Virginia Judges Reject State’s Bid To Combine Gun-Ban Lawsuits

A Virginia judicial panel denied the Commonwealth’s attempt to centralize four lawsuits challenging the state’s new gun-control laws. img Duncan Johnson

Virginia’s attempt to consolidate four separate challenges to its new gun-control laws into a single courtroom has failed.

A judicial panel denied the Commonwealth’s application to transfer Santolla v Katz, Crump v Katz, Curtis v Katz, and Black v Hook into a single proceeding, finding that the state had not met the legal burden required for such a move. The ruling keeps the lawsuits in the courts where gun owners, gun-rights groups, and firearms businesses chose to file them.

After passing new restrictions on so-called “assault firearms” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” Virginia officials sought to consolidate multiple lawsuits challenging different parts of the scheme. The state argued that one centralized forum would reduce the risk of duplicative or inconsistent rulings and make things more convenient for government lawyers.

VICTORY

A three judge panel in Virginia just DENIED consolidation of the cases filed against @SpanbergerForVA‘s slew of anti-gun legislation.

This is huge benefit for every case filed because they can now proceed in their own courts. https://t.co/xo9yZIBwpR pic.twitter.com/X1qjpxxIGk

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) July 6, 2026

Virginia Wanted One Courtroom For Four Different Cases

In their opposition, the Crump plaintiffs put it plainly: “If Applicants wish to enforce their infringements statewide, they should be willing to defend those infringements statewide.”

John Crump, one of the plaintiffs in Crump v. Katz and an AmmoLand News contributor, welcomed the panel’s decision.

“I am happy that Jay Jones attempt to consolidate the cases have failed. The law is clearly unconstitutional and we look forward to proving it in court,” Crump said.

Virginia politicians enacted statewide restrictions affecting law-abiding gun owners across the Commonwealth. Now that those citizens have sued in their own communities, the state wants the litigation moved to a forum more convenient for Richmond.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 20" Nitride Rifle-Length 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 Rifle W/Carry Handle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 13.5" M-Lok Railed Rifle	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 16"Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99

The panel was not persuaded. In its findings, the panel said common questions of law or fact do not predominate across the actions. While the cases have some logical connection, the panel found they do not share the same statutory framework and that the fundamental questions are not the same.

The Crump opposition laid out why. Crump v. Katz raises statutory-interpretation questions about what conduct remains lawful under the challenged statutes, including issues involving multicaliber magazines, the manufacture of new “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” and semiautomatic shotguns with more than one prohibited characteristic. Crump and Santolla also challenge Virginia’s public-carry restrictions on so-called “assault firearms.”

Black v. Hook goes in a different direction, raising a federal Second Amendment claim, a Virginia right-to-hunt claim, and vagueness claims. Curtis v. Katz primarily focuses on the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution.

In other words, these are not four carbon-copy lawsuits with different captions. They are separate attacks on a sweeping gun-control regime, brought by different plaintiffs, in different places, under different legal theories.

Panel Finds Transfer Was Not Justified

The panel also rejected the Commonwealth’s convenience argument. It noted that some plaintiffs would face significant inconvenience if forced to travel to another forum during normal working hours and potentially pay for travel and lodging. The Commonwealth, by contrast, did not claim inconvenience to its own employees.

Perhaps the most important part of the ruling is the panel’s recognition that the cases were already too far along for transfer to solve the state’s stated problem. Separate courts had already heard arguments and declarations on preliminary injunctions, and courts had ruled on preliminary injunctions in three of the four cases.

As the panel put it: “It is too late to properly prevent inconsistent rulings.”

Why This Matters For Virginia Gun Owners

This is not a final ruling on whether Virginia’s gun bans violate the Virginia Constitution, the Second Amendment, or any other protection. But it is a meaningful procedural defeat for the Commonwealth.

Virginia wanted to simplify its defense of a broad anti-gun agenda. Instead, it will have to defend that agenda where gun owners brought their cases.

If the Commonwealth wants to enforce its bans statewide, it can answer for them statewide.

---

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/Q417Uyl
via IFTTT

Johns Hopkins Public Carry Guide Revives Old Gun-Control Myths

Johns Hopkins’ new public carry permitting guide urges lawmakers to tighten carry laws, but gun-rights advocates say the recommendations ignore Bruen and revive old gun-control arguments. iStock-901659046

The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Heath’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions (CGVS) recently released its Public Carry Permitting Guide.

It’s the latest in a series. Previous titles include: Extreme Risk Protection Orders (March 2024), Safe Storage (March 2025), and Firearm Purchaser Licensing (July 2025).

From the outset, the reader should be aware that while the CGVS’ mailing address may be in Baltimore, its physical address is clearly somewhere in the Twilight Zone.

In its latest release, the CGVS claims when states relax carry laws, they experience increased ‘gun violence’.

To solve this, the CGVS says we must clamp down on the permissive trend in American carry laws.The group proposes 15 areas for improvement (I.e., much more restrictive).

Channeling their inner Rod Serlings, the Baltimore Bloomborgs are unfazed by the fact the U.S. average annual murder rate since 2003, when Alaska joined Vermont as the second permitless carry state, was 30% lower than the previous average dating back to 1960.

The CGVS acknowledges Bruen but ignores it by including some measures the Supreme Court has already ruled unconstitutional.

The Public Carry Permitting Guide has other fundamental flaws.

First problem: ‘Gun violence’ encompasses all firearm-related injuries and deaths. This includes murder, non-negligent manslaughter, justifiable homicide, negligent manslaughter, self-harm (suicide), unintentional/accidental discharges, and aggravated assault.

However, the CGVS’ topic is carrying a gun, so suicides and accidents aren’t implicated. This eliminates the majority of firearm-related fatalities and levels the playing field. Michael Bloomberg and his adherents will vigorously protest the exclusion of suicides because they are the only type of firearm-related death that is increasing.

Next, suicides are not evenly distributed across the U.S. In the District of Columbia, for example, more than 90% of gun-related deaths in 2024 were homicides; in New Hampshire, 88% of gun deaths are suicides.

[Since the CDC is reluctant to estimate the number of non-fatal gunshots, we’re using homicides as our yardstick.]

Another critical factor is demographics, specifically race, ethnicity, and gender. I am sure any number of gun-grabbers will be clutching their pearls, but it’s impossible to fix a problem when you won’t be honest enough to face it.

In 2024, the homicide victimization rate for White, non-Hispanic, urban males ages 13-29 was 2.89 per 100,000 of the demographic population. We changed just one parameter, race, and the rate soared to 71.94 per 100,000. Black, non-Hispanic, urban males, ages 13-29, accounted for just 1.4% of the U.S. population. They were the victims of more than 22% of all gun-related homicides.

In the introduction, the Permitting Guide says:

“Historically, states made it difficult to legally carry a gun in public. Public carry of firearms was either entirely prohibited or only allowed after a rigorous permit application process.”

CGVS says the sources for this statement are Mark Frasseto and Saul Cornell. Frassetto is the Deputy Director of Second Amendment History and Scholarship at Everytown Law; Cornell holds the Paul and Diane Guenther Chair in American History at Fordham University.

Cornell may be familiar to some; he’s developed quite following among gun-grabbers by claiming the Second Amendment protects only a collective right connected to militia service.

Farsetto and Cornell are way off base. What appeared during the 19th Century was legislative interest in regulating concealed carry of firearms and other weapons, such as Bowie knives. In the post-Civil War period, carry restrictions were most often aimed at the newly emancipated slaves, Native Americans, and other racial/ethnic groups.

Many states allowed permitless open carry or never regulated open carry at all.

The history of Texas provides some insight. From the founding of the Republic in 1835 until the Reconstruction Era, the Texas Constitution said pretty much the same thing: “Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State.”

However, in the Constitution of 1869, there was a change: “Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms, in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the Legislature may prescribe.”

As often happens when politicians gain a little more power, the Texas Legislature wasted no time.

On April 12, 1871, the Texas Legislature passed An Act to Regulate the Keeping and Bearing of Deadly Weapons, better known as the Act of April 12, 1871.

“Section 1: Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Texas, That any person carrying on or about his person, saddle, or in his saddle bags, any pistol, dirk, dagger, slung-shot, sword-cane, spear, brass-knuckles, bowie-knife, or any other kind of knife manufactured or sold for the purposes of offense or defense, unless he has reasonable grounds for fearing an unlawful attack on his person, and that such ground of attack shall be immediate and pressing; or unless having or carrying the same on or about his person for the lawful defense of the State, as a militiaman in actual service, or as a peace officer or policeman, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, on conviction thereof shall, for the first offense, be punished by fine of not less than twenty-five nor more than one hundred dollars, and shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person; and for every subsequent offense may, in addition to such fine and forfeiture, be imprisoned in the county jail for a term not exceeding sixty days.”

Other than the exemptions for military service, law enforcement, and a vague carve-out for travelers, the only other exception was in Section 4:

“This act shall not apply to, nor be enforced in any county of the State, which may be designated, in a proclamation of the Governor, as a frontier county, and liable to incursions of hostile Indians.”

This was the strongest prohibition on handgun carry in the United States. No licenses, no exceptions for natural disasters, border disputes with Mexico, bands of outlaws, or those carrying large sums of money or other valuables.

Penalties for violations increased until UCA (Unlawful Carrying of Arms) was classed as a Class A misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a year in jail and/or a $1,000 fine for the first offense.

It was a gun-grabber’s ultimate fantasy.

Rifles and shotguns weren’t even mentioned in Texas carry laws. Then, as now, you could walk down the middle of Congress Avenue in Austin toting any long gun.

The 1871 statute remained in effect for 124 years. On May 26, 1995, Governor George W. Bush signed Senate Bill 60, authorizing the first handgun carry permit in the history of the Lone Star State.

Even though the carry ban was passed more than a year after Texas ratified the Fourteenth Amendment, it was a racist Black Code law.

My maternal grandmother was born in Luling, Texas, in 1889. Somewhere in the 1909-1912 time period, she was photographed before attending a social. She was chaperoned by her older brothers, one of whom had what appears to be a Colt Army Special or New Service revolver stuck in his waistband.

I asked if he wasn’t concerned about an encounter with law enforcement. “That law was just for Mexicans and Indians,” she told me.

The mass shooting at the Luby’s Cafeteria in 1991, which left 23 dead and 27 wounded, was one of the major factors in the end of the prohibition. Suzanna Gratia Hupp, a survivor who lost both of her parents in the massacre, had a handgun locked in her car in accordance with the Texas carry ban.

There aren’t any guarantees in situations like this, but had that revolver been in her purse, she could have intervened.

She spent four years lobbying to get carry reform through the Texas Legislature. Ann Richards, Texas’ last Democratic governor, fiercely opposed the change and promised to veto any carry permit law. She even refused to allow the Legislature to hold a voter referendum.

Richards was joined by the usual doomsayers predicting a bloodbath. The Texas Police Chiefs Association said licensees should have at least the same level of firearm training required for law enforcement officers.

Democrats controlled the House and Senate but bipartisan majorities in both chambers sent Senate Bill 60 to George W. Bush, Texas’ first Republican governor since the Reconstruction.

The Texas Department of Public Safety began accepting Concealed Handgun License applications on January 1, 1996.

Did blood run in the streets of Waxahachie? High-noon showdowns in Abilene?

No. In fact, the 1996 murder rate was 15% lower than the 1995 rate.

Comparing the average murder rate from ten years before the change to the first ten years after shows the rate plunged 48 percent and there were nearly 8.000 fewer murders.

The last vestige of the 1871 statute were swept away 150 years after it passed. On June 16, 2021, Governor Greg Abbott signed House Bill 1927 and Texas became a constitutional carry state. From 2022 to 2025, the violent crime rate dropped 21 percent and the murder rate plunged 34 percent.

The CGVS Public Carry Permitting Guide is cherry-picking and manipulation on an Olympian scale; there aren’t enough Pinocchios in the world to do it justice.

We already know gun control addicts have no shame but Johns Hopkins University should be very embarrassed.

---

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/KOzvyIq
via IFTTT

America Turns 250 as the Second Amendment Movement Keeps Winning

Flag and Constitution background elements licensed via iStock. Rifle photo by AmmoLand. Composite image by AmmoLand News.

As America prepares to celebrate its 250th birthday, gun owners should take a moment to remember how unlikely today’s victories once seemed. In 1976, when the nation marked its bicentennial, many Second Amendment supporters believed the right to keep and bear arms was slowly being written out of American life. The law schools were hostile. The courts were hostile. The media was hostile. Most politicians treated the Second Amendment as a historical inconvenience. The future looked grim.

We chose to keep fighting. Giving up was not an option. The Constitution was clear, and we intended to fight to keep the Republic, even if the chance of success seemed nil.

The Grassroots Revolt That Changed Gun Politics

A strange thing happened. The Second Amendment movement became the seed of the movement to restore the American Republic.

I have doubts it would have happened without the clear words of the Second Amendment. They created a rallying point, an anchor of certainty in the righteousness of our cause, a clear guide to who was with us and who was against us.  Voting against the Second Amendment showed a politician might say he valued the Constitution, but his actions showed him to do the opposite.  We educated ourselves.

The NRA played a critical role. They slowed the advance of the administrative state. It appears they believed the fight was lost, but they were determined to fight long rearguard actions to delay the inevitable. They stopped the registration and licensing of handguns in the National Firearms Act of 1934. They stripped registration of handguns out of the Gun Control Act of 1968. In 1977, Second Amendment supporters took control of the NRA in the Revolt in Cincinnati, where NRA life members voted in Second Amendment supporters and outed the old guard.

The NRA would become powerful and rich with its rearguard actions in Washington, DC.  Second Amendment supporters wanted more. They wanted to win.

From the perspective of July of 2026, what happened seems miraculous.

Second Amendment supporters organized from the ground up. Powerful voices, such as Neil Knox, educated those on the ground. (Neil was kicked out of the NRA in 1982). Newsletters and telephone trees were fashioned to educate on local politics. The NRA had a significant role in opposing anti-Second Amendment legislation. The Second Amendment became an important item for politicians who wished to be elected. The Second Amendment Foundation was established. Gun Owners of America was established.

Academics and intellectuals started writing about the Second Amendment from a historical instead of a Progressive perspective. In 1979, Don B. Kates, Jr. published “Restricting Handguns, The Liberal Skeptics Speak Out. In 1982, with Ronald Reagan in office, the Senate issued a Report on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, confirming it as an individual right.  In 1987, the NRA and local Florida groups were able to pass a “shall issue” concealed carry bill.

By 1989, Sanford Levinson felt compelled to write “The Embarrassing Second Amendment” in the Yale Law Journal.  The grassroots had made the Second Amendment so prominent in national politics that left-wing academics were forced to mention it. In 1995, the Supreme Court struck down the Gun Free School Zone Act as exceeding the power of Congress under the Interstate Commerce Clause (USA v Lopez). Justice Clarence Thomas declared he would like to see a Second Amendment case before the Supreme Court.

From Heller to Bruen

The Shall Issue revolt against Second Amendment infringements was well underway. Those who sought to restore the right incrementally were shown to have the more effective tactics. In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment was an individual right that must be respected in the Heller decision. In 2010, the Supreme Court confirmed the Second Amendment applied to the states, not just the federal government, in the McDonald case.

These things did not happen in a vacuum. The organizational ability of grassroots Second Amendment supporters was magnified by talk radio. It found a favorable medium in the early Internet. It became clear the problem was primarily one of an oppositional national Media more than who was elected to Congress, because the Media were the gatekeepers to Congress and the Presidency. In 2016, a loud-mouthed New York billionaire upset the apple cart by supporting the Second Amendment and being elected President. We had entered the Trump era.

America 250 and the Next Supreme Court Fight

The old Media could not control the narrative. President Trump appointed three originalists and textualists to the Supreme Court. For the first time in 80 years, the Supreme Court had a reliable originalist and textualist majority. Last week, the Supreme Court removed more infringements on Second Amendment rights. They agreed to hear cases involving semi-automatic rifles. Those rifles will be ruled to be protected by the Second Amendment. The states which are defying the Supreme Court are having their fingers slapped. The requirements for courts on how to handle Second Amendment cases are being made more stringent and precise, all in favor of the Second Amendment. 29 states have permitless carry.

All of the above appeared to be fantasy unobtainium in 1976. To get where we are today took billions of hours of work by millions of activists and Second Amendment supporters. It took billions of dollars of money. Much was wasted. Much had significant effects.

The Second Amendment can be read by anyone who can read English. It was, and is, our lodestar. Along the way, we found we needed the whole Constitution to protect the Bill of Rights, and the Bill of Rights to protect the Constitution. We learned that most politicians are more concerned with holding office than with protecting us. We learned to lobby, pressure, and persist.

More than half the country has learned with us. The Donald Trump administration is the most pro-Second Amendment administration in the history of the United States since before 1860.  To all Second Amendment supporters out there, these victories belong to you. The future belongs to you. We are winning. We are not finished. Keep fighting, keep lobbying, and keep pushing. The future looks much brighter than it did in 1976.

God bless America, God bless the Constitution. God bless the Second Amendment.

---

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/FCkUb2y
via IFTTT

California Tells Court Glock-Style Pistols Aren’t Protected by Second Amendment

California is defending AB 1127, its Glock-style pistol ban, by arguing the covered handguns fall outside Second Amendment protection. IMG Duncan Johnson

California has responded to the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit challenging the state’s Glock-style pistol ban by arguing that Glocks do not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s plain text.

The state recently enacted a ban on all pistols with a cruciform trigger bar, classifying these firearms as “machine gun convertible pistols.” California justifies the ban by arguing that such pistols can be modified with a machine gun conversion device (MCD), known as a “switch,” which transforms a semi-automatic handgun into a fully automatic firearm. Many believe California is targeting Glock-style pistols because Glocks are the most popular handgun brand in the country.

DOJ Targets California’s Glock Ban

On July 1, 2026, the DOJ filed a lawsuit challenging the enactment of Assembly Bill (AB) 1127. In the suit, United States of America v. California and Robert Bonta, the DOJ claims that the law banning Glock-style pistols violates the Second Amendment. The government argues that Glocks are in common use and that, under the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller, the state cannot ban arms in common use. The plaintiff believes the law is facially unconstitutional. The DOJ also filed for a temporary ex parte temporary restraining order (TRO). An ex parte TRO would be issued without a hearing.

California filed a motion opposing the ex parte TRO, making several bold claims, including that the plaintiffs fail to meet the first step of the Bruen analysis. The first step of a Bruen analysis is to examine the plain text of the Second Amendment to determine whether the conduct is protected. The first question is whether the plaintiffs are members of “the people”—that is, members of the political community who have reached the age of majority (18 in the United States). Since the DOJ is representing all Americans, the answer is unquestionably yes.

The second question is whether the arm is bearable. Glocks are bearable arms. In fact, Heller was a challenge to Washington, D.C.’s handgun ban. While Heller acknowledged that firearms that are “dangerous and unusual” can be banned, in United States v. Wolford the Supreme Court held that courts cannot shoehorn additional restrictions into step one. California appears to be doing just that. Its case relies on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s rejection of a “simplistic approach.”

California Says Glocks Are Not Protected Arms

The defendants claim “there is no constitutional right to factory settings” and that they are merely banning a factory setting, not an “arm.” They argue that companies can simply redesign their firearms to make them less “convertible.” The defendants further contend that if the United States government wins, California’s ban on machine guns might be in danger of being ruled unconstitutional.

Because Glocks can be converted to machine guns by using an MCD, the state argues that the most popular handgun in the world is “dangerous and unusual.”

They also claim that machine guns can “fire more than 1,000 rounds per minute, allowing a shooter to kill dozens of people within a matter of seconds,” and that Glocks are basically machine guns. The state asserts that the ban does not “meaningfully impair[] an individual’s ability to access firearms.” For these reasons, California holds that it does not need to proceed to step two of the Bruen analysis and that Glocks are not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment.

State Leans on Ninth Circuit Gun-Control Rulings

California argues that even if the court proceeds to step two, the state would still prevail. The defendants claim that AB 1127 is consistent with the nation’s historical traditions of firearms regulation and cite the Ninth Circuit’s Bruen analysis in Duncan. The state attempts to avoid using laws from the founding era by pointing to the Ninth Circuit’s claim that “[m]ass shootings are clearly a societal concern that arose only in the 20th century” and that firearms that existed at the founding “fired much slower than the firing rate of a modern semi-automatic firearm.”

Even though California tries to avoid citing specific laws from the founding era, it does highlight categories of laws. One category is gunpowder storage laws. These laws existed but only addressed the storage of gunpowder to prevent fires; they did not restrict the keeping or bearing of arms. The state also points to trap gun laws. Trap gun laws did not ban any arms—they simply prohibited setting up booby traps, such as a gun that would fire when someone opened a door. The third category cited is restrictions on particular weapons “after their use by criminals exposed an especially dangerous use of the weapon,” though the state provided no specific examples.

The defendants state that, at a minimum, more time would be needed to compile historical analogues for Bruen’s step two analysis. Given the time required, the state believes a TRO is inappropriate and that the law should remain in place.

Maryland Glock Ban Case Adds National Pressure

This case is the second challenge to a Glock ban. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the National Rifle Association (NRA), and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) are currently suing Maryland over its Glock ban in The National Rifle Association of America v. Moore.

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/fk8SuN3
via IFTTT

ATF Moves to Cut Fingerprint, Photo Requirements for NFA Gun Owners

ATF’s proposed rule would reduce some fingerprint and photo requirements for NFA firearm applications, including suppressors and SBRs. IMG Jim Grant

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) unveiled a new proposed rule that would simplify the process of acquiring National Firearms Act (NFA) firearms.

The ATF filed a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register today. The rule is titled “Fingerprint and Photograph Requirements for Firearms Applications” [Docket No. ATF-2026-0397; ATF 2025R-14P]. It modifies 27 CFR parts 478 and 479 to reduce burdens on the American gun-owning population by removing several key requirements for filing ATF Forms 4 and 1.

Currently, when a gun owner submits an NFA form to the ATF, they must submit two fingerprint cards and a 2” x 2” photo, similar to a passport photo. The proposed rule will change that. NFA applicants no longer need to provide two separate fingerprint cards. This reduces the number to a single card. Although, since most applicants use electronic EFT fingerprints, it will not be a noticeable change for most. The use of digital fingerprints for electronic submission will be codified. Codifying the acceptance of digital fingerprints will make it harder for future ATF regimes to eliminate the acceptance of EFT files, requiring gun owners to mail in paper cards.

What Changes for NFA Trusts

The real change in fingerprinting will apply to NFA trust applicants. The proposed rule removes the fingerprinting requirement entirely, meaning if someone uses a trust, they will not be required to submit fingerprints. This change is limited to customers with NFA trusts because of federal statutes. The ATF claims that the FBI only requests fingerprints for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) about 1% of the time.

Individuals and trust holders will no longer need to submit a passport photo. They will be able to prove their identity with a scan or photo of a government-issued ID. This change will eliminate the burden on gun owners to have to seek out a place to get their pictures taken. The ATF can request photos and fingerprints only in a few circumstances to complete the FBI background check.

The ATF believes the change will not affect public safety and will help it achieve its goal of being less burdensome to the American public regarding the right to keep and bear arms. This is the latest rule to be introduced by the ATF in its attempt to restructure its regulatory powers to be less adversarial toward the American gun owner. After years of a Joe Biden ATF going after Americans for just wanting to exercise their God-given right, the changes have drawn a rare nod of approval from the gun community.

The rule is set to be published on Monday, July 6, 2026. There will be a 90-day comment period where anti-gun groups are expected to flood the comments with attempts to change the ATF’s mind, but the data is not on its side. This change is long overdue, and more changes are expected in the coming weeks.

Gun Owners Should Comment on the Rule

Gun owners and pro-gun organizations should make their voices heard through the comment process. With this new rule, the injunctions over the Virginia “assault weapons” ban, the Department of Justice suing Virginia over the ban and California over its Glock ban, and the Supreme Court granting certiorari in a couple of “assault weapon” ban cases, it has not been a good week for anti-gun zealots.

---

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/RBULK4I
via IFTTT

Facing Legal Obstacles To Gun Bans, Prohibitionists Shift The Narrative

Gun-control advocates are shifting their messaging from outright bans to public-health-style “gun violence prevention” campaigns. iStock-483315547

“America has a massive gun violence problem,” Belgian economist and founder of Money & Macro Media Joeri Schasfoort declares on MSN. “Compared to other wealthy countries, the U.S. murder rate is extremely high, and behind most of these deaths is the pull of the trigger.”

That’s three bits of concentrated disinformation that unquestioning, low-information viewers will accept as authoritative, packed into just the first 10 seconds of the video.

The first is that “gun violence” is a politically engineered and emotionally charged propaganda term that attributes actions to inert objects and is then used to sway public opinion by lumping separate issues like justifiable homicides and suicides in with criminal misuse of firearms.

The second is the impression that violence plagues all of America. As economist and author John Lott has shown, “Most counties experience no murders, a smaller subset of counties where there are a few murders, and then a minuscule subset of counties where murders are very common.”

The third is the undefined and cherry-picked chart of “other wealthy countries,” specifically noting two prominent ones that are consistently omitted from such displays. Anybody see Russia or Mexico listed, both with more restrictive gun laws and higher violent crime than the U.S.? Whether one consults the UN, the IMF, the World Bank or the CIA Factbook, they both have a larger GDP than some of the nations that qualify as “developed” when it suits gun-grabber purposes.

Schasfoort then declares, “The obvious solution is then to ban guns, but…”

The pesky right to keep and bear arms gets in the way of that, along with statements from some gun owners who want no part of prohibitions.

So a ban is “unlikely to happen,” Schasfoort admits. “Luckily, I have some good news. Social scientists have recently conducted extensive experiments that confirm that U.S. gun violence can actually be drastically reduced without banning guns.”

Bear in mind there are two kinds of luck, “good news” is in the eye of the beholder, and he’s still using that loaded term. Still, let’s hear him out and see what the “scientists” are hypothesizing. After all, we’re only 44 seconds into the video at this point and we still have over 18 minutes to go.

It seems the University of Pennsylvania has concluded that violence has been statistically reduced in select Philadelphia locations when vacant land was cleaned up and developed into community centers. The working theory is that drawing people out together drives clandestine criminal activity to go somewhere else, and that people present can act as “violence interrupters” to mediate disputes. What’s unclear is if the claimed reduction in “gun violence” is an anomaly that will hold and what other factors might be at play (including increases in “legal” gun sales). But OK, at least they’re not demanding infringements.

To give the contention gravitas, Schasfoort brings in Chicago professor and economist Jens Ludwig, “one of the leading researchers on gun violence [sic],” who also happens to be “Pritzker Director of the University of Chicago Crime Lab,” with all that implies. Most homicides, we are told, aren’t planned with “calculated criminal intent,” but arise “from fights or arguments that escalated beyond control.”

So, it comes from a sense of unearned entitlement, anger management issues, and poor impulse control. Recalling Lott’s findings, in a “miniscule subset,” that should surprise no one.

“The murder rate in the United States today is almost exactly the same as it was in 1900,” Ludwig explains. If you think about it, that admission doesn’t do much for the prohibitionist argument. Nor do the facts about how many guns there are in this country. As for the nod to Japan and South Korea having essentially disarmed populations and the “lowest homicide rates in the world,” they also have homogenous populations. It’s an inconvenient truth that the millions of members of groups like NRA, GOA, SAF, and other national and state groups, the most heavily armed civilian population on the planet, are every bit as statistically peaceable. When 80,000 armed gun owners show up at an annual meeting, there are plenty of opportunities for arguments to arise that never result in shots being fired.

Not according to the “leading researcher.”

“The research that I’ve done and what other people have done show that when a place has more guns on net, the murder rate goes up, so whatever deterrent effect more gun ownership might have to prevent crime is outweighed by the effects of guns increasing lethality of interpersonal conflict,” Ludwig, who apparently has never been to an NRA convention or a competition match, or Appleseed training, or an armed march, proclaims.

Again, attributing the inability of that “minuscule subset” to control its passions on the rest of the Republic is the essence of “gun control.” And gun possession is not the same thing as gun ownership.

There’s also a carrot (as if you can bribe predators) and stick analogy that doesn’t factor in a truism—while violence to the public can be temporarily curbed when those who can’t be trusted with a gun are in cages, releasing them makes further victimization inevitable. Also, BAM (Becoming a Man) training can only go so far when the Democrats who rule in those areas can’t seem to define what a man is. And good grief, the example they present is someone who thinks not murderously assaulting a person who inadvertently bumps into him is a major behavioral achievement. Don’t be surprised to see that guy in the news before too long.

There’s plenty more to go through in the video (including the purposeful omission of attributing violence reductions to armed citizens and the inevitable vulnerabilities of “gun free zones”) but there’s not much point to going on — except to encourage readers to watch the rest of it with a critical eye now that we’re familiar with how these people operate, what they say, and what they don’t.

It’s good, a victory actually, that people who would like to ban guns – and that, of course, is their ultimate goal – have a sense that it’s not going to happen politically, at least in the near term. But just because they talk about “progress” without prohibitions doesn’t mean they’ve given up on the idea.  The smarter gun-grabbers see which way the momentum is going, and two recent preliminary injunctions against Virginia’s semi-auto ban and the Supreme Court granting cert to national challenges show them that demanding bans  — at this time — is a political non-starter.

Let Democrats advance in the midterms with an eye toward recapturing the White House (and SCOTUS appointments) in 2028, and expect to see gun bans back with a vengeance.

---

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/BDAvG9f
via IFTTT

ATF Clears Virginia NFA Forms Ahead Of July 1 Gun Ban Deadline

ATF Director Robert Cekada said all Virginia Form 1 and Form 4 submissions were processed before the state’s July 1 gun-ban deadline. Image Duncan Johnson

ATF Director Robert Cekada gave Virginia gun owners a rare bit of good news this week, announcing that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives had processed every Form 1 and Form 4 submitted by Virginians ahead of the state’s July 1 gun-ban deadline.

Virginia legal gun owners, We heard you and we’ve acted.

As of today, every Form 1 & Form 4 submitted by Virginians was processed before the anticipated July 1 change to Virginia law that would prohibit the import, sale, manufacture, purchase & transfer of certain firearms. 1/2

— Robert Cekada (@ATFDirectorRC) July 1, 2026

ATF Says Virginia Forms Were Processed Before Deadline

According to Cekada, ATF completed processing for all pending Form 1 and Form 4 submissions from Virginians before the anticipated effective date of HB 217 and SB 749, the new Virginia laws signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger on May 14. Those laws restrict the future importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines holding more than 15 rounds.

A Form 1 is used by a lawful applicant seeking approval to make an NFA-regulated firearm, such as a short-barreled rifle. A Form 4 is used for the transfer of an NFA item, such as a suppressor, machine gun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or other covered item.

If the government sat on those forms past July 1, some lawful Virginians could have been trapped by a state deadline while waiting on federal paperwork. Cekada said ATF acted to prevent that.

“I remain committed to ensuring lawful firearm owners are not negatively impacted by administrative or statutory changes,” Cekada wrote, adding that ATF would continue working to make its processes “fast, fair and accessible” to lawful applicants.

That is not the kind of sentence gun owners are used to hearing from ATF leadership. For decades, the agency has been viewed by much of the gun community as a hostile bureaucracy more interested in technical traps than protecting rights. That history does not disappear because of one X post. But credit is due where credit is due: this was the right move.

Gun Owners Praise The Move, But Still Want The NFA Gone

The reaction from gun owners was swift and largely positive. Virginia NFA applicants and Second Amendment advocates praised the announcement as a win for lawful owners who were racing against an arbitrary deadline created by Richmond politicians. Many in the gun community saw the move as evidence that the new ATF leadership is at least listening when law-abiding citizens are about to be punished by the collision of state bans and federal processing delays.

That praise came with a healthy dose of skepticism, too. Gun owners are not suddenly forgetting the the ATF’s history as the enforcement arm of politically motivated anti-gun agendas or their continued defense of the NFA. Still, many recognized that clearing the Virginia queue was exactly what a federal agency should do when its own approval process could otherwise become the reason citizens lose access to lawfully owned property.

Turns out all the Virginia “illegal” gun owners were able to make and transfer whatever NFA firearms they wanted too.

Grateful for this as a Virginian who just had his Form 1 approved, but the NFA is a failed gun control measure that has never stopped a single criminal.

— Aidan Johnston (@RealGunLobbyist) July 1, 2026

Virginia Gun Ban Remains Tied Up In Court

The announcement also landed in the middle of legal chaos in Virginia. Gun rights groups have challenged the new ban, and court injunctions have already blocked enforcement by Virginia State Police while the lawsuits continue. The state is expected to keep fighting to revive the law, but the injunctions have created uncertainty over how, when, and against whom the ban can be enforced.

ATF moved before the deadline instead of letting lawful owners twist in the wind. For Virginia gun owners caught in the NFA pipeline, that mattered.

---

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/BHTA2CS
via IFTTT