Sunday, April 12, 2026

Spanberger Signs Virginia Ghost Gun Ban With No Grandfather Clause

Virginia gun owners just got another reminder that when anti-gun politicians talk about “public safety,” what they often mean is more control over peaceable citizens.

Governor Abigail Spanberger has signed HB40 into law, adding Virginia to the growing list of states targeting so-called “ghost guns,” the media-approved label for privately made firearms (PMFs) and unserialized frames or receivers. Under the bill, the Commonwealth is moving to ban the manufacture, transfer, sale, importation, and eventually even possession of unserialized firearms and unfinished frames or receivers unless they are brought into the government-approved serialization system. Most of the law takes effect January 1, 2027, while the possession ban takes effect July 1, 2027.

For generations, Americans have made their own firearms for lawful personal use. It is part of the country’s history, part of the gun culture, and part of the broader understanding that free citizens do not need government permission to build lawful arms for themselves. HB40 tries to end that.

Virginia’s new law goes well beyond banning guns that anti-gun politicians love to talk about. It creates a new section of law targeting unserialized firearms and unfinished frames or receivers. The bill makes it unlawful to knowingly import, purchase, sell, transfer, manufacture, or assemble covered items without a valid serial number, and it separately makes possession of an unserialized firearm or covered frame or receiver unlawful once the delayed possession provision takes effect. The bill also lays out a process under which a federal firearms licensee can imprint a serial number and retain transaction records.

The political sales pitch is “traceability.” The practical effect is forced serialization, mandatory paper trails, and another step toward turning a traditionally private activity into one that passes through a regulated intermediary. In plain English, Virginia is telling gun owners that if they want to keep a privately made firearm, it has to be registered in a system the government can inspect and track.

Forced serialization is not really about engraving numbers on metal. It is about forcing privately made firearms into a government-legible system. Once the state knows what you have and where it is, confiscation becomes much easier to enforce. That is why gun owners have long viewed registration schemes not as harmless bureaucracy, but as the foundation for future confiscation.

What makes this law especially dangerous is that it does not truly grandfather in the older, privately made firearms that law-abiding Virginians already own. Rather than leaving existing guns alone, the state is forcing owners of those firearms into a serialization and recordkeeping scheme if they want to remain on the right side of the law. That means this is not just a ban on future conduct. It is a retroactive-style crackdown on possession, with only a narrow set of exceptions for antiques, certain pre-1968 firearms, some nonresidents, law enforcement, and new residents who comply within 90 days.

Under the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment framework, the government cannot wave around public-safety talking points and call it a day. If the plain text covers the conduct, the burden shifts to the government to show a historical tradition of analogous regulation. That is where Virginia has a real problem.

The right to keep and bear arms necessarily assumes a right to acquire arms. And acquisition is not limited to buying from a store. Americans acquire firearms in a few obvious ways: they buy them, inherit them, or make them. A law that directly burdens the lawful making of firearms for personal use is burdening conduct that sits very close to the core of the right itself.

The state will now have to explain where, exactly, this Nation has a historical tradition of forcing peaceable citizens to serialize personally made firearms and place them into a recordkeeping system simply to keep them lawfully in the home. That is a steep hill to climb.

As Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner highlighted in his latest video, Virginia’s law also collides with the deeper American tradition of private gunmaking. As Joseph Greenlee explains in the NRA’s amicus brief in Bondi v. VanDerStok, early Americans were not treated like suspects for making their own arms. Private gunmaking was widespread, lawful, and often encouraged in a nation that understood an armed citizenry had to be capable of acquiring arms independently. That history cuts directly against modern laws that force homemade firearms into a serialized and traceable government-readable system. In other words, Virginia is not preserving an American tradition here. It is breaking with one.

The immediate takeaway is simple: this bad law is on the books, but the key compliance dates are still ahead.

That gives gun-rights groups, affected gun owners, and potentially the Department of Justice time to decide whether and how to challenge it. Gov. Spanberger announced the signing on April 10, and the law’s staged effective dates mean the legal fight may start before the possession ban fully kicks in.

Virginia Democrats are not just regulating criminal misuse. They are targeting the idea that a free American can still make a lawful firearm outside a state-managed chain of custody.

Once the government gets the power to demand serialization and records for homemade firearms, nobody should pretend the fight ends there. The same political faction that says it only wants “untraceable guns” off the street has already shown, over and over again, that it is willing to push through any gun control it can when it has the votes.

Virginia’s HB40 is not just a “ghost gun” bill. It is a challenge to the tradition of private firearms manufacture in America and another example of lawmakers treating the Second Amendment like a regulated privilege instead of a constitutional guarantee.

Gun owners should pay close attention to what comes next, because this law is exactly the kind of measure that could become a serious Bruen test case.

And if the courts are willing to apply the Second Amendment as written instead of as hostile politicians wish it read, Virginia may have a hard time defending this one.

DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills


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.

Duncan Johnson




from https://ift.tt/hoNYv72
via IFTTT

New York Subway Attack Underscores the Failure of ‘Sensitive Places’ Gun Bans

The Grand Central machete attack is exactly the kind of real-world example gun owners should point to when anti-gun politicians insist that “sensitive places” laws make the public safer.

On Saturday morning, April 11, police say 44-year-old Anthony Griffin randomly attacked three people with a machete inside the 42nd Street–Grand Central subway station before NYPD officers shot and killed him when he refused repeated commands to drop the weapon and advanced toward them. By the time police stopped the threat, an 84-year-old man, a 65-year-old man, and a 70-year-old woman had already been badly injured. AP reported the victims’ injuries were serious but not believed to be life-threatening.

That is the ugly truth behind New York’s so-called “sensitive places” regime. New York and other anti-gun states can put all the signs they want on the wall and write all the criminal statutes they want into the books, but violent criminals do not care. They do not stop and think, “This subway station is a prohibited area, so I guess I won’t carry a weapon today.” Criminals do not reconsider because Albany declared a crowded public space off-limits to concealed carry permit holders. They simply go where people are vulnerable and do what they were already planning to do. Meanwhile, the people who actually obey the law are the ones forced to go unarmed.

New York’s Concealed Carry Improvement Act explicitly treats public transportation and transit facilities as “sensitive locations.” The law covers not just subway cars and train cars, but also stations and other transit facilities connected to passenger transportation. State guidance is even clearer: licensed citizens cannot legally carry firearms in “public transportation and transit facilities,” even if they have a concealed carry license.

That means ordinary, law-abiding New Yorkers are expected to enter one of the most crowded and unpredictable environments in the country without the most effective means of self-defense, all because the state has decided that being around a lot of people somehow makes your right to bear arms disappear.

A New York City subway station is not a courtroom. It is not a secure screening zone at an airport checkpoint. It is a public thoroughfare used by working people, families, the elderly, tourists, and commuters who have no choice but to pass through confined spaces, blind corners, stairwells, platforms, and rail cars with strangers every single day. If anything, that environment strengthens the case for lawful concealed carry. It does not weaken it.

Grand Central just proved the point again.

The only thing that stopped the attacker was armed law enforcement. The officers involved deserve credit for ending the attack before even more people were hurt. But it also highlights the deeper problem with “sensitive places” laws. Police did not prevent the attack. Police responded to it. They arrived in time to end it, but not before three innocent people had already been cut up by a man carrying a machete in a place where the law had already ensured the decent people around him were unlikely to be armed.

Anti-gun lawmakers always want the public to imagine an idealized version of these laws where everyone dangerous is disarmed and everyone harmless is protected. In reality, it works the other way around. The violent criminal ignores the law. The intended victim obeys it. The government then congratulates itself for preserving a “gun-free zone” after the blood is already on the floor.

Gun owners have been told that certain places are simply too crowded, too sensitive, too emotionally important, or too administratively complicated to allow lawful carry. But none of those labels changes the basic constitutional question. The right to bear arms does not evaporate whenever politicians decide a place has excessive foot traffic. And from a practical standpoint, density is not an argument against self-defense. It is often the reason self-defense matters more.

The state’s job should not be to monopolize self-defense in places where police, no matter how professional or well-intentioned, will almost always arrive after the violence has started. A constitutional system worthy of the name should trust law-abiding adults with the means to protect themselves, especially in the kinds of public places where random violence can erupt without warning.

That is why the Grand Central attack should not just be treated as another ugly crime story. It should be seen for what it is: a direct indictment of the “sensitive places” mindset that has spread through blue-state gun control regimes. These laws do not create safety. They create victim zones. They disarm the very people most likely to follow the rules and leave them dependent on a government response that, by definition, comes after the attack begins.

New York can keep calling the subway a “sensitive place” if it wants. But words do not stop machetes. Signs do not stop psychopaths. And criminal statutes do not stop men who are already willing to butcher strangers in public. What stops that kind of violence is immediate force.

In Grand Central, that force came from armed police, but only after three innocent people were already bleeding. Law-abiding citizens should not be forced to wait helplessly for that moment to arrive. They should have the right to defend themselves before the damage is done.

SCOTUS Lets Illinois Public Transit Carry Ban Stand, Leaving a Dangerous “Sensitive Places” Theory in Place


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.Duncan Johnson




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

Long Island Dentist Sues Nassau County Police for Illegal Firearms Seizure

Long Island Dentist Sues Nassau County Police For Illegal Firearms Seizure
Long Island dentist Paul Carey is suing Nassau County Police after a 2022 raid on his Massapequa home led to charges later thrown out. iStock-1304844629

A Long Island dentist is suing the Nassau County Police after a 2022 botched raid at his Massapequa home.

In 2022, the Nassau County Police SWAT team raided the home of Long Island dentist Paul Carey, who ran his dental practice out of his Massapequa residence. The raid was the result of a 911 call placed by an employee who claimed the dentist was brandishing a gun after yelling her name while smelling of alcohol. The employee never said she was being targeted. Two dozen officers and an armored SWAT vehicle responded to the call. The police broke through his front door with a battering ram. The police did not have a warrant.

Inside the home, law enforcement officers found several guns, seven silencers, over 3,000 rounds of ammunition (Carey claims over 4,000 rounds), 61 standard-capacity magazines, and tooling to make privately manufactured firearms (PMFs). Nassau County Police charged the man with 73 counts of various weapon violations. Mr. Carey contended that all the firearms and accessories were obtained legally.

But there was a major problem with the raid. The police lacked a warrant, and the employee was not in danger. The employee stated that the dentist thought there was an intruder. The Nassau County Police could have waited to obtain a warrant and comply with the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. Instead, they acted without legal authority, disregarding Carey’s Fourth Amendment rights.

Police obtained written consent to search the home from the dentist’s wife, Darlene Carey, but Ms. Carey did not live there. Further complicating the situation was the fact that the police entered the home before getting written consent. Even if the consent was valid – which is in question since his wife did not live in the residence – consent cannot be retroactive. This means that any evidence the police found was already spoiled (the fruit of the poisonous tree).

New York State Supreme Court Justice Robert Schwartz dismissed all charges, stating that the police should have waited for a judge to sign and authorize a search warrant. Prosecutors appealed the ruling, but the Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, upheld the dismissal. The raid and apparent violations of Carey’s civil rights led the dentist to sue the police department in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, a federal trial court.

Mr. Carey is suing for $2 million, alleging multiple violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, which protect individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures. He also alleges false arrest and imprisonment, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Additionally, he claims emotional distress and that officers were negligently hired, trained, or supervised. He seeks to recover legal fees, compensation for damage to his home, lost income from his dental practice due to reputational damage, and punitive damages.

“Government actors still need to be forced to comply with the constitutional principles of liberty, equality, and due process,” Carey’s attorney, David Gray, told amNewYork Law. “Dr. Carey’s life was completely turned upside down, needlessly, and that’s why we’re seeking relief.”

Mr. Carey also claims that the police have not returned all his property. The police did not just take his firearms and ammunition –  they also took several thousand dollars’ worth of wine that is still missing. The Nassau County Police did not respond to AmmoLand News’s request for comment.

DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills


About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump




from https://ift.tt/mo84SA9
via IFTTT

Friday, April 10, 2026

DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills

For years, gun owners have watched blue-state politicians pass one unconstitutional restriction after another while the federal government mostly stood on the sidelines. That may be changing.

In a April 10, 2026, letter to Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon put the Commonwealth on formal notice: if Virginia enacts a slate of anti-gun bills now sitting on the governor’s desk, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is prepared to sue.

That is the federal government warning a state executive, in writing, that certain proposed gun-control measures appear to violate the Second Amendment and will trigger litigation if signed into law.

The biggest target named in the letter is SB 749, which DOJ says would force Virginia law enforcement agencies to participate in “a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.”

For ordinary gun owners, this is the heart of the issue. Anti-gun lawmakers have incessantly sought to ban the most popular rifles in America as “public safety” measures. AR-15 pattern rifles are not rare, unusual, or outside the American tradition of lawful ownership. They are among the most commonly owned rifles in the country, used for home defense, recreation, training, and competition by millions of law-abiding citizens.

Dhillon’s letter cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, noting the Court described AR-15s as “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” She also cites Garland v. Cargill, including Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, for the proposition that AR-15s are “commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.” The letter then points to Justice Kavanaugh’s statement respecting denial of certiorari in Snope v. Brown, which referenced arms possessed by “literally tens of millions of Americans.”

In a footnote, the letter acknowledges that the Fourth Circuit currently has contrary precedent, citing Bianchi v. Brown, the case upholding Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons. But DOJ flatly says that the case was wrongly decided. That is a major statement. Federal agencies do not lightly send a governor a formal warning letter saying a controlling appellate decision in that circuit was wrong.

The letter also goes beyond rifle bans. Dhillon warns that bills requiring constitutionally protected firearms to be kept in an inoperable state are unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller.

Gun-control advocates love to market storage mandates as “common sense,” but the actual effect is often to make a defensive firearm less useful when seconds matter most. Heller dealt with that problem directly when it struck down a requirement that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. A gun locked up in a way that prevents ready access for self-defense is not much use when someone kicks your door in at 2 a.m.

Dhillon says Virginia lawmakers have sent the governor several bills that would mirror restrictions struck down in Heller or otherwise interfere with the lawful use of protected arms for self-defense. She then broadens the warning further, stating that the General Assembly has forwarded “over 20 bills” restricting Second Amendment rights.

The Civil Rights Division has now formally created a Second Amendment Section and has already begun bringing Second Amendment cases in federal district and appellate courts. States like Virginia may no longer be able to assume they can pass whatever they want and dare private plaintiffs to spend years and fortunes challenging it.

Under Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has already begun treating the Second Amendment like an actual civil right instead of a constitutional orphan. Her division sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over concealed-carry permit delays after reviewing thousands of applications, sued the District of Columbia over its ban on registering AR-15s and other common semiautomatic firearms, and sued the Virgin Islands Police Department over licensing practices DOJ said reduced the right to bear arms to a “virtual nullity.”

Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division has also filed amicus briefs backing gun owners in major appellate fights, including California’s ammunition background-check case in Rhode v. Bonta and the New Jersey challenge to bans on AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines. In other words, Virginia is not hearing empty talk. It is hearing from a DOJ Civil Rights Division that has already started building a record of intervening when governments treat the Second Amendment as optional.

Of course, gun owners should stay realistic. This letter is not a court order. It is not an injunction. It does not prevent Virginia from enacting these bills on its own. If the Governor Spanberger signs them, litigation will still take time, no matter how aggressive the DOJ chooses to be. It also does nothing to solve the news that the ATF and DOJ plan to enforce Biden-era gun control, as well as a long list of recent betrayals.

However, it is still significant that a formal warning from the Civil Rights Division was sent before the bills were signed into law. It tells Virginia lawmakers and the governor that they are not just picking a fight with gun-rights groups anymore. They may be picking a fight with the federal government as well.

That is exactly what should happen when a state moves to ban some of the most common firearms in America and restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep usable arms for self-defense.

For too long, anti-gun politicians have behaved as though the Second Amendment is the one constitutional right they can regulate, narrow, and insult without consequence. Virginia may be about to learn that this approach comes with consequences after all.

If Governor Spanberger signs these bills, the next fight may not just be in Richmond. It may begin with the Department of Justice walking into federal court and telling a judge that Virginia crossed a constitutional line.

ATF to Keep Biden-Era Frames and Receivers Rule in Place


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.Duncan Johnson




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

Maryland Democrats Move to Ban Glock-Style Pistols

9mm pistols arranged on a counter of a home-based gun store.
Maryland lawmakers have advanced a bill targeting many Glock-style handguns, raising major constitutional questions over a ban on common-use firearms. iStock-2187744341

Maryland lawmakers have sent a bill to Governor Wes Moore’s desk that would ban most Glock pistols and Glock clones, making it the second state in the nation, after California, to attempt a Glock ban.

Prince George’s County Democrat Del. Nicole Williams introduced the bill in the Maryland House of Delegates as HB 577. A Senate companion bill (SB 334) was introduced by Montgomery County Democrat Sen. Sara Love. Both bills passed the legislature after party-line votes. The legislation criminalizes the transfer of any pistols with a cruciform trigger bar after January 2027. These pistols include Gen 1-5 Glocks and Glock clones. Glocks are one of the most popular firearms brands in the country.

“If you currently own one, you can keep it,” said Williams during the House debate on the bill. “No one is taking your gun away. If Glock modifies its design, you can purchase that new version.”

The bill’s sponsor calls pistols with cruciform trigger bars “machine gun convertible pistols.” They point to so-called “Glock switches” as evidence that these firearms are especially dangerous.

Glock switches enable a user to convert a semi-automatic pistol into a fully automatic machine gun. These devices have largely been imported from Chinese websites. Since these devices were all produced after the passing of the 1986 Hughes Amendment, all these machine gun conversion devices (MCDs) are already illegal on the federal level and are specifically banned by Maryland state law for the general public.

The bill was supported by Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety. The Baltimore Police Department also campaigned for the bill’s passage. Maryland and Baltimore have both sued Glock over its designs. Glock has redesigned their pistols to make them harder to convert into machine guns. While Glock changed its designs, multiple other companies still use cruciform trigger bars. Glocks remain popular choices for self-defense.

“The danger posed by a firearm modified in this manner is difficult to overstate,” the Police Department said in written testimony. Once the trigger is pulled on a converted weapon, it will “continue to fire, sometimes at a rate of up to 1,200 rounds per minute, until there is no more ammunition.”

Glocks make up a large portion of gun sales for federal firearms licensees (FFL). AmmoLand was informed that Glock sales account for 30% to 40% of all gun sales at Hafer’s Guns in Hagerstown, Maryland. The banning of these pistols will cut into the profits of gun stores, causing them financial hardship. Although Democratic lawmakers claim the law is needed for public safety, gun rights advocates say the bill’s purpose is actually to add hardship for gun owners and gun stores.

Although average Maryland citizens will be banned from acquiring the guns, the bill does have a carveout for those with special privileges. Current and retired police officers are still allowed to buy and transfer the guns. Members of the military will also be allowed to buy older Glocks and Glock clones. Many believe these special privileges are unfair for those who need the guns the most – the average citizens who live in high-crime areas.

The law is expected to be signed by Governor Moore. Legal commentators expect the restriction to be challenged in court because it is constitutionally doubtful.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Heller that arms in common use cannot be banned. Glock-style pistols are among the most common firearms in the country, accounting for a large share of pistol sales. The Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen opinion also stated that if a conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, the state must provide analogues from the founding era to prove a law is consistent with the history and tradition of the nation’s firearms regulations. Maryland will have a hard time providing those analogues.

If the two anti-gun states’ laws are upheld, it could start a tidal wave of bans across liberal states.

First Circuit Says Second Amendment Does Not Protect Buying Guns in Beckwith v. Frey


About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

John Crump




from https://ift.tt/fqb8tI9
via IFTTT

California’s 11% Gun and Ammo Tax Faces Major Second Amendment Challenge

AB 28’s 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition iStock-1189937492
Gun dealers are asking a California court to strike AB 28’s 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition as unconstitutional. IMG iStock-1189937492

California’s 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition is now facing a serious constitutional challenge, and this time the argument is being put to the court in a posture that could bring a decisive ruling without waiting for a full trial.

In a motion for summary judgment filed in Poway Weapons & Gear v. Gonzales, Poway Weapons & Gear and Sacramento Gun Range are asking the Sacramento County Superior Court to rule that AB 28’s tax scheme violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

At the center of this case is a question every gun owner should be asking: Can a hostile state deliberately price the Second Amendment out of reach for ordinary Americans simply because the people in power despise the right itself?

California’s AB 28 slapped an 11% excise tax on the retail sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition starting July 1, 2024. Technically, Sacramento put the burden on licensed dealers, manufacturers, and ammunition vendors. In reality, everyone knew from day one who was really going to pay for it: the law-abiding gun buyer standing at the counter. That is exactly how it has played out, with dealers adding the charge as a line item on receipts. So while politicians can pretend this is just a tax on industry, ordinary Californians are the ones getting hit with yet another deliberate attempt to make lawful gun ownership more expensive, more burdensome, and harder to exercise.

California will try to hide behind the same tired bureaucratic excuse that this is somehow just a tax on businesses. That is nonsense.

When the state deliberately targets the sale of constitutionally protected firearms and ammunition, knowing full well the bill will be dumped on the backs of the very people trying to lawfully buy them, it is not innocently regulating commerce. It is putting a price tag on the exercise of a constitutional right.

The plaintiffs argue that under Heller, McDonald, and especially Bruen, the Second Amendment does not just protect some hollow, paper right that kicks in only after a firearm is already in your safe. It protects the ability of law-abiding Americans to actually acquire the firearms and ammunition needed to exercise that right in the first place. A right to keep and bear arms is worthless if the government can choke it off at the gun counter by piling targeted taxes and financial barriers onto the very tools the Constitution protects.

California is not going for an outright gun ban here because it knows that would draw immediate fire in court. Instead, it is using the same backdoor playbook anti-gun governments always reach for when a direct attack is harder to pull off. Jack up the cost, bury people in paperwork, and pile on enough regulatory friction that exercising the Second Amendment becomes more difficult, more expensive, and less within reach for ordinary citizens. For years, hostile states have tried to smother gun rights from every angle while pretending they are not really attacking the right itself.

The motion leans heavily on a principle the Supreme Court has recognized in other contexts for decades: government cannot single out the exercise of a constitutional right for special taxation.

The brief points to cases involving the press, voting, and religious exercise, where courts rejected attempts to impose targeted taxes on protected conduct. The reasoning is straightforward and powerful. The state cannot put a special tax on newspapers because it dislikes the press. It cannot put a tax on voting because it wants fewer people to cast ballots. It cannot demand payment as the price of exercising a constitutional liberty and then pretend that liberty is still fully intact.

California would never dare announce an 11% surcharge on attending church, publishing a newspaper, or voting in an election. But when it comes to gun rights, politicians in the state still act as though the normal constitutional rules are optional. That is exactly the mindset the Supreme Court was supposed to shut down when it reminded lower courts and hostile states alike that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.

SAF’s Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack drove the point home, framing California’s tax for what it really is: an attempt to put a price tag on the exercise of a constitutional right.

“Fundamental rights cannot be hidden by the state behind a paywall,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that conduct protected by a constitutional right cannot, for any reason, be singled out for special taxation. The right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is meaningless if the government has the power to prevent the acquisition of arms and ammunition in the first place. And the power to tax is exactly that – the power to make unavailable. The present tax rate itself is immaterial, the authority to tax a fundamental right at 11% is the authority to tax it 150%. And anyone even superficially aware of California lawmakers’ tendencies know how much they love taxes and hate your gun rights.”

Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs made the same point in even blunter terms, arguing that California’s tax scheme is unconstitutional and deliberately punitive.

“This unlawful tax scheme is designed to destroy the right to keep and bear arms, and California cannot be allowed to get away with it. You cannot specially tax the exercise of a constitutional right – full stop. If courts allow an 11% tax today, nothing stops them from making it 50% or 100% tomorrow. We are suing to end this direct attack on the rights of peaceable people, and we intend to win,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

That is why California should get nowhere with the argument that it is only 11%, as if a smaller infringement somehow stops being an infringement. The problem is not the exact number. The problem is that the state is claiming the power to single out a constitutional right for special financial punishment in the first place. Once government gets away with taxing a protected liberty just to make people think twice about exercising it, there is no real limiting principle left. The power to tax a right becomes the power to destroy.

Poway Weapons & Gear remitted $34,666 for the third quarter of 2024 alone, then continued paying significant sums quarter after quarter. Sacramento Gun Range did the same, paying $24,640 for that same quarter before later making additional quarterly payments in the tens of thousands. Those are real financial hits on ordinary gun businesses, and because those costs get passed straight through to the counter, they become direct burdens on law-abiding Californians trying to legally buy firearms and ammunition.

If this tax survives, there is every reason to expect other anti-gun states to copy the model. Lawmakers hostile to the right to keep and bear arms are always looking for new ways to discourage ownership without running headlong into a direct ban that will get them hauled into court. A targeted tax fits that strategy perfectly. Dress it up as public safety, assign the revenue to some politically marketable fund, and then pretend you are not really burdening a right even while you make it more expensive to exercise.

“California is the primordial ooze from which new novel Second Amendment infringement tactics are born,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If this tax is allowed to stand, it’s only a matter of time before every non-2A friendly state across America adopts similar legislation. California taxes gas to dissuade people from driving and cigarettes to dissuade people from smoking, so it’s no secret what the state doing here: taxing guns to dissuade people from exercising their rights.”

This is not about whether California can squeeze more money out of gun stores and gun buyers. It is about whether a hostile state government can use taxation as a weapon against a constitutional liberty it dislikes.

The plaintiffs also come into court with a cleaner posture than a lot of challengers do. They paid the tax, filed refund requests, and went through the administrative process, only to be told that the tax agency lacked authority to grant relief on constitutional grounds unless a higher court had already struck the law down. In other words, the agency effectively admitted the real question has to be answered by the judiciary. That is where the case now stands. The dealers exhausted the process and are now asking the court to decide the legal issue directly.

If California can put the Second Amendment behind a paywall, other states will try it too.

And if courts bless that strategy, then the right to keep and bear arms will remain on the books while being steadily priced further out of reach for the very people it was meant to protect.

SCOTUS Lets Illinois Public Transit Carry Ban Stand, Leaving a Dangerous “Sensitive Places” Theory in Place

 


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.Duncan Johnson

 




from https://ift.tt/NKk8xQO
via IFTTT

Hemani at SCOTUS: Will Marijuana Users Stay Banned From Gun Ownership?

United States Supreme Court hearing challenge to federal firearm ban for marijuana users
The Supreme Court’s review of United States v. Hemani could become one of the most important gun-rights cases in years, especially for gun owners caught in the legal gray zone created by state marijuana laws and federal firearms prohibitions. iStock-2165461881

Early last month, the Supreme Court heard United States v. Hemani, a challenge to 18 U.S. Code §922(g)(3). This is the prohibition on firearm possession by anyone “(W)ho is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 contained the first bans, which applied to those convicted of “crimes of violence.”

“The term ‘crime of violence’ means murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, kidnapping, burglary, housebreaking; assault with intent to kill, commit rape, or rob; assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault with intent to commit any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.”

On April 27, 1961, Senate Bill 1750, “An Act to strengthen the Federal Firearms Act” was introduced.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of the Federal Firearms Act, as amended (52 Stat. 1250; 15 U.S.C. 901-909), is further amended by repealing paragraph (6), by deleting the words “crime of violence” in paragraph (7) and inserting in lieu thereof the words “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”, and by renumbering paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs (6) and ( 7 ).

“SEC. 2. Section 2 of such Act is amended by deleting the words “crime of violence” in subsections ( d ), (e), and (f) and inserting in lieu thereof the words “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”.

The bill passed the Senate on June 13, 1961; the House approved it on September 19; and became Public Law 87-342 on October 3, 1961.

For the first time, it didn’t matter whether an offense was described as violent or nonviolent, a felony or a misdemeanor. Even if the sentence was suspended or the judgment included no jail time, a lifetime ban was imposed.

In 1968, possession of marijuana was a felony virtually anywhere in the United States. The rise of the counterculture and the increasingly widespread use of marijuana, psychedelics like LSD, opiates, and other substances was a hot-button issue. It was no surprise to see a new class of prohibited persons added to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Ironically, just about seven months after the GCA ’68 became effective, the Supreme Court declared the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 unconstitutional. The case was Leary v. United States.

The Marijuana Tax Act was the federal government’s first law that specifically regulated marijuana. It was a revenue measure based on the National Firearms Act of 1934. The actual crimes were possession of untaxed weed and failing to have the required federal license.

After the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress repealed the law. It was replaced by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Today, virtually all states allow for at least medicinal use of marijuana. Twenty-four states have legalized adult recreational use; the rest have reduced simple possession of small amounts to a misdemeanor.

This includes the federal government: Possession of a small amount of marijuana is now a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a year in jail. It no longer meets the standards set by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 or the 1961 expansion. It also fails to meet the Fifth Amendment’s threshold for depriving a citizen of their civil liberties, including the right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence doesn’t support the status quo. The “history and tradition” test required under Bruen reveals there were no truly analogous laws during either the Founding or Reconstruction Eras.

Right now, the best outcome would be a favorable ruling in Hemani. Otherwise, we have to rely on an extremely reluctant Congress that must have watched Reefer Madness one too many times.

Even though the Drug Enforcement Agency is part of the Executive Branch, there’s not a lot the President can do: The DEA administrator, currently Terrence Cole, has the final word on which drugs go where.

President Trump issued Executive Order 14370 last December. However, it was more focused on research on the medical uses of marijuana and cannabidiols. The goal was to persuade the DEA to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. After four months, there have been no updates.

Hemani has forced the Supreme Court to confront a question Congress has avoided for decades: whether the government can keep treating marijuana users as a class of prohibited persons when the country itself no longer treats simple marijuana possession as the kind of grave offense that justifies stripping away a constitutional right.

Under Bruen, the government is supposed to point to a real historical tradition of comparable disarmament, not just modern policy preferences dressed up as public safety. If the Court rules the right way, it could finally put real limits on one of the most outdated and incoherent bans in federal gun law. If it does not, gun owners will be left waiting on a Congress and bureaucracy that have shown little urgency in fixing a problem they helped create.

Supreme Court Signals Trouble for Federal Law Disarming Regular Marijuana Users


About Bill Cawthon

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.

Bill Cawthon




from https://ift.tt/0goWYjA
via IFTTT