Armed Citizen Intervention Not the ‘Myth’ Antis Claim; Cambridge Proves It

Another armed citizen helped save the day in Cambridge, Mass. It happens more often than anti-gunners care to admit. iStock-1175500022

In the aftermath of the May 11 shooting incident in Cambridge, Massachusetts, the gun prohibition lobby would have America believe that intervention by armed private citizens in such cases is rare.

That it happened at all in Massachusetts—a state known for restrictive gun control laws—is far rarer, while elsewhere around the country, according to the Crime Prevention Research Center, “defensive gun uses are 5.06 times more (likely) than firearms used in crime.”

And it happened just three weeks prior to an upcoming first-of-its-kind Firearms Advocacy Conference, scheduled for Saturday, May 30, at Castle of Knights, 1599 Memorial Dr., Chicopee, Mass. More about this in a moment.

The accused gunman, identified as Tyler Brown, 46, of Boston, was brought down by shots fired by a Massachusetts state trooper and an armed private citizen. (Media reports insisted on describing the armed citizen as a “civilian” to apparently provide some distinction between the Marine Corps veteran and law enforcement officers who also responded. Reporters have routinely overlooked the fact that American civilian law enforcement is not a branch of the military.)

Brown’s violent criminal past is now widely known, and his rampage has brought up some interesting questions, so far raised only by Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. In a statement reacting to the shooting—and hailing the heroic actions of the legally armed veteran—Gottlieb observed:

“We’re appalled this guy was even on the street, in possession of a firearm he should not have had, and some reports say he was on parole and supposedly under the supervision of Massachusetts authorities. It might be a good time for those authorities to examine their supervision program.”

As noted by the CCRKBA, the suspect was armed with an “assault-style rifle” in a state with some of the toughest gun control laws in the country. Gottlieb called this another example of restrictive gun laws “failing miserably to live up to their advertising.”

Likewise, Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts Gun Owners Action League (GOAL), posted on that group’s website, “This terrorist like attack was completely preventable. The attacker should have still been in prison. People would say that the system is broken, but I won’t say that any longer because this IS the system! We have all three branches of the Commonwealth’s government that pander to criminals, but look to punish average citizens in every way. This crime, and countless more like it, are the direct results of catastrophic policies by our government officials and somehow we have to hold them accountable.”

The suspect was sentenced to six years in prison back in 2021 for shooting at a Boston police officer. He was, as noted above, under supervision, yet there he was firing between 50 and 60 rounds at passing motorists on a Cambridge street.

By remarkable coincidence, on May 30, the first-ever Firearms Advocacy Conference, will convene for a Saturday event in Chicopee, Mass., with representatives from gun rights organizations throughout New England. They include GOAL, the Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Gun Owners of Maine, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition, the Civil Rights Coalition, and Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. The Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action will also be represented, as will CCRKBA. It should not be hard to imagine one of the topics of discussion.

Speaking of CCRKBA, Chairman Gottlieb referred to ongoing efforts by Massachusetts lawmakers—primarily Democrats—to make gun ownership in the Bay State as difficult as possible. He pointed to this irony: “Apparently they’re determined to accomplish what British troops couldn’t 250 years ago, right there in Massachusetts, where the revolution started over efforts to seize firearms. It didn’t work then, and it should not be tolerated now.”

When the suspect in Monday’s rampage was confronted by the trooper and armed citizen, they both shot him several times, according to Middlesex District Attorney Marian Ryan. According to WCVB News, the mayhem erupted just after 1 p.m. At least two men were seriously wounded before the gunman was brought down.

The Gun Mag.com referred to several previous incidents in which armed citizen intervention stopped tragedies. Included in the roundup were these events:

• In July 2022, then-22-year-old Elisjsha Dicken drew his pistol after a gunman opened fire at the Greenwood Park Mall in Greenwood, Indiana. Two people were fatally wounded before Dicken, firing across the food court, struck the shooter several times, killing him.
• Also in 2022, in Charleston, W. Va., an armed female bystander fatally shot a man identified as Dennis Butler, with a lengthy criminal history, who had opened fire on people attending a birthday party.
• In December 2019, an armed volunteer security team member, Jack Wilson, fatally shot a man who had opened fire during services at the West Freeway Church of Christ in White Settlement, Texas. Two people were killed before Wilson, firing across the distance of the sanctuary, fatally shot the gunman. It was all captured on video because the service was being streamed live.
• In July 2018, an armed citizen fatally shot a carjacker in the parking lot of a Walmart in Tumwater, Washington. The gunman had been involved in at least five carjackings across three locations leading up to the fatal confrontation.

There are more, as Ammoland News found with just a cursory search.

In August 2018, only months after the school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, an armed citizen shot a gunman who opened fire at an back-to-school cookout in Titusville, Fla.

An armed citizen fatally shot a gunman in downtown Seattle in May 2025 after the thug shot two people in the Pioneer Square area.

In El Paso, Texas in February 2023, an armed citizen shot a gunman at the Cielo Vista Mall killed one person and wounded three others.

Back in January 2017, a wounded Arizona state trooper was saved by a passing armed motorist who shot and killed the person who had shot the lawman. This occurred on Interstate 10 about 40 miles west of Phoenix.

While anti-gunners claim intervention by armed citizens “is a myth” or “never happens,” the facts prove otherwise.

In all of these armed citizen interventions, there is one common thread the media never discusses. It’s the silence from the gun prohibition lobby, a quiet that is almost deafening.

ATF Draft Form 4473 Changes Marijuana Question, Opens Door to Direct Gun Shipping

---

About Dave Workman

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

---

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

NICS Denial Alert Turns Into 14 Days in Jail for Florida Gun Owner

A Florida gun owner says he spent two weeks in jail because the government’s background-check machinery treated an old Kentucky misdemeanor as if it were a felony.

That should bother every American who values due process, the right to keep and bear arms, and basic competence from the people who have the power to put citizens in handcuffs.

William Michael Brewer tried to buy a Glock 26 from Lotus Gunworks in Jensen Beach, Florida. According to the Civil Rights Lawyer on YouTube, Brewer said he filled out the paperwork, paid for the firearm, and waited for the call that his background check had cleared. Instead, he was told the transaction had been denied.

That denial set off a chain of events that should never have gone this far.

WPTV reported that the failed background check was flagged by the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, alerting the Martin County Sheriff’s Office. Deputies believed Brewer was a felon trying to buy a gun. Brewer and his attorney say he was not. The problem, according to WPTV, came from the FBI’s National Crime Information Center database, where Brewer’s Kentucky record showed a felony arrest from more than a decade ago, while Kentucky court documents confirmed the charge had been reduced to a misdemeanor. That update was not reflected in NCIC.

Brewer was later pulled over by Martin County deputies. In the video, Brewer says he had a firearm in his work bag and told officers about it. The video shows him repeatedly trying to explain that he was not a felon, that he had a Kentucky concealed carry license, and that he had passed other background checks. The deputies arrested him anyway.

Body-camera video showed Brewer pleading with deputies not to arrest him after they pulled him over, believing he was a felon in possession of a firearm. Brewer told WPTV he was taken out of the vehicle, handcuffed, and told he was under arrest as a felon in possession.

Brewer’s own words from the video cut through the legal fog: “Do you understand how scary it is to not be a felon and then you get arrested as a felon?”

Not a paperwork inconvenience. Not a minor “oops” in a government database. Not a harmless background-check hiccup. A man was jailed for 14 days because officials treated a database flag as proof rather than a lead that needed verification.

WPTV confirmed Brewer spent 14 days in jail. His attorney, Andrew Strecker, said his team produced original documents establishing Brewer was not a felon, but the remedy offered was a bond reduction and release on an ankle monitor. Prosecutors eventually dropped the case after receiving certified records showing the misdemeanor conviction.

Brewer has now sued the Martin County Sheriff’s Office and the deputies involved in his arrest, accusing them of false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution, according to WPTV.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 43X MOS 9mm Luger Pistol 3.41" Barrel 10+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 485.00
	GLOCK 43X 9mm Pistol - Black - 3.39" - Made In USA - 2x 10rd Mag	Primary Arms	$ 538.00
	Glock 43X MOS 3.41" 9mm 10rd Pistol, Coyote - PX435Z201FRMOSK	Palmetto State Armory	$ 649.99 $ 549.99
	Glock 43X A-CUT 9mm Luger Pistol 3.41" Barrel 10+1 Round Black Aimpoint COA	MidwayUSA	$ 949.00

A NICS Denial Is Not A Conviction

During the arrest, Brewer said,”so, because I tried to purchase a firearm, I got pulled over for it, and it red-flagged or something.” 

This case points to a dangerous flaw in the modern background-check regime. The FBI says NICS checks are conducted when a Federal Firearms Licensee contacts NICS by phone or electronically after a prospective buyer completes the required form. The background check is supposed to determine whether the buyer is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm.

Since October 1, 2022, the FBI has been required by law to report NICS denied transactions to state, local, or tribal law enforcement within 24 hours. The FBI says those notifications are sent based on the location of the FFL and, when different, the attempted buyer’s home address.

But here is the key point every gun owner, every cop, every prosecutor, and every lawmaker needs to understand: the FBI’s own law-enforcement page says the law does not require agencies to take action when they receive those denial notifications. The FBI also says its NICS Section will not ask them to take action.

That means a denial notice is not a command to arrest. It is not a court judgment. It is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It is not even necessarily proof that a crime occurred. It is a notification. That is all.

In Brewer’s case, WPTV reported that the State Attorney’s Office, FDLE, and the sheriff’s office all saw the same NCIC record showing a felony severity and guilty disposition, but the NCIC record had no mention that the felony charge had been amended down to a misdemeanor. Kentucky State Police later told WPTV that the electronic record reflected a felony charge, but the disposition section indicated the charge was later amended to a misdemeanor.

Wrongful NICS Denials Are Not A Theoretical Problem

Brewer’s case is not an isolated incident.

AmmoLand previously reported that records obtained through a FOIA request showed the FBI said 27.7% of NICS appeals received during the requested period were overturned, and the firearm transactions were allowed to proceed. GOA argued that even that number understates the real problem because many denied buyers never appeal, either because they do not know how, cannot afford help, or simply give up.

Second Amendment researcher John Lott has gone further, arguing that the overwhelming majority of initial NICS denials are false positives. He also points to the very low rate of prosecutions after NICS denials as evidence that many denied transactions are not real criminal cases.

The Database Cannot Be The Constitution

Gun-control advocates want Americans to trust the background-check systems as if it were clean, complete, and infallible.

Brewer’s case shows the danger of that fantasy.

When the government builds a system that can deny a gun purchase, trigger police notification, launch an investigation, produce an arrest, and put a citizen in jail based on stale or incomplete records, the burden cannot be shoved onto the citizen after the handcuffs are already on.

The government should have to prove the prohibition before it strips a man of his freedom and treats him like a criminal.

Brewer’s attorney said in the video that officials could have verified Brewer’s status by checking with Kentucky, the clerk, the prosecutor’s office, or law enforcement there. He said his office did that and found the case was not a felony.

WPTV reported that Sheriff John Budensiek defended the deputies, saying they did their job and used the mechanisms in place, while noting that bad information in the database was not input by the Martin County Sheriff’s Office. Assistant State Attorney Kristen Chase told WPTV that prosecutors needed certified official records from Kentucky, which can take time, and said the system did what it was supposed to do.

That defense will not satisfy gun owners. If the “system” can jail a man for two weeks before the government confirms whether he is actually a prohibited person, then the system is not working for citizens. It is working for bureaucracy.

Gun Owners Should Pay Attention

This is what happens when government databases become the gatekeepers of constitutional rights and local officials treat those databases as gospel. More to the point: where is the historical analogue for background checks at the time of the Founding? 

The right to keep and bear arms does not depend on a clean data entry. Due process does not begin after two weeks in jail. A NICS denial should never be treated as a conviction, and a database flag should never replace basic police work.

Brewer said in the video that he is speaking out because he does not want anyone else to go through what he went through.

If bad data can turn a lawful gun owner into a jailed “felon” in Florida, it can happen anywhere the government is allowed to treat a background-check denial like proof of guilt instead of a reason to investigate carefully.

April NICS Report: Gun Sales Steady, NFA Demand Explodes 130%

---

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/F0r8LYl
via IFTTT

George Peterson’s NFA Suppressor Case Exposes the Danger of Federal Gun Registries

George Peterson was a law-abiding citizen and federal firearms licensee (FFL) who believed in the principles of the United States Constitution. He was raising his children in his Louisiana home, living the American dream. He had a loving family and his dream of owning a firearms business. Nothing could be any better.

That all changed one Thursday morning in 2022, just days after former President Joe Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) into law. It started with a knock on the door. Then a rush of 50 to 100 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents and local law enforcement officers barged into the home that Peterson shared with his wife and juvenile children. These agents came in with ballistic helmets and body armor, armed with M4 rifles. The agents of the federal government held the man’s children, ages 12, 16, and 18, at gunpoint. At the same time, his FFL business was also raided.

“So, this happened back in 2022, where it was just a typical Thursday morning, and knock on the door, next thing I know, we have 50 to 100 ATF agents and local law enforcement in my home and in my office, where my FFL was, my little shop was,” Peterson told AmmoLand News. “And basically they came in with ballistic helmets, body armor, pointing M4 machine guns, assault weapons at my children and me, my juvenile children, ages 12, 16, and 18. They had machine guns pointed at them. And this was all over paperwork basically.”

The raid would be understandable if he were a dangerous, violent criminal, but Peterson was a family man with no criminal record. The show of force was out of the blue.

Mr. Peterson didn’t know what was going on. His first thought was that it was over a tax issue. He was a little behind on paying sales taxes. This was a one-man show, and his taxes got complicated by local, online, and gun-show sales. He has been working with an accounting firm to get up to date.

“I was a little bit behind on my sales taxes, but I had an accounting firm that was working with me to get things caught up, you know, because it’s a complex business,” Peterson told AmmoLand News. “You know, you have online sales, you have your local sales, you have your gun show sales, you have your uh concealed carry classes. It can get a little complicated. And I was basically a one-man show at the time. And so I had an accounting firm helping me to kind of get things caught up. But that’s what I thought it was.”

Little did Peterson know that taxes were the least of his concerns. They accused him of straw purchases, making too many trace requests, and failing to keep his paperwork up to date. With two bomb squad trucks parked on his front lawn, the agents started their search of his property with Assistant US Attorney Charles Struss Jr. on-site and calling the shots of the raid.

“Assistant US attorney Charles Strauss Jr,” Peterson said. “He was actually on site for the raid. He actually orchestrated and coordinated the raid. It wasn’t done with law enforcement. It was done through the prosecution. So, the prosecution actually was the ones who did the raid, orchestrated it, and it was because of the bipartisan Safer Communities Act…the US assistant US attorney, actually told my attorney that Peterson will never traffic firearms again. That was one of his statements.”

After the raid, George Peterson was arrested. He wasn’t arrested for anything listed in the affidavit. During the raid, the ATF and local law enforcement forced their way into a safe in the man’s bedroom. Law enforcement found a solvent trap that had been milled into a suppressor. The item lacked a serial number, so agents considered its existence a violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

“So, the only thing I was charged with, even though the affidavit for the ATF had all these allegations, you know, like straw purchases and, too many, too many times to crime trace requests,” Peterson said. “They, I never filed any of those Fourth Amendment violations. The multi-handgun reports and my paperwork were sloppy. The only thing that they charged me with was the possession of a uh solvent trap suppressor that was in my safe in my bedroom.”

Mr. Peterson, through his attorney, negotiated a contingent plea agreement with the prosecution. He would plead guilty to the charge as long as he had a right to appeal. Mr. Peterson was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment for committing a victimless crime.

“So, my local attorney, uh, my good friend Rick Toffen, actually negotiated with the prosecution and the court to do a contingent plea agreement where we would plead guilty to the charge as long as we have the right to appeal,” Peterson said. “So, we didn’t even really have a trial, per se.”

Mr. Peterson would appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where he would lose before a three-judge panel. In response to the request for an en banc hearing, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would make an astonishing claim: suppressors are not arms and are not protected by the Second Amendment.

This statement sparked outrage across the firearms and political worlds. This opinion flies in the face of even the ATF’s opinion. Less than a week after the court filing, the DOJ withdrew its brief.

“The acting US attorney filed some documents agreeing with the court, you know, agreeing that you know the district court that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment,” Peterson told AmmoLand News. “They’re just accessories.”

This is when the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the law firm of Cooper and Kirk stepped in to help Peterson. They would represent him in front of the full bench of the Fifth Circuit during an en banc rehearing if granted. The DOJ’s lawyers would argue that the NFA is constitutional because it imposes only a modest burden on a constitutional right, even though modest burdens are not allowed under other amendments.

The Fifth Circuit would deny an en banc hearing, relying heavily on Footnote Nine of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. Footnote Nine states that a permitting system is not necessarily unconstitutional. Even though Peterson’s charges didn’t have anything to do with concealed carry. This ruling meant Peterson would need to rely on the United States Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari to remain free.

Amicus briefs poured in from across gun rights groups, urging the Supreme Court to take the case. Unfortunately for Peterson, the Supreme Court would deny cert. This denial would be the end of the road for Cooper and Kirk, but Peterson hasn’t given up. He plans to launch a habeas corpus collateral challenge. This is a long shot, but it is his best chance of avoiding prison. Right now, he is waiting to find out when he reports for his two-year sentence.

Federal Judge Orders More Briefing in Challenge to NFA Registration Scheme

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/JHBZ4hN
via IFTTT

The “Accessory” Gambit: Why the Eleventh Circuit’s Mechanical Logic Fails the Second Amendment

By Sean Maloney, Esq.

Machinegun conversion device / “Glock switch” examples shown in an ATF/DOJ fact sheet. Image cropped and composited from DOJ/ATF source material.

In the recently published decision of United States v. Alsenat (2026), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction involving Machine Gun Conversion Devices (MCDs), specifically “Glock switches.” The panel rested its holding on the claim that machineguns are not protected arms in common lawful use. However, the district court also accepted the government’s fallback theory that unattached conversion devices are mere “accessories” or “accoutrements,” not protected “Arms.”

That accessory framing should alarm gun owners.

To the casual observer, this may seem like a minor semantic point. To a firearm attorney, it is a transparent attempt to deconstruct the Second Amendment by its parts.

As one of the attorneys who represented the Buckeye Firearms Association in our successful suit against the City of Cincinnati regarding their bump stock ban, I have seen this “accessory gambit” before. It failed in Ohio, and it should fail in the federal courts as well.

Lessons from Buckeye Firearms Association v. City of Cincinnati

When Cincinnati attempted to bypass Ohio’s firearm preemption law (R.C. 9.68) to ban bump stocks, their primary legal tactic was to argue that a bump stock was a mere “accessory” and not a “component” or “part” of a firearm. They believed that by changing the label, they could evade the state’s “uniform laws” mandate.

Our legal team challenged this head-on. We argued that a device that interacts with the fire-control group to enable a specific cycle of fire is, by definition, part of the firearm. The Court of Common Pleas agreed, and the First District affirmed, providing a definitive rebuke to the City’s logic. The court recognized a fundamental truth: you cannot regulate the function of an arm by arbitrarily declaring its internal timing and fire-control components to be “accessories.” The ruling stated clearly that components like a bump stock are included within the definition of “firearms.”

The Mechanical Truth of the Glock Switch

The Alsenat court pretends a machinegun conversion device is a bolt-on trinket, leaving the base pistol untouched. That’s fiction in engineering; function defines firearm components. The switch replaces the factory slide cover plate, a static cover in stock form. Once installed, it transforms that “spot” into the active sear and striker-timing mechanism.

If you extract it from a tuned setup, you are left with a gutted slide, an inert striker, and a brick. This brings us to the point that you can’t call a heart an “accessory” to a human body just because it can be transplanted. Similarly, you shouldn’t call a sear or a timing mechanism an accessory just because it can be swapped. By any “Mechanical Essentiality Test,” the part is integral: absent the part, the configured arm fails to operate as intended. If a part is necessary for the firearm to function in its current configuration, that part is the firearm.

Deconstructing the “Arm”

The heart of the Alsenat error lies in the definition of a “Fire Control Group” (FCG). In any machine, the parts that maintain synchronization, like the timing belt in an engine are internal components, not optional decorations. By labeling the component that dictates the timing and release of the striker as an “accessory,” the court suggests that a firearm’s most vital “organs” can be stripped of constitutional protection.

If the courts are permitted to redefine integral fire-control components as “accessories,” they grant the government the power to deconstruct any modern firearm into a series of “unprotected” pieces. Under this logic, a trigger assembly, a bolt carrier group, or even a barrel could be reclassified as an “accessory” to circumvent the Second Amendment.

The Constitutional Sleight-of-Hand

The Eleventh Circuit used Heller’s “dangerous and unusual” idea to avoid checking the real mechanics of Glock switches. It is a convenient shortcut. Instead of engaging with the rigorous history-and-tradition test established in Bruen, the court relied on wordplay.

If the Supreme Court seeks to reverse Alsenat, it cannot rest on a faulty mechanical foundation alone. The Court must ground its reasoning in Bruen’s history or Heller’s core protections, unmasking the “accessory” label as constitutional sleight-of-hand. Rahimi and Bruen require the government to show a historical analogue for such bans, not just a clever new vocabulary.

Conclusion

Cincinnati proved it: parts that make a gun work aren’t add-ons; they’re the gun. Law must match how guns actually function.

When a court calls a firing mechanism an “accessory,” it isn’t just misinterpreting engineering—it is eroding the very definition of the “Arms” we have a right to keep and bear.

ATF Revised Machine Gun Definition Does Not Go Far Enough

---

About Sean Maloney

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

---

from https://ift.tt/1rLXa5d
via IFTTT

ATF Draft Form 4473 Changes Marijuana Question, Opens Door to Direct Gun Shipping

ATF’s draft revised Form 4473 would shorten the firearms transaction record and change several buyer questions affecting gun owners and FFLs. iStock-919659526

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has released a draft of its new “Firearms Transaction Record” form (ATF Form 4473), which has been shortened and simplified.

The first change to the form is the removal of “Non-Binary” under “Sex.” There are now only two choices: “Male” or “Female.” Some have claimed that the elimination of “Non-Binary” is a de facto transgender gun ban, but that claim doesn’t square with reality. Gun buyers are instructed to choose the sex they were assigned at birth. Since everyone is born either male or female, the question doesn’t prevent anyone from buying a gun.

In its current form, the 4473 asks the potential firearms buyer whether they are the “actual transferee/buyer” of the item in question. The way the question is worded makes it seem like you cannot legally buy a gun for another person.

That is not and never has been the law.

The new change to the question specifically calls out straw purchasing, which is against federal law. The change addresses concerns among family members and friends about buying firearms as gifts for others.

The ATF added a section that asks about the purpose of the firearms transfer. The new options are a transfer for oneself, where the transferee uses their own money to purchase the firearm as a gift for someone who is not a prohibited person, where someone is picking up a firearm as a gift or reward, or picking up a repaired firearm for someone else who is not prohibited.

Question 21 b. has also been removed from the 4473. That question asked if you intended to “sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed” on the form. It is not illegal to sell a privately owned firearm. This question can lead many to believe that selling a gun is illegal. The ATF rolled up the original intent of that rule into the new rule about “straw purchases.”

Question 21 f. has also changed. This question has largely remained intact with one big caveat. The old question used to imply that using marijuana for any reason, including medical use. Even if it is decriminalized in your state, it would disqualify a potential buyer from purchasing a gun. The new question removes references to medical marijuana. It only highlights the use of recreational marijuana.

This change consists of the rescheduling of the drug “Schedule I” to a “Schedule III” controlled substance, which is much less restrictive than the original scheduling.

The ATF Form 4473 removes the check box to specify if a firearm is a “long gun,” “handgun,” or “other.” The old form also had a redundant box where the federal firearms licensee (FFL) had to write the type of firearm being transferred. The new form eliminates redundancy to prevent mismatches. The new form includes checkboxes at the top for “Firearms handler check only” and “Private party transfer only.”

The most exciting thing about the new form is the options at the bottom of page three.

This option allows the FFL to choose an option for “Non-over-the-counter transactions.” This option covers ordering firearms online and having them shipped to a gun buyer’s door without the need to go to the gun shop of the transferer, if the transferer is in the same state. The rule for non-over-the-counter was published in the Federal Register yesterday and has been the most popular change for the Second Amendment community.

The new form has eliminated three pages from the current form, reducing it to four pages from seven. The simplification of the form, along with other changes, should lead to fewer paperwork errors, which the Biden administration used to revoke many FFLs through its zero-tolerance policies.

ATF Revised Machine Gun Definition Does Not Go Far Enough

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/EiVjK31
via IFTTT

SAF Urges Ninth Circuit To Strike California Open Carry Ban

SAF and its partners are urging the Ninth Circuit to strike down California’s open-carry ban in Baird v. Bonta. img Travis Pike

SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros cut straight to the heart of California’s open-carry problem.

“The plain text of the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms – openly or concealed – and open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for most of American history. California’s ban has no foundation in our nation’s tradition, and this Court should reaffirm that open carry is protected just as the Founders and generations of Americans understood it to be. As our brief argues, neither open nor concealed carry may be banned today.”

The Second Amendment protects the right to “bear arms.” California does not get to rewrite that command into a narrow government-approved privilege. The right is not limited to concealed carry. It is not erased because a state leaves behind a different, heavily regulated pathway to legally carrying. The Second Amendment is certainly not subject to California’s public-safety panic language dressed up as constitutional law.

The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, filed an amicus brief in Baird v. Bonta, now before the Ninth Circuit en banc. The brief supports plaintiff-appellant Mark Baird in his challenge to California’s restrictions on open carry.

The procedural posture is important. A Ninth Circuit panel previously held that California’s ban on open carry in counties with populations greater than 200,000 was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. That panel opinion has now been vacated after the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc.

California’s scheme is not some small technical regulation. The panel opinion described California as banning open carry in counties with more than 200,000 residents, which covers roughly 95% of the state’s population. Even in smaller counties, the supposed ability to obtain an open-carry license is limited and, based on the record described by the panel, often theoretical at best.

SAF’s amicus brief attacks the state’s position at the foundation. The brief argues that history shows a longstanding tradition of lawful open carry predating the Founding, and that the Second Amendment protects open carry for lawful purposes. The brief also argues that concealed carry is protected today, even though some nineteenth-century laws treated concealed carry differently. The bottom line is simple: the state may not ban both, and it may not erase one mode of carry by pointing to the other.

California’s argument depends on treating open carry and concealed carry as interchangeable. Gun owners and gun rights groups say they are not. For most of American history, open carry was the ordinary, lawful way Americans bore arms in public. The brief notes that this included California from statehood in 1850 until 1967. Earlier generations understood open carry and concealed carry as different practices, not fungible substitutes.

That is where California’s position collapses. The state wants courts to accept a trade: California effectively bans open carry, leaves behind a highly regulated version of concealed carry, and then claims the Second Amendment supposedly survives.

The Supreme Court rejected that kind of logic in Heller. The government could not ban handguns because other firearms remained available. California should not be allowed to ban open carry because a version of concealed carry remains available.

The amicus brief also warns the Ninth Circuit not to misuse Bruen. SAF argues that some lower courts have turned Bruen’s “plain text” step into a way to avoid real historical analysis altogether. The brief describes this as a restrictive “Goldilocks” test, where a Second Amendment claim is either too far removed from the text to count or too specific to survive unless the plaintiff clears extra judge-made hurdles.

That is not Bruen. That is interest balancing by another name.

The Ninth Circuit should not turn the Second Amendment into a right that exists only after judges decide the conduct is sufficiently familiar, sufficiently popular, and sufficiently comfortable for the government. The Constitution does not ask California whether open carry makes politicians nervous. It asks whether the state can justify its restriction through this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Gun rights groups say California cannot meet that burden.

The brief also takes aim at California’s public-safety claims. California has argued that allowing open carry would create fear, panic, and chaos. SAF responds that Bruen rejected judge-empowering interest balancing and that public-safety appeals do not replace historical tradition. The brief further points out that the overwhelming majority of states allow open carry, and the predicted chaos has not followed.

California’s argument is the standard gun-control argument: trust the government, surrender the right, and accept whatever narrow substitute remains. That is not how constitutional rights work.

The right to bear arms is not a concealed-carry-only right. It is not an open-carry-only right. It is the right to bear arms.

As SAF’s brief concludes, California’s ban on open carry in populous counties fails Bruen and should be struck down.

The Ninth Circuit now has a clean choice. It can apply Bruen faithfully and recognize that California has no historical tradition supporting a broad open-carry ban. Or it can once again bend Second Amendment doctrine to save another California gun-control law.

Kostas Moros framed it exactly right: “neither open nor concealed carry may be banned today.”

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

---

from https://ift.tt/IJkRD7F
via IFTTT

Tennessee Deadly Force Bill SB1847 Heads to Gov. Lee After Narrowing Property Defense Language

Tennessee lawmakers passed SB1847/HB1802, a narrowed deadly-force property defense bill now headed to Gov. Bill Lee. iStock-1899043269

The Tennessee Legislature has sent Gov. Bill Lee a narrow but important reform to the state’s deadly-force law, and the fight over SB1847/HB1802 shows how much can change between a bill’s introduction and the final version that reaches a governor’s desk.

The Tennessee Legislature passed SB1847 on April 23, the last day of the legislative session. SB1847 includes the legal justification to use deadly force to protect property under certain limited circumstances. In this correspondent’s reading of the law, the legal ability to use deadly force under the bill is not very wide or broad. In the previous law, residents could use force to protect or recover property, but not deadly force.

The new language allows residents to use deadly force to prevent “the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or aggravated cruelty to animals; “if the resident reasonably believes the property cannot otherwise be protected and the use of lesser force would expose the resident or a third party to “a risk of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse.”

The initial versions of the law were more radical. They allowed the use of deadly force to prevent trespassing.  They prohibited a person from using deadly force if the suspect was facing away from them. Both instances were radical changes in the use of deadly force law in Tennessee. In the final debates leading to the passage of the bill, both the trespass and “facing away” parts of the bill were removed in the last amendment before both houses passed the bill.

In legislatures across the United States, it is common to have a post-vote process to send the bill to the governor for signature. An administrator or bureau checks the bill to ensure the language matches the language that was voted on. Then the House and Senate leadership sign declarations that the bill language is correct. These are checks to verify the bill’s legitimacy. After the legislative leadership signs off on the bill, the bill is sent to the governor for signature. States vary significantly in how long a governor has to sign a bill and what happens if the governor vetoes it or refuses to sign it.

SB1847 passed with significant super-majorities in both houses. The final votes on the amended bill were: 62-24 in the House, 3 present and not voting; 23-5 in the Senate. The final votes on the bill occurred on April 23, the last day of the session. The bill was not enrolled (checked and made ready for signatures) until April 30, a week later. The Speaker of the Senate signed the enrolled bill on April 30. The Speaker of the House did not sign the enrolled bill until May 7, 2026.

In Tennessee, the bill is automatically sent to the Governor after the signatures.  In Tennessee, the governor has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to veto or sign the bill. If the governor does not veto or sign the bill during the 10 days, it becomes law.  The 10 day clock does not start until the bill is officially received by the governor.

The rules for sending the bill to the governor can be used to play legislative games, depending on whether the leaders of the legislature want to see the bill vetoed, want to discredit the governor, or want to insure the bill is made into law. This correspondent has seen legislatures accelerate the process so the governor receives a bill one or two days after the vote. Legislators have been known to delay the process to allow the governor to veto the bill without the concern of a veto override in some states. Sometimes the timing is a matter of convenience, to allow the Governor to arrange a bill signing ceremony, for example.

The two-week span to send SB1847 to Governor Bill Lee is a mild cause for concern. It may mean the legislative leaders are not worried about a veto. The Tennessee legislature can override a veto with a simple majority in both houses. It would appear to be an easy thing to do, with the super-majorities that voted for SB1847. Ballotpedia shows that of the four vetoes done in Tennessee from 2010 to 2020, only one was overridden by the legislature.

If Governor Lee officially receives SB1847 on May 8th, he has until May 20 to sign, veto, or allow the bill to become law without his signature.

Connecticut Glock-Style Pistol Ban HB 5043 Heads to Gov. Lamont

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/4VRBu9j
via IFTTT