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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/2DdQts5
via IFTTT

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

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

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

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

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

Herrera Calls Out the ‘Brain Development’ Excuse

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

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

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

— Brandon Herrera (@TheAKGuy) August 18, 2026

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TX-23 Voters Face a Clear Choice on Gun Rights

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

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

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

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/Vi5BvKX
via IFTTT

Virginia State Shooting Exposes the Failed Logic of Gun Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Background checks rarely provide false-positive results. 

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

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

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

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

Narrative Comes Before the Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/Eo5suxe
via IFTTT

Armed Rochester Homeowner Fatally Shoots Paroled Burglar, Police Say

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

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

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

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

Police Say Shooting “Appears to Be Justified”

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Criminal-Justice System Failed Before the Gun Owner Acted

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/aL9VQp4
via IFTTT

Federal Judge Rules ATF Frame-and-Receiver Rule Unconstitutional in Defense Distributed Case

Defense Distributed’s Ghost Gunner G80 Build Kit is among the specific products covered by Judge Reed O’Connor’s injunction against enforcement of ATF’s frame-and-receiver rule. Image courtesy of Defense Distributed/Ghost Gunner.

Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) won a significant victory in court by successfully challenging the frames-and-receivers rule as applied to the named plaintiff.

This is the latest ruling in the long-running challenge to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) April 2022 Final Rule, titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms.” The Rule expanded the definition of “frame or receiver” to include partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional frames and receivers, as well as certain parts kits that “may readily be completed.” It also allowed the ATF to consider extrinsic items such as jigs, templates, and marketing materials when classifying them.

BREAKING NEWS: Vanderstock Opinion just Released. From the Opinion:

“… A. Permanent Injunctive Relief
Plaintiffs are entitled to permanent injunctive relief. A permanent injunction is proper when a plaintiff (1) prevails on the merits, (2) there is no adequate remedy at law… pic.twitter.com/QG0qFI9Wql

— SAF (@2AFDN) August 18, 2026

After the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Bondi v. VanDerStok, which rejected the broader statutory challenges, only Defense Distributed and the Second Amendment Foundation remained as plaintiffs. They pursued the remaining Administrative Procedure Act (APA) claims and constitutional claims in a Texas federal district court. Both sides moved for summary judgment.

Judge Reed O’Connor has now issued a final judgment finding the ATF’s rule unconstitutional. The judge determined that the rule is void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The undefined term “readily” is governed by a non-exclusive list of eight factors (time, ease, expertise, equipment, etc.). The phrase “clearly identifiable as an unfinished component part of a weapon” provides no workable standard. A major issue is that the ATF may consider any associated jigs, templates, instructions, or marketing materials in its determination. This fails to give ordinary people fair notice of what is prohibited and invites arbitrary enforcement. The court found that the language creates more unpredictability than the Due Process Clause tolerates.

The judge also found that the rule violates the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment’s plain text covers the right to make and repair a personal firearm. This satisfies the first step of the Bruen analysis. At the second step, the government must identify historical analogues from the founding era to show that a law is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The government relied on colonial-era barrel-proofing and gunpowder storage laws. Those laws addressed product safety, not crime control or the tracing of unfinished frames and receivers. The judge concluded that historical tradition strongly supports the unregulated self-manufacture of arms from the colonial period through the 19th century.

“The court got it right,” said Defense Distributed founder Cody Wilson. “ATF did not respect Bruen. There is no history or tradition of regulating privately made firearms in this country.”

The plaintiffs lost on their Administrative Procedure Act claims. The judge found that the ATF adequately explained its change in position by referencing technological advances, crime data, and the grandfathering of prior classifications. The Rule relied on means-end scrutiny, but Bruen was decided after the Rule was issued, so there was no failure to consider then-controlling law. The Supreme Court in VanDerStok effectively confirmed that Congress delegated authority to the ATF to define “frame or receiver” under the Gun Control Act.

Judge O’Connor ruled that 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and § 478.12(c) are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and void for vagueness under the Fifth Amendment. They cannot be enforced against Defense Distributed, SAF, or any of SAF’s current or future members. He also issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the defendants from enforcing those provisions against Defense Distributed, SAF, or SAF members with respect to specific Defense Distributed products (M1911 80% Frames and the G80 Build Kit, Unfinished Receiver, and Grip Module).

This decision adds another loss to a growing list of defeats for the Department of Justice’s attempts to defend gun laws. The gun-owning public is waiting to see whether the DOJ will appeal the district court’s decision.

---

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/xuyzA81
via IFTTT

DOJ Gun Rights Restoration Rule Is a Good Move—But Questions Remain

As one of his first actions as Attorney General, @AGToddBlanche today finalized a federal regulation and launched a new process allowing eligible individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms to apply for restoration of their federal firearm rights.

“The Second… pic.twitter.com/U0Mwdk32lQ

— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) August 17, 2026

“Attorney General Blanche Launches New Process to Restore Federal Firearm Rights,” the Department of Justice announced Monday. “As one of his first actions as Attorney General, Todd Blanche today finalized a federal regulation and launched a new process allowing eligible individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms to apply for restoration of their federal firearm rights.”

That rule was the result of a clever workaround initiated by the DOJ to nullify a procedural obstacle to rights restoration. As a condition of budget approval, a ban on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives using any funding for processing applications was implemented in 1992 and reauthorized annually. That restriction was circumvented by withdrawing delegation of authority to review applications from ATF and transferring it to the Department’s Office of Pardon Attorney.

DOJ has created an online portal detailing application process steps, with one significant note still displaying at this writing:

The online application (OMB Form #1123-0017)—Coming soon

As for who should try, the DOJ announcement provides general guidelines:

Under the final rule, restoration of firearm rights is neither automatic nor guaranteed. Each applicant must establish to the Attorney General’s satisfaction that the circumstances giving rise to the prohibition, together with the applicant’s record, reputation, and subsequent conduct, demonstrate that the applicant is not likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that granting relief would not be contrary to the public interest. The Department will consider the facts and circumstances of each application, while maintaining strong presumptions against relief for individuals whose crimes, conduct, or status demonstrate heightened risks to public safety. Absent extraordinary circumstances, violent felons, registered sex offenders, illegal aliens, and other individuals who present an ongoing danger will remain presumptively ineligible for relief.  Any relief granted under the rule removes only applicable federal firearms disabilities and does not override independent restrictions imposed by state law.

Missing is information that could be clarified if DOJ responds to a Freedom of Information Act request/complaint that it has so far refused to disclose records on by citing privacy concerns for 10 individuals deemed eligible for rights restoration, including actor/director Mel Gibson.  The objection is invalid because the FOIA request never asked for anything that was not a matter of nonexempt record, and the intent behind the effort was simply to help determine what criteria citizens seeking similar relief would need to meet to prove themselves eligible for equal treatment.

Not knowing what records were submitted, reviewed, and  other records that were relied on in reaching the restoration decisions could make ensuring equivalent outcomes problematic. Noting “the Department estimates that approximately 1 million people will apply for relief within the first year of the program” requiring “50 FTE [Full-Time Equivalent] personnel,” there will be much room for variations even though circumstances of different applicants may be similar.

The need to apply consistent criteria is not only a matter of basic fairness, but of law. The release of requested records, without disclosing exempt information, will help ensure that.

In any case, Blanche’s announcement is undoubtedly a positive step forward for gun owners, and all should realize this only came about because Democrats are not in power to block it. Being a rule, this will change if the balance of power does, highlighting yet again the critical need to keep that from happening in the midterms and beyond.

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

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

DOJ Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration After 30-Year Shutdown

A federal firearm-rights restoration process is reopening after more than three decades, but the Second Amendment remains a constitutional right—not a government-issued privilege. AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand News.

United States Attorney General Todd Blanche finalized a federal regulation governing the restoration of federal firearm rights. The new process allows eligible individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms to apply to have those rights restored.

“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and the federal government should not permanently deprive Americans of a constitutional right without regard to whether they pose a danger to public safety,” said Attorney General Todd Blanche. “This rule establishes a rigorous, common-sense process that protects the public while giving deserving Americans a real path to restoration.”

The signed rule has been transmitted to the Federal Register. DOJ cautions that the currently available text is unofficial until formally published.

A Restoration Process Congress Left Dormant for Decades

Section 922(g) prohibits certain categories of people (e.g., felons, domestic violence misdemeanants, unlawful drug users, fugitives, certain aliens, those under domestic violence restraining orders, etc.) from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition in or affecting commerce.

Section 925(c), however, has long authorized the Attorney General to grant relief if the applicant shows they “will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety” and that granting relief “would not be contrary to the public interest.”

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) previously administered this process by delegation. Still, Congress defunded it via appropriations riders starting in 1992, rendering the program inoperative for over 30 years.

In March 2025, DOJ issued an interim final rule withdrawing the ATF delegation. In July 2025, it published a notice of proposed rulemaking with detailed criteria. After receiving over 15,500 comments (roughly 91% supportive of restoring a workable process), the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) finalized the rule.

The program will now be operated through the Office of the Pardon Attorney rather than ATF, although the Attorney General retains the ultimate decision-making authority.

When Will Applications Open?

The rule becomes effective 30 days after publication in the Federal Register, but DOJ plans to roll out the application process in stages.

According to the Department’s current Federal Firearm Rights Restoration website:

• Thirty days after publication, DOJ will begin inviting candidates to apply.
• Seventy-five days after publication, the application will open to the public, beginning with the first 5,000 applicants.
• At 120 days, DOJ will accept another 500 applicants and begin collecting the application fee.

The Department directs prospective applicants to justice.gov/ffrr for updated eligibility information, application instructions, and the eventual online application.

Who Will Be Presumptively Disqualified?

According to the DOJ, the rule aims to protect Second Amendment rights while ensuring public safety. Relief is discretionary and guided by statutory standards.

Several offenses are presumptively permanent disqualifications. These include violent felonies (homicide, kidnapping, terrorism, stalking, and other crimes of violence), convictions involving brandishing or discharging a firearm, sex offenses requiring registration under SORNA that also trigger a § 922(g) prohibition, and felony-level domestic violence.

There will also be other time-limited presumptive disqualifications, including drug trafficking convictions or misdemeanor domestic violence: at least 10 years after completing the sentence (including probation/supervised release), and other felony convictions: at least 5 years after completing the sentence.

Other statuses that are presumptively ineligible are being a fugitive from justice (§ 922(g)(2)), unlawfully present aliens or certain nonimmigrants (§ 922(g)(5)), and persons subject to qualifying domestic violence restraining orders (§ 922(g)(8)).

The final presumptively ineligible status is being an unlawful user of or addicted to controlled substances (§ 922(g)(3)) — until the pattern of use ends. That final category seems to be at odds with the United States Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Hemani. Still, the DOJ does not believe it is at odds because the Hemani opinion was narrow.

What the Supreme Court Held in Hemani

The Supreme Court held that the federal government could not prosecute Ali Hemani under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3) based solely on evidence that he regularly used marijuana while possessing a gun in his home. The government did not allege that Hemani was addicted, intoxicated when he possessed the firearm, incapable of managing his affairs, or dangerous to himself or others. Nor did it claim that he had misused the gun.

The Court rejected the government’s attempt to treat anyone who regularly used any amount of a controlled substance as categorically dangerous. Historical laws dealing with intoxication and “habitual drunkards” targeted different conduct, operated differently, and generally required more than the mere regular use of an intoxicating substance.

The Supreme Court nevertheless described its decision as narrow. It did not decide whether the government may disarm people who are addicted or presently intoxicated. It also did not decide whether § 922(g)(3) could be applied when the government presents individualized proof that a person’s drug use makes him dangerous—or proof that a particular drug always renders its users dangerous. The Court expressly declined to pass on those questions either way.

In short, mere regular marijuana use, without more, was insufficient to support the government’s automatic and categorical ban as applied to Hemani.

DOJ Creates a Marijuana Exception

In response to Hemani and the large number of public comments addressing marijuana, DOJ amended the final rule to create an important exception.

For purposes of the rule’s drug-related presumption, DOJ’s definition of “controlled substance” does not include marijuana. As a result, unlawful use of or addiction to marijuana alone does not trigger the same presumption of ineligibility that applies to users or addicts of other controlled substances. The Department also removed proposed requirements that applicants and their character references affirm that the applicant does not use or is not addicted to marijuana.

DOJ acknowledges that excluding marijuana addicts, not merely marijuana users, goes beyond the facts presented in Hemani. The Department says distinguishing a marijuana “user” from a marijuana “addict” would require a highly fact-specific inquiry that could undermine the administrability of the restoration process.

That does not mean marijuana use automatically restores anyone’s firearm rights or removes a federal disability under 922(g)(3). The statute remains on the books, and the relief process itself remains discretionary.

Instead, an applicant whose only drug-related issue involves marijuana may apply without facing the rule’s extraordinary-circumstances presumption. DOJ may still consider the applicant’s marijuana use and other individual circumstances when deciding whether restoration would be consistent with public safety and the public interest.

For controlled substances other than marijuana, the presumption remains. Someone who continues to qualify as an unlawful user or addict will generally be denied absent extraordinary circumstances. Because that disability is status-based, an individual may ordinarily remove himself from the prohibited category by ending the unlawful conduct and breaking the pattern of ongoing use.

What Applicants Must Submit

An applicant must complete the required form and disclose all federal firearm disabilities for which relief is requested. Required materials may include:

• Electronic fingerprints or properly completed fingerprint cards.
• Certified or otherwise reliable court records.
• Charging documents, judgments, plea agreements, and presentence reports.
• Proof that every requirement of the sentence has been completed.
• State criminal-history records for each jurisdiction in which the applicant has lived or been arrested during the applicable period.
• Relevant military, mental-health, domestic violence, citizenship-renunciation, or foreign records.
• Affidavits from three qualified character references.
• Authorization for DOJ to obtain additional background information.

The final rule shifts responsibility for local law-enforcement notification to DOJ. The Department will notify the appropriate chief law-enforcement officer for the locality where the applicant resides and allow that agency to submit information supporting or opposing restoration.

The application fee is $30 once the fee stage begins, up from the proposed $20. DOJ will periodically review the fee and conduct an audit after the program has operated long enough to produce reliable cost information. Applicants may request a fee waiver or reduction, including for economic hardship.

How DOJ Will Decide Who Gets Relief

The Attorney General may consider the applicant’s entire record, including criminal history, dismissed charges associated with a plea agreement, conduct while incarcerated or under supervision, time since completion of the sentence, rehabilitation, threats, restraining orders, drug use, mental health, character references, and information supplied by local law enforcement.

Significantly, the final rule also allows the Attorney General to consider whether denying relief under an applicant’s individual circumstances would infringe the applicant’s Second Amendment rights.

If relief is granted, DOJ will publish notice of the decision and the reasons for it in the Federal Register. Any restoration applies only to the federal disability addressed in the application. It does not erase independent state or tribal firearm prohibitions, and it does not protect an individual from a new disability arising from later conduct.

An applicant denied relief may petition the United States District Court for the district in which he resides for judicial review.

---

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/zXcwJ78
via IFTTT