No Form 4, No Wait: Historic Suppressor Transfers Begin in Texas

JTAC Industries Elf Owl, Vortex Razor Gen III, Dead Air Nomad TI IMG Tim Potter

History was made in Leander, Texas, in the early morning hours of Thursday, August 13. For the first time in 92 years, a suppressor was delivered to a customer on the spot. No Form 4; no waiting; just the same process as a normal firearm transfer.

Congressional candidate Brandon Herrera and Texas State Representative Wes Virdell took possession of their new suppressors just after midnight at Silencer Shop’s new location in Leander, just north of Austin. Also present at the transfer were Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, and Representative Andrew Clyde from Georgia’s 9th congressional district.

This is big news: Even the New York Times reported it.

Nobody tried to hide it. Gun Owners of America sent a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada ahead of time informing them of the intended transfers.

The stage was set when the Justice Department allowed Judge Hendrix’s seven-day stay to expire without obtaining further relief from the Fifth Circuit. The permanent injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF consequently took effect at 12:01 a.m. Central Time on August 13. DOJ still retains its ordinary right to appeal the August 5 judgment, however, and could ask an appellate court to stay the injunction while that appeal proceeds.

For the first time since 1934, law-abiding Americans took possession of suppressors without a Form 4, ATF approval, or NFA registration. https://t.co/CAa1ddpz1D

— AmmoLand News (@AmmoLand) August 13, 2026

The NFA Registry Lost Its Taxing-Power Foundation

On August 5, Judge Hendrix held that specified NFA registration, application, approval, making, transfer, and possession provisions exceeded Congress’s enumerated powers as applied to firearms whose making and transfer taxes Congress reduced to zero. The affected categories include suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and—in the case of the Silencer Shop Foundation plaintiffs—AOWs. The court did not reach the plaintiffs’ Second Amendment claims.

Since Sonzinsky v. U.S. in 1937, the National Firearms Act has been upheld as a tax measure, legal because Congress used its taxation power (U.S. Constitution, Article I, §8, Clause 1). Two years later, in United States v. Miller, the Supreme Court affirmed the Sonzinsky holding and said the NFA did not impact the Second Amendment.

This proved to be the key to a big loss for gun control fans.

In 2025’s One Big Beautiful Bill, Republicans reduced the transfer and making tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and AOWs to zero. Republicans had tried to get them removed from the NFA, but got shut down by the Senate Parliamentarian. So there was no tax, but the onerous registration process remained.

The challenges then focused on one key question: If the process was justified as being necessary to collecting the tax, how can it be justified if there is no tax revenue?

This is the question that was answered in the Fifth Circuit court for the Northern District of Texas on August 5th.

Since there is a question of whether or not district courts can issue nationwide injunctions, Judge Hendrix limited the scope of relief to the current and future members of the plaintiffs and plaintiff groups. Fortunately, there are lots of those.

Who Is Protected by the NFA Injunction?

The named plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF were John Jensen, Jeremy Neusch, David Lynn Smith, Hot Shots Custom LLC, Texas State Rifle Association, FPC Action Foundation, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The separate Silencer Shop Foundation plaintiffs included Silencer Shop Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, B&T USA, Palmetto State Armory, SilencerCo, Brady Wetz, and 15 states. The two cases were later consolidated.

Because the judgment expressly covers current and future members of the named organizational plaintiffs, membership may provide protection under the injunction. That does not mean joining any organization that supported the litigation is sufficient, and anyone relying on the order should verify that the organization is actually a named plaintiff.

Fifteen states were also plaintiffs in the case. The states are Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The injunction protects those states and, where applicable, their agencies and political subdivisions. It does not say that every resident of a plaintiff state is protected merely because of residency.

In fact, there’s a lot of air that needs to be cleared. Right now, there are more questions than answers when it comes to the scope of the injunction, necessary changes in federal and state enforcement, the status of FFLs and any rules needing adjustment.

Plus, the DOJ still has options, including an appeal to the Fifth Circuit and, potentially, later review by the Supreme Court. There has been a lot of pressure on the department to quit fighting a losing battle and simply let it go. But it ain’t over until it’s over and the fat lady isn’t singing yet.

It should be noted that Thursday’s suppressor transfers were green-lighted only after consultation with attorneys and anyone contemplating a streamlined acquisition of a suppressor should consult an attorney licensed to practice in their state.

Remember: GOA and our allies are proceeding with this transfer after consulting legal counsel and making an informed decision.

If you plan to do the same, consult your own attorney first to ensure you’re complying with all other applicable laws. https://t.co/GiCLcC2PgO

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 12, 2026

A Historic Win, but the NFA Fight Is Not Over

The good news is still good news. For covered customers in states where possession is lawful, participating dealers can now transfer suppressors without a Form 4, fingerprints, NFA registration, or advance ATF approval. The ordinary Form 4473 and applicable background check still apply.

SBRs and SBSs remain subject to additional Gun Control Act provisions that Judge Hendrix did not enjoin, while AOW relief extends through the Silencer Shop Foundation plaintiffs but not the Jensen plaintiffs.

The ruling is historic, but it is neither universal nor the end of the legal fight.

---

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.

---

from https://ift.tt/bjxq0lQ
via IFTTT

DOJ Says Law-Abiding Americans Can Carry Guns in Public Post Offices

A new Office of Legal Counsel opinion concludes that federal law permits otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense inside post offices open to the public. IMG Duncan Johnson

The United States Department of Justice has released a formal Office of Legal Counsel memorandum opinion clarifying that law-abiding Americans may carry constitutionally protected firearms into publicly accessible post offices for self-defense without violating federal criminal law. The opinion, dated August 12, 2026, and authored by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora C. Pettit, interprets 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), the longstanding prohibition on possessing firearms or other dangerous weapons in federal facilities, as not reaching ordinary self-defense carry in post offices open to the public.

Section 930(a) makes it a federal crime to knowingly possess a firearm in a federal facility, defined as a building or portion thereof owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees regularly perform official duties. Post offices clearly qualify under this definition. However, subsection (d)(3) creates an explicit exception for the “lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”

The OLC concludes that self-defense constitutes a paradigmatic “lawful purpose.” Critically, the opinion holds that no special nexus is required between the reason a person enters the post office and the reason for carrying the firearm. Simply entering a public post office while lawfully armed for self-defense falls within the statutory exception.

The memorandum further determines that the longstanding Postal Service regulation at 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), which imposes a blanket ban on firearms on postal property, cannot be enforced against individuals covered by the statutory exception. A congressional statute prevails over an agency regulation. Therefore, neither federal prosecutors nor the Postal Service may impose criminal penalties under § 930(a) or the regulation against otherwise law-abiding citizens who carry for self-defense in post offices generally open to the public.

The opinion relies in part on the constitutional-avoidance canon. Reading § 930(a) to impose a near-total ban on carrying in public post offices would raise serious constitutional doubts under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and subsequent cases. Post offices open to the public function more like retail establishments than sensitive places such as courthouses or legislative chambers. Historical tradition does not support a blanket prohibition on armed self-defense in such locations. By interpreting the “lawful purposes” exception broadly, the OLC avoids these constitutional problems without claiming that Congress lacks power to regulate firearms on federal property in general. The statute, properly construed, simply does not reach ordinary self-defense carry in public post offices.

The opinion is carefully limited in scope. It applies only to post offices that are generally open to the public. It does not address non-public postal facilities, secure areas, military installations, or other categories of federal buildings. Still, the reasoning is broad enough that it could, in theory, influence how the government approaches other public-facing federal facilities.

The release of the OLC opinion coincides with the Justice Department’s decision not to appeal a federal court ruling that effectively dismantled key permitting requirements under the National Firearms Act. Together, the two developments reflect a significant shift in how the Executive Branch interprets and enforces federal firearms restrictions.

As a formal OLC opinion, the memorandum binds the Executive Branch in its interpretation and enforcement of the statute. Federal prosecutors are directed not to charge law-abiding individuals who carry constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense into public post offices, and the Postal Service may not enforce its conflicting regulation against them. The practical result is that ordinary Americans who are legally permitted to carry firearms may now do so in the thousands of post offices open to the public across the country without fear of federal prosecution under § 930(a).

---

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/8pl72fu
via IFTTT

Ohio’s Unfinished Suppressor Reform Leaves a State-Law Trap for Gun Owners

Ohio continues to classify firearm suppressors as dangerous ordnance even as a federal court blocks NFA registration enforcement for covered buyers in other states. IMG Duncan Johnson

For years, Second Amendment advocates have pointed to an incongruity in Ohio law: a firearm suppressor is classified as “dangerous ordnance.” Ohio Revised Code § 2923.11(K)(5) expressly includes “[a]ny firearm muffler or suppressor” in that definition. The same definition that separately includes explosives, grenades, mines, rocket launchers, and other military-type weapons. A suppressor is not itself statutorily classified as an explosive, but Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance framework nonetheless places it in a legal category far removed from an ordinary firearm accessory.

That classification has serious consequences. Under R.C. 2923.17(A), a person generally may not knowingly acquire, have, carry, or use dangerous ordnance. A violation is a felony of the fifth degree. R.C. 2923.17(D).

For ordinary civilian suppressor owners, the principal statutory protection is found in R.C. 2923.17(C)(5): the exemption for owners of dangerous ordnance registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record under 26 U.S.C. § 5841. Ohio also provides a separate, limited hunting-related provision through R.C. 2923.17(C)(8) and R.C. 1533.04. But for the ordinary owner outside those narrow circumstances, Ohio law ties lawful possession to federal NFA registration.

The Problem SB 214 Addresses

Senate Bill 214 was introduced to eliminate that needless state-law vulnerability. Sponsored by Senator Kyle Koehler, the bill would amend R.C. 1533.04, 2923.11, and 2923.17 to remove firearm mufflers and suppressors from Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance classification.

The point is straightforward. Suppressors do not make firearms silent. They are commonly used to reduce firearm noise, including the harmful impulse noise associated with shooting, and to reduce disturbance to nearby people and property. Yet Ohio continues to treat them under a statutory regime designed for dangerous ordnance.

More importantly, Ohio’s current framework leaves lawful possession dependent on a federal registration mechanism. If Congress were to remove suppressors from the NFA registration scheme, or if federal law otherwise changed so that a particular suppressor was no longer required or capable of being registered in the NFRTR, Ohio’s separate dangerous-ordnance prohibition could remain in force.

Absent a corresponding amendment to Ohio law, a person possessing a suppressor no longer registered in the NFRTR could lose the principal exemption in R.C. 2923.17(C)(5), unless another statutory exemption applied. That is not merely a federal law issue; it presents a potential Ohio felony issue under R.C. 2923.17(A) and (D).

The Senate Acted

The Ohio Senate recognized the need for reform. On March 25, 2026, it passed SB 214 by a 31–1 vote. The bill would remove suppressors from the dangerous-ordnance definition and eliminate the resulting mismatch between Ohio law and any future federal change to suppressor regulation.

The bill then moved to the Ohio House. It was formally received on March 31 and referred to the House Public Safety Committee on May 13. The committee held hearings on June 2 and June 9, and advocates for firearms owners and suppressor reform submitted proponent testimony.

But hearings are not enactment. SB 214 remains pending rather than enacted.

Ohio gun owners remain exposed.

The problem is not that an NFA-registered suppressor is presently unlawful in Ohio. It is not. The problem is that Ohio’s own statute continues to define suppressors as dangerous ordnance and relies principally on federal registration to exempt ordinary civilian ownership from a fifth-degree felony prohibition.

That framework creates an avoidable trap. Federal reform, federal litigation, or a change in the scope of federal registration requirements could leave Ohio law behind. A person might believe that federal law permits possession yet still needs to confront Ohio’s independent dangerous-ordnance statute.

SB 214 would eliminate that state-law defect. It would not determine federal NFA policy, and it would not alter any federal requirements that remain in force. It would simply stop Ohio from treating a firearm muffler or suppressor as dangerous ordnance under state law.

Until the House acts and the legislation becomes law, Ohio suppressor owners remain subject to a statutory structure that turns federal registration status into the central protection against a state felony charge. That is a problem Ohio lawmakers can and should fix. The House should not leave Ohio gun owners one federal policy change away from a state-law felony trap. SB 214 is not radical, complicated, or speculative it is a clean, overdue correction to a statute that treats hearing-protection equipment as dangerous ordnance and makes ordinary citizens’ liberty contingent on a federal registry. The Senate has acted. The record has been made. Now the House must finish the job: pass SB 214, remove suppressors from Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance list, and ensure that no law-abiding Ohioan is left carrying the legal consequences of legislative inaction.

The Ohio House should be called back from early recess with one clear priority: finish the work the Senate has already begun and pass SB 214. Once that straightforward job is done, members can take the next several months off knowing they did not leave Ohio gun owners exposed to an avoidable felony trap.

Ohio’s gun owners should not be forced to live under a law that labels a hearing-protection device “dangerous ordnance” and leaves their rights vulnerable to the next change in federal policy. This is not a partisan stunt or a complicated rewrite. It is a narrowly tailored correction to an outdated statute, and the bill remains before the House after the Senate approved it 31–1.

The testimony has been heard. The need is plain. House leadership should call members back, move SB 214 out of committee, bring it to a vote, and deliver the certainty and protection Ohio gun owners deserve.

Editor’s Note: This problem has become urgent because of the federal court’s ruling in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. The court blocked enforcement of key NFA registration and advance-approval requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” against covered plaintiffs, members, and customers. That victory exposed a second layer of regulation: state laws written on the assumption that these arms would always be registered under the NFA.

Ohio is not alone. Florida, for example, generally prohibits possession of an operable short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun under Fla. Stat. § 790.221, making a violation a second-degree felony. Florida exempts firearms “lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law,” while Ohio expressly relies on registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. The language differs, but the structural danger is similar: as Silencer Shop Foundation dismantles federal NFA requirements for covered gun owners, outdated state prohibitions may create uncertainty or separate felony exposure. States must clean up these NFA-dependent laws so that a federal gun-rights victory does not become a state-law trap.

---

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/p7omcKs
via IFTTT

Ninth Circuit Forced to Deliver Rare Second Amendment Win Against Hawaii’s ‘Vampire Rule’

The Ninth Circuit reinstated the injunction against Hawaii’s private-property “vampire rule” after the Supreme Court reversed the panel’s earlier decision. IMG Jim Grant

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its ruling in Wolford v. Lopez on August 10, 2026, after the Supreme Court overturned its original decision, forcing the California-based court to deliver a rare Second Amendment victory.

The case challenged Hawaii’s 2023 Act 52, a sweeping post-Bruen statute that restricted the carry of firearms in numerous “sensitive places” and created a default ban on carrying firearms onto the private property of another person unless the owner, lessee, operator, or manager gives express authorization—verbal, written, or via clear signage. That private-property default rule is codified at Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-9.5. Critics quickly labeled it the “vampire rule,” because it flipped the longstanding common-law presumption: instead of allowing licensed carriers to enter businesses open to the public unless prohibited, the law made every private commercial property off-limits unless the owner affirmatively invited armed citizens inside.

Gun Owners Challenged Hawaii’s Default Carry Ban

The Hawaii Firearms Coalition teamed up with local residents Jason and Alison Wolford and Atom Kasprzycki to sue the state. The plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to block enforcement of a regulation they viewed as unconstitutional, which they argued effectively nullified the right to bear arms for self-defense in everyday life. The U.S. District Court for the District of Hawaii granted the injunction in part, blocking the private-property default rule as applied to property open to the public and certain other provisions.

On the first appeal, a Ninth Circuit panel in 2024 affirmed some parts of the injunction but reversed others. Most critically, the panel held that the plaintiffs had not shown a likelihood of success on the private-property default rule under § 134-9.5. That ruling left the “vampire rule” largely intact and drew sharp criticism from Second Amendment advocates who viewed the Ninth Circuit as consistently hostile to gun rights.

The plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court. The Court granted review limited to the private-property question, reversed the Ninth Circuit, and remanded the case (Wolford v. Lopez). In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the Court held that Hawaii’s rule prohibiting licensed concealed-carry holders from carrying on private property open to the public without the owner’s express authorization violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. The majority emphasized that the restriction falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment and that Hawaii had failed to identify a relevant historical tradition supporting such a broad default ban. Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett joined a concurrence by Justice Barrett on part of the analysis. Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented.

Ninth Circuit Reinstates the Injunction

The Supreme Court remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to proceed consistent with its opinion. On remand, the same panel has now affirmed the district court’s injunction against HRS § 134-9.5—the private-property default rule—and portions of HRS § 134-9.1(a)(1) that prohibit carry in certain parking areas owned, leased, or used by the State or a county. Specifically, the injunction continues to block restrictions on parking areas shared with non-governmental entities, not reserved for government employees, or not exclusively serving a government building. The panel left its prior analysis of other sensitive-place restrictions largely undisturbed.

The decision marks a significant, if limited, Second Amendment win in a circuit long regarded as openly hostile to the right to keep and bear arms. Similar “default no-carry” laws in California, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland are now under heightened scrutiny. While the case remains at the preliminary-injunction stage and further litigation is expected, the Supreme Court’s clear rejection of Hawaii’s “vampire rule” has already reshaped the legal landscape for public carry nationwide.

---

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/QZh6w5B
via IFTTT

Silencer Shop Puts ATF on Notice: No-Form-4 Suppressor Transfers Set for Midnight

Silencer Shop and Gun Owners of America notified DOJ and ATF of two planned suppressor transfers without Form 4s or NFA registration. IMG Tim Potter

Silencer Shop is preparing to do what the federal government has forbidden Americans from doing for more than 90 years: complete commercial suppressor transfers without ATF permission, Form 4s, or entry into the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

In an August 12 letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche and ATF Director Robert Cekada, Gun Owners of America and Silencer Shop gave the government notice that two transfers are scheduled for midnight Central Time on August 13. One suppressor will go to Brandon Herrera, the Republican candidate for Texas’ 23rd Congressional District. The second will go to Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell.

The letter gives DOJ and ATF until 5 p.m. Eastern on August 12 to say whether they consider the transfers unlawful or intend to continue enforcing the enjoined National Firearms Act provisions.

If the government does not intervene, the parties say these will be the first lawful commercial suppressor transfers since June 26, 1934, completed without complying with the NFA’s registration and advance-approval scheme.

GOA and Silencer Shop put DOJ and ATF on notice:

At midnight tonight, Silencer Shop plans the first lawful commercial suppressor transfers since 1934 without Form 4s or NFA registration. https://t.co/N4ixx6Xme8

— AmmoLand News (@AmmoLand) August 12, 2026

No Form 4, No Registry, No ATF Permission

Silencer Shop is not proposing an off-the-books sale. The company says both transfers will comply with Texas law, the Gun Control Act, and the federal rules that still apply to ordinary firearm transactions. What it will not do is file an ATF Form 4, request advance permission, or register the suppressors under provisions that a federal judge has enjoined.

Both recipients are Texas residents legally eligible to possess firearms. Both are GOA members and will be Silencer Shop customers during the transactions. That makes them, as the letter puts it, covered “twice over” by the injunction.

As AmmoLand previously reported, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix permanently barred ATF and DOJ from enforcing major NFA registration and approval provisions against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their current and future members and customers.

The constitutional reasoning is straightforward. Congress enacted the NFA under its taxing power. Congress later reduced the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs to zero. With no tax to collect, the registration machinery lost the constitutional power supporting it.

The federal government possesses only the powers delegated to it by the Constitution. Courts do not get to rescue a dead taxing-power justification by pretending Congress enacted the statute under some different power. Judge Hendrix accordingly rejected the government’s attempts to retrofit the scheme under the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause.

The court did not reach the Second Amendment claim. Separately, however, the Fifth Circuit has already held that suppressors are protected “Arms” because they facilitate the use of firearms for lawful self-defense.

ATF Has a Choice to Make

The notice removes any claim of surprise. It identifies the seller, buyers, location, timing, and legal basis for the transactions. If ATF interferes, the plaintiffs will have a clean record to take back before Judge Hendrix. If the bureau stands down, Americans will see the practical result of the judgment: a covered customer can buy a suppressor through a licensed dealer without begging ATF for permission.

The move comes while DOJ remains under pressure over whether to appeal and 47 Republican lawmakers are urging the administration to apply the ruling nationwide.

This does not mean the entire NFA has vanished. The injunction protects the plaintiffs and covered members and customers; it is not universal relief. State suppressor bans, the Gun Control Act, and NFA provisions governing still-taxed machine guns and destructive devices remain in place.

For now, the question is much narrower: Will ATF obey the court, or will it attempt to enforce provisions that Judge Hendrix has already declared beyond Congress’s constitutional authority?

---

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/eM8AwWi
via IFTTT

New Study Finds Oregon’s Measure 114 Led to a Surge in Gun Sales

The attempt to restrict gun sales in Oregon via Measure 114 appears to have sparked a massive buying frenzy, according to a new study. iStock-927277240

Who didn’t see this coming? A new study published in the Journal of Public Economics strongly suggests gun sales in Oregon following the narrow passage of Measure 114 in 2022—the extremely restrictive, and arguably unconstitutional, gun control ballot initiative, which is still before the Oregon state Supreme Court—skyrocketed 157 percent. It is definitely not what the anti-gunners behind the measure, which has been tied up in the courts for nearly four years, wanted to see.

Incredibly, researchers Katie Bollman, Benjamin Hansen, Edward Rubin, and Garrett Stanford acknowledge right up front in their introduction, “Measure 114’s proponents intended to reduce the number of firearms in Oregon, subsequently reducing firearm-related accidents and violence…” This was the driving force behind the permit-to-purchase part of the measure, but as the authors admit in their conclusion, “Our results document that Oregon’s gun-control public referendum, Measure 114, induced substantial increases in firearms background checks throughout the state. This effect was most pronounced between the election—when voters narrowly approved the measure—and the judicial stay that indefinitely paused the measure. During this period, we estimate Measure 114 induced 78,000 additional firearm-related background checks—sufficient for 1.9% of Oregon’s residents to have purchased a gun.”

The study was revealed in a report at Phys.org, from Oregon State University. Titled “Gun policy and the steel paradox,” the study notes, “Background checks, a proxy for demand, rose 13.9% in anticipation of the referendum and surged 157% immediately following the election. After judicial intervention halted the law’s enactment, demand returned (to) near pre-election levels.”

However, it seems the researchers can’t quite figure this out: “Temporal displacement/harvesting does not explain the demand spike: after eighteen months, we still observe a substantial cumulative increase of 63,000 excess firearm-related background checks. Administrative data reveal significant within-state heterogeneity.* This evidence underscores the paradoxical effect of gun-control policies, offering a cautionary lesson to policymakers.”

(*For those who speak normal English, here’s a definition of heterogeneity found online: “The quality or state of consisting of diverse, dissimilar, or non-uniform parts, elements, or people. It is the direct opposite of homogeneity, which describes things that are uniform, identical, or entirely alike.”)

Any Beaver State gun owner could have predicted the gun sales spike, and many of them did. Mention “gun control” anywhere and suddenly there is a rush to every gun shop and sporting goods store within driving distance.

The fact that Measure 114 has been gathering dust before the state high court suggests a couple of possibilities:

• The justices in Salem have determined Measure 114 violates the state constitution and they are reluctant to admit it, and/or
• The court has been stalling on a ruling allowing the Democrat-dominated legislature time to pass legislation designed to get around the constitutionality question.

As the Sportsmen’s Alliance put it earlier this year, “The primary vehicle for legislative action this session, HB 4145-B, has been sent to the Governor’s desk. While the version that passed was significantly stripped down from its original form, don’t let the lack of ‘teeth’ fool you. By passing this measure, the legislature has effectively kicked the can down the road by delaying the implementation of Ballot Measure 114 until January 1, 2028.”

The organization added, “The Sportsmen’s Alliance remains firmly opposed to this strategy of delay. ‘Kicking the can’ is not a victory for the Second Amendment; it is a stall tactic that ignores the fundamental flaws of a measure that remains unconstitutional.”

Virtually every gun rights organization in the country lined up to challenge Measure 114 in state or federal court. While the federal cases are stalled on appeal, it was the state-level lawsuit which initially led to a ruling by a circuit court judge in eastern Oregon that the measure was unconstitutional. The ruling was appealed and now the question is before the state Supreme Court.

The article at Phys.org quotes Katie Bollman, an Oregon State University economist, who observed, “It’s not particularly surprising that people go out and buy more guns when they have compelling reason to believe it’s going to become harder to do so in the future. But the magnitude of the increase is pretty remarkable, as is the underlying dynamic driving it.”

Perhaps not so remarkable; Oregonians living outside of Portland, Salem, Corvallis and Eugene—essentially the liberal Willamette Valley and the I-5 corridor—like guns, they want to own guns, and they strongly believe in the Second Amendment.

The end result is something of a bad dream for the public disarmament lobby. Instead of reducing the number of privately owned firearms, their initiative sparked a buying frenzy. That nobody on the political left imagined just how vigorously Oregonians would be buying guns with the passage of Measure 114 is, perhaps, a testament to their naiveté, the same lack of common sense which leads anti-gunners to believe the passage of “one more law” might earn compliance from criminals.

---

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/X7OJnLa
via IFTTT

Gun Owner’s Highway Patrol Encounter Highlights Importance of Asserting Rights

“I recently won a 40k settlement against the Wyoming Highway Patrol after they violated my rights as not only a gun owner, but as an American citizen,” Eli Pagunsan of the “Eli Writes Stories” YouTube channel tells AmmoLand.

No stranger to harassment by law enforcement over exercising his right to keep and bear arms, Pagunsan was victimized by bullying Riverside County (CA) overreach when he was unjustly “red-flagged as a potential school shooter” as a high school freshman at age 14.  As “The Gun Writer” Lee Williams wrote in a 2021 Second Amendment Foundation Investigative Journalism Project report, detailing how he was unjustly reported and how police bullied their way into searching his home, while forced to attend an online alternative school to complete required coursework,  “Pagunsan was never charged with a single crime” but emerged from the ordeal with “Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), severe depression, and general anxiety disorder.”

“He wants parents to know that if their child is ever confronted by officials as he was, they should not let police into their home,” Williams wrote. “’They will try to pressure you. They’ll tell you the search will be quick. It won’t take long. They’ll use every trick in the book,’ he said. ‘Get a lawyer immediately.’”

With that as background, police intimidation and an unsubstantiated overreaction when the Wyoming Highway Patrol interrogated and detained him after he refused to allow them to search his car.

“I got pulled over on an empty stretch of highway for speeding,” Pagunsan tells AmmoLand.  Trooper [Kyle] Hawn, the officer who pulled me over got the idea that I was a drug trafficker. I was disarmed and I was detained in the front seat of the car where Hawn called for backup, but not before interrogating me as being a potential drug trafficker.

“He used getting my wallet and my permits from my car as a way of running my pistol as either stolen or used in a crime,” Paunsan elaborated. “I was let go after their dog went and found nothing and was released from my detention.”

“Later on, I’d agree to a 40k settlement of the case, but not before I went and showed it to James White of Southern Drawl Law who made … videos,” he concluded.

Those were “Wyoming Trooper SUED After Search Refusal & Unlawful Detention!” posted a year ago to chronicle Pagunsan’s ordeal and legal response, and more recently, “Wyoming AG Tried to Come After Me For Sharing Eli’s Story- IT DID NOT WORK!,” posted two weeks ago, in which Criminal defense attorney, former prosecutor, and former police officer James White announced:

“There’s a huge update. We have helped Eli secure a win in his lawsuit, but in the process, the state of Wyoming actually endeavored to try to depose me because I dared to report about the constitutional violations of their Wyoming Highway Patrol trooper…”

“Here’s the dash and bodycam footage,” Pagunsan disclosed to AmmoLand in a follow-up email.  “I’ll provide timestamps for when things happen. Both the bodycam and dashcam are synced, but the bodycam provides the best footage outside of the car, with the dashcam providing the best footage of myself speaking with him.”

1:12 is the initial contact where he approaches me.

At 2:54 I’m asked to step out of the vehicle and I’m disarmed. I comply with the demands of the officer, geet searched, and during this even tell him where my knife and flashlight are.

At 14:42, I’m given the ticket which should, legally, end the stop. I’m detained in the vehicle. Trooper Kyle Hawn asks if I’d consent to a search. I decline, and later on, this would be used against me to say that I’m acting suspicious.

At 28:52, under the guise of getting my wallet from my car to see my other permits, Trooper Hawn calls in my pistol to see if “It’s been used in any crimes or reported stolen(might be butchering that completely).”

I’m let go at the 1:11:29 mark, and at the 1:11:45 mark the gun grabbing officers have an exchange over me being a potential trafficker, and openly ask:

“He’s bipolar and carrying a pistol?”

That Trooper Hawn came off as friendly and understanding, but all the time was trying to entrap Pagunsan, who was being respectful and compliant with orders throughout, should be an object lesson and guide for all gun owner/law enforcement encounters. When they compel you to pull over, they are not doing it to be your understanding friends.

That Hawn made assumptions based on ignorance or prejudice is another. Pagunsan informed him the lithium he was prescribed accounted for his sweating (something easily verifiable with a simple Google search). As for his being “nervous,” the power imbalance and intimidation by multiple troopers against a lone, disarmed driver in the middle of nowhere, bringing several cars out and subjecting him to an extended grilling over an ostensible speeding ticket, and knowing whatever happened would be their word against his, would unnerve anyone.

It also points to an inexcusable lack of competence and training that an armed “Only One” does not understand that without adjudication resulting in a court-ordered stay in a mental health facility, or being ruled mentally incompetent, a citizen, particularly one who is responsibly following a documented medical regimen, is in full possession of his rights.

There’s another lesson here for gun owners that’s every bit as important as not consenting to having your car searched (don’t physically resist, just make it clear you don’t consent and fight it later with an attorney who can argue probable cause): Don’t talk to the police.

Not being a lawyer, I rely on those who are. If you haven’t watched Regent University Law Professor James Duane’s classic cautions to always exercise your Fifth Amendment rights when questioned by government officials, set aside the 46 minutes it takes to do so—and share it with your friends.

Likewise, bookmark The People’s Lawyer YouTube channel, where criminal defense attorney Jeff Hampton tells you exactly what to say when police ask you questions, how to decline to answer until you can consult your attorney, and ask if you are being detained or are free to go.

Pagunsan’s experience gives us plenty of reasons to see how standing up for our rights is good advice that we ignore at our peril.

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

from https://ift.tt/Tj48avx
via IFTTT