pass out of private hands. Current owners would grow old and die while the next generation remained legally prohibited from acquiring the same arms.

Grandfathering current owners does not transform an acquisition ban into something constitutionally benign. It simply imposes the ban prospectively.

The Second Amendment does not protect only those fortunate enough to own a firearm before a government-selected cutoff date. It protects “the right of the people”—including new gun owners, young adults entering the firearms community, and future generations of Americans.

A Government Permission Slip for Common Arms

Beginning August 1, Coloradans seeking to purchase firearms covered by SB25-003 must first navigate a state-controlled approval system.

The law broadly reaches specified semi-automatic rifles and shotguns with detachable magazines, along with certain gas-operated semi-automatic handguns, such as AR-style pistols.

A prospective buyer must obtain eligibility to participate in the required training process, submit to additional checks and fees, complete state-approved instruction, pass an examination, and have the results entered into a state-maintained record system before a dealer may complete the transaction.

Colorado Parks and Wildlife states that applicants without qualifying hunter education must complete a 12-hour extended firearms course conducted over at least two days. Students must score at least 90 percent on the final examination, after which the instructor has up to three business days to enter the results into the state database.

That is not simply firearm-safety education. It is a permit-to-purchase structure in which the default rule is prohibition and the citizen must obtain the government’s approval to escape it.

For generations, Americans understood that their rights belonged to them—not that those rights were privileges distributed by state officials after payment, instruction, testing, and recordkeeping.

SB25-003 turns that principle upside down.

Where Is the Historical Tradition?

Under the Supreme Court’s text-and-history framework, Colorado bears the burden of demonstrating that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The relevant question is not whether governments historically regulated commercial activity in some general sense. Nor is it enough to find an isolated law involving gunpowder storage, militia inspections, or the misuse of weapons.

Colorado must identify a relevant historical tradition of forcing ordinary, peaceable citizens to obtain government permission, pay government-imposed costs, complete mandatory instruction, pass an examination, and enter a state recordkeeping system before acquiring commonly possessed arms. The historical record points in the opposite direction.

Founding-era militia laws frequently required citizens to acquire arms and appear equipped for service. The law presumed that responsible citizens would possess weapons suitable for lawful defense and the common defense.

Colorado now presumes that citizens may not acquire covered firearms unless they first prove themselves to the government. That is not a historical analogue. It is a reversal of the founding principle.

The Fight Moves to Federal Court

The Colorado State Shooting Association is challenging SB25-003 in federal court in Del Toro v. Polis. The lawsuit argues that the state’s restrictions burden the Second Amendment through delays, costs, training mandates, testing, recordkeeping, and a prohibition on acquiring protected firearms without prior government approval.

CSSA Executive Director Huey Laugesen correctly identified what remains unchanged when the calendar reaches August 1.

“Tomorrow, the Constitution will say exactly what it says today,” Laugesen said. “What changes on August 1 is that the State of Colorado will place a bureaucratic obstacle course between law-abiding citizens and the exercise of a constitutional right.”

Colorado lawmakers may pretend that SB25-003 merely regulates the process of buying a firearm. In reality, the law prohibits acquisition unless a citizen successfully navigates that obstacle course. And because Colorado’s existing waiting period prevented immediate delivery of otherwise lawful purchases, the state began closing that gate on July 29. Three days before the new restriction was officially scheduled to take effect.

---

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/myUlD34
via IFTTT