“Fixing” the NRA Board?

NRA Director Jeff Knox explains his position on the proposed Board reduction and the changes to the committee overseeing reform. iStock-1356996019

Recently, my fellow NRA Director Dick Fairburn penned an article explaining his perception of the September NRA Board meeting, particularly the vote to refer a proposal for reducing the size of the Board to the Special Committee on Organization.  My perspective was different from Mr. Fairburn’s in that meeting and on that vote. I previously gave an overview of my take on the meeting in this article, but I’d like to share more of my perspective on what’s happened, why, where things are now, and where I hope to see things going in the future.

I have been an advocate for a smaller Board for years.  I have held that opinion both as a Board member and as an external gadfly.  My writing in this and other spaces put a spotlight on the issue of Board size, catching the attention of many NRA members as well as the judge in the New York case, who quoted my articles on the subject.

I am a member of the Special Committee on Organization. Our charter includes the issue of the Board size as a priority. The record shows, and I’ll repeat it here, that I was one of the overwhelming majority of Directors who voted to refer President Bachenberg’s Board reduction proposal to our committee. I didn’t vote for referral because I was worried about retaining my seat on the Board.  I came in 5th overall in my first election in 2024, and it is likely that I’ll do as well or better in the coming election. Not making the cut wouldn’t be a problem either, as I had previously decided not to run for a second term, but was convinced by friends and supporters to run again to help finish what I’d started. Being on the Board takes up a significant amount of my time and has cut deeply into my other activities, including the activities that I rely on to pay the bills, so financially, getting off the Board would be a boon for me and my family.

I appreciate Dick Fairburn’s perspective on the September meeting and our vote to refer the proposal to the Committee on Organization. Note that I said “refer,” not “refer back.”  The organizational change suggested by President Bachenberg had never been considered in the Committee on Organization.

That was one of my major problems with the President’s proposal: it wasn’t run through the process specifically created to address this issue.

The first time Board members heard about his proposal was when the President publicly announced it to members at the 2026 Annual Meeting of Members.  I happened to be standing near Amanda Suffecool, who chaired the Organization Committee at the time, and we looked at each other in surprise and confusion.  Amanda subsequently requested that the President send his proposal to the Committee for review, and he replied that the Committee would see it when everyone else did.

President Bachenberg intentionally chose to bypass the Committee that was created on the judge’s order to address this very question.  I don’t know why President Bachenberg made that decision.  The proposal didn’t really surface again until shortly before the September Board meeting.  It was presented and discussed in an online meeting of the Bylaws and Resolutions Committee.  The proposal was very simple: Reduce the size of the Board by 10 seats per year for the next three years, beginning with the 2027 election.  After initial discussions, and listening to my objections, he added a “Phase 2” which loosely suggested an eventual transition to a totally reorganized structure with a managing Board of 9 to 15 members, and an Advisory body that was much larger.  The President said this was added to address some of my concerns, as I’ve “long suggested such a reorganization.”

Why I voted to refer:

1. The President’s proposal threw a “solution” on the table without clearly defining the “problem” it’s intended to solve.  Just saying “The Board’s too big” doesn’t cut it.
2. The proposal didn’t “solve” anything.  While critics say the Board, by voting to refer, “kicked the can down the road” for another year, the proposal itself was just “kicking the can” for the next three years, giving a slight reduction each year, but not addressing the issue in a significant way.
3. The President chose to bypass the process and push his personal agenda, and now has revamped and stalled that process, still pushing his independent plan.

I think we can, and must, do better.

I believe that at 76 members, the Board is too big to be effective.  I believe that most Directors and NRA members agree.  I also believe that President Bachenberg, Amanda Suffecool, and the vast majority of Directors are all doing what they believe is best for the NRA and our membership.  I think President Bachenberg has been, and is being, heavy-handed in his approach to this matter.

At the same time, I think Amanda and others have been trying to define and analyze all of the problems all at once, resulting in actually solving none of them.  Classic “analysis paralysis.”  I suspect there’s been some intentional loading-up of the Org. Committee to keep it busy with everything other than actually addressing the issue of board size.  I also suspect that there are a few Directors reveling in the chaos and a few others acting solely in personal self-interest.  (Emphasis on the word “few,” and this is just suspicion on my part – and I tend to be a bit paranoid.)

Where We Stand Now

Immediately after the Board meeting in September, Amanda called the Committee together to discuss a process for expediting a workable plan for presentation at the January Board meeting.  The upshot of that impromptu discussion was that the Committee would meet electronically on a weekly basis, beginning almost immediately, and meet once in-person (at our own expense) in early December, hopefully to hammer out final details and begin assembling a formal package for presentation to the Board in January.

The President had other ideas.  He instructed the Committee to stand down, then appointed another Committee member to replace Amanda as Chair, removing her from the Committee.  He also added 6 new members to the 8 existing members of the Committee, including one non-Board member, and appointed 4 additional people as Subject Matter Experts to advise the Committee in our work.

The Bylaws give the President the prerogative of appointing committee members and the committee charters give him the authority to appoint Chairs and Vice Chairs, so this is all well within his purview.  I disagree with his actions in this case, but we still have a job to do, and I’m confident the various Committee members – old and new – have been working toward solutions over the past month, and will have lots of interesting things to discuss when the Committee next meets.

As far as timelines go, I believe we will be able to formulate a solid proposal for the January Board meeting.  President Bachenberg has said he’d like a plan that can be enacted at the April Board meeting, right after the Meeting of Members, and it’s possible we could take some initial steps at that time.  Even so, it is likely that any serious reorganization will require a vote of the members, for at least part of it.  So I don’t see such major changes going into effect until April of 2028, with some incremental adjustments being phased in before and after that.

Meanwhile, there are several Bylaw amendments to enhance Board Transparency and accountability, which I’d like to see the Board adopt at our January meeting.  I’ll have more on those for your consideration soon.

For now, I’m very pleased with the overall progress that’s been made over the past couple of years.  I looked through my notes and a full two-thirds of the current Directors were first elected to the Board in 2022 or later.  And, the one-third or so of Directors who have been on the Board longer than that, will be reduced even further with the coming election.  The Board has almost had a full turnover and new blood is seeping into the NRA leadership, with My running mate Rocky Marshall serving as Second Vice President.

More important than Board realignment, is the recovery that has been going on under the leadership of Doug Hamlin in the operations of the Association.  It’s an ongoing struggle, but Doug and his team, with the help and guidance of our Board officers and key committees, has made great strides in improving operations to enhance the benefits and experience of our members, all while cutting spending and working under a balanced budget with a surplus at the end of the year.  Much of that work has been behind-the-curtain operational and infrastructure changes that are only now becoming visible to our members in the form of added member benefits, improved contact management (to reduce the number of renewal and fundraising requests members receive), and improvements in our social media, websites, and our phone app, which is constantly evolving and improving.  And of course, our team at ILA has been doing more with less, and getting the job done.  If you haven’t looked recently, take a look at the NRA-ILA website and see how active we are in the courts, in Congress, and in state legislatures around the country.  Click the menu in the upper left corner of the site to explore the various categories. No other organization comes close to doing what the NRA does every single day.

There will always be more work to do, but I’m very proud of what we’ve done over the past two-and-a-half years, so please take a look and consider supporting our efforts.

Related: NRA Board Sends Seat-Cut Plan Back for Study Ahead of 2027 Election

---

About Jeff Knox:

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

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

---

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

Gun Control Activist Defaces 9/11 Memorial, Demands National Gun Registry

The National September 11 Memorial in Manhattan, where a gun-control activist was arrested following an October 26, 2026, graffiti incident. iStock-1883774579

“A gun regulation activist was arrested for defacing the 9/11 Memorial at Ground Zero in Manhattan with graffiti in an effort to draw attention to his website on Monday, officials said,” Daily News reported Wednesday. “Jonathan Andrew Tijerina, 31, scrawled ‘juststopkillingkids.com’ across bronze panels inscribed with the names of 9/11 victims at the memorial’s north pool around 5 p.m., police said.”

“Tijerina’s demands for stricter firearm regulation include universal background checks for gun purchases and laws requiring every gun in America to be registered, according to his website, which invites visitors to ‘learn how civil resistance works,’” the report elaborates.

“Just Stop Killing Kids,” the website demands, a sentiment all but the evil and depraved can share. The divergence comes from how best to achieve that goal, with Tijerina and his comrades coming down on the side of a government monopoly of violence.

“Civil resistance is proven to change laws and society. We are demanding action — and we will not stop until it happens,” the website declares, in effect threatening more disruptions and lawbreaking until they get what they want.

Here’s what they say they want – for now, claiming they are “Two specific, achievable demands. Neither requires repealing the Second Amendment. Both have majority public support. Both already exist in every other high-income country”:

Universal Background Checks: Every gun sale — private, online, at gun shows — must require a background check. No loopholes. No exceptions. This is the single most effective policy to keep guns out of dangerous hands.

Universal Gun Registry:  Every firearm in America must be registered to its owner. Accountability deters crime, aids law enforcement, and creates the infrastructure for a safer society. Every car is registered. Every gun should be too.

That actually confirms an observation on how the two are intertwined made by the National Institute of Justice, in its “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” (scroll to pg. 5):

“Effectiveness depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration…”

They’re actually not achievable. Criminals, the predators out there “killing kids” (who don’t register stolen cars, either) won’t obey the law, and the Bureau of Justice Statistics documents that they don’t obtain their guns through conventional means:

“Among these, more than half (56%) had either stolen it (6%), found it at the scene of the crime (7%), or obtained it off the street or from the underground market (43%). Most of the remainder (25%) had obtained it from a family member or friend, or as a gift. Seven percent had purchased it under their own name from a licensed firearm dealer.”

Universal registration would also only impact the “law-abiding” and is clearly aimed at stopping home builds, whether through traditional means or via 3D printing technology, pejoratively called “ghost guns.” By including “every firearm,” that presumably would require older models owned before the 1968 Gun Control Act requirement to be registered or forfeit.

It would also be key to confiscation when the state figures it can get away with it, and anyone who calls that paranoid has not been paying attention to admissions the prohibitionists have let slip over the years, nor what irrevocably set the Colonists on the road to rebellion in 1775.

As for having “majority support,” what has not been established (and prominent Second Amendment organizations ought to commission a survey — perhaps from the Crime Prevention Resource Center?) is how much respondents actually know about existing “gun laws”  and the arguments against them before they’re being asked their opinions about adding new prohibitions (in couched terms). And the final canard being exploited is the “high-income country” deception, which always seems to exclude nations that don’t support foregone conclusions. Not only does that rely heavily on the correlation/causation logical fallacy, the whole point of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is we’re not supposed to be like other countries, and the direction of immigration is pretty clear evidence that that’s recognized.

We’ve seen the flaws in the prohibitionists’ “reasoning.” Now let’s look at how they hope to achieve their objectives.

“Civil resistance is not hope. It is strategy. Here is what the data shows,” the Just Stop Killing Kids ‘Evidence’ page maintains, comparing itself and its tactics to the Freedom Riders, civil rights activists who rode buses into Southern states to pressure the Democrat Kennedy administration into enforcing Supreme Court rulings that segregated public buses were unconstitutional.

A section on the “Radical Flank Effect” explains both the strategy and a lot of what is happening within the Democrat Party in the merging of its establishment “old guard” with more radical emerging elements exemplified by Democratic Socialists of America and the like:

The Social Change Lab’s synthesis of historical and contemporary data found consistent evidence for the ‘radical flank effect’: the presence of a more radical wing of a movement increases public support for moderate demands, makes moderate negotiators appear more reasonable to policymakers, and expands the Overton window of what is politically possible. Movements with both radical and moderate wings consistently outperform movements with only one.

The “Freedom Rider” analogy is interesting because the organizing group behind that was CORE, the Congress of Racial Equality.  It’s interesting because its national chairman, elected in 1968, was the late Roy Innis. And he stood directly opposed to what the prohibitionists are demanding:

He was a Life Member of the National Rifle Association and served on its governing board.  Innis also chaired the NRA’s Urban Affairs Committee and was a member of the NRA Ethics Committee, and continued to speak publicly in the US and around the world in favor of individual civilian ownership of firearms, gun issues, and individual rights. He told Newsday in 1993, “My sons were not killed by the KKK or David Duke. They were murdered by young, black thugs. I use the murder of my sons by black hoodlums to shift the problems from excuses like the KKK to the dope pushers on the streets.”

It’s also interesting that the group is conflating kinetic action with civil disobedience, a time-honored American tradition exemplified by Henry David Thoreaus’s landmark essay Civil Disobedience. Contemporary parallels, such as the “I Will Not Comply” movement or my late friend and colleague (and “founder” of the Three Percent movement) Mike Vanderboegh’s magazine “smuggling” efforts, relied on defiance and disobedience, not on kinetic actions that expropriated and vandalized the property of others, and certainly did not desecrate the memories of fallen victims.

It says something about the company these people keep.

As long as Just Stop Killing Kids assumes the false mantle of civil rights activism to mask its subversive intents, it’s instructive to note that true Second Amendment activism is the real deal. Beginning in 2001, I was part of an effort to petition the Department of Justice to do what it had done in other states, like with the freedom Riders example, and enforce the Second Amendment. It’s personally gratifying to see that a quarter century later, the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, under U.S. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, is setting in motion attempts to do just that.

For now, the universal background check/registration infringements aren’t happening. Fail to vote next Tuesday and the playing field will change. Extend emocrat electoral victories to ’28 and expect a Supreme Court makeover to reverse Heller, McDonald and Bruen, that 2A is an individual right, that it applies to state and local governments through the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause, and that there must be analogues in new gun laws to the text, history, and traditions at the time the Bill of Rights was ratified.

Vote.

Finally, it’s instructive to note how the Daily News characterized the mutt as a “A gun regulation activist.” The propaganda outlet has has long been a prime example of the DSM (Duranty/Streicher Media), ready to attack the right to keep and bear arms at every opportunitywith hysterics and vitriol.

A more appropriate headline presents the story over at the New York Post:

Outrage as gun control nut spray paints 9/11 Memorial in sick political stunt

Call these people what they are.  And note the silence of sister organizations at condemning the desecration. As this article is being submitted for publication, not one of the leading national prohibitionist groups, Everytown, Giffords, and Brady, has acknowledged the vandalism. If they do, look for their statements to end up being demands for more infringements (and quite possibly for more money).

Related: Michigan Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed Thinks the Second Amendment Only Protects Muskets

---

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/B7PF9oy
via IFTTT

Michigan Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed Thinks the Second Amendment Only Protects Muskets

Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed claims the Second Amendment protects muskets, not modern firearms. The Supreme Court rejected that argument in 2008. Now, the Senate candidate’s latest remarks are drawing renewed attention to his previous proposal to replace the Second Amendment entirely.

Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed argued that the Second Amendment’s protections should be interpreted in light of founding-era muskets, a position addressed by the Supreme Court in Heller. IMG iStock-2263107177

Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed apparently believes Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, so long as those arms are muskets from the 18th century.

During a recent campaign appearance, El-Sayed attempted to explain constitutional originalism before suggesting that because muskets were commonly used when the Second Amendment was ratified, Americans today should have the right to those same weapons.

“When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So, yeah, everyone should have equal rights to a musket.”

There is one glaring problem with El-Sayed’s argument. The Supreme Court already rejected it nearly two decades ago.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia specifically addressed the claim that the Second Amendment protects only firearms available during the founding era, describing that reasoning as “bordering on the frivolous.”

Yet here we are in 2026, with a candidate for the United States Senate repeating the same argument while attempting to lecture Americans about the Constitution.

El-Sayed’s remarks, highlighted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and examined by J.D. Tuccille at Reason, are particularly revealing when compared with his previous statements about the Second Amendment.

In 2023, El-Sayed openly proposed replacing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms with a right to healthcare. When confronted about that proposal during his Senate campaign, he declined to directly disavow it.

Taken together, El-Sayed’s statements go beyond the usual Democratic gun-control rhetoric about banning AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms. He has explicitly proposed replacing the Second Amendment itself. His latest argument would effectively deny constitutional protection to modern firearms, something the Supreme Court has already rejected.

This is not merely a disagreement over firearm regulations. El-Sayed has publicly questioned whether the constitutional protection of gun ownership should continue to exist in its present form.

Justice Scalia Already Destroyed the Muskets-Only Argument

El-Sayed is hardly the first politician to suggest that the Second Amendment should be limited to muskets. Anti-gun activists have recycled versions of this argument for years, often claiming the Founders could never have imagined modern semiautomatic firearms.

Unfortunately for that argument, the Supreme Court settled the underlying constitutional question in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that constitutional protection ends with 18th-century technology.

The Court explained that the Second Amendment extends presumptively to bearable arms that did not exist at the founding, just as the First Amendment protects modern communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern methods of searching.

That ruling also affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms independent of militia service, including for lawful self-defense in the home.

El-Sayed’s understanding of the amendment runs directly against those conclusions.

He attempts to use originalism to limit Americans to weapons from the founding era, but originalism does not mean constitutional rights are confined to the technology available in 1791.

It means the Constitution is interpreted according to its original public meaning.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not specify muskets, flintlocks, or any other particular firearm. It certainly does not establish a technological expiration date for the constitutional rights of American citizens.

The Supreme Court reinforced the historical approach to Second Amendment cases in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), holding that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Neither decision supports the ridiculous notion that a constitutional right becomes obsolete whenever technology advances.

By El-Sayed’s Logic, the First Amendment Wouldn’t Protect the Internet

The constitutional problem with El-Sayed’s argument becomes even more apparent when the same reasoning is applied to other rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment was ratified in 1791. At the time, Americans relied on printing presses, handwritten correspondence, newspapers, and public speeches to communicate political ideas.

There were no smartphones, televisions, radio broadcasts, or social media platforms.

Does that mean the government can censor speech on Facebook or X because James Madison never owned an iPhone?

Of course not.

The Fourth Amendment was also written long before computers, GPS tracking, thermal imaging devices, and electronic surveillance. Yet Americans retain constitutional protections against unreasonable government searches involving those technologies.

Imagine a politician arguing that police could search private emails without constitutional restraint because the Founders communicated through handwritten letters.

That is essentially the same reasoning El-Sayed is applying to the Second Amendment.

As J.D. Tuccille explained in Reason, accepting this interpretation would leave constitutional protections limited to the technology of the 18th century.

The entire Bill of Rights would become increasingly meaningless as society developed new technologies.

The Constitution’s original meaning remains unchanged. What changes are the tools Americans use to exercise the rights it protects.

Americans do not lose their freedom of speech when they exchange printing presses for computers. They do not lose their Fourth Amendment protections when government agents exchange handwritten warrants for electronic surveillance.

And they do not lose their Second Amendment rights when firearms manufacturers develop better rifles, pistols, and ammunition.

The Founding Fathers Knew About Repeating Firearms

El-Sayed’s argument also demonstrates a poor understanding of American firearms history.

Anti-gun politicians frequently suggest that the Founders could never have imagined repeating firearms, much less the semiautomatic rifles and handguns owned by millions of Americans today.

That claim ignores firearms technology that existed long before the Second Amendment was ratified.

During the Revolutionary War, inventors and gunsmiths were already developing breech-loading rifles, repeating flintlocks, and firearms capable of delivering multiple shots without the conventional process of reloading a single-shot musket.

Some of those designs attracted the attention of the Continental Congress itself.

As firearms historian Logan Metesh documented in AmmoLand’s Fact Check: The Founding Fathers DID Know About Repeating Rifles, Philadelphia inventor Joseph Belton approached Congress in April 1777 with a repeating flintlock design that he claimed could fire multiple rounds in rapid succession.

Congress was sufficiently interested to authorize the construction or modification of 100 firearms using Belton’s improvements.

The project ultimately fell apart over Belton’s compensation demands, but the historical record establishes that America’s Founders were familiar with the concept of repeating firearms more than a decade before the Second Amendment was ratified.

Belton was far from the only firearms innovator of the era.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock employed an internal magazine and a rotating breech mechanism capable of delivering successive shots without conventional muzzleloading.

Kalthoff repeating firearms had existed since the 17th century.

The Ferguson rifle, developed before the American Revolution, featured a breech-loading mechanism that allowed a trained shooter to reload considerably faster than with a conventional musket.

The Girardoni repeating air rifle, introduced before the Bill of Rights was ratified, offered another example of firearms technology advancing beyond the ordinary single-shot musket.

These firearms were expensive, mechanically complicated, and generally uncommon, but they demonstrate that the Founders were not ignorant of repeating-firearm technology.

AmmoLand recently explored this tradition in Revolutionary War Gunsmiths & the Second Amendment, examining the craftsmen and inventors who developed, manufactured, and improved firearms during America’s founding.

The Founders understood that weapons technology would advance. They had already witnessed those advancements.

But even without these historical examples, El-Sayed’s argument would still fail. The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right to keep and bear arms, not a particular design of firearm.

El-Sayed Already Proposed Replacing the Second Amendment

El-Sayed’s recent musket comments are especially concerning when compared with his previous statements about the right to keep and bear arms.

In August 2026, The Reload uncovered a previously public YouTube video from April 6, 2023, in which El-Sayed suggested replacing the Second Amendment’s protection of gun ownership with a constitutional right to healthcare.

“What if we tweaked the Constitution? Amended the amendment, and instead of the right to bear arms, we change it to the right to have health care.”

That was not a proposal for another background check, waiting period, or ban on a particular type of firearm. El-Sayed was proposing to replace the constitutional guarantee itself. The video was subsequently removed from public access, although The Reload recovered a transcript of the recording.

During the same discussion, El-Sayed questioned the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, suggesting that its purpose involved state militias rather than the private possession of firearms. That argument also conflicts with Heller, which recognized the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right independent of militia service.

When the 2023 recording resurfaced during his Senate campaign, El-Sayed’s campaign said he respected the Second Amendment. However, it did not directly answer whether he continued to support replacing it.

During an August interview, El-Sayed was asked directly whether he wanted to replace the Second Amendment. Rather than disavowing the proposal, he shifted the discussion toward healthcare. According to The Reload’s August 27 follow-up, El-Sayed repeatedly avoided giving a direct answer.

Now, during his campaign for the United States Senate, he is again questioning the extent of the Second Amendment’s protections, this time by suggesting the constitutional right to bear arms should be understood in terms of muskets.

The statements form a public record that extends beyond ordinary disagreements over gun-control legislation.

In 2023, El-Sayed proposed replacing the Second Amendment. In August 2026, he declined to directly reject that proposal. Now he is advancing an interpretation that would leave modern firearms outside constitutional protection.

Americans have good reason to examine those statements closely, especially when they come from someone seeking a seat in the United States Senate.

The Second Amendment Protects Modern Arms, Not Just Antique Muskets

The Supreme Court did not hold in Heller that every firearm is constitutionally protected in every circumstance. It did, however, reject excluding weapons from Second Amendment protection simply because they were invented after the founding.

That remains a critical point in today’s legal battles over AR-15s, magazines, semiautomatic firearms, and the government’s authority to restrict commonly owned weapons.

Millions of Americans lawfully own modern firearms for self-defense, sporting purposes, competition, and other lawful activities. Those firearms are not automatically excluded from constitutional protection because they operate differently from the weapons carried during the Revolutionary War.

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not merely to the government, its military, or its police officers. El-Sayed’s musket argument would turn that principle on its head.

That is why the original meaning of the Second Amendment matters. The Founders did not write the Bill of Rights to grant government officials the power to decide which technological advancements citizens could use to exercise their liberties. They adopted constitutional protections intended to restrain government power.

The Second Amendment was not written to preserve a particular model of firearm. It was adopted to secure the people’s preexisting right to keep and bear arms against government infringement.

The Second Amendment’s original meaning remains unchanged, and its protection does not evaporate when firearms improve.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a government-issued permission slip to own an antique musket. It is a constitutional protection against government infringement, and Americans do not surrender that right simply because they choose a modern firearm.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/iNBynL7
via IFTTT

Gun-Control Groups Ask Supreme Court to Gut Bruen and Strip AR-15s of Second Amendment Protection

Gun-control groups defending AR-15 bans before the Supreme Court are asking justices to weaken Second Amendment protections, relying on historical Bowie knife restrictions, Reconstruction-era Winchester rifle regulations, and arguments that America’s most popular semiautomatic rifle falls outside the Constitution.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two major AR-15 ban cases on December 2, 2026, as gun-control groups defend restrictions on commonly owned rifles. iStock-2281848066

The gun-control lobby is showing its hand in the Supreme Court’s upcoming showdown over AR-15 bans. With the constitutionality of restrictions on America’s most popular semiautomatic rifle on the line, the organizations defending those bans are making it clear just how far they are willing to go to preserve them.

In an October 28 amicus brief, Giffords Law Center argues that the Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen if that precedent requires striking down bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

Virginia’s attorney general goes even further, telling the justices that AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, a group of historians is relying on 19th-century Bowie knife restrictions and questionable comparisons involving Winchester repeating rifles to defend modern bans on semiautomatic firearms.

These are not hypothetical arguments from your local anti-gun crackpot. They appear in documents submitted to the nation’s highest court in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, two consolidated cases that could determine whether governments can continue banning rifles owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.

Giffords Wants Bruen Gone if It Means Protecting AR-15s

Perhaps the most revealing argument comes from Giffords Law Center, one of the country’s most prominent gun-control organizations. On page 18 of its brief, Giffords introduces an entire section with the heading:

“Striking Down the Challenged Laws Would Prove That Bruen Is Unworkable and Must Be Overruled.”

The organization first argues that the rifle bans can survive under Bruen. But if the justices disagree and conclude that the decision requires striking down those restrictions, Giffords offers another solution. On page 19, the organization writes:

“if Petitioners are right that this is the result Bruen commands, then Bruen is unworkable and must be overruled.”

Remember what Bruen established. The government cannot justify restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms simply by claiming that a law promotes public safety. Instead, it must demonstrate that the restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

That standard rejected the interest-balancing approach lower courts had repeatedly used to uphold gun-control laws despite their interference with an enumerated constitutional right.

Now Giffords is arguing that if the Supreme Court’s own Second Amendment test prevents lawmakers from banning commonly owned rifles, the Court should abandon that test.

The group’s brief also emphasizes the authority of state and local governments to address public-safety concerns. That argument reflects a familiar problem with gun-control advocacy: the suggestion that constitutional rights should depend on what elected officials believe their communities need.

The Second Amendment does not mean something different because someone crosses a county or state line. It protects an individual right against infringement by federal, state, and local governments.

Virginia Claims AR-15s Are Essentially Machine Guns

Virginia’s October 28 amicus brief takes a different, but equally troubling, approach. Rather than asking the Court to overturn Bruen, Virginia argues that the AR-15 does not qualify as a protected arm under the Second Amendment. The brief states on page 3:

“AR-15s are not ‘Arms’ that the Second Amendment protects.”

Virginia then advances an extraordinary comparison, describing AR-15s as machine guns except for their semiautomatic firing mechanism. That argument dismisses one of the most fundamental distinctions in firearms design.

A standard semiautomatic AR-15 fires one round for each pull of the trigger. A fully automatic machine gun can fire multiple rounds with a single sustained trigger pull. These are materially different operating systems, and federal firearms law recognizes that distinction.

Calling an AR-15 essentially a machine gun does not change how the rifle actually operates.

Virginia also argues that AR-15s are not commonly used for lawful self-defense, challenging the gun-owner surveys and ownership estimates cited by the petitioners.

But the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized protection for arms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Nothing in that principle requires Americans to have already fired their firearms in self-defense before their ownership receives constitutional protection.

Virginia’s position is particularly significant because the Commonwealth enacted its own restrictions on semiautomatic rifles in 2026, which have faced constitutional challenges and preliminary injunctions.

The state has an obvious interest in convincing the Supreme Court that governments can prohibit rifles commonly owned by their citizens.

Historians Turn to Bowie Knives and Winchester Rifles to Defend AR-15 Bans

Perhaps the most revealing historical arguments appear in a separate amicus brief submitted by historians, including David J. DeLay and other academics who have examined historical firearms regulations.

The historians argue that 19th-century restrictions on Bowie knives, along with selected regulations involving Winchester repeating rifles, establish a tradition of regulating weapons considered particularly dangerous.

Their discussion of Winchester rifles is particularly interesting.

Repeating rifles were a major technological advancement in the 19th century. The Henry rifle and subsequent Winchester designs allowed Americans to fire multiple rounds without reloading after every shot. Like today’s semiautomatic rifles, they represented a significant improvement over earlier firearms.

Yet the historians do not identify a broad American tradition of categorically prohibiting ordinary civilian possession of Winchester repeating rifles.

Instead, they rely on a handful of examples that deserve much closer examination.

One concerns an 1893 Florida law requiring a license for Winchester rifles. The National Rifle Association has challenged that law’s relevance, identifying its discriminatory history. The historians dispute that characterization and argue that concerns about murders involving Winchesters also contributed to its passage.

A late-19th-century licensing law, particularly one challenged as racially discriminatory, is a questionable foundation for justifying modern bans on commonly owned firearms.

The other examples are even more revealing.

The historians describe South Carolina’s efforts during Reconstruction to disarm Ku Klux Klan members who had obtained Winchester rifles. They also cite a subsequent South Carolina law requiring civilians to return Winchesters intended for state use. That is not the same thing as banning law-abiding citizens from purchasing and possessing their own repeating rifles.

Then there is Louisiana. The historians point to an 1870 order issued by Louisiana Adjutant General James Longstreet concerning Winchester rifles held in the New Orleans armory. The order restricted disassembling the rifles or using them for parades and drills without authorization.

In other words, the historians are citing military rules governing government-controlled firearms as historical evidence supporting restrictions on privately owned AR-15s.

The distinction should be obvious to anyone familiar with firearms or American history.

An order controlling how state-owned rifles are handled in an armory is not a prohibition on ordinary citizens possessing their own rifles. Neither is recovering government weapons from unauthorized hands.

Second Amendment Foundation attorney Kostas Moros, the organization’s director of legal research and education, has challenged the use of historical outliers to justify bans on common rifles. His broader legal scholarship argues that America’s historical tradition does not support prohibiting ordinary repeating firearms simply because they offered technological advantages over earlier weapons.

Starting the Giffords brief. It’s funny how they argue different states should be allowed to pass different things based on their needs.

If that’s true, why do they argue for a national AWB?

As usual, Giffords is intellectually dishonest, hiding what its true goal is to suit its audience. We have seen this time and time again from them, e.g.:

1. Opposing constitutional carry because shall issue exists, but being angry when blue states were forced to go shall issue;

2. Opposing our NFA win because NFA registration has, they claim, made it so that suppressors and SBRs are rarely used in crimes, but they still support states like California having total bans on suppressors.

Plenty more examples.

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) October 28, 2026

The central question remains unanswered by these narrow examples: Where is the historical tradition of categorically banning an entire class of commonly owned repeating rifles from law-abiding citizens?

Pointing to Bowie knife taxes, restrictions on carrying particular weapons, and military armory rules does not establish such a tradition.

Another Attempt to Rewrite Bruen’s Constitutional Test

The effort to weaken Second Amendment protections does not stop with historical comparisons.

In another amicus brief, legal scholars Luke Smith Morgan and Jacob D. Charles ask the Supreme Court to conduct a more substantial historical examination at the first stage of the Bruen analysis.

Under Bruen, courts first consider whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the individual’s proposed conduct. If it does, the government must justify its restriction by demonstrating consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Morgan and Charles argue that courts should examine the historically understood boundaries of the right when deciding whether the conduct falls within the Amendment’s protection in the first place.

The danger is that this approach could allow lower courts to exclude firearms from constitutional protection before requiring the government to justify its restrictions under Bruen’s historical-tradition test.

Gun owners have already watched lower courts find creative ways around Heller and Bruen. Giving those courts another opportunity to decide that an ordinary firearm falls outside the Second Amendment’s protection risks perpetuating that problem.

In a separate brief, law professor Joseph Blocher challenges the idea that the number of firearms in circulation should conclusively determine whether those firearms receive constitutional protection.

Blocher raises questions about how a strict common-use test would operate in other circumstances.

But the Supreme Court does not need to resolve every hypothetical firearms classification dispute to decide whether AR-15s are protected.

These rifles are already widely owned by law-abiding Americans for self-defense, recreation, competition, and other lawful purposes.

If the government can acknowledge that millions of Americans lawfully possess a firearm and still declare it outside the Second Amendment, what meaningful protection does the common-use principle provide?

States and Gun-Control Organizations Line Up Against AR-15 Owners

The October 28 deadline brought dozens of additional amicus submissions defending Cook County’s and Connecticut’s rifle restrictions.

The Supreme Court docket includes submissions from Giffords, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, law enforcement associations, medical organizations, legal scholars, local governments, and members of Congress.

A coalition consisting of Massachusetts, New Jersey, 16 other states, and the District of Columbia submitted a brief supporting the respondents. Their position contrasts with the coalition of states supporting the gun owners challenging the bans.

On the other side, the Second Amendment Foundation and its fellow challengers have received support from the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and numerous other organizations defending the right to own commonly used rifles.

The United States also filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers.

The constitutional dispute is not about whether politicians believe AR-15s are desirable firearms. It is about whether the government has the authority to prohibit Americans from possessing arms protected by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court Must Decide Whether Common Use Means Anything

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Viramontes and Grant on December 2, 2026.

At the center of these cases is a straightforward constitutional question: Can the government ban an entire category of rifles that millions of Americans lawfully own?

The challengers argue that the Second Amendment’s text, America’s historical tradition of firearms ownership, and the Supreme Court’s own precedents prohibit such bans.

Their opponents are offering the justices several ways around that conclusion. Some argue AR-15s are too dangerous to qualify as protected arms. Others want to diminish the significance of common ownership. Historians point to Bowie knives and narrowly targeted Winchester regulations, while Giffords is prepared to argue for overturning Bruen if its application requires invalidating the bans.

None of those arguments changes the constitutional text or the reality of America’s longstanding tradition of civilian firearms ownership.

The AR-15 is an arm. It is commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. Its modern design and effectiveness do not make it an exception to the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court does not need to invent another test or retreat from its existing precedents. It needs to enforce the Constitution as written.

The right to keep and bear arms does not disappear because gun-control organizations find the firearms Americans choose to own politically inconvenient.

Related: Every Amicus Brief in Viramontes and Grant: Supreme Court Fight Over AR-15 Bans

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/4lVb7nc
via IFTTT

Down to the Wire in WA: Why State Supreme Court Election is Critical to 2A

Washington state gun owners are being prodded to turn in their ballots, especially to elect a new independent state Supreme Court majority in anticipation of legal challenges to the state’s permit-to-purchase gun control law. iStock-2265632503

The nail-biting in Washington state has begun, with the eyes of gun owners focused on the effort to flip the State Supreme Court from an entirely liberal makeup to one with at least five by-the-book independent justices who are being supported by conservatives, many independents, and gun rights activists.

Next Tuesday’s election will determine whether legal challenges to an insidious permit-to-purchase law, passed entirely by Democrats and opposed by Republicans—House Bill 1163—will succeed or fail.

Ammoland News broke the story back on Sept. 11 that this purchase permit will cost at least $126, and that does not include fees for the mandatory training requirement in order to qualify for the permit, which could cost several hundred dollars more.

The law will undoubtedly be challenged in state and federal court under provisions of Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution, and under the Second Amendment, which was incorporated to the states by the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. There is no small irony in the fact that the McDonald case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, which is based in Bellevue, Wash.

Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution says, “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.”

Nowhere does it state, or even suggest, that this right is dependent upon completion of a safety course or the acquisition of a permit-to-purchase. Instead, this right, as spelled out by a state constitution adopted on Nov. 1, 1889, “shall not be impaired.” Critics of the new law, which takes effect May 1, 2027, say prior restraint mandates such as purchase permits and expensive training requirements are impairments.

It will be up to the State Supreme Court to make that determination, at least at the state level.

This and similar ads promoting five candidates for the Washington Supreme Court have been showing up on social media for the past month.

The campaign to elect candidates Scott Edwards, Dave Larson, David Stevens, Sean O’Donnell, and Todd A. Bloom has seen a considerable amount of money spent by the opposition.

And then there’s the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. It reads a bit differently:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Nowhere does it say people must first obtain a purchase permit to exercise this constitutionally-protected and enumerated fundamental right. It says this right “shall not be infringed.” What that means, according to the 2008 Supreme Court’s Heller ruling, is simply that government must keep its hands off.

Evidently, Washington state Democrats didn’t take courses in American government or Civics, and there is an embarrassing video floating around of Republican State Rep. Jim Walsh asking a panel of high school students testifying in support of a gun control measure whether they have read the state RKBA provision, and none had. Then, seated to Walsh’s left, House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jamila Taylor (D-District 30) admits she has not read that section of the state constitution, either.

Ammoland first looked at the Washington Supreme Court campaign back in August, and it has intensified since then.

Gun owners and conservatives in general have traditionally been lethargic during midterm elections, so there has been a vigorous effort to get them to return their mail-in ballots. The future of gun rights in the state could literally be riding on the outcome of the State Supreme Court elections.

All of the opposition candidates have been hand-picked by Democrat governors and/or they are supported by the far left.

Washington has seemingly been abandoned by the national Republican Party because voters along the I-5 corridor (Vancouver, Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, Everett and Bellingham) traditionally vote Blue and they get a better turnout, while voters in conservative districts have become increasingly discouraged.

In addition, there has been an exodus of gun owners and traditionally conservative voters to friendlier states, putting those who remain at a numeric disadvantage.

But this year is different. Not only is the state high court up for grabs, there is a trio of politically incendiary initiatives on the ballot, which could bring conservatives out of the woodwork: I-645 to stop the so-called “Millionaire income tax,” I-638 to protect girls’ sports and I-001, protecting parents’ rights. Democrats and liberals are opposed to all three measures, but there is strong support among conservatives and even Independents. “YES” votes on all three are important to the state’s future, say supporters.

These Washington races will be the ones to watch, which is why Evergreen State gun owners, many of whom are in the field right now hunting deer or elk, are being begged, cajoled, motivated or outright browbeaten to get off their duffs for five minutes, fill out their ballots, drop them off at local ballot drop boxes (NOT at the post office, which cannot be depended upon to process ballots in time for Tuesday’s voting deadline) and perhaps flip the political landscape for the first time in decades.

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

---

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/u421hsq
via IFTTT

NYPD Makes Gun Owners Wait Up to 18 Months for Pistol Permits Despite Six-Month Law

New York law gives the NYPD License Division six months to act on a firearm license application. AmmoLand’s investigation found New Yorkers waiting two to three times longer for a pistol permit.

Valdosta police say an armed shopper stopped New York law generally requires licensing decisions within six months, but the NYPD faces allegations of pistol permit delays lasting up to 18 months. iStock-901659046

AmmoLand investigation has found that the NYPD is holding up some pistol permits in New York City for 12 to 18 months. If you read Roger J. Katz’s October 26 piece at AmmoLand, “NYPD Exposed for Illegal Delays in Firearms Licensing,” you already know the outline of this problem. Since then, what we have uncovered is how long some people are actually waiting for a pistol permit, and it’s a lot longer than the law allows.

Penal Law § 400.00(4-b) says the licensing officer “shall act upon any application for a license pursuant to this section within six months of the date of presentment.” There’s a narrow exception. The officer can go past six months only “upon written notice to the applicant specifically stating the reasons for any delay,” and the statute says that delay “may only be for good cause and with respect to the applicant.” When the officer finally acts, he must either deny the application “for reasons specifically and concisely stated in writing” or grant it and issue the license.

Six months. The state wrote that number itself. Pistol permit wait times are double or triple that.

So how does the NYPD get away with it? The statute sets a deadline and then never says what happens if the city misses it. As Katz wrote in the first story, “No penalty attaches for the failure of the NYPD License Division” to process an application within six months, or to explain the holdup in writing. The applicant has to follow every rule to the letter. The department, apparently, doesn’t.

Katz also wrote that a timely answer “isn’t just a matter of common courtesy. It is a compulsory legal obligation, and one the License Division routinely shirks.” Our earlier report found the License Division “sitting on thousands of unprocessed applications, many going back a couple of years,” and with a backlog like that, a year-or-more wait for a pistol permit shouldn’t surprise anybody.

Then there’s the money. Research shows that New York City applicants pay a $340 nonrefundable licensing processing fee, including an $88.75 fingerprint fee, and the required gun safety course run between $400 and $500, sometimes more. That money is gone, whether the License Division gets back to you in six months or lets your file sit for a year and a half.

Why So Many New Yorkers are Applying

Some of this is a demand story, and the demand didn’t come out of nowhere. In 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and told New York its carry restrictions went too far. According to NYPD data Gothamist obtained in March 2024 and highlighted by Colion Noir, applications to the License Division for a residence rifle or handgun license rose 80% from 2022 to 13,369 in 2023, almost triple what the department received in 2019.

Carry applications jumped even more. The NYPD took in just 258 of them in 2019. By 2023, it was 6,751. In the first two months of 2024, Gothamist reported, carry applications had already passed the combined total for 2019, 2020, and 2021. You’d think a jump like that would push the License Division to staff up and move faster. From what we’ve seen, it hasn’t.

AmmoLand is not the only one saying so. Gothamist noted back then that the NYPD was already facing a class-action lawsuit claiming it takes too long to review applications. A separate federal suit, Milani v. New York City, No. 1:25-cv-01732, was filed in the Southern District of New York on March 3, 2025, by nine applicants represented by the Law Office of Mirel Fisch. The complaint accuses the City of “excessive, unreasonable, and unjustifiable delays in processing firearms license applications,” and it puts a familiar number on the record. According to the complaint, a License Division investigator told one applicant in a recorded call in October 2024 that it “generally takes . . . twelve to eighteen months to process.” When he asked whether that wasn’t too long, the suit says she answered, “No, no, we, that’s the general umm, the general length.”

Those are allegations, and the City hasn’t had its day in court on them. But they line up with what we found. The complaint also claims the License Division has a practice of “deciding applications 12-18 months after the applications were first presented,” which it argues makes it “inherently impossible to comply with State law.” According to the filing, lead plaintiff Robert Milani didn’t get his license until February 6, 2025, “one year, six months, and four days after he first submitted his application.” The plaintiffs are asking for compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.

Why are people lining up? Because they don’t feel safe, and it’s hard to tell them they’re wrong. The AmmoLand piece quotes data saying New York’s 2025 crime rate was “1.2 times greater than the U.S. average” and “higher than in 88.4% of U.S. cities,” and that the last five years have brought a rise in violent crime and increasing property crime. Katz also points out that New York City is the most populous city in the country, almost 8.6 million people packed in together. The police can’t be on every block.

Think about who’s actually in that line. Maybe it’s a woman being followed home. Telling her to check back in a year and a half doesn’t help her tonight.

The Part Nobody at One Police Plaza Wants to Talk About

There’s another angle here I won’t skip. Katz wrote that, “Anecdotally, we have heard some License officers are accepting bribes merely to do what State law mandates from them, timely processing of handgun licenses.”

Katz was careful to call that anecdotal, and so am I. But the License Division has been down this road before. The earlier report points back to CNN coverage from more than ten years ago quoting retired NYPD officer Stephen D’Andrilli, who said New York’s restrictive laws “have created an environment that allows a black market to exist.”

Katz and the Arbalest Quarrel say they’ve sent a letter to Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch about all this. As Katz put it, “This situation is untenable and begs for corrective legal action.” We agree with him. If the NYPD can’t act on a pistol permit in six months, the law already tells it to put the reason in writing and send it to the applicant. The statute doesn’t allow a file to sit for 12 or 18 months.

Bruen settled whether New Yorkers have the right to carry. Whether the city will let them use it on any reasonable timeline is still an open question, and we’re going to keep digging into it. If you’re stuck in the License Division backlog right now, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) needs to hear from you. Readers can file a complaint for delayed pistol permits or other licensing delays here.

Related: NYPD Exposed for Illegal Delays in Firearms Licensing

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. 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/cRnPuYU
via IFTTT