Gun Owners Sound Alarm Over New Jersey Glock Subpoenas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live Inventory Price Checker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great American State Fair to Celebrate Freedom by Suspending Second Amendment

---

About Dave Workman

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

The appeals court rejected all three arguments.

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

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

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

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

Live Inventory Price Checker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/qz2Mpw6
via IFTTT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Live Inventory Price Checker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/Ip3VT5t
via IFTTT

Armed Citizens Stop Alleged Florida Church Kidnapping

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

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

From cbs12.com:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About Dean Weingarten:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/Bt8SXgN
via IFTTT

AG Uthmeier Forces Tradition HOA to Rescind Unlawful Gun Ban

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier says HOAs cannot use private rules to disarm law-abiding residents in violation of state firearms preemption law. IMG Travis Pike, AmmoLand

Last month, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a strong warning to the Tradition Community Association in Port St. Lucie regarding its recently adopted firearms ban in common areas. The AG gave the homeowners’ association (HOA) until June 1 to respond in writing and confirm it would cease enforcement. In a positive development for gun rights advocates, the association quickly agreed not to enforce the ban.

In a formal letter sent to the association’s leadership, Uthmeier explained that the rule prohibiting firearms in shared spaces directly conflicts with Florida Statute 790.33, the state’s broad firearms preemption law. This statute makes it clear that the Florida Legislature occupies the entire field of firearms regulation, rendering local ordinances and private rules that impose stricter restrictions largely unenforceable when they infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The HOA’s policy applied to all residents, guests, and contractors. It banned both open and concealed carry in common areas, including parks, trails, recreation spaces, gathering facilities, and the town square. Critics described it as a de facto gun ban that lacked any force of law. Local law enforcement in Port St. Lucie publicly stated they would not enforce the HOA’s rule, reinforcing that it carried no criminal weight.

Florida Statute 790.33 not only preempts government entities but also protects employees, contractors, residents, guests, and prospective homebuyers from discrimination for lawfully carrying firearms. The rule had reportedly been passed without adequate notice to many community members. Some residents who carry for self-defense in their daily lives were caught off guard and concerned about being disarmed in areas where they and their families spend significant time.

Because the HOA promptly responded to the AG’s demand, Uthmeier’s planned next step — filing a lawsuit to block enforcement of the ban — became unnecessary. Florida maintains some of the strongest preemption laws in the nation, designed to prevent a patchwork of local and private restrictions that could undermine statewide Second Amendment protections. Had the case proceeded to court and the HOA lost, the association could have faced significant financial penalties, attorney fees, and other legal consequences.

AG Uthmeier noted that his office had received complaints from residents in other Florida HOAs with similar restrictive policies. He assured concerned citizens that the action against Tradition was only the beginning. “This is not New York or California,” Uthmeier has emphasized in public statements. “In Florida, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

On X, the Attorney General wrote: “Tradition Community Association agreed to stop enforcing its unlawful firearm ban in common areas. We are working with the Association to ensure this policy change is permanent and complies with FL law. For others who’ve reached out about their HOAs, don’t worry, we hear you.”

Tradition Community Association agreed to stop enforcing its unlawful firearm ban in common areas. We are working with the Association to ensure this policy change is permanent and complies with FL law.

For others who’ve reached out about their HOAs, don’t worry, we hear you. https://t.co/X031UjnGCf

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) June 4, 2026

Uthmeier has built a reputation as a vocal and active defender of Second Amendment rights. He has repeatedly stated that attorneys general have no duty to defend laws they view as unconstitutional. At the 2026 National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) SHOT Show, he addressed fellow AGs and reminded federal officials of this principle in relation to certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Compared to some previous Florida Attorneys General — including former AG Pam Bondi — Uthmeier has shown a willingness to move beyond rhetoric and take concrete action. His intervention in the Tradition case sends a clear message to HOAs across the state: attempts to disarm law-abiding residents in common areas will face swift pushback from the state’s top law enforcement officer.

While HOAs play a role in maintaining neighborhoods, they cannot override Florida’s strong protections for the right to bear arms. Uthmeier’s decisive response reinforces that in the Sunshine State, Second Amendment rights remain a priority.

New York Passes Law Mandating Non-Existent Technology to Block 3D-Printed Guns

---

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/K7IgVi1
via IFTTT

Virginia Judge Blocks State Police From Enforcing Universal Background Checks

A Lynchburg judge ruled that Virginia officials cannot ignore an existing injunction blocking universal background checks on private firearm sales. iStock-2217396059

A Lynchburg judge on June 3, 2026, firmly rejected a request from the Virginia State Police (VSP) and Attorney General Jay Jones to dissolve an existing injunction blocking the enforcement of Universal Background Checks (UBCs) on private firearm sales.

The controversy dates back to the fall of 2025, when a Lynchburg court issued a landmark ruling blocking Virginia’s attempt to impose Universal Background Checks for private firearm transactions. The court order explicitly prevented the Virginia State Police from enforcing the law, determining that it violated Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia State Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Following the decision, the Virginia State Police immediately ceased processing background checks for private sales in compliance with the judicial injunction.

However, the political landscape shifted dramatically just a month later. Democrats secured the governor’s mansion and maintained control of both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly. Upon taking office in January 2026, the new Democratic majority moved quickly to advance an aggressive gun control agenda. Among the flurry of gun-related bills was legislation specifically designed to resume and mandate background checks for private firearm sales.

Democrats heavily criticized the earlier court ruling, repeatedly labeling it the “Lynchburg Loophole” in public statements and media appearances. Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the bill into law. While most newly enacted legislation in Virginia takes effect on July 1, the governor utilized an emergency clause to make this particular measure effective immediately upon signing.

Shortly after the bill became law, the Virginia State Police initially released a statement acknowledging that they would not enforce the new requirement due to the standing court order declaring such checks unconstitutional. This position held until May 27, 2026, when the VSP abruptly reversed course. The agency sent an email to all federal firearms licensees (FFLs) across the state, announcing that it would begin conducting background checks on private sales, a direct challenge to the existing court injunction. The VSP also notified major gun rights organizations, including the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA), of its intent to enforce the law. The following day, the agency updated its official website to reflect this new policy.

Gun rights groups responded swiftly and forcefully. Chris Stone, Director of State Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued a strong statement:

“Attorney General Jay Jones is attempting to resurrect Virginia’s unconstitutional ‘universal background check’ scheme after a court already struck it down and permanently blocked its enforcement statewide. That injunction is not a suggestion—it is a binding decision. Our letter makes clear that unless the issuing court or a higher court says otherwise, Virginia officials have no authority to enforce these checks. Any official who ignores that injunction and attempts to enforce this law anyway risks exposing themselves and their agency to serious legal liability.”

In response, GOA and VCDL immediately filed a motion for contempt against both the Virginia State Police and Attorney General Jay Jones. According to sources within the State Police, Jones’ office had advised them that the newly passed law superseded the prior court order, giving them authority to resume enforcement. A Lynchburg judge subsequently scheduled a hearing for June 3 to determine whether the injunction remained in effect.

At the June 3 hearing, which was attended by representatives from GOA and VCDL, the judge delivered a clear rebuke to the state. He affirmed that the injunction is still fully in place and emphasized that no new legislation can unilaterally supersede a court’s constitutional ruling against the Virginia State Police’s enforcement of background checks on private sales.

Following the judge’s decision, the VSP agreed to cease conducting background checks for private transactions and committed to updating its website accordingly to reflect the court’s order.

Neither the Virginia State Police nor the Attorney General’s office responded to AmmoLand’s request for comment on the ruling.

This case highlights the ongoing tension in Virginia between gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters. Universal Background Checks have long been a priority for Democrats, who argue they close loopholes and enhance public safety. Gun rights organizations counter that such measures infringe on constitutional rights, create bureaucratic burdens for law-abiding citizens, and do little to stop criminals who obtain firearms through illegal means.

The “Lynchburg Loophole” saga underscores the importance of judicial checks on legislative power and the enduring strength of Virginia’s constitutional protections for firearm ownership. As the state continues to be a battleground for gun policy, this ruling serves as a reminder that court injunctions carry significant weight and cannot be easily overridden by political majorities. Legal experts expect the issue may eventually reach higher courts, potentially setting important precedents for gun rights nationwide.

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

---

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/oug8CaO
via IFTTT

SAF Lawsuit Challenges New Jersey’s “Guilty by Association” Gun Confiscation Scheme

An amended federal lawsuit has been filed in a challenge to policies in Bergen County, which require gun confiscation from anyone residing with someone who may be considered a prohibited person. iStock-901659046

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate (NJFOS) have expanded a civil rights lawsuit, originally filed last November on behalf of New Jersey resident Elsid Aliaj, contesting the confiscation of his legally-owned firearms and ammunition, to now include two additional plaintiffs.

Joining the lawsuit are Garden State residents Martin Hroncich and Luis Rene De La Cruz Franco.

It is a case with considerable implications, as the outcome could significantly change how prosecutors and police handle situations involving law-abiding gun owners who happen to live with someone who may be prohibited from owning firearms. Beyond that, specifically in Aliaj’s case, it raises questions about conversing with someone to whom English may be a second language, and recognizing the emotional swings related to pregnancy.

According to the original complaint from last Nov. 3, the Fort Lee Police Department, “based on a report from the Englewood Police Department (“EPD”) that Aliaj’s wife (hereinafter referred to as “L.A.”) had been involuntarily admitted to New Bridge Medical Center for a mental health evaluation (in what turned out to be a language-related misunderstanding, resulting in L.A.’s discharge with a diagnosis of “Adjustment disorder with depressed mood Seven weeks pregnant”)—confiscated Aliaj’s firearms, ammunition, and related accessories from his home.” This happened on April 17, 2025.

At the time the original lawsuit was filed, the following November, authorities were still unwilling to return Aliaj’s firearms, “even though Aliaj is not under any legal, mental, or physical disability that would disqualify him from exercising his fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

Leap ahead six months. By now, the Aliaj case has gotten some attention and other people, according to a source close to the case, have come forward with similar allegations. Two such people are Hroncich and De La Cruz.

“Bergen County’s very clear policy is: If you live with a prohibited person, or even someone suspected of being prohibited, your rights can be taken away,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack, in a SAF release announcing the expanded case. “This took the form of permit denials and revocations, and outright gun confiscations. What we learned after filing this case on behalf of Mr. Aliaj is that the constitutional abuse he suffered was all too common in Bergen County. Additional individuals, including new plaintiffs Mr. Hroncich and Mr. De La Cruz, started coming out of the woodwork. Each had a similar story: their rights under the Second Amendment were taken from them purely as the result of concerns Bergen County officials had about loved ones of theirs.”

Sack also confirmed to Ammoland News that SAF and NJFOS are financially supporting the case, while not participating as plaintiffs. Aliaj is a SAF member.

The amended complaint was filed on June 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage. Defendants are the Bergen County Prosecutor’s office, Prosecutor Mark Musella, along with the Borough of Fort Lee, the Borough of Paramus, and the Township of Rochelle Park.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik with Taylor Dykema in Houston, Texas.

As alleged in the amended complaint, “…Defendants have adopted, implemented, enforced, and maintained a series of related policies that together deprive individuals, including plaintiffs, under County Defendants’ jurisdiction, from exercising their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment, not premised upon any allegation that Plaintiffs themselves are prohibited, but rather by association with a cohabitant who is so prohibited or otherwise disqualified, or by association with a cohabitant who County Defendants perceive to be so prohibited or otherwise disqualified.”

According to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, the situation in Bergen County, while alarming, is not unique.

“Cases like this confirm what we hear from SAF members in gun-grabbing states like New Jersey all the time: local officials do what they want, when they want, without any respect for the law or the Constitution,” Gottlieb said in a prepared statement. 

Sack, in a telephone conversation with Ammoland News, pointed to language in the amended Aliaj complaint, which states, “County Defendants have adopted, implemented, enforced, and maintained a series of related policies that together deprive individuals, including Plaintiffs, under County Defendants’ jurisdiction, from exercising their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment, not premised upon any allegation that Plaintiffs themselves are prohibited, but rather by association with a cohabitant who is so prohibited or otherwise disqualified, or by association with a cohabitant who County Defendants perceive to be so prohibited or otherwise disqualified.”

That’s not all. The amended complaint further alleges:

• These Challenged Policies include at least the following: (a) Confiscation of firearms, ammunition, and related accessories based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications1 (the “Confiscation Policy”); (b) Compelled sales of firearms, ammunition, and related accessories based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Compelled Sale Policy”); (c) Revocation of Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (“FPIC”) or other firearms licenses or permits validly issued under the laws of New Jersey based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Revocation Policy”); (d) Denial of applications for FPICs or other firearms licenses or permits that would otherwise be validly issued under the laws of New Jersey based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Denial Policy”); and (e) Compelled production of cohabitant medical records based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Compelled Production Policy”).
• County Defendants routinely and illegally cite, invoke, or rely on the Duty to Warn Statute, the ERPO Act, or the Issuance Disqualifiers to disarm law-abiding firearms owners when the individual who is subject to disqualification is not the firearms owner, but rather, the owner’s cohabitant.
• County Defendants also routinely and lawlessly enforce the Challenged Policies based on nothing more than “the State’s concerns,” which are not codified in any law.

The amended complaint quotes “Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Law Enforcement Directive No. 2019-2” which states, in part:

“Under this Directive, whenever a Bergen County law enforcement agency receives information or a warning related to a threat of imminent, serious physical violence to self or others made by an individual suspected of suffering from a mental illness, whether that information comes from a mental health provider or any other source, the respective police department must ascertain whether the individual has been issued a firearms purchaser identification card (“FPIC”), any permit to purchase or possess a firearm, or whether the patient may possess or have access to any firearm . . . .

“Additionally, if the respective law enforcement agency determines that the individual possess a FPIC or permit to purchase or possess a firearm, or possesses or has access to a firearm, the law enforcement agency must attempt to secure the identification card, permit, and/or firearms either consensually or with a warrant if consent is denied, on the basis of the imminent threat of serious harm.”

The 35-page amended complaint demands a jury trial.

ATF Director Cekada Talks Gun Rights, Rule Rollbacks & Reform with Shermichael Singleton

---

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/kzUQtjO
via IFTTT