DOJ Folds on Post Office Gun Ban Appeal, Leaving SAF/FPC Victory Intact

The Justice Department has moved to abandon its appeal defending the federal post office gun ban, leaving protections in place for SAF and FPC members. iStock-901659046

For nearly two centuries, Americans managed to conduct business at post offices without Washington declaring every postal counter and parking lot a Second Amendment-free zone. The federal government has finally stopped trying to defend that historically bankrupt restriction.

On July 16, the Department of Justice filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal in Firearms Policy Coalition v. Blanche, formerly known as FPC v. Bondi and FPC v. Garland.

The 41-word motion offers no explanation. DOJ simply asked the Fifth Circuit to dismiss the appeal, with each side bearing its own costs. The court must still formally grant the request, but because the motion is unopposed, the government has effectively waved the white flag.

“This is huge news for SAF members,” SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said in the organization’s announcement. “We now have finality and clarity that the hard-fought injunction we secured on behalf of our members, striking down the post office carry ban is the permanent outcome of the case. The government appears to now agree, especially in light of the recent Wolford decision, that the ban on the lawful carry of firearms in post offices fails constitutional muster.”

It is also another warning to government attorneys still trying to stretch the “sensitive place” doctrine until it swallows the right to carry a firearm.

SAF and FPC Challenged the Postal Gun Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Gavin Pate, and George Mandry filed the lawsuit in June 2024.

The plaintiffs challenged two federal restrictions. The first, 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), generally prohibits possessing a firearm inside a federal facility. The second, 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), prohibits carrying or storing firearms on postal property except for “official purposes.”

Together, the provisions effectively disarmed lawful gun owners not only inside post offices but also on surrounding postal property, including parking lots. That meant someone legally carrying a handgun could not simply leave it secured inside a vehicle before entering the building.

On September 30, 2025, Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor granted summary judgment to the gun rights plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the restrictions as applied to the plaintiffs and their members at ordinary post offices.

The court rejected the government’s claim that every building it owns should receive a nearly automatic “sensitive place” designation. As O’Connor explained in his 17-page opinion, the government “as a property owner must abide by Bruen’s Second Amendment analysis.”

Owning the deed does not give Washington permission to suspend the Bill of Rights.

The Government Had No Historical Case

Post offices are not some modern government invention. The American postal system existed before the country declared independence, and the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads.

The Founders were also familiar with robbery, violence, and threats directed at mail carriers. Early federal laws punished people who robbed the mail or attacked postal employees with weapons. They did not respond by disarming every peaceable citizen who entered a post office.

That distinction proved fatal to the government’s argument.

The first general federal restriction on guns inside government buildings did not appear until 1964. The Postal Service did not adopt its specific postal-property ban until 1972, nearly 200 years after the Second Amendment was ratified.

The historical record was not merely silent about post office gun bans. At times, the government actively armed postal workers. During the wave of mail-train robberies in the 1920s, the postmaster general issued pistols to railway mail clerks.

The traditional American response was to arm the good guys and punish the criminals. The modern response was to disarm everyone and hope a sign would stop someone intent on committing a violent crime.

Judge O’Connor found no historical tradition supporting that modern approach. In granting the permanent injunction, he also observed that “there is no public interest in unlawful government action.”

DOJ Tried to Limit Who Was Protected

After losing, the government attempted to restrict the injunction to Pate, Mandry, and people who were SAF or FPC members when the lawsuit was filed in June 2024. DOJ also wanted protected members identified and verified for the government.

Judge O’Connor rejected that effort. In March, the court clarified its injunction, holding that it applies to the named plaintiffs and all present and future members of SAF and FPC.

That gives the injunction nationwide practical reach, but it is important to understand its limits. This is not a universal ruling allowing every American to carry in every post office.

The protection applies to SAF and FPC members at “ordinary” post offices. It does not cover post offices located on military bases, inside similarly restricted areas, or within federal buildings that house additional government functions where firearms would otherwise be prohibited. Gun owners must also comply with other applicable state and federal laws.

Because DOJ is abandoning the appeal, there will be no Fifth Circuit decision establishing binding appellate precedent. The district court’s judgment and membership-based injunction will remain intact, but the federal restrictions have not been erased from the books for everyone.

Wolford’s Shadow Hangs Over the Government’s Retreat

The timing of DOJ’s surrender is difficult to ignore.

In January, the government asked the Fifth Circuit to place the appeal on hold while the Supreme Court considered Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani. DOJ specifically acknowledged that Wolford could provide additional guidance concerning laws that restrict where Americans may carry firearms.

The Fifth Circuit denied that request. The Supreme Court then decided Wolford on June 25, reiterating that laws restricting armed carry fall within the Second Amendment’s plain text and must survive the historical analysis required by Bruen.

Three weeks later, DOJ moved to dismiss its post office appeal.

The dismissal motion does not mention Wolford or formally concede that the postal ban is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the sequence strongly suggests that the government recognized its “sensitive place” theory was unlikely to survive.

The current Justice Department deserves limited credit for finally walking away. It does not deserve a parade. DOJ continued defending the restriction, attempted to gut the injunction, and pursued an appeal before finally acknowledging that the fight was no longer worth having.

The real credit belongs to SAF, FPC, the individual plaintiffs, and the attorneys who forced the government to defend a 50-year-old gun ban against more than two centuries of American history.

An ordinary post office is not a prison, military base, courthouse, or secure government installation. It is a place Americans visit to mail packages, buy stamps, collect mail, and apply for passports.

The federal government cannot turn those routine errands into grounds for stripping citizens of their right to armed self-defense.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/Wk9yBEU
via IFTTT

Major 2A Victory: Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s AR-15 & Magazine Bans

The en banc Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey’s ban on covered semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. IMG Duncan Johnson

New Jersey’s AR-15 ban and 10-round magazine limit have suffered a major federal appellate defeat.

Sitting en banc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled July 17 that New Jersey’s so-called “assault firearm” ban violates the Second Amendment as applied to every semiautomatic rifle covered by the law. The court also struck down the state’s prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

Ten of the court’s 15 judges joined the judgment invalidating the rifle and magazine provisions in the consolidated challenges brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, individual gun owners, and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Judge Arianna Freeman wrote the opinion of the court.

The decision goes substantially further than the lower court’s 2024 ruling. U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan had limited his decision against the rifle ban to Colt-manufactured AR-15s while upholding New Jersey’s magazine restriction. The Third Circuit expanded that judgment to all semiautomatic rifles regulated by the challenged provisions and reversed the ruling on magazines.

John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, released the following statement celebrating the win:

“Today marks a historic victory for the NRA, the Second Amendment, and law-abiding Americans. The Third Circuit has struck down these unconstitutional so-called assault weapons bans and magazine bans in New Jersey, affirming what we’ve always known: the right to keep and bear arms, including commonly-owned rifles and standard-capacity magazines, is fundamental and cannot be infringed by politicians who prioritize control over constitutional freedoms. This ruling protects the rights of millions of responsible gun owners in the Garden State and serves as another benchmark in our efforts to dismantle gun control across the country.”

Semiautomatic Rifles Are Protected “Arms”

The majority began with a point that should not be controversial: A semiautomatic rifle is a firearm, and a firearm is an “Arm” protected by the Second Amendment.

“Because semi-automatic rifles are firearms, they are ‘Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment,” the court held. “The Constitution thus ‘presumptively protects’ individuals’ right to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles.”

That conclusion forced New Jersey to prove its prohibition was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The state failed to do so.

The record showed that approximately 24 million AR-15s and similar rifles are in circulation. Americans possess them for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, and pest control. Their accuracy, light recoil, and ergonomics also make them practical defensive firearms.

New Jersey attempted to get around those numbers by arguing that semiautomatic rifles are rarely fired during documented defensive gun uses. The court rejected that sleight of hand. The Second Amendment protects the right to “keep” arms, meaning the right to possess them. A gun owner does not need to shoot an attacker before his choice of defensive firearm receives constitutional protection.

The majority also made clear that self-defense is not the only lawful purpose protected by the Second Amendment. Hunting and other lawful uses count as well.

“Regardless of where those lines may be drawn, the many millions of semi-automatic rifles in circulation for lawful purposes are plainly in common use,” the court wrote.

That is a direct rejection of the argument anti-gun states have increasingly pushed: that an arm can be banned unless gun owners prove it is frequently fired in self-defense. The Constitution protects keeping and bearing arms, not merely pulling the trigger during a crime recorded in a government database.

New Jersey Could Not Produce a Historical Rifle Ban

Once the court determined that New Jersey had imposed a de facto ban on a class of commonly possessed arms, the historical question became straightforward.

The state offered gunpowder-storage laws, trap-gun restrictions, Bowie-knife laws, and later regulations of pistols and clubs. None supported what New Jersey enacted.

Founding-era gunpowder laws were fire-safety measures governing how large quantities of powder could be stored in crowded buildings. They were not bans on possessing commonly owned weapons. Most Bowie-knife laws arrived decades after the Founding and regulated concealed carry rather than possession. Georgia’s lone outright possession ban was later held unconstitutional except insofar as it regulated concealed carry.

The majority also refused to let New Jersey invoke “unprecedented societal concerns” as a shortcut around the historical test. Criminals misusing weapons to harm innocent people is not a new problem. The Founders addressed dangerous individuals through laws directed at threatening or criminal conduct, not by disarming millions of peaceable citizens.

“Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation,” the court explained. “That is so even when the regulations are passed with the intention of reducing gun violence.”

The majority ultimately held that “New Jersey’s complete prohibition on the possession of semi-automatic rifles runs afoul of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

Ten Rounds Is a Political Line, Not a Constitutional One

The Third Circuit delivered an equally strong rejection of New Jersey’s magazine ban.

The state argued that magazines holding more than ten rounds were either unprotected accessories or a separate category of “large capacity” arms. The majority rejected both claims. Magazines feed ammunition into firearms and are required for many modern guns to function as designed. They are therefore protected “Arms.”

The court also recognized that “large capacity magazine” is a political label whose definition changes whenever lawmakers choose a new number. New Jersey originally allowed magazines holding up to 15 rounds before lowering the limit to ten in 2018.

“It would defy reason for a label devised by New Jersey’s legislature to govern the reach of the Second Amendment’s text,” the majority wrote.

The court then went directly at the state’s arbitrary cutoff:

“It cannot be that a magazine that can hold ten rounds is an ‘Arm’ covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment but a magazine that can hold eleven rounds is not.”

The record contained evidence of more than 100 million 30-round AR-15 magazines in circulation. AR-15-style rifles commonly ship with 20- or 30-round magazines, making them standard equipment for one of America’s most popular rifles.

Quoting an earlier decision and expressly agreeing with it, the majority observed: “There may well be some capacity above which magazines are not in common use but, if so, the record is devoid of evidence as to what that capacity is; in any event, that capacity surely is not ten.”

The court concluded that New Jersey’s magazine provisions violate the Second Amendment.

Judge Matey Blasts New Jersey’s Word Games

Judge Paul Matey, joined by Judge Jennifer Mascott, wrote separately to argue that New Jersey has already received more than enough time to defend its restrictions.

Matey described the state’s law as “blunderbuss legislation” and accused New Jersey’s attorneys of “prioritizing histrionics over history.” He also rejected the terminology lawmakers use to make ordinary rifles and magazines sound sinister.

“Sixteen rounds was large yesterday, eleven rounds is large today,” Matey wrote. “Nor does any limiting principle guide the State’s definition of ‘assault weapons.’”

Although the state may market its gun-control agenda using politically effective slogans, he added, “the rights of our Republic are built on sturdier stuff.”

Matey and Mascott would move quickly on the remaining portions of the case rather than give New Jersey another lengthy round of litigation.

Third Circuit Creates the Circuit Split SCOTUS Needed

The national importance of this ruling is difficult to overstate. Other federal appellate courts have upheld semiautomatic-rifle or magazine bans by treating commonly owned rifles as military weapons, minimizing lawful possession, or stretching late historical regulations beyond recognition.

Judge Cheryl Ann Krause’s dissent acknowledged exactly what the majority accomplished. She complained that the ruling makes the Third Circuit “the only Court of Appeals in the Nation to afford constitutional protection to AR-15s and LCMs.”

That admission identifies the real story. There is now a clean federal appellate split over whether the government may ban AR-15-style rifles and commonly owned magazines.

The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear the consolidated Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins cases, which ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Third Circuit has now given the justices a detailed roadmap grounded in Heller, Bruen, Rahimi, Hemani, and Wolford.

What the Decision Does—and Does Not—Resolve

The ruling invalidates New Jersey’s “Assault Firearm Provisions” as applied to the semiautomatic rifles covered by the law. It also holds that the state’s restrictions on magazines holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment.

The Third Circuit remanded the challenges involving semiautomatic pistols, semiautomatic shotguns, and other weapons covered by New Jersey’s definition because the record was less developed regarding those firearms. Bump stocks were not part of the challenge. The court also did not decide the separate Takings Clause claim because the Second Amendment ruling resolved the magazine dispute.

New Jersey gun owners should not treat the publication of the opinion as an immediate green light to disregard existing statutes. The appellate mandate, further district-court proceedings, and any request by the state for a stay must still be watched closely.

But the constitutional result is unmistakable: New Jersey cannot erase the Second Amendment by attaching an inflammatory label to a common rifle or by declaring that the eleventh round in an ordinary magazine suddenly transforms protected property into contraband.

For the first time, an en banc federal appellate court has squarely rejected both games.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/gBuZ4cM
via IFTTT

House Votes to Block Credit Card Gun Tracking as Senate Fight Looms

The House passed H.R. 1181 by 221–201 to prohibit firearm-specific merchant category codes such as MCC 5723. IMG Jim Grant

Buying a rifle, ammunition, or gun safe should not place an American under special financial surveillance. Yet that is the premise behind the firearm-retailer merchant code that banks and gun-control activists have spent years trying to impose on lawful gun owners.

On July 14, the House passed H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, by a 221–201 vote. Five Democrats and one independent joined 215 Republicans in supporting the measure, while 200 Democrats and Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick voted against it. NRA-ILA supported the legislation, which now moves to the Senate.

Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) sponsored the bill.

A Financial Label Created Specifically for Gun Stores

Merchant category codes are four-digit identifiers used to classify businesses. Gun stores were historically categorized alongside sporting-goods or general-merchandise retailers.

That changed in 2022 after banks and gun-control activists pushed the International Organization for Standardization to approve a separate code for firearm and ammunition retailers. The result was MCC 5723, a financial label for businesses whose primary sales involve firearms, ammunition, or related products.

The code does not reveal what a customer purchased. It generally identifies the merchant category and transaction amount. That limitation does not make the system harmless. It makes it indiscriminate.

A $2,000 gun-store charge could represent a rifle. It could also cover a safe, optic, training class, range membership, hunting equipment, or ammunition. MCC 5723 cannot tell the difference. It simply places every qualifying transaction into a gun-related category that can be searched, analyzed, and flagged.

“The implementation of Merchant Category Codes to surveil lawful purchases is nothing more than an ill-conceived attempt to create a de facto national firearms registry,” NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford warned.

What H.R. 1181 Would Do

The House-passed bill goes beyond credit cards. Its definitions cover entities involved in processing credit, debit, and prepaid-card transactions.

Payment networks could not require gun retailers to use a code that identifies them as sellers of firearms, ammunition, firearm accessories, or components. Banks and other covered entities would likewise be barred from assigning such a code.

The bill would also preempt state and local laws regulating firearm-retailer MCCs. That provision would override mandates imposed by California, Colorado and New York while replacing the current patchwork of state requirements with a nationwide prohibition.

Importantly, H.R. 1181 does not prevent financial institutions from complying with laws concerning fraud, genuinely suspicious or illegal activity, data breaches, or transaction security. Banks could continue investigating evidence of actual crime. They could not begin with the assumption that patronizing a gun store is inherently suspicious.

Enforcement Comes With Limitations

The attorney general would have 90 days after enactment to establish a complaint process for individuals and firearm retailers. DOJ would be required to investigate submitted complaints.

If DOJ determines that a payment network or processor violated the law, the company would receive notice and 30 days to correct the violation. If it refused, the attorney general could seek a federal injunction.

The bill creates no private right of action and specifies no civil fine. A gun dealer improperly tagged with the code could file a complaint but could not sue under H.R. 1181 for damages.

That is a weakness, particularly if a future anti-gun attorney general controls enforcement. Nevertheless, the legislation establishes a clear federal prohibition and requires annual reports to Congress detailing investigations and outcomes.

Most House Democrats Voted to Preserve the Tracking Tool

Opponents claim the code could help banks identify gun trafficking or prevent mass shootings. That argument exposes the fundamental problem.

Because MCC 5723 does not disclose what was purchased, any determination of “suspicious” behavior would rest largely on where someone shopped and how much was spent, not evidence that a crime occurred.

That is financial profiling directed at the exercise of a constitutional right.

Law enforcement already has subpoenas, warrants, suspicious-activity reports and other investigative tools for cases supported by evidence. It does not need a dragnet treating lawful gun-store customers as potential criminals. The Second Amendment is not probable cause.

The official House vote shows opposition to this surveillance crossed party lines, but only narrowly. Five Democrats broke with their party to protect gun-owner privacy. Two hundred voted to leave the tracking mechanism available.

The Senate Is the Next Test

House passage is an important victory, but H.R. 1181 is not law. The Senate companion, S. 1715, remains before the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

Should a lawful purchase from a constitutionally protected industry place an American into a specially marked financial category?

The answer should be no. Buying guns and ammunition is lawful commerce, not grounds for a bank-generated watchlist. H.R. 1181 would finally tell financial institutions and anti-gun states that gun owners are citizens, not suspects.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/JW6vzLK
via IFTTT

Owning a Gun Is Not Reasonable Suspicion: SAF Seeks Judgment Over School Truck Search

SAF is asking a federal court to rule that school officials violated Jack Harrington’s Fourth Amendment rights when they searched his truck after learning he lawfully owned a handgun. iStock-691528428

The Second Amendment Foundation is asking a federal judge to rule that New Hampshire school officials violated an 18-year-old student’s Fourth Amendment rights after searching his truck based solely, SAF says, on his lawful gun ownership. The search found no firearm.

In a July 15 motion for summary judgment in Harrington v. Crawford, SAF argues that lawful off-campus handgun possession did not give Hillsboro-Deering High School officials probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion, to search Jack Harrington’s vehicle.

Hillsboro-Deering High School officials searched Jack Harrington’s truck while it was parked on school property. They found no gun. According to SAF, Harrington’s Glock 43 was safely stored at his family’s home, nowhere near the campus.

Now, after discovery produced testimony from the officials involved, Harrington has moved for summary judgment.

“This case comes down to one simple and undeniable fact,” the motion argues. School officials allegedly searched Harrington’s vehicle based solely on his lawful exercise of “the right to keep and bear arms.”

A Week-Old Traffic Stop Becomes Grounds for a School Search

The controversy began with an uneventful off-campus traffic stop on April 11, 2025.

Harrington, who had turned 18 the previous November, lawfully had his Glock in the glove box. When he opened the compartment, he informed the officer about the handgun. New Hampshire law allows an 18-year-old who is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms to own a handgun and transport it in a vehicle.

Five days later, Harrington discussed the traffic stop with a friend while traveling on a school bus to an athletic event. An assistant softball coach sitting nearby thought he heard Harrington say, “It’s a good thing they didn’t look in my glove box, because that’s where I keep my gun.”

Harrington denies making that statement. The coach also admitted, according to the motion, that he never heard Harrington say he possessed a firearm on school property. Despite any supposed safety concern, the coach waited a week before reporting the conversation.

By the time the information reached Principal James O’Rourke, it had passed through the coach and the school’s athletic director. The motion says administrators did not interview Harrington’s friend or conduct any meaningful investigation before deciding to search the truck.

More importantly, O’Rourke reportedly acknowledged during his deposition that he had no evidence Harrington had brought a firearm to school. He knew Harrington could legally own a handgun and legally transport it in his glove box away from campus. The motion says officials had no indication Harrington had engaged in any illegal conduct anywhere.

Nevertheless, they treated the fact that Harrington had previously possessed a gun in his truck as evidence that the gun might be there on April 24.

That is not an investigation. It is a presumption of guilt attached to gun ownership.

An Armed Officer, a Closed Office and Repeated Refusals

Assistant Principal Brian McGinn removed Harrington from class and escorted him to an office where O’Rourke and Hillsboro Police Officer Michael DeTurris, the school resource officer, were waiting.

According to the motion, DeTurris wore his complete police uniform, including a badge, handcuffs, Taser and visible Glock handgun. He remained standing near the office’s only door while the two school administrators sat across from Harrington.

Harrington repeatedly said he did not have a firearm at school. When officials demanded access to his truck, he reportedly refused four or five times, using some variation of: “I am not going to let you guys search my truck.”

His parents also refused consent during a phone call that officials could hear. Harrington’s father said he was coming to the school and told administrators they had no right to search the vehicle.

The questioning continued.

The motion says O’Rourke repeatedly told Harrington that the truck would be searched regardless of what he said. Harrington eventually responded with a single “okay” after being informed yet again that the search was inevitable. School officials now contend that word amounted to consent.

The original complaint alleges O’Rourke later defended the search by saying, “we did nothing illegal; we have a statement that Jack keeps a gun in his glovebox.”

But possessing a gun in a glove box away from school was entirely legal. It did not establish that Harrington had a gun on campus.

School officials opened the glove box and found nothing, confirming what Harrington had told them all along. Shortly afterward, Harrington emailed McGinn:

“It’s wrong that my truck had to get searched. I didn’t do anything wrong to constitute that.”

Lawful Conduct Cannot Create Suspicion

SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack warned that allowing gun ownership to justify a search would place young gun owners under permanent suspicion.

“Entirely lawful and constitutionally protected conduct cannot be the grounds for a search,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “School officials, especially when accompanied by law enforcement as was the case here, need at minimum reasonable suspicion to search a student’s vehicle. Here, those officials learning that our client was a gun owner gave them that suspicion. They are mistaken. If that were the case, student gun owners all over the country could be subject to repeated and endless harassment.”

That is the larger danger presented by this case. If simply knowing that someone owns a gun creates reasonable suspicion, any adult student who hunts, shoots competitively or carries lawfully could be searched repeatedly without evidence of wrongdoing.

The complaint calls that a “dangerous and unacceptable precedent.”

SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb said officials treated Harrington’s lawful firearm ownership as if it stripped him of his other constitutional protections.

“District officials – and even a school resource officer who should know better – took it upon themselves to violate the constitutional rights of a peaceable, adult, firearm owner for no other reason than they learned of his status as a gun owner,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This young man was interrogated and coerced into allowing school officials to search his vehicle because he chooses to exercise his rights as a private citizen. Law enforcement and school officials are required to understand the law and to follow it, and in this case, it appears they failed at both.”

The Second Amendment Does Not Cancel the Fourth

Public school officials normally operate under the lower “reasonable suspicion” standard established by the Supreme Court in New Jersey v. T.L.O. Harrington argues, however, that DeTurris’s substantial involvement as a sworn police officer elevated the required standard to probable cause.

The Supreme Court has not definitively settled the standard for a search jointly conducted by school officials and law enforcement. Harrington’s motion therefore makes the alternative argument that the search fails under either test.

Officials had no probable cause. They also lacked reasonable suspicion that the truck contained evidence of a crime or school-rule violation. Their only information concerned Harrington’s lawful possession of a handgun away from school nearly two weeks earlier.

The claimed consent is equally questionable. Consent obtained after repeated refusals, threats of discipline and declarations that the search will happen anyway is not meaningfully voluntary. It is submission to authority.

Harrington is seeking a declaration that the defendants violated his Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, nominal damages, legal fees and judgment rejecting the defendants’ consent defense. The court has not yet ruled on the motion.

School safety is important, but it is not a magic phrase that wipes away the Bill of Rights. Government officials cannot use the exercise of one constitutional right as their excuse to invade another.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/B7w2FHd
via IFTTT

New Jersey Escalates Lawfare Against Pennsylvania Firearms Entrepreneur Jordan Vinroe

New Jersey is seeking to hold JSD Supply founder Jordan Vinroe personally liable after JSD Supply and Eagle Shows entered bankruptcy. iStock-1432499179

In a stark example of anti-Second Amendment activism, the State of New Jersey has launched a personal lawsuit against Jordan Vinroe, the former owner of Pennsylvania-based gun show operator Eagle Shows and the firearms parts company JSD Supply.

This latest legal action, filed by New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, seeks to hold Vinroe personally accountable for activities that occurred through his now-defunct businesses.

Illegal ghost guns pose a serious threat to public safety—and we won’t rest until we get them off our streets.

Today, we sued a key member of the ghost gun industry who has been trying to evade accountability for years. Not on our watch. https://t.co/cMx5NFGSgb pic.twitter.com/sgS7AKMsva

— Attorney General Jennifer Davenport (@NewJerseyOAG) July 15, 2026

Federal “Ghost Gun” Backdrop

Vinroe previously owned and operated Eagle Shows, which hosted numerous gun shows across Pennsylvania, drawing enthusiasts from the region. He also ran JSD Supply, a business that sold parts and components for various firearms. The company gained particular attention for offering privately manufactured firearms kits, often referred to as “80% lowers” or demonized as “ghost gun” kits, prior to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) rule changes implemented during the Biden administration.

These kits allowed hobbyists and gunsmiths to complete their own firearms at home, a practice protected under longstanding federal interpretations of the Second Amendment until regulatory shifts tightened restrictions.

Both companies faced aggressive legal challenges from multiple states, with New Jersey leading the charge. The Garden State sued Vinroe’s enterprises, accusing them of operating an “iron pipeline” that funneled firearms and parts into New Jersey. Notably, no Eagle Shows events were held within New Jersey itself, and JSD Supply did not maintain operations or retail locations in the state. Despite this, New Jersey officials blamed Vinroe for contributing to the state’s crime problems, while downplaying its own well-documented struggles with prosecuting violent offenders and addressing systemic failures in the criminal justice system.

New Jersey claimed gun shows hosted by Eagle Shows were strategically located near the Pennsylvania-New Jersey border, and according to the state, the businesses allegedly used advertising, including billboards along the New Jersey Turnpike, to reach potential customers.

New Jersey prosecutors claimed these efforts deliberately targeted residents seeking unserialized firearms components, which are illegal to possess in completed form under strict Garden State laws. Critics argue this narrative ignores the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens in neighboring states and the realities of interstate commerce.

New Jersey Says Closing the Businesses Was Not Enough

After years of legal battles, New Jersey achieved its initial goal. The costs of defending against these lawsuits forced both Eagle Shows and JSD Supply into bankruptcy. Many in the firearms community believed that bankrupting the companies would satisfy the state’s appetite for regulation. However, New Jersey viewed the corporate dissolution not as closure, but as an evasion of responsibility. In their eyes, Vinroe had dodged accountability for what has been characterized as nonexistent crimes—selling products that were legal at the time of sale and fully compliant with federal guidelines prior to the ATF’s expansive reinterpretations.

Undeterred, New Jersey has now pivoted to a personal lawsuit against Vinroe himself. This escalation can only be described as a vendetta, serving as a chilling warning to others in the firearms industry. By pursuing the individual after dismantling his businesses through relentless lawfare, the state signals that mere financial ruin is insufficient. They seek total personal destruction for those who facilitate lawful exercise of Second Amendment rights.

This case transcends Jordan Vinroe. It represents a broader strategy by anti-gun states to chill constitutionally protected activities. If successful, it sends a terrifying message to every gun show promoter, parts supplier, and firearms-related entrepreneur: anti-Second Amendment jurisdictions are no longer content with destroying livelihoods. They aim to ruin the lives, reputations, and futures of those who disagree with their policies. And they are more than willing to expend taxpayer dollars on these ideological crusades.

A Warning to the Firearms Industry

The implications ripple far beyond one Pennsylvania businessman. Law-abiding citizens across the country who engage in private manufacturing, attend gun shows, or support the firearms ecosystem now face heightened risks. States like New Jersey, with some of the strictest gun control laws in the nation and persistent urban crime issues, prefer scapegoating out-of-state businesses over reforming failed policies such as bail reform, soft-on-crime prosecution, and ineffective policing. This lawsuit weaponizes public nuisance laws and novel legal theories to bypass federal protections and Second Amendment precedents.

Vinroe’s story highlights the human cost of such tactics. Once a prominent figure in the Pennsylvania gun show circuit and parts market, he has seen his primary enterprises shuttered.

To support his defense against this latest suit, Mr. Vinroe has established a GiveSendGo campaign to help cover mounting legal expenses. This lawfare campaign extends far beyond one individual.

If New Jersey prevails, it could embolden similar actions against countless others in the firearms community. Any gun owner, dealer, or advocate could become the next target when exercising rights that the Constitution explicitly safeguards.

The firearms community must rally in support. This is not merely about one man’s businesses or alleged sales—it is about defending the foundational right to keep and bear arms against coordinated governmental overreach. Supporters can contribute to Vinroe’s GiveSendGo at GiveSendGo.com/jsdeagle and spread awareness of this case. Standing together against such abuses is essential to preserving liberty for future generations.

In an era where federal courts have increasingly scrutinized overreaching ATF rules and states’ attempts to regulate interstate commerce in arms, this personal lawsuit tests the boundaries of accountability and free enterprise. New Jersey’s actions risk setting a dangerous precedent that prioritizes political ideology over constitutional rights and due process. The outcome will reverberate through the Second Amendment landscape for years to come.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

from https://ift.tt/EVndqK3
via IFTTT

Virginia Says AR-15s Aren’t Protected “Arms”—Then Revives a Test SCOTUS Rejected

Virginia claims AR-15 rifles and magazines over 15 rounds are not constitutionally protected arms in Crump v. Katz. IMG Jim Grant

Jay Jones’s office wants a Virginia court to declare common semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines outside the right to keep and bear arms.

Virginia’s gun-control machine is trying to save its new rifle and magazine restrictions with an audacious argument: The AR-15 is not a constitutionally protected “Arm” at all.

On July 15, Virginia Attorney General Jay Jones’s office filed a motion to dismiss and demurrer in Crump v. Katz, the lawsuit challenging House Bill 217 and Senate Bill 749 under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. The plaintiffs include AmmoLand contributor John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation.

The Commonwealth first argues that Virginia’s Constitution protects only a collective, militia-tethered right rather than an individual right. It then asks the court to go even further:

“Even if the Court adopts Plaintiffs’ mistaken theory that there is an individual right in § 13, Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate that assault firearms and large capacity magazines are “arms” protected by §13 or the Second Amendment.”

Jones’s office is not simply claiming that the state may regulate how a rifle is carried or sold. It is asking a court to place an entire class of common semiautomatic firearms, and magazines holding more than 15 rounds, outside constitutional protection.

Crump blasted the Commonwealth’s position, “The latest move of trying to claim that AR-15s are not protected arms smells of desperation. Jay Jones and his cohorts know they are fighting a losing battle and will try anything to stave off their inevitable defeat.”

Virginia Has a “Common Use” Problem

The motion claims that so-called assault firearms and large-capacity magazines “are not in common use today for lawful self-defense.” It adds that because they are “weapons that are most useful in military service,” they lie “outside the ambit of the Second Amendment.”

There are several problems packed into those two sentences.

First, District of Columbia v. Heller spoke of weapons typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. It did not limit constitutional protection to firearms that can be proven to have been fired in a documented defensive encounter. Training, target shooting, competition, hunting, home defense, and simply being prepared are all lawful purposes.

The Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in Wolford v. Lopez also described “Arms” as weapons customarily used for offensive or defensive purposes. Under the federal test, an ordinary semiautomatic rifle would appear to clear the textual threshold. The burden would then shift to the government to establish a historical tradition supporting its ban.

Second, calling the AR-15 “unusual” collides with reality. In Smith & Wesson Brands v. Mexico, a unanimous Supreme Court described the AR-15 as “the most popular rifle in the country” and noted that such rifles are widely legal and purchased by ordinary consumers.

That is a devastating factual problem for anyone trying to call the platform unusual. NSSF currently estimates that more than 32 million modern sporting rifles are in circulation.

Virginia nevertheless insists that the banned rifles and magazines are “dangerous and unusual” and therefore “beyond the reach of any arms guarantee.” But Heller’s formulation is dangerous and unusual. The Commonwealth cannot erase the second half merely because every firearm is capable of causing harm.

Is Military Usefulness Supposed to Protect an Arm or Disqualify It?

Virginia leans heavily on the Fourth Circuit’s Kolbe and Bianchi decisions, which treated AR-15-style rifles as sufficiently similar to military weapons to fall outside the Second Amendment. That gives the Commonwealth lower-court precedent to cite, but it does not settle the national argument.

An AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle that fires one round with each trigger pull. It is not the select-fire M16 discussed in Heller. More importantly, Virginia’s position creates a glaring contradiction: The state says Section 13 protects a militia-tethered right, then says rifles useful for militia or military purposes are the least protected arms. Which is it?

That dispute is now headed directly to the Supreme Court. On June 30, the Court granted review in Viramontes v. Cook County to decide whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. Virginia filed its motion just 15 days later.

Virginia Tries to Bring Back Interest Balancing

The most revealing language appears in paragraph 37. Virginia claims SB749 responds to “the dramatic technological change of rapid-fire semi-automatic assault firearms and large-capacity magazines” and “the unprecedented societal concern of mass shootings.”

The motion then states: “The Commonwealth’s public-safety interest is substantial, and SB749 is reasonably adapted to that interest. Any burden on Plaintiffs’ rights is modest and does not outweigh the Commonwealth’s interest.”

That is interest balancing, the very approach the Supreme Court rejected in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. In fact, the phrase “reasonably adapted to a substantial governmental interest” comes straight from the Fourth Circuit’s description of intermediate scrutiny in Kolbe v. Hogan.

Bruen held that this two-step methodology had “one step too many.” The government must prove that its restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearms regulation. It does not get to win by declaring its objective substantial and the citizens’ burden modest.

Virginia asserts that it has a “long tradition of regulating dangerous weapons,” but the motion does not identify a single historical law that imposed a comparable ban on commonly possessed rifles or standard-capacity magazines. The Commonwealth reserved the right to submit more briefing, but an unsupported reference to generic “dangerous weapons” is not a historical tradition.

The filing is only a motion, not a court ruling, and the judge could address standing or other procedural questions without reaching every merits issue. Nevertheless, Jones’s office has now put its position in black and white: The state believes it can declare America’s most popular rifle a non-Arm, label common magazines unusual, and then balance away whatever constitutional protection remains.

That argument may play well with gun-control activists. However, it will not survive serious constitutional scrutiny.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

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

No Tax, No Excuse: NFA Suppressor and SBR Registry Gun Rights Next Target

SAF-backed lawsuits in Brown, Jensen, and Roberts challenge ATF’s remaining NFA registry after Congress reduced the tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms to $0. Image Duncan Johnson

New filings argue that three Supreme Court decisions have stripped away the government’s excuses for maintaining a zero-tax federal gun registry. The tax is gone. The registry remains.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have opened a coordinated, three-court attack on the National Firearms Act registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled firearms. Supplemental filings in Brown v. ATF, Jensen v ATF, and Roberts v. ATF argue that three recent Supreme Court decisions leave the federal government with neither a valid taxing-power excuse nor an easy escape from the Second Amendment.

The Jensen filing is part of the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF litigation in Texas, where Silencer Shop Foundation and allied plaintiffs are pursuing a parallel challenge to the NFA registry.

Congress Zeroed the NFA Tax but Kept the Registry

Congress reduced the NFA making and transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to zero in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Washington, however, kept the paperwork, fingerprints, registration, prior approval, and felony penalties.

That creates the question now confronting federal courts: If the registry existed to collect a tax, what constitutional authority supports it when Congress no longer collects that tax?

SAF says the Supreme Court’s decision in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety reinforces the answer: none. Congress cannot stretch the Necessary and Proper Clause into an independent police power, then impose a burdensome registration scheme on Americans who owe no tax.

The Jensen filing puts the point bluntly. Maintaining registration on untaxed citizens, plaintiffs argue, would permit Congress “to regulate in minute detail the activities of untaxed Americans.”

That should concern every gun owner. A federal agency should not be able to preserve a national weapons database merely because the database once accompanied a tax.

Supreme Court Rulings Strengthen the Second Amendment Challenge

The Second Amendment attack may be even more consequential. SAF argues that Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani require courts to apply the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test instead of inventing special exemptions for NFA regulations.

According to the filing, a suppressed firearm is a form of an arm, while a short-barreled rifle is “indisputably” a form of an arm. Once protected conduct is implicated, the government bears the burden of proving that its restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The filing also takes direct aim at the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Peterson, which treated NFA registration as comparable to a presumptively lawful shall-issue licensing system. The plaintiffs contend that Wolford “leaves no room for a carveout” from the required Second Amendment analysis and therefore abrogates Peterson on that point.

That licensing comparison was always strained. Licensing evaluates whether a person is legally disqualified. Registration creates a government record of particular weapons and their owners. As the Jensen filing explains, “Registration, by contrast, focuses on tracking firearms and who owns them.”

Three NFA Lawsuits Target the ATF Registry

In a press release, SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said: “When the Supreme Court rightly ruled in favor of Landor, Wolford, and Hemani, the precedent set had a direct impact on SAF’s ongoing NFA challenges. With those rulings in hand, we are now able to better explain to the courts exactly why the remaining registration scheme left in the NFA lacks constitutional authority and is a direct violation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. We are hopeful these cases will move expeditiously and rightfully restore the full constitutional rights of gun owners across the nation.”

“There is no doubt the Supreme Court’s rulings this past term have direct bearing on our current challenges to the NFA’s remaining registration scheme,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “The relevant district courts should recognize the rulings for what they are – binding precedent that bolsters SAF’s arguments in these three cases. The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the tax for suppressors and short-barreled firearms, and it’s now time to remove the registration burden so citizens can exercise their right to keep and bear arms without fear of being placed on some government list.”

The burden is now where Bruen put it: on the government. ATF must identify a historical analogue, not wave at modern licensing practices and demand judicial deference. The government now faces a problem it cannot solve with slogans about licensing or administrative convenience.

No tax means no taxing-power excuse. Protected arms mean the Second Amendment applies. And a government list of firearms and their owners is exactly what it looks like: registration.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/lxC32WY
via IFTTT