Special state and federal excise taxes drive up the cost of firearms and ammunition for lawful gun owners. Original illustration created for AmmoLand News using OpenAI image-generation
Anti-gun politicians who cannot ban firearms outright have found another way to attack the right to keep and bear arms: make exercising it progressively more expensive.
Applying the historical test required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Moros argues that taxes singling out firearms, ammunition, and related products have no well-established analogue in America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Special taxes on firearms are unconstitutional. That includes state-level taxes like California’s “sin tax,” the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax, and the NFA’s taxes prior to their recent elimination.
Moros distinguishes special gun taxes from ordinary sales taxes that apply generally to consumer goods. The constitutional problem arises when lawmakers target firearms and ammunition for an additional financial penalty simply because they disapprove of armed citizens.
California demonstrates how quickly those government-imposed costs accumulate.
Using Moros’s hypothetical, a handgun that would ordinarily sell for $500 in Los Angeles rises to $584 after the federal and California excise taxes are included. Add California’s $37.19 background-check charge and the city’s 9.75% sales tax, and the buyer pays $678.13 out the door.
A first-time buyer who also needs California’s firearm safety certificate pays $703.13, approximately 28% more than the handgun would cost with only the generally applicable sales tax.
That burden falls hardest on working Americans who need an affordable firearm for self-defense. Constitutional rights do not belong only to those wealthy enough to absorb every tax and fee a hostile legislature dreams up.
History Does Not Support Taxing Common Arms
Moros’s historical survey found no widespread American tradition before 1900 of imposing special per-unit taxes on commonly possessed firearms.
Founding-era militia laws frequently required citizens to own arms and sometimes protected those weapons from seizure for unpaid debts or taxes. Import tariffs existed, but they applied to broad categories of goods and were intended to encourage domestic arms production—not discourage Americans from acquiring firearms.
The relatively few 19th-century laws that specifically taxed weapons generally targeted bowie knives, pocket pistols, and other arms many people of the period considered “dangerous and unusual.” Those laws were concentrated primarily in Southern states, sometimes applied only when the weapons were carried, and ordinarily left the prevailing military and self-defense arms untaxed.
Some Reconstruction-era taxes were even used to price newly freed Black Americans out of gun ownership. Those racist regional outliers cannot establish the representative national tradition Bruen requires.
Pittman-Robertson Is Not Exempt
The paper’s treatment of the Pittman-Robertson excise tax may be uncomfortable for some gun owners because the money supports wildlife restoration, hunter education, and public shooting ranges. But a popular use of the revenue does not cure an unconstitutional tax.
If the federal government imposed a special tax on newspapers to fund public libraries, the worthy destination of the money would not erase the First Amendment violation. The same rule must apply to the Second Amendment.
Moros does not argue that firearms can never be subjected to ordinary taxation. His position is that the government cannot single out a constitutional right for an additional financial burden.
“A right that the government can price out of reach is not a right,” Moros said.
That is the heart of the issue. Legislatures that cannot constitutionally prohibit Americans from buying common firearms should not be permitted to pursue the same objective through discriminatory taxation. The Second Amendment says the right “shall not be infringed.” It does not contain an exception for infringements disguised as taxes.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
Patrick “Tate” Adamiak shared this photograph with his September 17 announcement that he was home with his family following President Trump’s pardon. Photo via Patrick “Tate” Adamiak/X. Used for news reporting and commentary.
Patrick “Tate” Adamiak is finally home. The former Navy sailor, who received a full and unconditional pardon from President Donald Trump after spending roughly four years in federal prison, announced his return to his family Wednesday in a deeply personal statement thanking those who refused to let his case disappear.
“After four and a half years and the biggest fight of my life, I am home,” Adamiak wrote on X.
The accompanying photograph shows Adamiak standing with his family before an American flag and a Betsy Ross flag. It is a fitting image for a case that became a national warning about what can happen when federal gun regulators, prosecutors, and courts are allowed to stretch technical firearm laws beyond recognition.
After four and a half years and the biggest fight of my life, I am home.
I could not have done it without each and every person who stood beside me, spoke my name when I couldn’t speak for myself, shared my story, challenged what was wrong, and simply refused to give up on me.… pic.twitter.com/ukrNkzVizN
Adamiak credited his family, friends, attorneys, gun-rights organizations, journalists, and thousands of Second Amendment supporters who continued telling his story while he remained behind bars.
He specifically thanked his attorneys at Fudd Busters and Welch Wright Law, journalist Lee Williams, and Reps. Eli Crane, Eric Burlison, Jen Kiggans, Rob Bresnahan, Daniel Webster, and Paul Gosar. Each of those members of Congress supported efforts to bring his case before the administration.
Adamiak also thanked Trump for personally intervening and returning his freedom.
As AmmoLand previously reported, Trump granted Adamiak a full and unconditional pardon on September 4, ending a 20-year federal sentence arising from one of the most controversial ATF prosecutions in recent memory.
Adamiak was a Navy E-6 and Master-at-Arms with no prior criminal record. His case involved cut-up parts kits, separated grenade-launcher components, inert RPG-style training devices, and other firearm collectibles. Adamiak and his supporters maintained that he never sold a completed firearm or anything requiring a federal firearms license.
Nevertheless, federal prosecutors charged him with five counts involving alleged machineguns and unregistered destructive devices. A jury convicted him, and the court imposed a 20-year sentence.
A Pardon Corrected the Injustice—But Not the System
Adamiak’s prosecution demonstrated how the National Firearms Act’s technical definitions can become weapons in the hands of an aggressive federal agency.
The case was not about a violent crime, terrorist plot, or criminal organization. It was about whether demilled parts, disconnected components, and objects marked as inert could be transformed into regulated firearms through government testing and then used to put their owner in prison for decades.
The Fourth Circuit later found that two counts violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because they punished Adamiak twice over the same PPSh-41 item. One count was vacated, but the government still sought to preserve the full 20-year sentence. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in May.
Trump’s pardon accomplished what the federal courts refused to do: it returned Adamiak’s freedom.
But a pardon does not dismantle the federal machinery that made this prosecution possible. It does not repeal the National Firearms Act, restrain the ATF’s shifting classifications, or prevent another collector from becoming the next federal target.
That is why Adamiak’s homecoming message was not simply a celebration. He warned that his experience could happen to any law-abiding gun owner and reminded supporters that other Americans remain caught in similar battles.
“The work has just begun,” he concluded.
Adamiak is home, and that deserves to be celebrated. Now the Second Amendment community must make sure the government is never permitted to do this to another American.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
FBI records describe a monitoring system that alerted federal investigators when legally eligible Americans attempted additional firearm purchases after receiving NICS approval. Original AmmoLand News illustration created with OpenAI
During a September 15, 2026, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz questioned FBI Director Kash Patel about NICS Monitoring. The exchange raised questions about a system that AmmoLand News first reported in 2021.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and other federal agencies use the NICS monitoring system to watch people they have already flagged as suspects. Instead of querying NICS only when a licensed dealer runs a background check on a proposed transfer, the system lets investigators receive alerts when a targeted person later tries to buy a gun. In practice, that turns a point-of-sale Brady check into an ongoing surveillance tool.
Agencies can follow a subject’s firearm purchases over time, even when the buyer is not prohibited and the purchase itself is lawful. That is the arrangement Cruz pressed Patel about, and it is the arrangement described in the FBI records obtained through FOIA.
FOIA Records Show NICS Monitoring Targeted Lawful Gun Buyers
AmmoLand News obtained a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response that Gun Owners of America (GOA) received after requesting information about the system from the FBI. Most of the records date to the Biden administration. Although the ATF claims the system’s use has changed since Robert Cekada became ATF director, the FOIA response is concerning because the stated reasons for monitoring some people are weak.
The records also raise a more basic issue: whether the system is legal at all.
First, consider how the system was used under the Biden administration. Some investigations appear legitimate. Others look more like fishing expeditions. To borrow the line attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, head of Stalin’s secret police, the program sometimes resembles a “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime” operation. Multiple subjects were watched on little more than vague hunches.
BREAKING@Kash_Patel confirms FBI spies on lawful gun sales:
Cruz: “GOA discovered a secret FBI program called NICS Monitoring, used to track firearm purchases of Americans who were legally eligible to buy a gun but were suspected of a crime. Is that right?”
One person monitored in 2023 had been trespassed. The government justified watching his gun purchases because the officers who trespassed him believed he was “experiencing a mental health crisis.” He had no firearms on him at the time of the trespass, and the report does not describe any threat to himself or others. That raises a question: does a suspected mental-health issue justify warrantless monitoring of firearm purchases?
Another person was monitored because he bought a firearm and was involved in an “anti-social movement.” The FOIA records do not identify the movement. They do make clear that the person had committed no crime and was not a prohibited person. To many readers, that looks like monitoring for a thought crime. Being antisocial is not a crime that should trigger an investigation.
Another subject was monitored because he bought the same type of firearms as his two roommates. Many gun owners would see that as ordinary. The Biden administration treated it as grounds for surveillance. People who live together often buy the same guns for many reasons, including a shared preference for a particular model for carry.
Searching for a crime through NICS Monitoring is a serious overreach by law enforcement.
The government also began monitoring a buyer after he spent $8,000 on firearms in a single transaction. Agents noted that the purchase brought his collection’s total value to $10,000 and treated that amount as excessive. The buyer was not prohibited and had not committed a crime. His only offense was spending money on guns.
Another man was monitored after he was pulled over in a “high-crime area” with a firearm in his car. He did not have a concealed-carry permit, but he did have a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card. The stop rested on the location, not on any crime. That looks like profiling. High-crime areas are often where people most need a firearm for self-defense. Under the Biden administration, having a gun where it was most needed became a ticket to warrantless monitoring.
ATF Restricted the Program but Did Not End It
Although the ATF has gotten most of the blame for abusing NICS monitoring, it isn’t the only government agency using the system. To that extent, if a Democrat returns to power in the future, there is a good chance the NICS monitoring system might be abused by a future ATF.
The onus to the American people lies directly at the feet of the FBI and its director, Kash Patel. Mr. Patel could order the system shut down.
Even if the ATF agreed not to use the system, which is unlikely, other agencies would still be able to use it to spy on American gun buyers. This reasoning has led many to call for a complete shutdown of the program. That might hurt some investigations, but it will guarantee that it will not be used to spy on law-abiding gun owners.
Even if the ATF and other agencies no longer use NICS monitoring the way it did under the Biden administration, that does not make the practice legal. Evidence suggests the system conflicts with the Brady law that created NICS.
Under 28 C.F.R. § 25.6(c)(2) and § 25.8(g), NICS may not be used to “[i]nvestigate a person unrelated to a proposed transfer.” The NICS monitoring system does exactly that. It watches a person’s purchases in connection with some other “crime” or activity. The Brady framework also bars use of NICS for general intelligence gathering.
The NICS Index may be accessed for purposes unrelated to a Brady transfer only in narrow circumstances:
providing information to criminal-justice agencies about firearm- or explosives-related permits and licenses;
responding to ATF inquiries connected with civil or criminal enforcement of the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act; or
disposing of firearms held by a federal, state, tribal, or local criminal-justice agency.
That is not a general license for agencies to use NICS for ordinary employment checks, licensing, intelligence collection, or law-enforcement screening. The government might argue that some access is justified because of possible violations of the GCA or NFA, but a court or Congress would decide that.
Access and use must be tied to an authorized firearm transfer, firearm-related licensing, system administration, an appeal, an audit, or a lawful enforcement purpose. The government may retain certain denied-person or prohibited-person information. It may not use NICS as a general-purpose background-check database or as a registry of firearm owners or firearm transactions.
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 written about the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas needed only a few sentences to expose the fundamental error behind most modern gun-control arguments: The right to keep and bear arms does not come from government.
Speaking with Senator Ted Cruz on the Verdict podcast, around minute 29, Thomas explained that the Constitution established the federal government, but it did not create the individual rights government was formed to protect.
“The Second Amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” Thomas told Cruz. “It assumes a right. It doesn’t grant a right.”
The exchange was recently highlighted in a video published by Colion Noir. It is a short statement, but it draws a clear line between the American understanding of liberty and the permission-based system demanded by the gun-control lobby.
Americans do not receive the right to own or carry firearms from Congress, a state legislature, a licensing official or a judge. The right existed before those institutions. The Second Amendment tells the government what it may not do: infringe upon it.
Rights Come Before Government
Thomas made the statement while discussing why the Declaration of Independence remains essential to understanding the Constitution.
The Declaration establishes that rights come from God—or “nature’s God”—rather than from government. Individuals possess those rights first and then delegate limited authority to a government created to protect them.
If government grants a right, government can redefine, ration or revoke it. That is the theory behind firearm licensing systems, “may-issue” carry laws, discretionary permitting, bans on commonly owned firearms and endless lists of supposedly acceptable gun owners.
Under the Founders’ understanding, however, government is not the grantor. It is the party being restrained.
Thomas summarized the difference during the full interview with Cruz: Either citizens receive their rights and benefits from government, or citizens already possess their rights and government receives its authority from them.
Only the second view is compatible with the American constitutional system.
Thomas’s Point Is Already Part of Second Amendment Law
Thomas was not introducing a new legal theory. He was explaining in plain English what the Supreme Court has already recognized.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court held that the Second Amendment codified a pre-existing individual right. It did not manufacture a new privilege in 1791 or limit arms to government-organized militia service.
Thomas later wrote the majority opinion in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which held that ordinary, law-abiding Americans have the right to carry handguns publicly for self-defense.
Bruen also rejected the interest-balancing tests lower courts had used to uphold virtually any gun restriction placed before them. Once the Second Amendment’s text covers an individual’s conduct, that conduct is presumptively protected. The government must then prove that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
That burden follows naturally from Thomas’s explanation. Citizens do not have to prove that they need their rights. Government must justify its attempt to interfere with them.
The Court reinforced that principle in its 2026 decision in Wolford v. Lopez, again describing self-defense as the Second Amendment’s central concern and rejecting judge-created interest balancing.
Thomas also connected the right to bear arms with Reconstruction and the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Following the Civil War, newly freed Black Americans faced intimidation, beatings, lynchings and murder from former Confederates and white-supremacist organizations. Thomas explained that the Radical Republicans understood that citizenship meant little if freedmen could not defend themselves from violent marauders.
The right to bear arms was not an abstract political theory. It was the practical means by which vulnerable Americans could protect their lives and families when authorities could not—or would not—protect them.
That history also destroys the gun-control movement’s effort to portray the Second Amendment as an obsolete privilege belonging only to militias or rural sportsmen. Armed self-defense was an indispensable civil right for Americans whose government repeatedly failed them.
Thomas closed the gun discussion with a story involving former Justice Stephen Breyer. After Breyer described a hypothetical confrontation with a machete-wielding robber and asked what Thomas would be doing on his porch, Thomas answered that he would be “cleaning my guns.”
The remark was humorous, but the underlying principle was not. Self-defense begins with the individual because criminals do not wait for government permission, police response times or licensing decisions.
Thomas’s podcast comments are not a new Supreme Court ruling or a prediction about any pending case. They are something equally valuable: a direct explanation of the principle that should govern every Second Amendment dispute.
The government did not give Americans the right to keep and bear arms. The Constitution commands the government to leave that right alone.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
This master article covers every amicus brief or corrected submission currently appearing on the Supreme Court dockets for Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. It will be updated when briefs supporting Cook County and Connecticut are filed. IMG Tim Potter
The Supreme Court is preparing to decide whether state and local governments may ban possession of the most popular rifle platform in America.
In the consolidated cases of Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, the Court will answer a direct question: “Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”
The answer should be equally direct. AR-15-style rifles are bearable arms, they are overwhelmingly owned for lawful purposes, and they are unquestionably in common use. That should end the constitutional inquiry.
Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut nevertheless claim authority to prohibit these rifles based largely on cosmetic and ergonomic features such as pistol grips, adjustable stocks, barrel shrouds, and muzzle devices. Those features do not turn a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun. They generally make a rifle easier, safer, or more comfortable for its lawful owner to operate.
The Supreme Court granted both petitions on June 30, 2026, consolidated the cases, and directed that subsequent filings appear under Viramontes, No. 25-238. Oral argument is scheduled for December 2, 2026.
The challengers filed their opening merits brief on August 28. They argue that AR-15s are “arms” under the Second Amendment’s plain text, are commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans, and cannot be supported by any historical tradition of banning an entire class of ordinary rifles.
That position has received remarkable support. As of September 16, the docket contains over 40 merits-stage amicus submission.
Here is what every amicus brief filed so far tells the Court.
The United States and Elected Officials
1. The United States
The United States’ brief, filed by Solicitor General D. John Sauer, argues that AR-15s are “arms” and that history and Supreme Court precedent foreclose categorical bans on weapons in common lawful use.
The government emphasizes that the longstanding and widespread legality of a type of arm is powerful evidence that law-abiding citizens possess it for lawful purposes. The Solicitor General has also asked to participate in oral argument, making the federal government’s support especially significant.
2. Tennessee, Kansas and 25 Other States
The 27-state brief argues that millions of Americans lawfully own AR-15s and comparable semiautomatic rifles for self-defense, hunting, sport, and other protected purposes.
The states also point out that rifles are used in crime far less often than handguns and many other weapons. The states imposing these bans are the outliers—not the tens of millions of Americans who own the prohibited rifles.
3. Senators Ted Cruz, Jim Justice, Mike Lee, Cynthia Lummis and Jim Risch
A legislature may classify firearms for regulatory purposes, but it cannot define protected rifles out of the Second Amendment by attaching a politically loaded name to them. Constitutional protection depends on the firearm’s actual character and use—not a label invented by anti-gun lawmakers.
4. Members of Congress and the American Center for Law and Justice
It argues that military usefulness has historically supported constitutional protection. Ordinary citizens were expected to keep arms suitable for the common defense. Lower courts have turned that principle upside down by treating a rifle’s military utility as a reason to prohibit it.
Law Enforcement and Public Safety
5. National Sheriffs’ Association and Western States Sheriffs’ Association
The sheriffs’ brief argues that law-abiding citizens need reliable defensive firearms and that AR-15s are among the most commonly owned rifles in the country.
The associations warn that banning popular defensive arms also creates problems for law enforcement. Officers depend on armed citizens for cooperation, emergency assistance, and the immediate defense of homes and communities when police cannot arrive in time.
6. Peace Officers Research Association of California and Other Law-Enforcement Groups
The peace-officer brief attacks the claimed public-safety justification for the bans.
It argues that prohibited rifles account for an insignificant share of homicides and that credible studies have not established that “assault weapon” bans reduce violent crime, mass shootings, or threats to police officers. Criminals also overwhelmingly obtain firearms through sources unaffected by feature-based bans imposed on lawful purchasers.
Firearms Data, Common Use and Criminal Misuse
7. Professor William English and the Center for Human Liberty
Professor William English’s amicus brief provides some of the strongest evidence that the targeted rifles are in common use.
His 2026 National Firearms Survey estimates that 25 percent of gun owners possess an AR-15-type rifle, while approximately 26.4 million adults own an AR-15 or a similarly styled semiautomatic rifle. The survey estimates that Americans possess approximately 60 million rifles falling within those combined categories.
There is no honest way to describe an arm owned by tens of millions of Americans as “unusual.”
8. National Shooting Sports Foundation
The NSSF brief supplies manufacturing, ownership, and lawful-use evidence from the firearms industry.
NSSF argues that semiautomatic rifles are widely owned for target shooting, competition, hunting, and defense. Because the rifles are plainly arms and commonly possessed for lawful purposes, the government cannot satisfy its burden by presenting policy objections to the Supreme Court’s common-use test.
An AR-15 has one magazine well capable of accepting detachable magazines of different capacities. Its ability to accept a standard-capacity magazine does not create a separate class of rifle. The brief also argues that empirical evidence fails to support claims commonly made about magazine capacity and mass shootings.
10. The Buckeye Institute
The Buckeye Institute’s brief attacks the fiction that repeating firearms and larger-capacity magazines are unprecedented modern developments beyond the Second Amendment’s protection.
The brief traces multishot firearms back approximately 400 years, documents the growth of magazine capacity during the 19th century, and discusses the invention of detachable magazines in the 1860s. Its broader point is straightforward: the Founders understood that arms technology would improve. The Constitution does not protect only the firearms technology available in 1791, and governments cannot strip a modern rifle of protection by portraying its capacity or operating system as historically unimaginable.
Technical and Defensive-Use Evidence
11. Ballistics Experts and Second Amendment Law Professors
The ballistics brief directly confronts some of the most sensational claims made about AR-15s.
The experts explain that semiautomatic rifles do not fire at the rate of machine guns, that common .223/5.56 ammunition is less powerful than many traditional rifle cartridges, and that certain centerfire rifle loads may penetrate common building materials less than handgun or shotgun projectiles.
The brief also challenges the Second Circuit’s lurid claims about wound size and alleged decapitation. Constitutional analysis cannot rest on ballistics mythology.
12. California Gun Rights Foundation, Danielle Jaymes and Use-of-Force Experts
The use-of-force brief explains why Americans choose AR-15s for defense.
The platform is controllable, accurate, easy to learn, and adaptable to shooters of different sizes and physical abilities. Those qualities can be particularly valuable to women, older gun owners, and people with limited upper-body strength. The brief notes that law enforcement selects similar rifles for many of the same practical reasons.
Herrera argues that the Second Amendment’s plain text protects his possession of commonly owned rifles inside his home. Historical regulations concerning unusual weapons or the manner in which arms were carried cannot justify a modern ban on keeping a common rifle on private property.
14. National African American Gun Association and Other Minority Gun-Owner Organizations
These organizations argue that members of minority communities have an especially strong interest in being able to defend themselves and their families. The same features demonized by gun-control advocates—including adjustable stocks and pistol grips—make rifles more useful to ordinary citizens defending themselves against violent attack.
The Second Amendment’s Original Meaning
15. Second Amendment Law Center
The Second Amendment Law Center brief, authored by Stephen Halbrook, traces the AR-15 through more than a century of semiautomatic-rifle development.
It explains that the civilian Colt AR-15 Sporter was classified as a semiautomatic rifle—not a machine gun—and argues that “assault weapon” has no objective or constitutional meaning. The historical record contains no tradition of banning ordinary rifles possessed by the public.
16. Second Amendment Institute, Tyler Yzaguirre and Carlos Ayala
The common defense includes resistance to invasion, insurrection, and usurpation. Arms suitable for that purpose sit near the core of the Second Amendment. Lower courts inverted Miller by treating an arm’s suitability for militia service as a reason to ban it.
17. Dr. Angus McClellan and Original-Meaning Organizations
The McClellan brief examines the historical meaning of “dangerous and unusual.”
The phrase generally concerned the threatening manner in which arms were carried or displayed, not a legislative power to prohibit possession of whatever weapons politicians considered dangerous. At the Founding, ordinary militia arms could not be banned merely because they were effective.
18. Hawaii Rifle Association
The Hawaii Rifle Association brief similarly argues that “dangerous and unusual” historically described conduct with weapons rather than an intrinsic category of prohibited arms.
Affray laws punished going armed in a manner calculated to terrorize the public. They did not authorize the government to outlaw possession of a common weapon inside the home.
19. Hawaii Firearms Coalition
The Hawaii Firearms Coalition brief argues that AR-15s are weapons citizens may possess, train with, and use for self-defense or militia service.
The coalition also maintains that the Second Amendment’s textual coverage extends to arms and the equipment necessary to use them. Historical affray restrictions regulated misconduct, not ownership.
20. G. Antaeus B. Edelsohn
Edelsohn’s amicus brief emphasizes the military and militia purposes recognized in the constitutional text.
It documents America’s longstanding practice of encouraging citizens to possess and train with rifles suitable for militia duty, including through civilian-marksmanship programs. The brief also explains why technological development does not remove modern arms from constitutional protection.
21. Cato Institute
The Cato Institute brief argues that AR-15s are overwhelmingly chosen for lawful purposes and are particularly suitable for service in the reserve militia.
Cato rejects the notion that military usefulness becomes constitutionally disqualifying. A common rifle useful for both individual defense and the common defense falls squarely within the Second Amendment.
22. Landmark Legal Foundation
The Landmark Legal Foundation brief argues that both lower courts misapplied Bruen by refusing to treat AR-15s as arms and by relieving the governments of their historical burden.
Founding-era affray laws and other restrictions on carrying weapons cannot support prohibitions on possessing an entire category of common rifles.
23. Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners
The MCRGO brief stresses that the Second Amendment recognizes a preexisting right and limits government power.
Reconstruction-era laws disarming particular people do not establish a historical tradition of banning classes of arms. Neither military resemblance nor generalized claims of dangerousness can carry the governments’ burden.
24. Minnesota Gun Owners and Colorado State Shooting Association
It argues that American small-arms development has always crossed between military, commercial, and civilian use. The AR-15’s lineage and usefulness are evidence supporting constitutional protection—not an excuse for prohibition.
Common Use and the Lower Courts
25. NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund
The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund brief presents a straightforward argument: the AR-15 is an “arm,” and the Second Amendment precludes bans on arms in common use for lawful purposes.
Lower courts have manufactured additional tests to avoid that result. Nothing in Heller authorizes judges to decide that a popular arm is insufficiently necessary for self-defense.
26. National Rifle Association, American Suppressor Association and Independence Institute
The NRA-led brief traces five centuries of development in repeating firearms.
It demonstrates that the Founders knew weapons technology would improve and did not freeze the Second Amendment at the single-shot musket. Modern semiautomatic rifles remain protected just as modern communications remain covered by the First Amendment.
27. Gun Owners of America and Allied Organizations
The GOA-led brief argues that modern semiautomatic rifles are indisputably in common use and that the case can be resolved under existing Supreme Court precedent.
Once the rifles are shown to be bearable arms possessed by ordinary Americans, the governments must identify a historical tradition supporting their bans. Policy arguments and judicial interest balancing cannot substitute for that missing history.
28. National Association for Gun Rights and Texas Gun Rights
The NAGR brief addresses attempts to prohibit protected arms indirectly by banning their components.
The Second Amendment necessarily protects magazines and functional firearm parts that facilitate the lawful exercise of the right. A government cannot evade the Constitution by dividing a protected rifle into components and regulating them separately.
29. New York State Rifle & Pistol Association and Allied Organizations
The NYSRPA brief argues that Miller and Heller already decide the case.
Common use and militia utility describe overlapping characteristics of protected arms. The brief rejects attempts to transform Heller’s discussion of M16 rifles into a rule disfavoring every civilian firearm with military ancestry.
30. Illinois State Rifle Association
The ISRA brief documents the Seventh Circuit’s continued reliance on tests incompatible with Heller and Bruen.
Those judicial inventions include asking whether the arm was common at the Founding, whether citizens have alternative means of self-defense, and whether judges perceive a sufficient militia connection. The Constitution allows none of those escape routes.
31. Second Amendment Defense and Education Coalition and Aurora Sportsmen’s Club
The SADEC brief openly addresses lower-court resistance to Supreme Court precedent.
It asks the Court to provide unmistakable instructions to the Second and Seventh Circuits and to use its supervisory authority when lower courts continue applying doctrines incompatible with Heller, Bruen, and the Court’s other Second Amendment decisions.
It argues that the term “arms” must first be defined according to the Second Amendment’s text. Courts may not use a distorted version of the “dangerous and unusual” doctrine to erase textual coverage or place the burden on gun owners.
33. Advancing American Freedom and Allied Organizations
The Advancing American Freedom brief emphasizes that the Second Amendment is a limit on government power—not an obstacle officials may balance away.
The brief asks for a clear decision defining the protection owed to common rifles so states and lower courts cannot continue inventing new workarounds.
Feature-Based Bans and Legislative Evasion
34. Knox Williams of the America First Policy Institute
Williams’ amicus brief explains how feature tests draw nonsensical distinctions between functionally identical rifles.
Stocks, bayonet lugs, pistol grips, and other targeted characteristics are not modern inventions unknown to American history. Lawmakers use these features to manufacture a prohibited category without showing that the resulting firearms operate differently from other lawful semiautomatic rifles.
35. Palmetto State Armory and Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition
The PSA and FRAC brief explains that the AR-15 is a family of rifles incorporating commonly used components and configurations.
The Court must prevent governments from formally recognizing constitutional protection for the AR-15 while effectively banning it through restrictions on its ordinary features. Otherwise, hostile lawmakers will simply prohibit the rifle piece by piece.
36. American Firearms Association and State Affiliates
The American Firearms Association brief argues that the challenged laws ban numerous firearms that were already commonly owned before the prohibitions took effect.
It also urges the Court to treat the laws as facially unconstitutional. Narrow relief for individual models or plaintiffs would leave the same unconstitutional machinery in place.
37. California Rifle & Pistol Association and Allied Plaintiffs
The CRPA brief argues that constitutional protection includes the ordinary means of keeping, using, feeding, and maintaining a firearm.
Because AR-15s are designed to use detachable magazines, courts cannot pretend the rifles and their magazines are constitutionally unrelated. CRPA asks the Court to provide guidance applicable to pending magazine-ban litigation, including Duncan v. Bonta.
38. Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, GOAL and New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate
The ANJRPC-led brief addresses similar prohibitions in New Jersey and Massachusetts.
It asks the Court to clarify how the ruling applies to magazine bans and to control the level of abstraction courts use when searching for historical analogues. A restriction on carrying a weapon in a particular manner cannot be inflated into historical support for banning possession altogether.
39. Commonwealth Second Amendment
The Commonwealth Second Amendment brief uses Massachusetts’ expanding “copies or duplicates” ban to illustrate the real target: firearms development and innovation.
The brief warns against allowing governments to label modern improvements exceptionally dangerous. Protection cannot disappear every time a manufacturer makes a lawful arm more accurate, adaptable, or effective.
Using Colorado’s permit-to-purchase system as an example, RMGO argues that states cannot accomplish indirectly what the Constitution forbids them from doing directly. The Court must issue an administrable rule that blocks both outright bans and transparent evasions.
41. Huang Tiange, Corey Biazzo and Other Individual Amici
The corrected Huang and Biazzo submission argues that legislative “assault weapon” classifications do not describe a distinct functional category of arms.
Feature-based definitions do not reliably track firing function, lethality, or rate of fire. The brief also places the dispute within the Supreme Court’s continuing correction of decades in which lower courts underprotected the Second Amendment.
Hunting and Protection for Other Arms
42. U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance Foundation and Safari Club International
The sportsmen’s brief documents the lawful use of semiautomatic rifles for hunting and wildlife management.
Hunters have used semiautomatic rifles for more than a century. AR-15s are particularly useful for predator control, varmints, and many forms of medium-game hunting. Hunting is a lawful purpose protected by the Second Amendment, even though self-defense remains its central component.
43. Knife Rights and Knife Rights Foundation
The Knife Rights brief stresses that the Court’s common-use rule applies to every arm covered by the Second Amendment—not firearms alone.
Commonality should be measured nationally, and the government bears the burden of proving that an arm is both dangerous and unusual. The constitutional principle decided here will affect knives and other bearable arms as well as rifles.
Anti-Gun Briefs Styled as Supporting Neither Party
44. Professor Akhil Reed Amar
Professor Akhil Reed Amar formally filed his brief in support of neither party, but its proposed constitutional framework is hostile to the full protection of the right to keep and bear arms.
Amar does recommend reversing the judgment against the Viramontes challengers. He concludes that AR-15s are proper weapons for lawful self-defense and notes that most states do not seriously restrict them. That conclusion, however, comes attached to a request that the Court abandon or substantially weaken the Bruen framework.
Instead of enforcing the Second Amendment as an enumerated right according to its text and historical meaning, Amar would place heavy weight on contemporary state-law counting. Under his approach, constitutional protection could depend on how many state legislatures currently respect a particular exercise of the right.
The danger becomes unmistakable when Amar turns to magazines. He claims that an ordinary citizen does not need a 30-round magazine for “ordinary self-protection,” urges the Court to consider how many states currently impose magazine limits, and suggests allowing additional states to join what he calls the “magazine-restricting club.” He even warns the Court to “think twice” before striking down magazine bans nationwide.
The USCCB argues that historical tradition and Catholic social teaching support allowing elected officials to impose “focused regulation” on weapons they believe create exceptional dangers to innocent life and public peace. It praises local authority, characterizes certain firearms as exceptionally lethal, and cites lower-court decisions that upheld bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.
The bishops never squarely ask the Court to uphold the Cook County and Connecticut bans, but the argument supplies those governments with precisely the interest-balancing rationale they need. Whether a legislature believes a rifle is unusually dangerous cannot displace the constitutional test. The Second Amendment is not subject to a local-government veto, and Catholic social teaching cannot alter the original public meaning of “shall not be infringed.”
Whatever position appears on the cover, the USCCB brief asks the Court to preserve legislative discretion over constitutionally protected arms.
The Constitutional Case Is Overwhelming
The 45 briefs differ in emphasis, but the core case against AR-15 bans is remarkably consistent.
AR-15s are arms. Tens of millions of Americans own them. They are used for defense, training, competition, hunting, recreation, and the common defense. Semiautomatic rifles have been lawfully possessed for generations, and the government cannot produce a historical tradition of banning ordinary rifles from American homes.
The rifles are not machine guns. A pistol grip does not change their rate of fire. An adjustable stock does not make them uniquely lethal. A muzzle brake does not erase constitutional protection. A detachable magazine is not a loophole in the Bill of Rights.
The lower courts reached the opposite result by avoiding the Supreme Court’s precedents. Some treated military utility as a constitutional defect. Others imported interest balancing, exaggerated the rifles’ ballistics, or compared possession bans to historical laws regulating the threatening misuse or public carry of weapons.
Those approaches cannot be reconciled with Heller or Bruen. Nor can they be reconciled with the text the Justices will confront when oral argument begins on December 2: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Cook County and Connecticut’s supporting amici will have their opportunity to defend the bans after the respondents file their merits briefs. This article will be updated to include those filings.
But the first wave has already established the central fact of these cases: the AR-15 is not some exotic arm lurking beyond the Second Amendment’s boundaries. It is the modern American rifle, commonly chosen by the very people whose right the Constitution commands the government to respect.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
FBI Director Kash Patel confirmed that NICS Monitoring was used to track firearm purchases by Americans who remained legally eligible to buy guns. AmmoLand News illustration created with OpenAI
For five years, the federal government answered questions about its secret monitoring of lawful gun buyers with redactions, litigation and carefully worded policy changes. On Tuesday, FBI Director Kash Patel finally gave the public a direct answer.
It took one word.
During a September 15 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the FBI, Sen. Ted Cruz questioned Patel about the government’s use of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to monitor firearm purchases.
“GOA discovered a secret FBI program called NICS Monitoring, used to track firearm purchases of Americans who were legally eligible to buy a gun but were suspected of a crime. Is that right?” Cruz asked.
“Yes,” Patel replied.
The brief exchange, shared by Gun Owners of America, confirmed the central finding AmmoLand investigative journalist John Crump first reported in April 2021: NICS was being used for more than determining whether someone was legally prohibited from receiving a firearm. It could also be used to watch the future gun purchases of Americans who remained legally eligible to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
BREAKING@Kash_Patel confirms FBI spies on lawful gun sales:
Cruz: “GOA discovered a secret FBI program called NICS Monitoring, used to track firearm purchases of Americans who were legally eligible to buy a gun but were suspected of a crime. Is that right?”
The people targeted by the program were not necessarily prohibited persons. According to the document, ATF personnel could request monitoring when they suspected that someone might be involved in firearms trafficking, straw purchases or another potential violation. If approved, the FBI would flag the individual and notify ATF about subsequent firearm transactions.
The individual would not be told that the government was watching his purchases.
AmmoLand provided the document to GOA, which then filed Freedom of Information Act requests seeking more information about the program. GOA deserves substantial credit for pursuing the records and fighting the government in court, but the original disclosure came from Crump’s reporting at AmmoLand.
That distinction is worth preserving—particularly when the FBI director is finally being questioned about a program AmmoLand exposed five years ago.
ATF Tried to Keep the Records Buried
GOA’s FOIA work revealed that NICS Monitoring was not merely an obscure procedure sitting unused in a government manual.
After ATF provided GOA with documents that were supposed to contain redactions, the agency realized it had released unredacted material. ATF demanded that GOA destroy the records. When the organization refused, the government went to court seeking an order that would prevent GOA from using or discussing the material.
The underlying issue was larger than a FOIA processing mistake. The government was attempting to stop a Second Amendment organization from discussing records the government itself had voluntarily delivered—records concerning federal surveillance of gun owners.
Later disclosures showed that the program was used by ATF field offices around the country. The FBI’s NICS Alert Services personnel could place identified individuals into the monitoring system and send ATF an alert when one of those individuals purchased or transferred another firearm.
In April 2025, AmmoLand reported that the system had even been used to monitor out-of-state firearm purchases connected to possible violations of California’s so-called “assault weapon” laws. One disclosed record cited California Penal Code provisions criminalizing certain semiautomatic firearms as the reason for monitoring a purchaser.
The federal government had turned a background-check system into an enforcement tool for California gun control.
ATF Restricted the Program but Did Not End It
Public exposure and congressional scrutiny eventually forced ATF to change its NICS Alert Policy.
An April 23, 2025 memorandum required approval from an ATF Special Agent in Charge and concurrence from a Deputy Assistant Director before a NICS alert could be requested. The memo stated that alerts could only be used in cases involving suspected violations of federal firearms statutes and “should not be utilized to primarily investigate state firearm laws.”
The revised policy also required a formal memorandum identifying the person to be monitored, the suspected federal violations, the asserted factual basis for the alert and the requested monitoring period. Alerts could run for 30, 60, 90 or 180 days. Continuing surveillance beyond six months required approval from the ATF deputy director and concurrence from chief counsel.
Those restrictions were an improvement over a system that had been used to assist enforcement of state gun bans. They were not the abolition of NICS Monitoring.
ATF expressly called NICS alerts a “valuable investigative technique.” The agency preserved the surveillance machinery, created a new approval process and allowed existing alerts to be renewed. Nothing in the two-page policy added a warrant requirement.
Patel’s Answer Leaves the Most Important Questions Unanswered
Patel’s acknowledgment matters, but the 31-second video does not establish that he created the program, personally approved its use or continued the abuses uncovered under previous FBI and ATF leadership.
It also does not answer whether the program is operating today.
Congress should now demand clear answers from Patel and ATF:
How many Americans have been subjected to NICS Monitoring?
How many were never charged with a crime?
Does the FBI require a warrant, subpoena or court order before flagging a lawful purchaser?
What information is retained after an approved transaction?
How many alerts remain active?
Has the program ever produced a prosecution?
Can the FBI initiate monitoring outside an ATF request?
Most importantly, why does the federal government retain the power to monitor the exercise of an enumerated constitutional right by someone it admits is legally allowed to exercise it?
Buying a firearm is not probable cause. Association with people or organizations the government dislikes is not probable cause. Exercising the right to keep and bear arms must not become the basis for placing an American on a secret federal watchlist.
John Crump and AmmoLand exposed NICS Monitoring. GOA forced out additional records and resisted ATF’s attempt to bury them. Congressional pressure forced the agency to narrow the program. Now the sitting FBI director has confirmed its existence before Congress.
The government can no longer pretend the surveillance never happened. It must tell gun owners whether it is still happening.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The SAF-led amicus brief in Johnson v. Jacobson argues that Minnesota cannot disregard Jeffrey Johnson’s valid Florida and Georgia carry permits. Original illustration by AmmoLand News.
Early American lawmakers who restricted concealed carry frequently made an exception for the people Minnesota burdens today: travelers.
That history is now before the U.S. Supreme Court in Johnson v. Jacobson, a challenge to Minnesota’s refusal to recognize valid carry permits issued by Florida and Georgia.
The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief on September 15, urging the justices to hear the case and reverse an Eighth Circuit decision that allowed Minnesota to force nonresidents through its own licensing process.
SAF was joined by the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
“The right to carry does not stop at state lines,” SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros said.
Two Permits Still Are Not Enough for Minnesota
As AmmoLand previously reported, Jeffrey M. Johnson Sr. is a Georgia resident and long-haul truck driver who carries a handgun for self-defense. He holds valid Georgia and Florida carry licenses and regularly drives through Minnesota while hauling freight.
Minnesota recognizes permits from some states, but not Georgia or Florida. Unless Johnson obtains another permit from Minnesota, he cannot lawfully carry his handgun openly or concealed while traveling through the state.
Johnson is not prohibited from possessing firearms. Minnesota does not claim he is dangerous or otherwise ineligible for one of its permits. The state simply demands that he complete another application, provide documentation, pay another fee, and appear personally at a Minnesota sheriff’s office.
The Eighth Circuit treated reciprocity as a convenience rather than part of the right itself. Because Johnson accepted for purposes of the case that Minnesota could constitutionally require a shall-issue permit, the court reasoned that Minnesota could require nonresidents to obtain one as well.
The new amicus brief attacks that conclusion with something the Eighth Circuit largely ignored: America’s extensive history of protecting armed travelers.
As in the Gardner brief, our first section focuses on the historical tradition of the traveler’s exception laws. We think this decides the reciprocity issue definitively. pic.twitter.com/NFmbZhepop
The brief traces traveler exceptions back to a 1686 East Jersey law that restricted privately carrying certain weapons but exempted peaceful strangers traveling through the province.
Similar laws appeared after the Founding.
Kentucky’s 1813 concealed-carry law exempted anyone traveling on a journey. Indiana followed with an 1819 law declaring that its restriction should not apply to travelers. Tennessee, Arkansas, and Alabama adopted comparable exceptions before the Civil War.
Notably, Kentucky’s law was later struck down in Bliss v. Commonwealth, but not because its traveler exception was too broad. The Kentucky court held that the concealed-carry prohibition itself violated the state constitution’s right to bear arms.
Traveler protections continued after the Civil War. Nevada and California exempted travelers from concealed-carry restrictions during the 1860s. Texas provided a traveler exception to its broader 1871 weapon-carrying law.
Arizona Territory allowed people traveling between towns and settlements to carry firearms despite otherwise broad local restrictions. New Mexico Territory similarly allowed travelers to carry arms for protection while on their journeys and pass through settlements without disarming.
Municipal ordinances in Oakland, Sacramento, and Los Angeles also contained traveler exceptions. The brief points the Court to a separate lawsuit that compiled more than 80 historical examples.
That record matters under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. Once the Second Amendment’s text covers a person’s conduct, the government—not the gun owner—must demonstrate that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The amici argue that Minnesota cannot satisfy that burden. The historical regulations gave travelers more leeway than residents. Minnesota turns that tradition upside down by disarming travelers unless their permits appear on a list maintained by state officials.
Minnesota’s Law Is More Restrictive Than Its Historical Comparisons
The brief does not hide from a possible limitation in the historical evidence. Some traveler exceptions applied only while someone was actively on a journey, not after the traveler stopped in a town for an extended stay.
That distinction does not help Minnesota with Johnson. Interstate travel is his job. He drives through Minnesota as part of constantly changing commercial routes and may not know his next destination until he finishes his current delivery.
There is another major difference. Americans historically could generally carry openly even where concealed carry was restricted. Minnesota requires a recognized permit for either method. Without one, Johnson’s practical ability to carry a functional defensive handgun disappears entirely.
The traveler exceptions therefore are not merely loose historical comparisons. They imposed a smaller burden on armed self-defense than Minnesota imposes today.
How Much Should Exercising One Right Cost?
The brief also documents what happens when Americans attempt to comply with the interstate permit maze.
It cites one husband and wife who reportedly spent $12,804.63 assembling enough permits to carry in 46 states and Washington, D.C. Even after spending that money and completing the associated applications and training, they still could not carry in Oregon, Colorado, or Hawaii.
California provides another example. Following litigation that ended its complete refusal to issue nonresident permits, applicants can face costs ranging from approximately $500 to $2,000, a 16-hour training requirement, possible psychological testing, and waits that the brief says can stretch as long as two years. The permit is then valid for only two years.
Minnesota’s process is less expensive, but it still requires a nonresident to appear personally at a sheriff’s office. The sheriff conducts the relevant criminal-record and eligibility checks electronically, raising an obvious question: What does appearing at a counter prove that Johnson’s existing permits and another background check cannot?
A right that requires thousands of dollars, repetitive training courses, interstate travel, fingerprinting, renewal deadlines, and a wallet full of government permission slips is no longer being treated as a right.
Permit Holders Are Not the Problem
Minnesota may invoke public safety, but Bruen does not permit courts to balance away the Second Amendment whenever a state claims its restriction is useful.
The numbers also undercut that argument.
According to Florida’s licensing records cited in the brief, the state issued 6,644,160 concealed weapon licenses between October 1987 and August 2026. Only 24,134 were revoked without later being reinstated—a revocation rate of approximately 0.36%.
That figure is not a violent-crime rate. Permits can be revoked for nonviolent disqualifying conduct, meaning the percentage of Florida licensees committing violent crimes would be smaller still.
The brief also recounts the case of Marine veteran and self-defense instructor Lloyd Muldrow. According to the filing, Muldrow stopped an armed attacker inside a Baltimore bar while carrying under a Virginia permit that Maryland refused to recognize. Police thanked him and then arrested him. He later received probation—and the Carnegie Medal for his actions.
That is what the reciprocity patchwork can produce: a man is recognized as a hero for stopping an armed attack and treated as a criminal because his permit came from the wrong state.
One National Right, Not 50 State Favors
The Supreme Court has not yet agreed to hear Johnson’s case. The amicus brief asks the Court to grant the petition and argues that the traveler-exception history supports reversal. At minimum, the organizations want the case returned to the Eighth Circuit with instructions to consider that history properly.
This case does not ask the Court to establish nationwide constitutional carry or abolish every state permit requirement. It presents the narrower question of whether a state operating a licensing system may disregard permits issued by every state it considers insufficiently similar to its own.
Second Amendment absolutists should want the broader result. “Shall not be infringed” does not contain a permit, fee, training, or residency exception.
Still, Johnson v. Jacobson gives the Supreme Court a clean opportunity to end one obvious abuse. Minnesota cannot treat an American as trustworthy on one side of its border and presumptively unqualified the moment his truck crosses the state line.
The right to bear arms belongs to the people. It is not a local privilege that must be repurchased in every state.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
BREAKING
