NRA 2.0 and “the Enemy Within”: What Members Should Expect in Houston

NRA members meeting in Houston as debate continues over board reform, governance changes, and accountability. iStock-MarianVejcik-523674911

As I prepare to travel to Houston for the 155th Annual Meeting of the Members of the National Rifle Association of America, there’s something we should talk about:

The size and diverse composition of the NRA Board of Directors, and rational expectations for changing those things, with particular interest in Directors who supported Wayne LaPierre and vocally opposed “reformers,” but now claim to be “reformers” themselves.

At 76 members, the NRA Board of Directors is unusually large. Unlike most comparable organizations, which tend to have a two-tiered board structure, with a large “Advisory Board” and a much smaller “Managing Board,” the NRA Board is all of that rolled into one. We serve on the NRA’s various program and interest committees, as well as handling the business of the Association.

I have long been an advocate for transitioning to a divided Board, with my preferred model having three different tiers:

• the small Managing Board that meets frequently and focuses on finances, legal compliance, and basic business oversight,
• a much larger Advisory Board that mets infrequently and focuses on programs and membership through our 40+ committees,
• and an Honorary Board where we honor distinguished NRA members who have demonstrated a significant commitment and contribution to the Association, including politicians, celebrity ambassadors, and major donors.

I usually take all of this a step further by organizing the Advisory Board as a primarily representative body, with one member from each state or region as a way of adding more accountability to the position, along with a number that are elected at-large to fill skill-set gaps.

My big concern with any restructuring like this is adequate checks and balances to prevent a few influential members of the small Managing Board from going rogue and steering the Association in a bad direction, as we’ve seen is possible. My answer has been to give some oversight and veto power to the Advisory Board, as well as giving that group the responsibility of nominating and electing members to the Managing Board.

There is a proposed amendment to the Bylaws that would elegantly achieve the above goals by restructuring the Executive Committee. Under that proposal, the Executive Committee would meet more frequently and become the prime mover on any matters dealing with finance and legal compliance, with the broader, full Board primarily focusing on committees and programs, while still retaining final authority over all NRA matters. This would give us a small, responsive body to deal with critical business issues in a timely manner, with the oversight of the full Board to ensure they remain true to the NRA’s mission and stay on the straight and narrow.

Meetings of the Executive Committee would – if I get my way – always be held primarily electronically, and all members of the Board would be invited and encouraged to attend, though we would only be observers and advisors. If the EC tried to go down a bad road, the Board could call a full Board meeting – one reason we need the Bylaw amendment authorizing electronic Board meetings – or handle the matter at our next in-person meeting, which we hold three times per year.

While this is not a perfect solution, it is, I think, a very good solution, and most importantly, it’s the solution that we can actually implement, as opposed to other proposals which can’t realistically be achieved. My father tried to tackle this issue decades ago, but gave it up upon realizing that restructuring the board would require 60 to 65 Board members to vote themselves off the Board… That remains the challenge, but this proposal bypasses the need for that suicide pact.

Which brings us to the next big issue: Directors who served in silence through the “troubled times,” and those who were vocal defenders of LaPierre and remain on the Board today.

There are a number of vocal NRA members who want the Board to purge itself of anyone who was on the wrong side of the fight for reform. They don’t explain exactly how we’re supposed to accomplish this task; they simply call for the expulsion of these folks.

Whether unfortunately or fortunately, that’s not really possible, and attempting it would result in more infighting and turmoil at a time when members are ready for us to be rebuilding the organization, not engaging in endless civil war.

I’m pleased to report that all of the leaders of the “Old Guard,” LaPierre enablers and apologists are now off the NRA Board. That happy result is thanks to a lot of effort put forward by “reformers” in the last couple of elections, and the decision of many of the “Old Guard” to resign from the Board and instead, sadly, focus their attention on control of the NRA Foundation – a separate problem that we continue to struggle with. (What was I saying about endless civil war?)

The “Old Guard” members and fellow travelers who remain fall into roughly three camps:

1. A few true believers who still think Wayne was innocent, or “made mistakes,” and that the new leadership is incompetent and worse than what they replaced.
2. A few who still put a lot of faith in what their friends from the “Old Guard” tell them, and try to argue against “reformers’” efforts to move the Association forward.
3. A few who held onto their faith in LaPierre too long, but eventually saw the light in a “road to Damascus” moment, and who have been actively working with “reformers.”

Add to this many of the newer Board members – including me – who are strong-willed, independent-minded individuals who won’t just go along with a proposal because it’s endorsed by some person or group, and what we have now is a diverse group of people committed to the betterment of the NRA, with broad agreement on core, fundamental issues, while maintaining significant differences of opinion on strategy and tactics for achieving our universal goals.

There are people who said and did things for which they should apologize and repent. Some have done so, while others have done one or the other, but not both. That’s a bit frustrating, but not damning. People are probably getting tired of my frequent citation of Proverbs and the admonition that “iron sharpens iron,” but it’s absolutely true and fitting, and I don’t just subscribe to the idea, but strongly believe in it as the best way to get the best end result.

There are definitely people on the NRA Board who don’t like me and a few that I don’t care for either, but unless they are simply dullards droning on with nonsense – which we do get now and then – I value their input and find value in the debate. There are a few who are genuine pains in the posterior who will argue about the color of the sky and the hardness of the table, but I would take them over a genial “Yes man” any day, because they make us think and help us see the flaws we might otherwise overlook. I also believe in giving second chances, turning over a new leaf, and trying to make amends for past mistakes.

While I’d like part of that process to include public acknowledgment and apologies, it’s the actions that matter most, and if they’re doing what they should, I’ll give them credit.

As to anyone who remains that I don’t think deserves a seat on the Board, whether for past mistakes or current failings, unless they cross a serious ethical line, there’s nothing I or anyone else can really do about them until they come up for reelection, at which point I will oppose them and encourage the membership to elect better candidates. Until that time, though, they are my associates on the Board, and I will do my best to work with them and try to make sure we all always do what’s best for the Association and our members. That’s our job.

I hope to see many of you in Houston. If you’re there, please don’t skip the Members Meeting on Saturday morning. We need to hear from you.

NRA Sues the NRA Foundation as Internal Power Struggle Freezes Program Funding

NRA 2026 Director Election Results Show Reformers Gaining Ground

---

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a dedicated political activist and the director of The Firearms Coalition, following in the footsteps of his father, Neal Knox. In 2024, Jeff was elected to the NRA Board of Directors, underscoring his lifelong commitment to protecting the Second Amendment. The Knox family has played a pivotal role in the ongoing struggle for gun rights, a legacy documented in the book Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War, authored by Jeff’s brother, Chris Knox.

Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, The Firearms Coalition is a network of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs, and civil rights organizations. The Coalition supports grassroots efforts by providing education, analysis of current issues, and a historical perspective on the gun rights movement. For more information, visit www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

---

from https://ift.tt/Eh1q3UR
via IFTTT

Beckwith v. Frey: First Circuit Says Second Amendment Does Not Protect Gun Purchases

Judge Knocks Down ATF’s Engaged in the Business Rule, iStock-1326757134

After reading the First Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling in Beckwith v. Frey, I had a pleasant vision of Circuit Judges Lara E. Montecalvo, Seth R. Aframe, and Senior Judge Ojetta Rogeriee Thompson being summoned to a come-to-Jesus meeting with James Madison, the fourth President of the United States, one of the Founding Fathers, and the Father of the Constitution.

Beckwith v. Frey challenges the 72-hour waiting period. The law was passed in 2024 as part of a knee-jerk response to the 2023 mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine.

The plaintiffs filed the lawsuit in November 2024, claiming the new law was a violation of the Second Amendment as well as Supreme Court rulings in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.*

The claim was Maine’s law violated the Second Amendment by delaying the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms. In addition, the law failed the Bruen test because there were no analogous statutes in either the Founding or Reconstruction Eras.

The U.S. District Court agreed. Chief U.S. District Judge E. Lance Walker granted a preliminary injunction in February 2025.

Unfortunately, the First Circuit appellate court, much like its counterparts in the Second Circuit, Fourth Circuit, Seventh Circuit, and Ninth Circuit, has a long history of twisting (or completely ignoring) the Constitution, Supreme Court jurisprudence, and rational thought when it comes to gun control.

On April 6 of this year, Judges Aframe, Montecalvo, and Thompson reversed the lower court’s decision, lifted the injunction, and ruled Americans do have a protected right to possess weapons and a right to carry them, but they don’t have a right to buy them because that wasn’t included in the amendment.

This holding would be the topic of the meeting I mentioned in the first paragraph.

Madison would want to know if all Americans of the 21st Century had been infected with some malady that degraded their IQs, leaving them the mental equivalents of spinach. Or, Madison might wonder, did it impact only certain factions in the judiciary?

Like all the amendments in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment identifies certain preexisting rights. The Founders never imagined they might need to include step-by-step instructions to exercise them.

Should they have included a reminder to inhale before exercising the freedom of speech?

Like the Second Amendment, the First Amendment doesn’t include any specific “right to buy” clauses. However, in 1983, the Supreme Court struck down a special Minnesota tax on large purchases of printing ink. The court said the tax could have an unconstitutional impact on freedom of the press. The case was Minnesota Star Tribune Co. v. Commissioner.

The weasel-wording used by the appellate panel isn’t new. In 2024, Larry Keane, the NSSF’s senior vice president and general counsel, wrote about the tactic, which has been used to uphold waiting periods and limits on the frequency of gun purchases.

The Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. At that time, it’s estimated there were perhaps 2,000 gunsmiths and blacksmiths who made guns in the U.S.

Citizens, with their brand-new right to keep and bear arms, made up a steady market.

It’s a tribute to the business acumen of those entrepreneurs and consumers that they made the inventory-to-possession connection with no trouble at all.

Imagine that.

*For more detailed information about the case, check out the NRA-ILA amicus brief.

DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills

First Circuit Says Second Amendment Does Not Protect Buying Guns in Beckwith v. Frey

---

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/H6MK4zg
via IFTTT

Security Video Shows Oklahoma Principal Stop Would-Be School Shooter

HOLY CRAP! Newly-released surveillance video shows a high school principal in Oklahoma TACKLING a school shooter before he could open fire on kids

What a HERO!

Principal Kirk Moore RUSHED the shooter when he aimed at his first would-be victim, wresting the gun away from him.… pic.twitter.com/Z75dmXKFLw

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) April 14, 2026

Security video shows Oklahoma principal Kirk Moore tackle a would-be school shooter. Principal Moore was wounded in the leg during the take-down.

According to Fox News, on April 7, 2026, at about 2:21 p.m., in Pauls Valley High School, a former student, Victor Hawkins, entered the school and pulled a semi-automatic pistol. He appears to rack the slide to chamber a cartridge.

About 4 seconds later, Principal Moore appears from the left and rear of the suspect, in full charge mode. Hawkins turns and manages to point the pistol toward Principal Moore, but Moore drives directly into Hawkins, driving him backward and down onto a bench in the school foyer. In two seconds, Moore took Hawkins down and gained control of Hawkins’ gun hand.

About nine seconds later, another person comes from the same area Moore came from and picks up the handgun from the floor of the foyer. The slide of the handgun is locked back. It appears the magazine has been emptied. There is no audio in the video, so it is difficult to know exactly when or how many shots were fired. Speaking to KOCO-TV, Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation spokesperson Hunter McKee stated the multiple shots were fired, but only Principal Moore was wounded in the leg.

When looking at the video, it appears Hawkins has the handgun in his right hand inside the airlock. As he takes two steps into the school, he racks the slide. There was an opportunity for Principal Moore to see the problem, formulate a plan, and take explosive action in those few precious seconds.

Principal Moore does not appear to be a Bruce Lee-level martial artist or a Hulk Hogan bodybuilder. He has something more important. Strong motivation and the ability to take decisive action almost instantly. It was the correct decision. Yes, Principal Moore took a bullet. It could have been much worse. He could easily have been killed, along with other innocents. His direct, high-speed action short-circuited the attackers’ plans.

Most mass killers expect their victims to cower. Principal Moore did not cower. He acted.

In the military, this correspondent remembers something from an officer’s training. A good plan, executed now, beats a perfect plan executed too late.

We cannot know if Principal Moore would have done better with a handgun of his own. That is not the way it happened. Hats off to a brave man who did not hesitate to do what was needed in a dangerous situation.

---

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/MRDFrlP
via IFTTT

NRA Board to Consider Major Bylaw Amendments at 2026 Annual Meeting in Houston

NRA members and directors are expected to debate several proposed bylaw amendments during the 2026 Annual Meetings in Houston. IMG Jim Grant

As the NRA Annual Meetings and Exhibits approach rapidly, I wanted to give members an update on some of the Bylaw amendments that will likely be on the agenda for the Board of Directors at our meeting on Monday, April 20.

For background, there are two levels or categories in the NRA Bylaws. The first is the basic Bylaws, which can be amended by the Board of Directors with a simple majority vote, and the second is a more protected Bylaw, which can only be amended by a vote of the membership. Amendments proposed for this protected category would be included in the annual voting packet, along with the ballot for electing Directors each year. That’s a complex and expensive process, so it doesn’t happen very often, but amendments to the basic Bylaws can happen at any meeting of the Board, and traditionally have been made with little or no notice to the membership.

Since at least 1977, when the members staged a revolt at the Annual Meeting in Cincinnati, the NRA Bylaws have been a battleground for warring factions of the Board of Directors, with many provisions included to either advance the objectives of one faction or to stymie the objectives of another.

Some are in direct conflict with Roberts’ Rules or with recognized “best practices” for an organization such as ours, and the Bylaws and Resolutions Committee – which I serve on – is trying to sort them out and get our Bylaws back to something clean and efficient. There’s a long way to go on that road, but while we’re working on that broader objective, we’re also working to address things that allowed the problems of the recent past to get out of hand.

All of that said, there were a total of 12 Bylaw amendment proposals – and I stress the word “proposals”– sent out to the Board members in preparation for the Houston meetings. Some of those will almost certainly be pulled from consideration during the Bylaws and Resolutions Committee’s meeting on Thursday, before the Meeting of Members on Saturday, while others are likely to be modified in some way. Those that make it through the B&R Committee will be discussed to some degree at the Members’ Meeting, then will be considered by the Board at our regular meeting on the following Monday.

The Board held an informal “town hall” discussion of the 12 amendment proposals a few days ago, with the result of suggesting that several needed significant review and revision, and should be tabled until our September meeting. They also pointed out a few issues with others that will be addressed in the B&R Committee meeting on Thursday in Houston.

Here’s what we’ve got going into the Annual Meetings:

There are several “housekeeping” proposals, including one that would remove the “Order of Business” from Article IV of the Bylaws. There’s no reason for it to be there, as this is covered in Roberts’ Rules of Order, which govern our meetings. I’ll note that I’ve seen some confusion with people conflating “Order of Business” with the “Agenda.” The Order of Business is just that, the order that business is dealt with, while the Agenda includes the specific topics of business to be discussed.

Another proposal makes minor tweaks to the requirements for ILA to present a report. Currently, ILA reports are mandated for every meeting of the Board or Executive Committee, and there are times when these reports are simply not needed, especially if the Executive Committee is refocused on corporate business and begins meeting monthly, as is currently being discussed.

The third “housekeeping” measure would remove the improper presidential term limit language that names specific individuals and years that are exceptions to the term limits. This should never have been done the way it was and needs to be fixed. I’m proposing a couple of other minor tweaks to this language, but nothing that I think will be seen as objectionable.

The next proposal is to allow the Board to hold an election to fill a vacancy on the Audit Committee at any regular or emergency meeting of the Board. Electing the Audit Committee at the first meeting following the Annual Meeting is a new process that was recently added to the Bylaws, and the matter of filling vacancies was overlooked. If someone resigns or passes away, the Board should be able to fill the vacancy.

The final “houskeeping” proposal is a little more controversial, but I don’t understand why. It is to ensure that the Chief Compliance Officer has full access to all committee meetings, including meetings held in Executive Session. The CCO is tasked with ensuring compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and our governing documents and policies. It doesn’t make sense to exclude him from a meeting unless there is some sort of direct conflict of interest.

Those are the simpler, less controversial proposals. Here are the more challenging ones.

A proposal to adjust the language of the Bylaws to remove obstacles that prevent any possibility of transitioning to an online voting process for Director elections and Bylaw amendments. This proposal doesn’t change the way voting is to be done. What it does is revise the Bylaws language so that it doesn’t foreclose the idea of online voting in the future, if a way can be found to do it that our members would trust and support.

While this is indeed a “first step” in the direction of online voting, it does not mandate or even entertain the idea of taking the necessary “subsequent steps.” Mail balloting, as we do it now, is extremely expensive and complicated.

There’s little doubt that the NRA will eventually need to move to some more direct, almost certainly electronic, process for member voting. This proposal primarily removes the word “mail” and related terms from the Bylaws, making them neutral on the “how” of our elections.

I support this proposal, but suspect the fear of change might kill it for now.

A proposal to allow committee chairs to appoint members to subcommittees who are not members of their committee, or the Board, as a way of better utilizing our members’ talents. The non-board member appointees would not receive any travel reimbursement for meetings (which are generally held online anyway).

I don’t support this one, as I see potential for cronyism and a lack of serious need. If a committee chair – or a subcommittee chair – thinks they need some additional expert participation, they are welcome to invite an expert to present at a meeting. I plan to oppose this proposal.

A proposal to authorize the Board of Directors to hold special and emergency meetings online, rather than only in-person.

There are numerous actions that require a vote of the full Board, which means that if we need to take one of those actions, we have to either wait until our next scheduled meeting, or we have to spend significant funds to bring all of the Directors in for what might amount to a single, unanimous vote. This proposal doesn’t do away with any of our regular, three times per year Board meetings. It actually specifically forbids holding those meetings online except in extreme circumstances, such as we experienced during the COVID-19 crisis.

As long as this criteria remains, I support this idea.

Finally, a proposal to restructure and to a degree re-task the Executive Committee to make it smaller and more business-focused, while keeping it under the control of the Board.

I strongly support this idea as it closely comports with my proposals for reducing the size of the Board, while ensuring strong oversight and member protections.

My biggest concern regarding a smaller Board has always been that a smaller group might go rogue, and members would have no way to rein them in. I’ve never advocated for a smaller Board on financial grounds, but rather on a question of functionality and efficiency. In today’s world, a large, 76-member Board of Directors that only meets three times per year is an anachronism and dangerous, as we learned through recent history.

Best practice for a large membership organization such as ours calls for an “active”, not “passive” Board, meaning the Board should be more closely involved in overseeing the business of the Association, rather than leaving the CEO to do whatever he wants. But it would be virtually impossible, and nerve-wracking for the staff, to try and be an “active” Board with 76 members.

The answer is to delegate. The whole idea of an Executive Committee came about in the days when the horse and carriage were the primary mode of travel, and a post rider delivered the mail – eventually. In those circumstances, a national organization would form an Executive Committee of people who lived close to the organization’s headquarters to handle important Board business that might come up when the Board wasn’t meeting.

The advent of electronic “virtual” meetings has made that model totally obsolete.

By passing the proposal above, authorizing online emergency Board meetings, the whole Board could be called together to handle important business in a matter of hours if necessary, so the Executive Committee is no longer needed. What is needed, however, is a small, highly skilled and qualified committee of the Board to be “active” in handling the business of the Association, but which remains under the oversight and control of the full Board.

This proposal would reorganize the Executive Committee as a Management Committee. It would be composed of the President, the two Vice Presidents, the chairs of the key business committees, a few additional, highly qualified members of the Board, and three non-voting, expert advisors. As currently envisioned, the Committee would have 9 voting members and the three non-voting advisors.

Under this provision, the EC would meet upon the call of the President, as frequently as once a month or more, to handle business and make sure the Association is on an even keel. All meetings of the EC would be require informing the full Board, and all Board members would be able – and encouraged – to sit in on any EC meeting. If at any time the EC appears to be going off the rails, a majority of the Board could call a special meeting of the Board, to be held electronically, to address the concerns, and the Board could reverse or amend any action of the EC at any regular or special Board meeting.

Under this proposal, I think the biggest problem will be ensuring that the new EC is actively providing support and guidance to the Executive Vice President and his staff, without trying to take over his job or micro-manage the Association. As the Association continues on its recovery path, the frequency of EC meetings would be cut back, and the EVP would be given more and more room to operate as he sees fit – within the Board’s guidelines.

I believe this proposal provides the smaller, more specialized Board that I and others have been talking about for years, while also providing robust checks and balances, and protecting the structure that supports the NRA’s many programs and initiatives.

I plan to offer the final language for this proposal to the membership at the Annual Meeting of Members in Houston for an advisory vote, and expect other Bylaw proposals will be discussed. Of course, I’d like to hear readers’ thoughts and suggestions below.

I hope to see you in Houston!

NRA 2026 Director Election Results Show Reformers Gaining Ground

---

About Jeff Knox:

Jeff Knox is a dedicated political activist and the director of The Firearms Coalition, following in the footsteps of his father, Neal Knox. In 2024, Jeff was elected to the NRA Board of Directors, underscoring his lifelong commitment to protecting the Second Amendment. The Knox family has played a pivotal role in the ongoing struggle for gun rights, a legacy documented in the book Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War, authored by Jeff’s brother, Chris Knox.

Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, The Firearms Coalition is a network of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs, and civil rights organizations. The Coalition supports grassroots efforts by providing education, analysis of current issues, and a historical perspective on the gun rights movement. For more information, visit www.FirearmsCoalition.org.

---

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

Spanberger Amends Virginia Gun Ban Bill After DOJ Threatens Lawsuit

Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger. Did she just blink or is she stalling against a threatened DOJ lawsuit over 2A issues?

Instead of signing, vetoing or allowing a controversial gun ban bill to become law without her signature on Tuesday, Virginia Democrat Gov. Abigail Spanberger offered up an amended version of House Bill 217, which essentially kicks the political can down the road just a bit, possibly forestalling a threatened legal action against Virginia by the Department of Justice.

WVEC News is reporting Spanberger essentially waited until her legislative deadline was approaching to submit her bill substitute after Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon threatened in an April 10 letter to “commence litigation in the event the Commonwealth of Virginia enacts certain bills that unconstitutionally limit law-abiding Americans’ individual right to bear arms.”

The letter specifically referred to Senate Bill 749, which is identical to HB 217. Dhillon noted in her letter that signing the legislation “would require Virginia law enforcement agencies to engage in a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.”

@SpanbergerForVA is on notice: 2A rights SHALL NOT BE infringed.

We are closely watching—in the event any unlawful legislation is enacted, we will sue. @CivilRights will protect the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens in Virginia.

2A Section Lawyers are standing by… pic.twitter.com/h2DfXwgaKC

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) April 10, 2026

Spanberger’s proposed amendments essentially preserve “the core” of the legislation, which prohibits the sale, manufacture and/or transfer of so-called “assault firearms,” and—as described by WVEC, “keeps the bill’s central framework intact.”

So, is this a stall to delay what appears to be an inevitable federal lawsuit?

According to WDBJ News, the amended bill goes back to the General Assembly “for approval or rejection” of the changes. If those changes are rejected by lawmakers, the Assembly can still pass the original bill—it would take a two-thirds vote—after which Spanberger could either sign or veto the measure.

Under provisions in Spanberger’s amended bill, pistol grips and thumbhole stocks would be removed from a list of cosmetic features which would classify a firearm as an “assault firearm.” There is a change also in the magazine capacity limit, and there are also some “technical adjustments” in the bill’s wording, according to WVEC.

But in the final analysis, are these adjustments really concerning to Spanberger, or is she just buying time?

According to a press release from the governor’s office, “These bills prohibit the future sale of assault firearms and the possession of a magazine which has a capacity of more than 15 rounds. The bills do not apply to firearms bought or owned before July 1, 2026. The Governor’s amendments provide additional clarity to law enforcement as it relates to the firearms included under this legislation, as well as protect the use of certain semi-automatic shotguns used for hunting.”

However, buried in the governor’s amended version is this language:

“Assault firearm” means any: 1. A semi-automatic center-fire rifle or pistol which expels single or multiple projectiles by action of an explosion of a combustible material and is equipped at the time of the offense with a magazine which will hold more than 20 rounds of ammunition or designed by the manufacturer to accommodate a silencer or equipped with a folding stock with a magazine capacity in excess of 15 rounds.”

Critics argue that Spanberger’s substitute, by stripping this language from the bill, essentially makes any semi-auto firearm capable of holding more than 15 rounds automatically becomes an “assault firearm.” The concern is that this makes the carrying of any such firearm illegal, even if a person legally owns the magazines and is licensed to carry.

This entire episode does open up some interesting possibilities, because it marks the first time the Justice Department has threatened legal action against a state for passing a restrictive gun control law.

Around the country, Second Amendment activists in other states must be wondering why Dhillon didn’t send the same message to governors in Washington, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Oregon, Colorado or other states where Democrat majorities are pushing—or have passed—restrictive gun control laws.

Or, will Dhillon now simply turn the Second Amendment Section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division loose on those states which have already adopted restrictions? Gun owners are waiting to see what happens next.

They might get a hint from what Dhillon and the DOJ do in response to Spanberger’s maneuver. She already signed some gun control measures, so there is every reason to believe she will sign HB 217, whether her amendments are approved by further Assembly action, or if lawmakers reject her changes and simply send back the bill as originally passed.

In summary, HB 217 as passed, “Creates a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm, as that term is defined in the bill with some exceptions, and prohibits a person who has been convicted of such violation from purchasing, possessing, or transporting a firearm for a period of three years from the date of conviction. The bill provides that an assault firearm does not include any firearm that is an antique firearm, has been rendered permanently inoperable, or is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action. The bill also prohibits the sale of a large capacity ammunition feeding device, as that term is defined in the bill. The bill provides that any person who willfully and intentionally (i) sells an assault firearm to another person or (ii) purchases an assault firearm from another person is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor and that any person who imports, sells, barters, transfers, or purchases a large capacity ammunition feeding device is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This bill is identical to SB 749.”

DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills

---

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/9lzNRYg
via IFTTT

Bridging the Divide on Guns a Bridge to Nowhere

Patriots, the last time prohibitionists tried to cross a bridge and come for their arms. iStock-1323754303

“[A] program … by [Tufts University professor Dr. Michael Siegel] was … basically designed to come up with a way for red states to embrace some gun control measures that Dr. Siegel believes are effective in preventing both violent crime, suicides with firearms, accidents involving firearms, while at the same time offering some bennies, right?” Cam Edwards of Bearing Arms notes in his introduction to an April 6 YouTube interview asking, “Can This Group Actually Bridge the Divide on Guns?”

“So, for example, establishing a period, let’s say five years, where individuals convicted of a violent misdemeanor could not possess a firearm,” he elaborates. “In exchange, getting rid of laws that ban non-violent felons from being able to [get] firearms.”

Enacting the Trump administration’s effort to restore rights (if they ever disclose what it takes to qualify) into law, instead of via executive action vulnerable to retraction by succeeding administrations,  would be incremental progress. But the blanket distinction between violent and nonviolent misdemeanors obscures another injustice— not only has it been shown that rights can be denied over “horror story” examples, where outbursts resulting in a torn pocket or thrown keys can result in a lifetime ban. Add to that someone pleading to a misdemeanor charge because they don’t have the wherewithal to fight a threatened felony charge if they don’t.

Better still would be having law reflect reality: Anyone who can’t be trusted with a gun can’t be trusted without a custodian, and releasing such people back into society before they can be invites more, not less, criminal violence. That, and if telling criminals they weren’t allowed to have guns worked (which, of course, it doesn’t), society wouldn’t be having this discussion, including the one about “bad apple gun dealers.”

“I’ve been doing research in firearm space for about 13 years or so… and I’ve noticed that there are a lot of laws that although apparently intended to reduce firearm injury aren’t actually effective in doing that, but what they do is to inconvenience firearm owners or even worse to actually take away rights,” Siegel began.  “As I started to learn more about firearms, I started to realize that we need to have the gun owning community at the table because we in public health for the most part don’t know anything about firearms.”

“The gun owning community” has been making that point for longer than 13 years, citing ignorance that is both inexcusably stupid (“shoulder thing that goes up/heat-seeking bullets cook deer from inside”) and deliberately lied about (“anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun”).

Visiting gun stores, going to a shooting range and shooting a gun for the first time is hardly “immersing” oneself in the gun culture, it’s getting your toe wet. To then presume qualifications to expound on the matter, to teach without passing required prerequisites to even be in the clssroom, or worse, to demand legislation and enforcement, goes beyond malpractice. As is presuming that an informed, experienced, and freedom-minded adult wants a seat at that children’s table.

As for Siegel’s disingenuously distancing his advocacy from “assault weapon” bans, that’s just meant to placate gun owners into thinking maybe that’s one “compromise” the gun prohibitionists might be willing to entertain. Nowhere, though, does he say that, nor is repealing such bans one of the eight “Policy Proposals” his group, Bridging the Divide, recommends. That’s because only useful idiots think it’s about “commonsense gun safety” instead of citizen disarmament, the real goal of the “men behind the curtain” funding this latest venture in AstroTurf Kumbaya gun groups (the earlier fraudulent American Hunters & Shooters Association and current undermining by the “nonpartisan” 97percent poseurs come to mind).

It’s also noteworthy that those proposals are billed as “state-level policies,” meaning if enacted, Illinois, California, New York, and other “blue states will continue thumbing their noses at the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, and all that means in terms of rights delayed and infringements being dragged through the courts for years.

This all makes a key question fair: Who are these guys?

They call themselves “a coalition of stakeholders” (which evokes someone intending to drive it into a heart with a mallet). Their “Diverse Coalition of Gun Rights and Gun Violence Prevention Advocates” includes rabid prohibitionist zealots who have made careers out of trying to eviscerate the Second Amendment through lawfare and gun bans, with not one recognized “no compromise” member. Any questions on how they vote?

As for following the money, that’s a closely guarded secret. The Bridging the Divide website posts the specific disclaimer that  “The views and activities … do not necessarily reflect the views of Tufts University. No official endorsement by Tufts University for the information on this website is intended or should be inferred,” a who.is search shows they withhold registrant information, they haven’t been around long enough for Form 990 tax filings to show up on the Guidestar/Candid nonprofit lookup (assuming we knew what name they’d file under), a Massachusetts (that’s where Tufts is) charity search under the name “Bridging the Divide” turns up zilch, and having to resort to Google AI for something, anything, notes “its exact financial backers remain unclear in the provided text, amidst accusations that it is a rebranding of existing gun control.”

Siegel then proudly presented another “bennie,” evidently convinced he’s offering something revolutionary and novel that will attract gun owners into his camp:

“I think one area that is an area that would make a big difference is basically making it possible to do background checks for anyone who purchases a gun,” he announced. “And what we did in this law package was, I think for the first time ever, we created a system that is an automated approval check that anybody can access … including private sellers and essentially get a red light or green light instantaneously without transmitting any personal information without having a registry of the gun. And we decided that would allow for private sales to take place without the hassle of having to bring them to an FFL.”

“First time ever”…? Because it sounds exactly like BIDS, the Blind Identification Database System proposed 25 years ago by activists Brian Puckett and Russ Howard on Keepandbeararms.com, and written about many times over the years by myself and others. As reporting from 2014 shows, the gun prohibitionists have known about this idea for years.  It would be interesting to find out who broached this with the group and acted like it was his idea, but in any case, Democrats would never seriously advance such legislation because to do so would show the whole idea of background checks to be a fraud. (And not to put too fine a point on things, but even an “improvement” like BIDS would still be a prior restraint with no foundation in text, history, and tradition.)

A final point, although everything Siegel says could use a good fisking, is his admission on Red Flag Laws/Extreme Risk Protection Orders, “ that we can’t involuntarily commit every single person … but there has to be something short of involuntary commitment.”

There is something. It’s called violating the Constitutional right to due process and taking away a citizen’s guns before they’ve even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. Plenty will unconvincingly try to weasel word their way around that, but none will be able to deny that’s what will happen. What we’re hearing here is the old gun-grabber assertion that “Something must be done,” with the conclusion that that something is ratcheting down on rights.

There’s admittedly a tremendous cost to doing things the right way (and to explore that and what it will take to transition from coercive collectivist rule to a Bill of Rights culture is the existential question of our age). Is that ultimately as high as accepting government doing things the wrong way?

To his credit, Edwards made a final observation that Siegel tepidly acknowledged but has no ability to do anything about changing even if he wanted to, which he’d make part of his platform if he did: All his group’s recommendations are for how red states can make concessions to blue ones, not how blue ones can roll back on infringements they’ve enacted.

No wonder the Michael Bloomberg-funded propaganda project, The Trace, writes so glowingly about them.

Freedom will not be gained by “compromising” with swindlers making claims on birthrights they are not entitled to. Never give an inch. All that does is free them up to expend their resources and efforts on their next goal.

Check your history. Look at the world. The bridge these people are building leads to hell.

DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills

---

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/Qr0T97Y
via IFTTT

Good News for Everyone Else: Bad News for Gun Control?

Long-term homicide data and recent crime trends challenge the media-driven narrative of an endless gun violence epidemic. iStock-945999932

Dr. Vivek Murthy, Joe Biden’s Surgeon General, declared gun violence to be a public health crisis in June 2024. The control freaks and ban fans natter on endlessly about some “epidemic of gun violence” that will never end unless we pass an assault weapons ban or close the equally imaginary “gun show loophole.”

Like a flock of lobotomized parrots, the media faithfully spreads the word.

Fortunately for all of us, facts often run roughshod over propaganda.

“When nationwide data for jurisdictions of all sizes is reported by the FBI later this year, there is a strong possibility that homicides in 2025 will drop to about 4.0 per 100,000 residents. That would be the lowest rate ever recorded in law enforcement or public health data going back to 1900, and would mark the largest single-year percentage drop in the homicide rate on record.”

That’s from Crime Trends in U.S. Cities, the Council on Criminal Justice’s (CCJ) annual report based on offense data for selected American cities and the nation in 2025.

The FBI’s most recent statistics back up the council’s predictions. According to the agency’s Crime Data Explorer, murder is down by nearly 18%.

CCJ also reported a steep year-over-year decline in homicides across its sample of major cities. As a group, they reported there were 954 fewer murders, a reduction of about 20% from 2024 to 2025.

This should be fairly big news. After four years of sackcloth and ashes, wailing and weeping about a very transitory spike in the homicide rate, the CCJ report is blue skies and sunshine.

This isn’t the gun control gang’s first rodeo with reality.

In February 2019, Marist conducted a telephone survey of American adults. NPR and the PBS Newshour commissioned the poll. It covered gun control and American attitudes about it.

The timing of the survey was suspect. It was almost exactly a year since the shooting incident at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. David Hogg and the Gun-Grabbers were fanning the flames of public hysteria, and the Florida Legislature was falling all over itself, passing gun laws without any consideration of whether they would have any real impact.

Scant notice was paid to the findings of the special commission formed to do an in-depth investigation. This is hardly surprising: the commission identified misguided policies, incompetence of the school’s administration and staff, the “abysmal” law enforcement response (which led to the removal of the Broward County Sheriff) and just about anything other than the rifle.

The Marist poll delivered the expected results: Enthusiastic support for popular gun control laws and a willingness to sacrifice civil liberties. In short, just what might be expected when malfeasance meets gullibility.

The last question on the survey is worth a raised eyebrow or two:

“From what you have read or heard, do you think, compared to 25 years ago, the per capita gun murder rate in the U.S. is higher, lower, or about the same?”

Fifty-nine percent of survey participants believed the rate had increased; 23% said it was about the same.

Data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows the per-capita gun murder rate plunged 36% between 1994 and 2018.

By the numbers, 82% of those surveyed were wrong. Of course, there’s no way to know how many of the responses were due to acquiescence bias (where participants’ answers are based on what they believe they are supposed to say). However, the lopsided percentage indicates a majority really do believe the murder rate has increased.

Taken as a measure to gauge Americans’ taste for the gun control Kool-Aid, it’s a solid success. 82% of our adults believe something totally untrue.

In other words, 82% of our adult population doesn’t know what it really needs to know to make an informed decision.

Since NPR and the PBS NewsHour commissioned the survey, it received a fair amount of media attention – except for that last question. Almost none of the reporting even mentioned it. And I certainly don’t recall anyone drawing the obvious conclusion.

It is safe to say there’s no epidemic of actual “violence” in gun violence.

Legislation is reactive; education is proactive. Education is how to prevent tragedy.

The NSSF’s Project Childsafe is the gold standard in firearm accident prevention. Since going live at the end of the Twentieth Century, Project Childsafe has distributed 41 million free gun safety kits, including a cable-style gun lock, through law enforcement agencies nationwide. Having seen the gun control gang’s attempts, there’s no comparison.

Suicides committed with a gun account for nearly 60% of all firearm-related fatalities. Suicides are beloved by the Brady Bunch, Everytown, and Giffords. Gun-grabbers depend on the suicide stats to keep their bogeymen inflated: They’re the only category of ‘gun violence’ where the numbers are still growing.

However, even suicide isn’t a sure-fire shelter for gun control aspirations. A large percentage of suicides are carried out by other means.

That’s an awful lot of people to just ignore – unless the focus is on taking guns rather than saving lives.

In 2022, Congress passed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act. Gun control zealots were beside themselves with delight. Considering the amount of damage Joe Biden was able to do with it, their glee was probably justified.

The Act included provisions for grants to assist states in implementing red flag laws. One of the conditions imposed was a requirement:

“(P)re-deprivation and post-deprivation due process rights that prevent any violation or infringement of the Constitution of the United States, including but not limited to the Bill of Rights, and the substantive or procedural due process rights guaranteed under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, …Such programs must include, at the appropriate phase to prevent any violation of constitutional rights, at minimum, notice, the right to an in-person hearing, an unbiased adjudicator, the right to know opposing evidence, the right to present evidence, and the right to confront adverse witnesses.”

Needless to say, not a single gun control group supported compliance; not a single existing red flag law was changed. Even Maine’s new red flag law doesn’t comply.

This probably won’t come as a surprise: Considered as a group, states with red flag laws saw the use of guns in suicide increase.

Because of course it did.

March NICS Show Steady Gun Demand, While NFA Checks Explode More Than 121%

---

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/AL8siVX
via IFTTT