Ruby Ridge at 34: The NFA Was Weaponized Against Randy Weaver—Now Its Registration Scheme Is Falling

The two shotguns at the center of the Ruby Ridge case—a cut-down H&R single-shot and Remington Model 870—represented against the NFA paperwork and federal enforcement that turned an alleged barrel-length violation into a deadly siege. AI-generated editorial illustration for AmmoLand News using OpenAI.

Thirty-four years ago, an alleged NFA violation set off a federal operation that ended with a dead 14-year-old boy, a mother shot while holding her baby, and a family home surrounded by snipers. Ruby Ridge remains one of the clearest examples of how quickly an unconstitutional gun law can become an excuse for unchecked government force.

Gun Owners of America’s video marking the 34th anniversary of Ruby Ridge does more than retell the deadly federal siege. It draws a straight line from the National Firearms Act being weaponized against Randy Weaver in 1992 to the federal court victory now dismantling the NFA registration scheme for short-barreled firearms and suppressors.

“The events at Ruby Ridge could happen to anyone,” the video warns.

That is the point gun owners should remember on August 21. Ruby Ridge began with federal gun control. The government used an alleged NFA violation to pressure Weaver, pursue him, and ultimately justify an armed federal operation that left his wife, son, and dog dead.

Now, 34 years later, the same registration system that gave ATF its excuse has been declared unconstitutional as applied to suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain other weapons covered by the recent injunction.

34 years ago today, federal agents used the NFA as an excuse to target Randy Weaver. Those agents killed his wife, his son, and his dog with no consequence.

Every year, we remember what happened on August 21, 1992, at Ruby Ridge.

We remember. We fight on. pic.twitter.com/GP0rPuT2nA

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 21, 2026

ATF Used the NFA to Target Weaver

“An ATF informant manipulated Randy Weaver, who had no intention of doing any harm to anyone, into making a short-barreled shotgun,” GOA states in the video.

The informant solicited Weaver to shorten two shotguns. ATF then charged Weaver with making and possessing unregistered short-barreled shotguns under the NFA. The agency attempted to use the charges as leverage to force Weaver to become an informant. Weaver refused.

That is how the NFA has always operated. It turns possession of an otherwise ordinary firearm into a federal felony based on barrel length, registration paperwork, and whether the owner first obtained government permission.

A shotgun with an 18-inch barrel is treated as an ordinary firearm. Reduce that measurement below the NFA’s arbitrary limit without registering it, and the federal government claims the authority to send armed agents and threaten the owner with years in prison. The NFA supplied the pretext for everything that followed at Ruby Ridge.

After his arrest, Weaver was released pending trial. His probation officer sent him a letter incorrectly stating that his court date was March 20, 1991. The actual trial was scheduled for February 20.

When Weaver failed to appear in February, the court issued a bench warrant. The government later learned about its incorrect notice but did not withdraw the warrant. Prosecutors obtained a failure-to-appear indictment on March 14, six days before the date provided in the government’s own letter. Instead of correcting its mistake, the government escalated.

A Federal Gun Case Became a Deadly Siege

On August 21, 1992, six deputy U.S. Marshals entered the Weaver property to conduct surveillance ahead of an arrest operation. They wore camouflage, carried rifles, used night-vision equipment, and displayed no readily visible law-enforcement identification.

When the family dog, Striker, discovered the surveillance team, a marshal shot and killed him. Gunfire followed. Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan was killed, and 14-year-old Samuel Weaver was shot in the back while running toward the family cabin.

The following day, the FBI Hostage Rescue Team surrounded the property. An FBI sniper shot and wounded Randy Weaver. He then fired through the cabin doorway as Weaver, family friend Kevin Harris, and Weaver’s daughter Sara ran for cover. The bullet struck Vicki Weaver in the head as she stood behind the door holding her 10-month-old daughter. Vicki died instantly. The bullet continued into Harris, seriously wounding him.

The siege ended only after civilian negotiator Bo Gritz entered the property and convinced the surviving occupants to surrender.

As GOA summarizes the federal response, authorities treated the Weaver family “like a group of armed terrorists.”

The Government’s Case Fell Apart

A federal jury acquitted Harris of every charge. Weaver was acquitted of the original firearms charge and all major charges arising from the standoff. He was convicted only of failure to appear and violating his conditions of release. The government that used the NFA charge to begin the confrontation could not convince a jury that Weaver committed the alleged firearms offense.

The Justice Department’s Ruby Ridge Task Force later concluded that portions of the FBI’s rules of engagement “contravened the Constitution.” Investigators also determined that Horiuchi’s second shot failed to meet the constitutional standard for deadly force.

In 1995, the government paid the Weaver family $3.1 million to settle its civil claims. No federal agent was criminally convicted for killing Samuel or Vicki Weaver. Taxpayers paid the settlement.

“Mr. Weaver lost his son and wife because the ATF wanted to entrap him,” GOA says. “Each year we at GOA remember this day as an example of what can happen when gun control is weaponized against American citizens.”

The NFA Is Finally Losing in Court

The timing of this anniversary makes GOA’s message especially powerful. On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled in the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF cases that the NFA’s remaining registration and approval requirements exceeded Congress’s constitutional taxing authority after Congress reduced the making and transfer taxes to zero.

The NFA was enacted as a tax measure. Once Congress eliminated the tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons, the government could no longer defend the accompanying registry as necessary to collect a tax that no longer existed.

As GOA says in the video, “We’re looking at a completely different legal landscape for the NFA, with the registration requirements on short-barreled firearms being declared unconstitutional.”

Judge Hendrix entered a permanent injunction protecting the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their current and future members, customers, agencies, and political subdivisions. GOA and the Gun Owners Foundation are plaintiffs in the Silencer Shop Foundation case.

The government was given seven days to seek a longer stay. It allowed the deadline to expire, and the injunction took effect on August 13.

At 12:01 a.m. that morning, GOA members Brandon Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell took possession of suppressors without filing ATF Form 4s or placing the suppressors in the federal NFA registry. According to GOA, they were the first lawful, unregistered suppressor transfers since the NFA took effect in 1934.

The injunction is not yet a nationwide erasure of the NFA. It applies to the parties and covered members and customers, while separate Gun Control Act provisions still complicate commercial transfers of short-barreled rifles and shotguns. ATF has also failed to provide the industry with clear written guidance.

But the constitutional verdict against the NFA registration scheme has been entered.

From Ruby Ridge to the Beginning of the NFA’s End

Ruby Ridge showed what happens when federal gun control is placed in the hands of unaccountable agencies.

An ATF informant solicited an NFA violation. The agency attempted to turn the charge into leverage. A government error produced a warrant. Armed agents entered the Weaver property. A marshal killed the family dog. Samuel Weaver was shot in the back. The FBI adopted unconstitutional rules of engagement, and a federal sniper killed Vicki Weaver while she held her baby.

Thirty-four years later, gun owners are watching the legal foundation of that same registration scheme crack apart.

That is the significance of GOA’s anniversary video. Ruby Ridge is not merely a warning from the past. It is part of the reason gun owners continue fighting the NFA today.

“GOA will continue to fight back against rogue agencies and the bureaucrats that want to take away your Second Amendment rights,” the video concludes.

Ruby Ridge showed the cost of allowing federal gun control to go unchallenged. The 2026 NFA ruling shows what happens when gun owners refuse to stop challenging it.

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/p5m3Vfq
via IFTTT

FFLs Pass ATF Inspections After Transferring Suppressors on Form 4473

Sources tell AmmoLand News that ATF inspectors reviewed 4473-only suppressor transfers at four FFLs without citing the transactions as violations. IMG Tim Potter

Since the stay in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Jensen v. ATF has been lifted, many federal firearms licensees (FFLs) have started transferring suppressors on ATF Form 4473s and have dropped the requirement for a Form 4 for people covered by the injunction, with little guidance from the ATF.

In the landmark cases, a judge in Texas enjoined the ATF from enforcing the National Firearms Act (NFA) requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs) for the plaintiffs, members of the organizations, and the Silencer Shop Foundation. The plaintiffs in Jensen have the same protections, except for AOWs. However, even though NFA restrictions were lifted for SBRs and SBSs, they still require a Form 4 to be transferred by an FFL due to the Attorney General notification requirements under the Gun Control Act (GCA).

Many FFLs have held off on transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 due to a lack of guidance from the ATF. Many expected the ATF to issue guidance relatively quickly, but there have been delays.

Inside sources pointed to delays above the ATF, and there is no timeline for the guidance to be released. This delay has led to more and more FFLs starting to transfer suppressors on 4473s.

Many questions and rumors have been swirling online, prompting an AmmoLand News investigation. One rumor was that FFLs received a widespread notification not to transfer suppressors on a 4473. We determined that no widespread notification has been sent to FFLs. Another rumor was that the ATF was issuing cease-and-desist letters to FFLs to prevent them from transferring suppressors on a 4473. AmmoLand News has found no evidence that this is true; it is mostly just another internet rumor.

What AmmoLand News has determined, after speaking to multiple sources on condition of anonymity, is that at least four inspections in four states (East Coast, South, Midwest, and Southwest) have occurred at shops that have transferred suppressors on 4473s. The lawsuits did not trigger these inspections. They were scheduled inspections that just happened to occur after the transfers started. These were routine inspections conducted every few years.

All four shops have been transferring suppressors on 4473s, and all four shops passed with 0 violations. The industry operations inspectors (IOIs) did not consider these suppressor transfers a violation because of the injunction issued by Texas. All four shops were corporate members of the organizations in the lawsuits, or the suppressors were transferred to members of one of the organizations. According to AmmoLand sources, what some shops have done to keep separate books for NFA and GCA items is mark them “disposed” in their NFA books and move them to the GCA books for transfers. This seems to have satisfied the IOIs in at least two states.

We cannot say for sure that every IOI in every state will follow the same procedure, but the fact that four separate FFLs in four separate states have passed inspections while transferring suppressors on a 4473 shows widespread acceptance. It is unknown whether guidance has been initiated from the top of the ATF or from the individual branch office.

The federal government has seemed reluctant to release guidelines for FFLs, leaving many FFLs feeling in limbo.

If the Trump administration wants to count on gun owners’ votes in the midterms, the guidance should be released as soon as possible to put the gun shop owners’ minds at ease. If they refuse to, the court should force the government’s hand by issuing an order requiring the ATF to do so immediately.

This report is not legal advice. Dealers and prospective buyers should consult qualified counsel before relying on the injunction.

---

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/iAwP9Bu
via IFTTT

Ninth Circuit Rejects California, Giffords Bid to Expand ATF ‘Ghost Gun’ Rule

The Ninth Circuit dismissed California and Giffords’ challenge seeking broader federal regulation of unfinished receivers for lack of standing. AI-generated photo illustration created for AmmoLand News.

The Ninth Circuit has rejected California and the Giffords Law Center’s attempt to force the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate even more unfinished AR-15 receivers. In State of California v. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, a three-judge panel ruled that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring the challenge.

In an August 21 opinion, a three-judge panel vacated a lower court order that had struck down Example 4 of ATF’s 2022 frame-and-receiver rule. The case will return to the district court with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice.

California v. ATF, Ninth Circuit case No. 24-2701, began as a challenge to ATF’s treatment of unfinished receivers that had not yet received critical machining and were not packaged with completion tools.

Example 4 marks one of the few remaining lines between an unfinished piece of material and a federally regulated firearm receiver. Under Example 4, an AR-15 billet or blank is not a receiver when its critical interior areas have not been indexed, machined, or formed—and it is not sold, distributed, or possessed with the jigs, templates, instructions, or tools needed to complete it readily.

California and Giffords wanted that line pushed further back. In practical terms, they wanted ATF to treat an even less-finished chunk of aluminum or polymer as a firearm under the Gun Control Act.

California Could Not Prove Its Case Belonged in Court

California claimed Example 4 forced the state to spend more money training law enforcement and accelerating its own restrictions on unfinished receivers. Giffords made a similar argument, claiming it diverted resources to combat the alleged consequences of ATF’s decision. The Ninth Circuit was not persuaded.

Article III standing, Judge Consuelo Callahan explained, is a “bedrock constitutional requirement.” Federal courts decide actual cases involving concrete injuries. They are not supposed to serve as another legislative chamber for states and political organizations unhappy with federal policy.

Most of California’s evidence concerned money spent between 2016 and 2022—before ATF published the rule containing Example 4. The state also relied heavily on broad statistics involving privately made firearms without separating products covered by Example 4 from the parts kits already regulated by ATF.

That is a serious evidentiary problem. California could not simply point to every unserialized firearm recovered by police and blame a narrow regulatory example governing early-stage AR-15 blanks.

The state’s own numbers may have hurt more than they helped. According to the opinion, privately made firearms represented 9% of firearms recovered in Los Angeles County in July 2021. During 2022 and January 2023, the figure ranged from approximately 5% to 8%.

Rather than showing that Example 4 caused an increase, the only post-rule evidence California presented suggested a decline.

The court consequently refused to “endorse standing theories that rest on speculation” about how independent parties might behave.

A Piece of Aluminum Is Not Automatically a Firearm

The underlying dispute is not difficult for anyone who has actually machined an AR-15 receiver—or even examined one next to a raw forging—to understand.

A receiver has to become a receiver at some identifiable point in the manufacturing process. Raw material does not become a firearm merely because a person with enough time, machinery, tooling, and skill could eventually turn it into one. Given enough work, steel bar stock can become a rifle barrel. That does not make every steel bar a firearm.

ATF’s rule is already aggressive. Example 2 says a partially completed billet with one or more template holes drilled or indexed in the correct location may be classified as a receiver because someone using common hand tools could readily finish it.

Example 4 provides the counterexample: no critical machining and no accompanying completion equipment means the object has not yet crossed the federal line. That is the distinction California and Giffords wanted erased.

AmmoLand warned when the lawsuit was filed that the plaintiffs were conflating separate portions of the Gun Control Act. Congress defined a firearm to include a weapon that “may readily be converted” to fire, while separately listing the frame or receiver of such a weapon. California’s theory attempted to stretch that language until the government could regulate an object before it became a receiver at all.

This Is a Standing Decision, Not the End of the Rule

Gun owners should understand what the Ninth Circuit did and did not decide. The panel did not hold that ATF’s entire 2022 rule violates the Second Amendment. It did not decide whether Congress could constitutionally regulate particular unfinished receivers, and it did not create a nationwide right to purchase every product marketed as an “80% receiver.”

The court ruled only that California and Giffords failed to establish an injury caused by Example 4. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, another lawsuit could potentially return with different plaintiffs or stronger evidence.

State restrictions also remain separate. California can, and does, impose its own requirements on firearm precursor parts. This decision preserves the federal classification addressed by Example 4; it does not wipe away California law.

The ruling nevertheless arrives at an important time. Just days earlier, a Texas federal judge held ATF’s frame-and-receiver rule unconstitutional as applied to Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and covered SAF members. As AmmoLand reported, that court found the rule unconstitutionally vague and incompatible with the historical tradition of private firearm making.

The two decisions reach different issues, but they expose the same basic problem: ATF’s rule has produced years of litigation because unelected bureaucrats tried to decide when raw material becomes a firearm without a clear line drawn by Congress.

California and Giffords wanted the bureaucracy to reach even further. This time, the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement stopped them.

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/nQT5pKo
via IFTTT

Washington 2A Advocates Focus on Supreme Court Election: ‘You Must Vote!’

The battle to elect a conservative majority to the Washington State Supreme Court will be intense. AI-generated editorial illustration for AmmoLand News using OpenAI.

For the first time in recent history, five seats on the Washington State Supreme Court are up for grabs, and this year, there are five conservative candidates vying for those positions, with the support of Evergreen State gun rights advocates.

The state high court will rule on various cases which could alter the course of government and possibly reverse the current exodus of gun owners and conservative voters to other states where taxes are lower, the cost of living is far less expensive, and where the Second Amendment is not under relentless attack.

AmmoLand News reached out to veteran gun rights activist Jane Milhans of Washington’s Pierce County. Over the past few years, she has become one of the leading spokespersons for gun owner rights during the legislative sessions in Olympia. For her, this is more than just an election. It is an opportunity to genuine common sense to the state Supreme Court.

“The Washington State Supreme Court election in 2026 is the single most important election for firearm owners in our state,” Milhans said via email. “For the first time in decades, voters have an opportunity to flip five of the nine seats on the Court. What that means is simple: firearm owners could finally begin winning cases at the state level.”

She is urging gun owners to turn out for the November election in support of five candidates: Dave Larson, Scott Edwards, David Stevens, Sean O’Donnell and Todd A. Bloom.

Supreme Court races are non-partisan, but other candidates running for those seats have the support of liberal anti-gunners. The liberal Supreme Court as been unflatteringly nicknamed the “Seattle Supreme Court” in recent years. The state Supreme Court which held that Seattle’s special “gun violence tax” on the sale of firearms and ammunition in the city was constitutional as a tax measure, despite the fact that evidence provided at trial showed its backers considered it a gun control effort.

It would be the State Supreme Court which will decide the legality of the state’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines,” and the constitutionality of mandates contained in House Bill 1163, including a “permit-to-purchase,” which involves completion of a gun safety course including a live-fire component. It will be the same requirement to obtain a Concealed Pistol License (CPL), which has not required such a course in the 90-plus year history of licensed concealed carry in the state. HB 1163 takes effect next May 1, and civil rights lawsuits are almost certain to follow quickly.

Article 1, Section 24 of the State Constitution reads, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

RCW 9.41.290, Washington state’s model preemption statute, adopted more than 40 years ago, reads: “The state of Washington hereby fully occupies and preempts the entire field of firearms regulation within the boundaries of the state, including the registration, licensing, possession, purchase, sale, acquisition, transfer, discharge, and transportation of firearms, or any other element relating to firearms or parts thereof, including ammunition and reloader components. Cities, towns, and counties or other municipalities may enact only those laws and ordinances relating to firearms that are specifically authorized by state law, as in RCW 9.41.300, and are consistent with this chapter. Such local ordinances shall have the same penalty as provided for by state law. Local laws and ordinances that are inconsistent with, more restrictive than, or exceed the requirements of state law shall not be enacted and are preempted and repealed, regardless of the nature of the code, charter, or home rule status of such city, town, county, or municipality.”

Milhans, in her correspondence with AmmoLand, explained the importance of electing these five judicial candidates: “If the Court shifts, we could see the repeal of unconstitutional Washington laws — including the so‑called ‘assault weapon’ ban, the magazine ban, and the permit‑to‑purchase requirements with forced training. Every one of the current incumbent justices has ruled against our Second Amendment rights. The power to change that rests entirely with gun owners who vote.”

Voter turnout in the August primary was an abysmal 36 percent. Milhans knows gun owners, hunters and traditional conservative voters must turn out in big numbers. She also knows they are traditionally lethargic, if not apathetic, and many have joined the exodus to friendlier states, including Idaho, Montana, Arizona, Texas and Florida.

“With turnout sitting far too low,” she stressed, “every firearm owner must vote for the five candidates who support constitutional rights in the general election on November 3. Our rights are only protected when we elect justices who uphold the Constitution.”

In a recent post on Facebook, Milhans stated, “If you are not interested in voting, or making any efforts to help Pro-2A candidates get elected, then do not expect any 2A organizations to file a legal action to support your constitutional rights. They will spend their money in other states where the voters care by putting in efforts to help Pro-2A candidates win. Do not let the opportunity slip away. Do not give up. We all must do our part to defend our rights.”

---

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/2DdQts5
via IFTTT

Herrera’s Opponent Invokes ‘Brain Development’ to Restrict Gun Rights for Adults Under 21

At 18, Americans are legal adults, but gun-control advocates want the government to withhold their ability to purchase commonly owned rifles until age 21. Original editorial illustration created for AmmoLand News using OpenAI image-generation technology.

Democratic congressional candidate Katy Padilla Stout says she supports stripping legal adults under 21 of their ability to purchase commonly owned semiautomatic rifles because their brains supposedly are not sufficiently developed.

That position surfaced in a short video promoted by LivesRobbed, a Texas gun-control organization pushing lawmakers to raise the minimum age for buying a so-called “assault rifle” from 18 to 21.

Asked whether she supported the proposal, Padilla Stout answered, “We know the frontal cortex isn’t done developing, and so I do think that makes common sense to be able to do that.”

Herrera Calls Out the ‘Brain Development’ Excuse

Brandon Herrera, the Republican nominee running against Padilla Stout in Texas’ 23rd Congressional District, quickly responded on X. Herrera wrote that his opponent was “apparently suggesting” raising the gun-buying age to 25—an inference apparently based on the popular claim that the frontal cortex continues developing until roughly that age.

My radical leftist opponent Katy Stout is now apparently suggesting we raise to age to buy a gun to 25.

Where does the Democratic Party find these people? pic.twitter.com/oMCw4XH8uM

— Brandon Herrera (@TheAKGuy) August 18, 2026

The source video promotes raising the age from 18 to 21. Padilla Stout did not expressly propose raising the age limit to 25 in the available clip, but she did propose another infringement. Padilla Stout recommended requiring young adult gun owners to obtain a sponsor to exercise their constitutional rights. She clearly believes the government should deny an enumerated constitutional right to a class of law-abiding adults based on a generalized argument about brain development.

Using vague claims of being a researcher at heart to justify gun control is not “common sense.”

The Second Amendment does not say the right of the people to keep and bear arms begins when a legislator believes the frontal cortex is mature. At 18, an American is a legal adult who can vote, sign a contract, serve on a jury, enlist in the military, and be held fully responsible under the criminal law. The notion that the same adult is too immature to purchase an ordinary semiautomatic rifle collapses as soon as the government is asked to justify it under the Constitution’s text and history.

Fifth Circuit: Adults Ages 18–20 Are Part of ‘The People’

That problem is especially glaring in Texas. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, whose jurisdiction includes Texas, addressed closely related reasoning in Reese v. ATF. The court held that 18-to-20-year-old adults are part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and struck down the federal prohibition preventing federally licensed dealers from selling them handguns.

The Reese court found no historical tradition supporting the government’s attempt to exclude young adults from the right. It pointed to the Founding-era militia tradition, under which 18-year-olds were expected to appear armed with weapons of their own.

Reese dealt specifically with commercial handgun sales, not a proposed restriction on semiautomatic rifles. Nevertheless, its reasoning presents a serious constitutional obstacle for politicians seeking to impose a new long-gun purchase ban on the same adults.

Federal law currently allows licensed dealers to sell rifles and shotguns to eligible buyers beginning at 18, while imposing a 21-year minimum for dealer handgun sales. Padilla Stout would extend the higher threshold to rifles Democrats label “assault weapons”—a political category generally aimed at AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms owned by millions of Americans.

TX-23 Voters Face a Clear Choice on Gun Rights

Padilla Stout is not running as a gun-neutral moderate. She has been endorsed by Giffords PAC and has supported universal background checks, red-flag laws, and a bump-stock ban. Herrera, by contrast, openly campaigns as a Second Amendment absolutist and has called for nationwide constitutional carry.

That makes the TX-23 contest one of the clearest gun-rights matchups of the 2026 election. Voters are not merely choosing between two candidates with different regulatory preferences. They are choosing between a candidate who treats the Second Amendment as a right belonging to the people and one who believes politicians may decide when an adult is mature enough to exercise it.

Rights do not begin at 21 or 25. If rights were dependent on a fully developed brain, then very few people would have rights at all. The constitution is not a permission slip issued after the government conducts a neurological maturity assessment. Eighteen-year-old Americans are adults, and the Constitution already includes them.

---

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/Vi5BvKX
via IFTTT

Virginia State Shooting Exposes the Failed Logic of Gun Control

Gun-control advocates promise public safety, but their proposed restrictions often rest on disputed claims and policies disconnected from the crimes used to promote them. AmmoLand News editorial illustration created with AI.

On Saturday, August 15, 2026, at about 1:30 a.m. on the Virginia State University campus, a shooting broke out. Five people were wounded, one of them a 20-year-old student at the university. Camron Rarris, 19, was found hours later and was charged with four counts of malicious wounding. The Virginia State student was treated and released with non-life-threatening injuries. A 21-year-old man remains in critical condition, according to foxnews.com.

Police are seeking others to determine if some people fired back in defense of self and others. A 23-year-old man, a 17-year-old teenager, and a 19-year-old woman had non-life-threatening injuries. The crimes appear to have had little to do with the school, aside from its location.

Virginia State University is located about 25 miles south of Richmond and has close to six thousand students. The cause of the shooting is not yet known.

Sandy Hook Promise, a non-profit with a mandate to reduce school violence, referenced the Virginia State incident and posted this on X:

Students should never have to fear gun violence in a place where they go to learn, grow, and build their futures.

Gun violence is an ever-growing public health epidemic that demands our attention now.#EndGunViolence #HonorWithAction https://t.co/Rqdy6EuBfT

— Sandy Hook Promise (@sandyhook) August 15, 2026

“Gun violence” is a political term designed to associate guns with social problems.

The term conflates suicides, murders, justified homicides, and firearm accidents as all part of the problem, and thus, defines the “problem” as “guns”. Suicides and homicides have different causes and solutions. The number of guns in a community is not correlated with the number of suicides or homicides. Fatal accidents with guns have been dropping for over a hundred years and are at an all-time low, in spite of firearms ownership being at an all-time high.

In 2025, and it appears likely in 2026, the murder rate in the USA was and will be at an all time low.

Unfortunately, Sandy Hook Promise is actively working to, “expand background checks on all firearm sales, pass temporary transfer orders, create secure storage laws, limit high-capacity magazines, and institute high-capacity magazine limits.”

There is little reason or evidence to believe these policies would actually reduce active school shootings.

There is no consideration of the costs of such policies or the reasons such policies are becoming more and more difficult to implement.  Instead the site promotes highly controversial statements such as:

Background checks rarely provide false-positive results. 

The FBI makes the claim, but John Lott presents plenty of evidence the claim is not correct, that a large number of false positives are created, and the false positive have large racial biases. There is little, if any evidence more background checks would reduce the murder rate or the number of active mass murders. A bill has passed the House, and is pending before the Senate, to force the FBI to share NICS demographic data with the Congress. Currently, the FBI refuses to do so.

Sandy Hook Promise promotes what they call “Temporary Transfer Orders”, which appear to be “red flag” laws designed to allow courts to take people’s guns without due process.

As the statement at Sandy Hook Promise claims these orders respect due process, it is difficult to see exactly what they are promoting. All states currently have processes to place people under care if a court has evidence they pose a threat to themselves or others. Those processes do not focus on firearms. They focus on the individuals and the potential threat they may pose. It is unclear exactly what Sandy Hook Promise is promoting with this policy.

Sandy Hook Promise also opposes some weapons modifications. Auto sears are already heavily regulated and almost impossible to legally obtain. “Switches” are a type of auto sear. Bump Stocks are almost never used in crime. Forced-reset triggers are almost never used in crime. The premise used to oppose these modifications is that more shots fired mean more innocents hurt. The example given is Sandy Hook. None of these devices were used at Sandy Hook. These devices make some incidents less dangerous by making the firearms hard to control and aim, thus reducing casualties.

Narrative Comes Before the Evidence

For gun-control organizations, nearly every shooting produces the same diagnosis. A criminal act becomes “gun violence.” The firearm becomes the disease. Restrictions on peaceable gun owners become the prescribed cure.

Sandy Hook Promise did not wait for the facts of the Virginia State University shooting. It immediately reached for the same political label and the same gun-control agenda.

Criminal violence should be answered by identifying and prosecuting the people responsible. It should not become a pretext for burdening Americans who committed no crime.

More fundamentally, the right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on Sandy Hook Promise’s policy preferences. The Second Amendment removed that right from ordinary political interest balancing. Advocacy organizations cannot manufacture government authority by relabeling a protected right as a public-health problem.

The failed logic remains the same: blame the gun, ignore the criminal, and demand restrictions on everyone else. Americans are increasingly unwilling to accept that answer.

---

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/Eo5suxe
via IFTTT

Armed Rochester Homeowner Fatally Shoots Paroled Burglar, Police Say

Police say a legally armed Rochester homeowner fatally shot a suspected burglar who entered his residence before dawn. iStock-944927264

A Rochester, New York, homeowner reportedly awakened before dawn to the sound of someone breaking into his house. By the time police arrived, the suspected burglar was dead in the kitchen—and the homeowner was ready to cooperate with investigators.

According to reports, the Rochester Police Department officers responded to a home on Avery Street at approximately 4:30 a.m. on August 3. A neighbor initially called 911 after hearing gunshots. The homeowner then called and reported that he had shot someone who broke into his residence.

Police found the intruder inside the kitchen and pronounced him dead at the scene.

Police Say Shooting “Appears to Be Justified”

Rochester Police Capt. Frank Umbrino said the suspected burglar entered through the rear of the house. Investigators do not believe the homeowner and intruder knew one another.

The homeowner possessed a valid New York pistol permit and reportedly used a legally owned and registered handgun. Police did not arrest him, and Umbrino said the shooting “appears to be justified.”

His advice for anyone considering a similar crime was considerably less complicated than New York’s firearm laws.

“My message is don’t break into houses,” Umbrino said.

Police also revealed that the dead man was on parole for a previous burglary conviction. The Avery Street home had reportedly been burglarized at least twice since June, while neighbors told investigators that other houses in the area had also recently been targeted.

Authorities had not released the suspected burglar’s identity at the time of the initial reports.

The Criminal-Justice System Failed Before the Gun Owner Acted

This case presents a familiar contrast. New York required the homeowner to obtain government permission before acquiring and possessing the handgun he used to defend himself. The firearm had to be registered, and the owner had to navigate one of the most restrictive handgun-licensing systems in the country.

The suspected burglar, meanwhile, was already known to the criminal-justice system and had been released on parole after a previous burglary conviction.

The state’s licensing bureaucracy did not stop the break-in. Parole supervision apparently did not stop it, either. When someone allegedly entered an occupied home before dawn, the only person immediately available to protect the occupants was the armed citizen already inside.

That is why the right to keep and bear arms cannot depend on whether government officials believe a particular person has demonstrated enough “need” to exercise it.

The Right of Self-Defense Predates New York’s Permission Slip

The Second Amendment did not create the right to armed self-defense, nor did New York confer that right by issuing this homeowner a pistol permit. The Constitution protects a pre-existing right belonging to the people.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized defense of the home as central to the Second Amendment. A firearm locked away at a police station, or tied up behind months of applications, interviews and administrative delays, cannot protect a person or family when someone crashes through the back door at 4:30 in the morning.

The publicly available reports do not explain whether the intruder was armed or describe every movement preceding the shooting. The final legal determination belongs to investigators and prosecutors. What police have said, however, points strongly toward a lawful defensive gun use: an unknown man allegedly broke into an occupied home, was confronted inside the kitchen, and was shot by a cooperating, legally armed homeowner.

Gun-control advocates often treat armed citizens as a danger that must be managed. Rochester’s experience offers the opposite lesson.

The repeat burglar was not stopped by a permit requirement, a gun registry or the parole system. He was stopped by a homeowner who had the means to defend his home when the government was not there.

---

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/aL9VQp4
via IFTTT