FDR Attorney General Homer Cummings Pushed National Handgun Registration for Years

Attorney General Homer Stillé Cummings pushed for national handgun registration in the 1930s, years after the National Firearms Act became law. Illustration: handgun image; inset portrait of Cummings. iStock-160624536

President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s 1933 pick for Attorney General was Senator Thomas J. Walsh, born in 1859 in Two Rivers, Wisconsin. Two Rivers had a population of 1,337 in 1860. A self-made man, he graduated from the University of Wisconsin.  He grew up in the West.  Walsh won the election to the US Senate from Montana in 1912. He exposed the Teapot Dome scandal in 1922. His summer home was in what became Glacier National Park. On the way to his inauguration in 1933, he died of an apparent heart attack on a passenger train, as he traveled to D.C. from Florida, at the age of 73.

Homer Stillé Cummings was meant as a stopgap replacement.

Homer Stillé Cummings was a reliable political hack whom Roosevelt originally appointed as Governor General of the Philippines. After Walsh’s untimely death, Roosevelt selected Cummings as Attorney General.

Cummings was an early child of the American Urban class, born in Chicago in 1870. He grew up and prospered in the American Northeast. In 1933, he was a member of the Democratic National Committee and had previously served as its chairman. He left the office of Attorney General in 1939 and entered private law practice in Washington, D.C.

Homer Cummings became Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Attorney General in 1933. He became the crusader who pushed hard for de facto national firearms bans and especially for handgun registration in the United States.

Cummings succeeded in passing the National Firearms Act but failed to obtain national handgun registration. In 1937, he stated his belief that all firearms must be registered.

“I am convinced of this—any practical measure for the control of firearms must at least contain provisions for the registration of all firearms.”

In an interview with Homer Stillé Cummings in 1938, much of his philosophy about gun control was revealed. Rex Collier was on the staff of the Washington Evening Star, which was the paper of record in Washington, D.C., until 1981.  Cummings had pushed for national handgun registration and licensing in the National Firearms Act. At first, he did not include short barrel rifles, but was willing to do so when pressured by Minnesota Representative Harold Knutson.

After the NRA succeeded in convincing Congress to reject universal handgun registration, Cummings made several more attempts to achieve it. His last attempt was in 1938. During that attempt, he was interviewed by Rex Collier.

In the 1938 interview with Cummings, the reporter from the Washington Evening Star asked the Attorney General whether he was urging Congress to extend the NFA to cover pistols, revolvers, and gas guns.

“That is correct and I might add,” Cummings responded, “that this is not a recent inspiration with me. I have been fighting for such legislation for four years.”

Cummings goes on to say what has been one of the major talking points of those pushing for disarmament of the public in the United States. The claim is that Canada and some European countries have lower reported rates of homicide than the United States at the time. Cummings did not mention that the homicide rate stayed the same or went up after handgun registration was passed in those other countries.

In the same interview, Cummings went on to give an indication of his mindset when he said, “of the homicides in this country, almost 70 percent are committed by firearms.”

Cummings uses the generic term firearms, not handguns. His history as a Northeastern coastal urbanite suggests he had little personal experience with firearms. He went to Yale and practiced law. It is difficult to believe he did not know the proper use of “by” and “with”. Firearms have no volition. The proper usage is “killed with firearms, not killed “by” firearms. 

Cummings goes on to denigrate those who claim the natural right to keep and bear arms, because it is outdated:

“And even in the year 1938 we hear the hollow argument of the inalienable right of a person to buy a pistol without leaving any form of identification.” 

Later, Cummings lets slip a telling point. The group most in favor of the registration of all handguns in the country is “the press“.

Question: Can you tell me which groups are in favor of the proposal? 

Atty. Gen: In the first place, I would list the press of the country.  

To his credit, Rex Collier asks the obvious question:

Question: What good does it do, General, to have a large file of guns owned by persons who are not criminals? 

Atty. Gen: Simply this. Tomorrow’s supply of guns for the underworld is today in the hands of honest citizens. Under this bill no honest citizen will transfer his weapon without complying with the terms of the statute, and in time the underworld supply of guns, except those secured by theft, will be cut off.

Cummings goes on to say that most guns used in crime are purchased through legitimate channels in 1938. Because criminals will not register their guns, when his subordinates find someone who has an unregistered gun, they can prosecute him, because anyone with an unregistered gun would have to be a criminal. Cummings probably believed what he said. In 2026, his words seem laughably naive.

Today, we know the small number of guns used in criminal homicides are easily obtained on the black market. Substitute weapons are commonly used.  Disarming the population leaves the vulnerable at the mercy of the violent.

Congress did not agree with Homer Cummings. In Europe, firearm registration was being used against the people. In Germany, in France, in the countries occupied by the NAZI regime, registration lists were used as a means of oppression.

Today, we know gun registration is gun confiscation.

In his paper, The Power to Tax, The Second Amendment, and the Search for Which “‘Gangster’ Weapons” to Tax, Stephen Halbrook notes the winds of war were blowing against firearms registration in the USA.

Congress took notice. Reporting a bill to allow the President to requisition property, the House Committee on Military Affairs included a provision forbidding the impairment of Second Amendment rights “in view of the fact that certain totalitarian and dictatorial nations are now engaged in the willful and wholesale destruction of personal rights and liberties[.]”220 The resultant Property Requisition Act of 1941 declared in part:

Nothing contained in this Act shall be construed—

(1) to authorize the requisitioning or require the registration of any firearms possessed by any individual for his personal protection or sport (and the possession of which is not prohibited or the registration of which is not required by existing law), [or]
(2) to impair or infringe in any manner the right of any individual to keep and bear arms[.]221

Homer Cummings died in 1956, celebrated as a faithful Progressive who did what he could to register all handguns in the United States.

Cleared in Self-Defense, Charged for Carrying: Michigan Case Shows Why ‘Sensitive Places’ Fail

---

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/rkI7lpR
via IFTTT

New Filing in Yukutake v. Lopez Accuses Hawaii of Rewriting Gun Laws to Dodge Defeat

A letter filed in a case challenging Hawaii’s restrictive gun laws attacks the state’s credibility after its attorney attempted to downplay the attorney general’s role in rewriting gun laws now under constitutional challenge.

The lawsuit, Yukutake v. Lopez, challenges two provisions of Hawaii’s firearm code. The first imposed a narrow window for handgun purchase permits, effectively forcing applicants to complete the process within a short and often impractical timeframe. The original timeframe was ten days, later expanded to 30 days, a change that attorneys AmmoLand spoke to believed was designed to moot this case.

The second required gun owners to bring newly acquired firearms to law enforcement for in-person inspection and registration within just a few days. Hawaii claimed this law was to prevent the spread of “ghost guns,” but anyone with an unserialized firearm in violation of the state’s law would most likely not show up to a police station with an illegal gun. With Hawaii’s history of anti-gun actions, gun owners think this was put in place to cause an undue burden to residents.

Five years ago, a federal district court struck down both of Hawaii’s anti-gun provisions, finding they imposed unconstitutional burdens on Americans’ right to keep and bear arms. The judge issued a permanent injunction, siding with the plaintiffs and recognizing that procedural hurdles can serve as barriers to the exercise of a fundamental human right. Hawaii appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit, known for being anti-gun, affirmed the district court’s 2025 ruling, describing Hawaii’s permit timeline as “impermissibly abusive” and agreeing that the in-person inspection requirement violated the Second Amendment-protected rights of Hawaiians. The case was then remanded to the district court due to subsequent changes in state law surrounding the provisions.

Before the district court could rehear the case, the Ninth Circuit took it en banc in July of 2025, meaning the full bench would hear it. Hawaii now claims those changes to the law should end the litigation altogether. Hawaii has used this tactic before to avoid court losses.

In one such case, Teter v. Lopez, Hawaii changed its law to moot the legal challenge. Teter was another case argued by Beck and Stephen Stamboulieh against the Aloha State. Teter challenged the state’s ban on butterfly knives. The change in the law made it impossible for the attorneys to collect nearly half a million in attorneys’ fees. Judge Lawrence VanDyke said that Hawaii should pay its attorneys well for avoiding what should have been an easy payout.

“Whether intentionally or not, Hawaii has played the ‘panel-erasure game’ here like a champ, ridding itself of adverse panel precedent, sidestepping the risk of losing on the merits before the en banc court, and now dodging a fee award,” VanDyke wrote in the opinion. “Whatever Hawaii is paying its own counsel, it should double it. But as clever as Hawaii’s strategy was, it never would have worked unless our en banc court played along. None of this gamesmanship would have been rewarded if we, as the en banc court, had simply vacated the ministerial order vacating the panel opinion. But we did not. In the Ninth Circuit, at least when it comes to the Second Amendment, if you’re litigating against the government, even when you’re winning, you’re losing.”

On Thursday, attorney Alan Beck, who represents plaintiffs Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa, filed a letter with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Mr. Beck directly calls out claims made by Hawaii’s lawyer during oral arguments that took place just two days earlier. He points to contradictions between the state’s courtroom statements and its real-world actions.

During oral arguments last Wednesday, Hawaii’s attorney told the court that the Attorney General’s office does not control the legislature and could not explain why lawmakers amended the statutes at issue when asked by the court why the law was changed. The statements were designed to distance the state’s legal defense from the changes to the law. These exact changes are what the AG is now using to try to moot the case.

“The Attorney General did not change the law here; the legislature changed the law, and these are different branches of government. We don’t control one another, and we are separate from one another,” the lawyer for Hawaii said. “I cannot say what it was that prompted the legislature to make a change or whether there will ever be a change again.”

Did she lied?

The AG was the driving factor of passing this law, it was a direct attempt to circumvent the courts ruling.

Todd Yukutake v. Anne E. Lopez (21-16756)
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit – 03/24/2026 pic.twitter.com/oqP3SIHRyi

— Hawaii Firearms Coalition (HIFICO) (@hificoorg) March 25, 2026

Beck disputes Hawaii’s lawyers’ claims, and he has strong evidence that these claims were false. According to his letter, a deputy attorney general previously testified before lawmakers in support of legislation explicitly aimed at addressing the same federal court ruling that struck down Hawaii’s gun restrictions. That testimony directly undermines the state’s suggestion that it had no role or even insight into why the laws were changed. Hawaii’s attorney knowingly or unknowingly misled the court about the AG’s influence over the legislature.

“It’s important for the court to have an accurate record of the legislative history of the laws before it,” Beck told AmmoLand. “This letter demonstrates that the Hawaii Attorney Generals office lobbied for the current amendments to the law.”

Hawaii is asking the court to dismiss the case on mootness grounds, arguing that because the challenged laws have been amended, there is no longer a “live controversy.” The Supreme Court and Circuit Courts (FBI v. Fikre, City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., Heyer v. United States Bureau of Prisons) have long been skeptical of attempts by governments to avoid judicial review through last-minute changes to laws, especially when those changes are calculated to preserve the core of the original restrictions. One judge during oral arguments called out Hawaii for using this tactic in the past in cases such as Teter.

Ever since the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, the question has been whether states like Hawaii can sidestep adverse rulings by quietly changing laws while continuing to defend similar restrictions in court.

Other states have used similar tactics to avoid accountability. When New York City was sued over its restrictions on transporting guns into and out of the City (New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York), it fought all the way to the Supreme Court. Once the plaintiffs filed for a writ of certiorari, the Big Apple amended its law. The court ruled the case moot.

Hawaii has since responded to the letter, stating that, under the separation of powers, the legislation is attributable solely to the legislature, not the Executive Branch. They argued that the Deputy Attorney General’s testimony in support of the bill, nor the inclusion of the Governor’s legislative package, means that the Executive branch had anything to do with the changes. Hawaii seems to be playing a “it wasn’t me” game.

Hawaii isn’t using a new tactic, but the state seems to use it more than anyone else. Whether the Ninth Circuit moots the case depends on several things. The biggest being whether it finds for Hawaii and moots the case because of its disdain for the Second Amendment, or if it decides enough is enough and puts an end to Hawaii’s dirty tricks.

Hawaii’s Desperate Ninth Circuit Plea to Bring Back Judicial Scrutiny in Gun Rights Case

---

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 @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

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

Heeter v. James Challenges New York Body Armor Ban Under the Second Amendment

Body armor is at the center of Heeter v. James, an ongoing federal case challenging New York’s ban on civilian purchases of protective gear designed to stop gunfire. iStock-1514732545

New York’s ban on body armor is now facing a direct constitutional challenge that goes right to the heart of the Second Amendment.

In Heeter v. James, an ongoing 2024 federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, plaintiffs Heeter and Firearms Policy Coalition are challenging New York’s body armor ban as a violation of the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that the law has criminalized the purchase and acquisition of defensive gear that falls within the plain text of the right to “keep and bear Arms.”

As the motion puts it, “body armor is commonly owned for self-defense and other lawful purposes,” and New York’s law therefore cannot survive under District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The filing opens by stating that New York’s law “prohibits the purchase, acquisition, or sale of any ‘protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire,’ by anyone who is not a member of several ‘eligible professions.’” In other words, ordinary law-abiding New Yorkers are barred from buying body armor unless the state has decided their job title is important enough. The plaintiffs say that violates the rights of citizens with “ordinary self-defense needs,” the same kind of language the Supreme Court used in Bruen when it rejected New York’s old carry regime.

The motion leans heavily on Heller’s discussion of the word “arms,” reminding the court that the Supreme Court itself said the term included not only “weapons of offence,” but also “armour of defence.”

From there, the plaintiffs walk through historical dictionaries, legal dictionaries, Blackstone, the Assize of Arms, and the Statute of Winchester to argue that armor has long been understood as part of the class of protected “arms.” The filing says the historical record “confirm[s] that the Supreme Court was correct” and that “‘Arms’ encompasses body armor.” That is the foundation of the whole case. If body armor is an arm, then the Second Amendment is implicated from the start.

According to the plaintiffs, New York expanded the definition of body armor through the Concealed Carry Improvement Act so broadly that it now covers “any product that is a personal protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire,” including steel plates, bulletproof backpacks, and “inconspicuous garments” like bullet-resistant sweatshirts and flannels. This is not a narrow restriction aimed at criminals wearing armor while committing violent felonies. It is a broad ban on defensive products that ordinary people may want for their own protection.

The plaintiffs back that up with real examples. One named plaintiff, Heeter, says he wants to buy body armor for lawful purposes, “including to protect himself in the event of civil unrest similar to the riots of 2020.” Another, Wurtenberg, wants armor for his late-night commute through downtown Rochester and to incorporate into his range gear “to prevent accidental injury.”

Neither man is in one of the state’s favored “eligible professions,” so both are barred from acquiring body armor, even though the motion says they seek it only for lawful self-defense and safety purposes.

The motion also takes aim at the state’s claim that body armor is somehow outside ordinary constitutional protection because criminals have used it. New York reportedly justified the ban in part by pointing to the body armor worn by the Buffalo mass murderer. But the plaintiffs argue that argument collapses under scrutiny. The filing cites FBI data and says that “less than 5% of perpetrators in mass-shooting incidents from 2000 to 2019 wore body armor.” That is a devastating statistic for the state’s narrative.

The plaintiffs then drive the point home by noting that handguns are used in crimes far more often than body armor, yet handguns remain unquestionably protected under the Second Amendment. A criminal misuse argument cannot erase constitutional protection for an item commonly used by law-abiding people.

And that is another major piece of the motion: common use.

The plaintiffs argue that body armor is “in common use for lawful purposes,” which, under Heller and Bruen, is a major constitutional marker. They cite market data showing tens of millions of dollars in civilian body armor sales, a robust civilian market, and more than 70 manufacturers serving that demand. The motion says American civilians spent $41.9 million on body armor in 2022, and cites additional estimates showing civilian expenditures continued rising in 2023, 2024, and 2025. It also stresses that body armor is legal in 49 states, making New York the outlier, not the rule. As the brief puts it, “New York is the first state to ban body armor for law-abiding citizens.” That is exactly the kind of modern outlier status that has become increasingly hard to defend in the post-Bruen world.

The most effective part of the filing may be its treatment of danger. The state’s best chance in a case like this is to argue that body armor can be banned as “dangerous and unusual.” The plaintiffs say that argument fails on both halves.

First, they say body armor is not dangerous. “It is exclusively defensive,” the motion argues. It does not fire a projectile, does not slash, stab, bludgeon, or explode. Its only function is to protect the wearer. The filing even notes that the Transportation Security Administration allows airline passengers to carry body armor in their bags. It cites case law recognizing that “wearing body armor is not an inherently threatening act” and can instead be “an act of self-defense.” That is hard to get around. New York is trying to treat protective equipment as though it were some uniquely menacing weapon, but the plaintiffs’ point is simple and powerful: armor protects, it does not attack.

Second, the plaintiffs argue body armor is not unusual. Quite the opposite. They say it is common historically, common today, common across the country, and common in civilian commerce. The motion points to historical militia laws requiring certain citizens to furnish armor, to widespread availability of bullet-resistant vests by the Civil War era, and to modern ownership and sales trends.

The filing sums it up this way: body armor is “common categorically,” “common numerically,” and “common jurisdictionally.”

The filing also spends time showing that the law is not just some dead statute sitting on the books. According to the motion, New York officials celebrated the ban, state police warned there would be “zero tolerance” for violations, and the law has already been enforced through arrests. The plaintiffs say the legal market for body armor in New York has effectively been wiped out because sellers face both criminal penalties and civil fines if they sell to someone outside the approved professions. That matters because it shows the injury here is concrete and ongoing. This is not a hypothetical challenge brought against a dormant law. It is a live fight over a ban that the state intends to enforce.

At bottom, the plaintiffs are asking the court to apply the Second Amendment the way the Supreme Court said it must be applied. Once conduct falls within the plain text, the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical tradition that justifies the regulation. The motion argues New York cannot do that here because “there exists no American tradition” of banning the purchase, transfer, or possession of defensive armor by ordinary citizens. It says there were “no American legislative body” restrictions of that kind from the Founding through well after Reconstruction, and that no pre-1900 American armor bans existed at all. If that historical claim holds, New York is standing on very thin ice.

The plaintiffs’ conclusion: “the Court should grant judgment in Plaintiffs favor, declare the Body Armor Ban unconstitutional, and enjoin its enforcement.”

New York will almost certainly argue that body armor is different from weapons, that the state has a strong public-safety interest, and that armor can embolden criminals in violent encounters. But this motion is serious, direct, and grounded in the same constitutional framework that has already knocked down a growing list of modern gun-control laws.

If the court accepts the plaintiffs’ central premise that body armor is part of the protected class of “arms,” New York is going to have a very difficult time explaining why ordinary citizens can be barred from buying purely defensive equipment that is legal in the other 49 states.

The next step is now in the hands of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, where the judge will decide whether New York’s body armor ban can survive under Heller and Bruen. After the state files its response, the court will determine whether the law can be struck down on summary judgment or whether the case needs to move further. A win for the plaintiffs would block enforcement of one of the most aggressive body armor laws in the country. A win for New York would only push the constitutional fight into its next round. Either way, Heeter v. James is now a case gun owners and civil-liberties advocates should be watching closely.

FPC, SAF, and Texas Gun Owner Sue Over Carry Ban in National Park Facilities

---

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

DOJ Responds to Gun Rights Restoration FOIA Request

What criteria must citizens seeking similar relief need to meet to prove themselves eligible for equal treatment? (img Duncan Johnson)

“This is an interim response to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of your client, David Codrea, dated and received in this Office on April 28, 2025, for records concerning the restoration of firearm rights to specific individuals,” a Thursday letter to attorney Stephen Stamboulieh from Vanessa R. Brinkmann, Senior Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information Policy begins.

My request was submitted after the DOJ announced it had “identified ten (10) individuals for firearm restoration [actor Mel Gibson among them].” Left unaddressed was what criteria citizens seeking similar relief would need to meet to be considered for equal treatment. To that end, I filed a FOIA request asking for:

All records “reviewed” by the Attorney General for each individual listed in the filing;

All records “that each individual submitted” to receive relief under 18 U.S.C. 925(c); and

All other records not “submitted” by the list of individuals but relied upon by the Attorney General in establishing that “each individual will not be likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and that the granting of the relief to each individual would not be contrary to the public interest.”

Because the government did not respond to the request in the time required by law, a complaint was filed in the United States District Court in the District of Columbia asking the court to order DOJ to conduct a responsive search, produce non-exempt records “by a date certain,” enjoin DOJ from continuing to withhold records, and award attorney fees/litigation costs that would not have been needed had it simply complied with settled law.

“No response is required…  Plaintiff is not entitled to compel the production of any record… This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction… Plaintiff is neither eligible for nor entitled to attorney’s fees [and] Plaintiff’s request is improper to the extent is it unduly burdensome,” US Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro and Assistant US Attorney John J. Pardo argued back in the Department of Justice’s answer, filed Dec. 19.

Despite that standard legal reaction, Thursday’s interim response, including a Memorandum for the Attorney General on “Candidates for Relief from Firearms Disability,” advised “that a search has been conducted and material responsive to your request has been located. At this time, I have determined that five pages are appropriate for release with certain information withheld pursuant to Exemptions 5 and 6 of the FOIA… and copies are enclosed.”

Citing “inter- and intra-agency communications protected by civil discovery privileges,” and  “information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” the memorandum is heavily redacted, to where all that is included pertaining to the candidates is their names, not the criteria used to determine their eligibility (outside of U.S. Code citations noting the Attorney General is empowered to grant relief to those determined “’not… likely to act in a manner dangerous to public safety and’ where ‘the grating of relief would not be contrary to the public interest.’”)

The FOIA request never asked for anything that was not a matter of nonexempt record, and the intent behind the effort was simply to determine what criteria citizens seeking similar relief would need to meet to prove themselves eligible for equal treatment.

Because this is an “interim response,” more documents should be coming. We’ll have to wait to see what they disclose.

If you are interested in restoring your gun rights, visit Restore 2A.

---

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/DNPF4cs
via IFTTT

Birthright Citizenship Directly Impacts the Second Amendment

Editor’s Note: This article is an opinion column by Roger Katz. The views expressed are his alone and do not necessarily reflect those of AmmoLand News, its editors, or staff.

The Supreme Court’s upcoming review in Trump v. Barbara will put the constitutional fight over birthright citizenship squarely before the justices. iStock-2264399815

Trump has asked the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prevail on the U.S. Supreme Court to correct the horrible injustice that the incorrigibly corrupt and deceitful Biden Administration has exacted on the American people. The case is Trump vs. Barbara. The Press has dubbed it “The Birthright Citizenship Case.”

The Supreme Court has granted review on December 5, 2025. Oral argument is scheduled for April 1. A decision is expected in early Summer.

The importance of this case to the future well-being of a Free Republic and to our Bill of Rights, especially the Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms, cannot be overstated.

Trump vs. Barbara brings to bear a matter that the Court has spent little time considering: What does it mean to be an American? That raises the issue of the nature of our National (American) Character, our Nation’s Ethos.

The American Ethos is bound inextricably to the concept of the need for a well-armed citizenry, an abhorrence of tyranny, justifiable suspicion of government usurpation of power, and the sovereignty of the American People (“The Common Man”) over government.

In the question presented for review in petitioner’s brief, the DOJ, on behalf of Trump, says:

“The Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides that those “born * * * in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are U.S. citizens. . . . The Clause was adopted to confer citizenship on the newly freed slaves and their children, not on the children of aliens temporarily visiting the United States or of illegal aliens. On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order No. 14,160, Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship, which restores the original meaning of the Citizenship Clause and provides. . . that children of temporary visitors and illegal aliens are not U.S. citizens by birth.”

Working with Congressional Democrat Marxist-Socialists, Biden’s people opened the floodgates. Millions of unvetted aliens poured into our Country.

Not an insignificant number included pregnant women, set on giving birth to their offspring on American soil.

Based on past practice, they assume their children would automatically become citizens and that, once a child attained the age of 21, he could then sponsor his parents for a “green card.”

A longstanding but controversial shibboleth says the child is presumptively a U.S. citizen under an anachronistic and archaic monarchic doctrine called “Jus Soli” (Right of Soil) grounded on old English Common Law.

In 1898, the Supreme Court applied that English Common Law Canon to American Law in the case United States vs. Kim Wong Ark, but the decision wasn’t unanimous.

Chief Justice Fuller and Associate Justice Harlan wrote a comprehensive, vigorous dissent. Their legal and logical reasoning is insightful, and their intuitive understanding of what such a catastrophic decision would have on the well-being of the Nation in the decades to come, prescient.

Curiously, the British abolished citizenship via Jus Soli on January 1, 1983, adopting the sensible citizenship Jus Sanguinis (“Right of Blood”) standard that most nations follow today.

The legal and logical rationale for maintaining the feudal-era concept of allegiance to the King, predicated solely on birth within the Realm, is both wrong and wrong-headed.

Our Nation was never a monarchy and the Framers of our Constitution found the notion of fashioning a monarchic governmental structure for the new nation repugnant—especially after having thrown off the yoke of monarchic, despotic rule.

They crafted the nascent Nation as a “Free Constitutional Republic.”

The practical impact of credence to “Jus Soli” citizenship in our Republic is awful to contemplate; we Americans are witnessing the dire effects of its application today.

Unlike Feudal England, our Republic has no resemblance to a Monarchy.

Tens of millions of illegal aliens who have entered our Country have no knowledge of governmental frameworks. And they have no understanding, nor appreciation for our Constitution, our unalienable, eternal Rights and Liberties, our History, Heritage and Traditions, and our core beliefs.

Such pseudo-citizens dropped on our soil by illegal aliens and manipulated by scurrilous demagogues would vote people into office whose aim is to destroy our Nation from within.

To effectuate that aim, Democrats (Marxist-Socialists) and their symbiotic Fake-News Press constantly attack civilian citizen possession of firearms, well aware that without the armed citizenry, there is no tenable means to preserve the Security of a Free State.

Democrats are drawing our Country ever closer toward a tyranny and accomplishing that with the avid assistance of millions of unassimilable aliens and a significant number of home-bred American Marxist-Socialist cultists.

Outside threats to a Free Republic also abound.

CCP China is one of those dangerous threats that seek to exert control over our Nation. Mexico presents a similar problem for us.

Many Americans are blind to the myriad threats posed to our Nation or otherwise psychologically conditioned to see the annihilation of the Republic as a good thing, a worthy aim.

How important is the armed citizenry to a Free State? Just consider the plight of the Iranian people today.

The liberal media doesn’t posit why Iranians haven’t risen up against the savage, hateful Theocratic Islamic regime, given the massive, devastating airpower that the U.S. and Israel brought to bear against it.

The reason is plain but the Press suppresses it—having no wish to mention it: Iranians have no firearms.

The Theocratic Dictatorship doesn’t allow ordinary people to possess firearms, lest they depose the Tyrant.

Only an armed citizenry can effectively defeat a tyrannical regime. That is axiomatic.

Democrats hate our Country. They know an insurgency of tens of millions of aliens can be mobilized to achieve their endgame, one that armed Americans would never accept, nor tolerate, nor abide. Thus, Democrats dare not clearly enunciate their objectives:

The eradication of the Constitution, the rewriting of our history, the erasure of our heritage and core beliefs, the de facto elimination of the natural law right codified in the Second Amendment along with our other basic rights, and the dissolution of a Free Republic.

These aims are all part of the Democrat Marxist-Socialist agenda and legacy.

Those people and groups inside and outside Government that detest our Country look forward to a Court decision in their favor, one reaffirming, embellishing on, and making irrefutable an age-old, outmoded Supreme Court ruling grounded on an absurd thesis and illogical reasoning: Kim Wong Ark.

Such a decision would mark our slide toward oblivion. The die would be cast with the High Court’s own imprimatur as the Nation wends its way inexorably and inevitably toward tyranny. That would be both ironic and insufferable.

This is why a positive decision in Trump vs. Barbara is as vital to the Security of a Free State as would be a decision in a straightforward major Second Amendment case.

But Roberts shuns reviewing major cases with political implications for his legacy, despite claiming impartiality.

Recall, at Roberts’ urging the Court perfunctorily denied review of two significant Second Amendment cases in 2025.

The first is Antonyuk vs. James, involving the New York Government’s blatant, hostile, and contemptuous act of defiance toward the Court’s rulings and reasoning in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association vs. Bruen.

The second is Snope vs. Brown, coming out of Maryland, involving the State’s ban on civilian citizen possession of semiautomatic weapons—an act of subversion toward a finding in District of Columbia vs. Heller that weapons in common use plainly fall within the Second Amendment’s protection.

Why then did Chief Justice allow review of this Birthright Citizenship case given the decisive impact it would have on the Country, for good or ill?

Our guess is that, unlike the Second Amendment cases, Justice Roberts had to take up Trump vs. Barbara.

Political momentum existed for it, and most of the Justices likely wanted to hear it.

Impetus for it also came from the President. And failure to grant review wouldn’t help the Court anyway, for the 128-year-old contentious Kim Wong Ark case would remain as presumptively legitimate in a Country now confronted with millions of unassimilable illegal aliens and their offspring.

The Court has the opportunity now to correct this travesty.

Individuals born of illegal aliens or temporary visitors to our Country are not citizens of the United States. Trump is spot-on, right.

The Supreme Court must strike down Kim Wong Ark and protect the present and future viability of a Free Republic and its mainstay—the citizen army.

But will it do so?

If a majority of the Justices, including Roberts, reaffirms the 1898 case holding, then they have effectively signed the Nation’s death warrant, paving the way for dissolution of a Free Republic, and eradication of the citizen army by bureaucratic and legal fiat.

This would mean some Justices utilized their tremendous Article III power not to protect the Constitution but to harm it irrevocably. If that occurs, Congress should immediately draw up papers of impeachment against those Justices who betrayed us.

Gun Influencers Denying Immigration Impact on Right to Arms Ignore Truths They Can’t Refute

---

ROGER J. KATZ, ATTORNEY AT LAW

Roger is an attorney licensed to practice law in Ohio and Arizona, and he is CEO of Arbalest Group, LLC.

He is a graduate from Cleveland State University, Cleveland Marshall College of Law, and was an Editor of Law Review, and he has earned a Master of Public Administration Degree from Cleveland State University. Roger also holds several degrees from The Ohio State University: a Master of Arts degree in Philosophy, a Bachelor of Arts degree in English, and a Bachelor of Science in Education degree in Secondary English Education.

Roger has worked as a high school English teacher and as a university administrative assistant. On earning a law degree he worked for several years as a Trademarks Examining Attorney with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in Washington D.C., and later worked as an attorney for a boutique intellectual property law firm in New York City.

Roger’s goal, working full-time on the Arbalest Quarrel website, involves preparing comprehensive and detailed analyses of case law pertaining to First and Second Amendment issues, and analyses of Federal and State laws and bills impacting the Bill of Rights, generally, and the Second Amendment, particularly.

Roger takes as axiomatic that, to maintain a free Constitutional Republic, our Bill of Rights must be preserved. If the latter falls, the former falls.

from https://ift.tt/v6fd5kA
via IFTTT

FPC, SAF, and Texas Gun Owner Sue Over Carry Ban in National Park Facilities

Zimmerman v. Bondi challenges federal rules that force law-abiding gun owners to disarm in certain facilities and restricted areas inside America’s national parks. IMG Jim Grant

A Texas gun owner, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation are taking aim at federal carry restrictions inside America’s national parks, arguing the government cannot keep expanding so-called “sensitive places” without any real historical basis. The new lawsuit challenges the ban on firearms in National Park Service-operated federal facilities and other restricted park areas as unconstitutional under Bruen.

The complaint, Zimmerman v. Bondi, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division, by Gary Zimmerman, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation against U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi in her official capacity. The plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, not damages.

At the center of the complaint is 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), the federal law that bars the knowing possession of firearms in a “federal facility,” and 36 C.F.R. § 1.5, a regulation the complaint says is used by park officials to impose park-specific restrictions on where firearms may be carried within national parks. The suit challenges Section 930(a) as applied to National Park Service-operated federal facilities and challenges Section 1.5 to the extent it is used to further limit lawful carry inside national parks.

According to the complaint, Zimmerman is a Fort Worth, Texas resident, an NRA-certified firearms instructor, and a certified license-to-carry instructor for multiple states. The filing says he holds active handgun carry licenses in ten states and regularly carries a handgun for self-defense while traveling.

The lawsuit leans heavily on Zimmerman’s travel history to establish standing. It says he and his wife hold lifetime national park passes and frequently visit parks for recreation. The complaint states Zimmerman has visited Big Bend National Park almost annually over the last eight years and has visited Arches National Park and Canyonlands National Park six times over the last decade. But because of the laws being challenged, he says he has repeatedly been forced to disarm when entering federal facilities inside parks or other areas where firearm carry has been prohibited.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Speer 23611GD 9mm Luger 124Gr 20rd Box	Shooters Choice	$ 27.99
	Speer Gold Dot Personal Protection 9mm Luger +P Ammo 124gr HP 50 Rounds	GunMag Warehouse	$ 33.99
	Speer 9mm 124gr+P Gold Dot Law enforcement Ammunition 50rds - 53617	Palmetto State Armory	$ 49.99 $ 39.99
	Speer 9mm Gold Dot 124gr Hollow Point Ammo - 20-Round Box	The Mag Shack	$ 26.99

The complaint gives a specific recent example from Mammoth Cave National Park. According to the filing, Zimmerman visited the park last August and had to disarm to enter federal facilities for permits and shopping, and again when touring the cave itself. The complaint says that while in those locations he was left unable to defend himself against an attack.

The complaint describes the challenged federal law in straightforward terms. Under 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), possessing a firearm in a federal facility is a crime. The filing notes that a “federal facility” means a building owned or leased by the federal government where federal employees are regularly present for official duties, and says that includes places inside national parks such as visitor centers, ranger stations, fee collection buildings, maintenance facilities, and government offices. A violation can be punished by a fine, imprisonment for less than a year, or both.

The complaint then points to 36 C.F.R. § 1.5, which allows park officials to impose closures and public-use restrictions. As one example, the lawsuit cites Mammoth Cave National Park’s superintendent’s compendium, which the complaint says bans the carriage of firearms on cave tours. Violating a closure imposed under that regulation can carry a fine, up to six months in prison, or both.

The legal theory is built squarely on the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The complaint argues that Bruen already established that carrying firearms publicly for self-defense falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment, which means the burden shifts to the government to prove its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

From there, the plaintiffs take aim at the government’s likely “sensitive places” defense. The complaint points to Bruen’s warning that governments cannot simply label broad swaths of public space as sensitive places just because people gather there. It argues that if the government wants to ban firearms in a particular location, it must identify a well-established historical analogue.

The plaintiffs say that history is not on the government’s side here. The complaint notes that Bruen identified legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses as recognized founding-era sensitive places. It then argues those places shared a common feature: comprehensive government-provided security. According to the complaint, federal facilities located within national parks do not have that kind of security. Zimmerman specifically alleges that when he has entered these facilities in the past, they were not secured in a way that ensured no one brought a firearm inside.

That is the complaint’s core argument in plain English. The plaintiffs are saying the government cannot stretch the “sensitive places” idea to cover ordinary park buildings and other park-designated areas without proving there is a real historical tradition of doing so. And they say that history does not exist.

The complaint ultimately asks the court to declare 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and firearms restrictions imposed under 36 C.F.R. § 1.5 unconstitutional to the extent they bar the possession and carrying of firearms within national parks, and to permanently enjoin their enforcement in that same scope. It also seeks costs and attorney’s fees.

For now, what matters is that this case tees up a direct post-Bruen challenge to one of the federal government’s most familiar carry restrictions. If the plaintiffs can convince the court that national park facilities are not historically grounded “sensitive places,” the case could become another important test of how far the government can go in carving out supposedly gun-free zones from the right to bear arms.

Cleared in Self-Defense, Charged for Carrying: Michigan Case Shows Why ‘Sensitive Places’ Fail

---

from https://ift.tt/3R4Og2r
via IFTTT

Calce v. City of New York Puts ‘Common Use’ Burden at Center of Second Amendment Fight

The Second Circuit’s oral argument in Calce v. City of New York showed exactly how hostile courts can keep anti-gun laws alive without ever honestly grappling with the Second Amendment.

At issue is New York City’s ban on civilian possession of stun guns and tasers—electronic arms commonly marketed as less-lethal self-defense tools. The plaintiffs, backed by the Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition, say that should have been an easy case after the Supreme Court’s 2016 decision in Caetano v. Massachusetts, which made clear that stun guns are “arms” and cannot be excluded from Second Amendment protection simply because they are modern weapons. But during argument, the Second Circuit panel looked less interested in confronting Caetano head-on and more interested in whether it could dispose of the case on a technical evidentiary ground instead.

This has become a popular post-Bruen tactic that anti-gun courts have used to push the burden on gun owners and never force the government to justify its ban with real historical analogues.

The Real Fight Was Over “Common Use” and Who Has to Prove It

At argument, plaintiffs’ counsel told the panel the district court got the threshold question wrong by treating electronic stun guns and electronic dart guns as outside the Second Amendment’s plain text unless the challengers first proved they were in “common use.” He argued that the textual question should be simple: if the item is a weapon, it is an “arm,” and only after that does the burden shift to the government under Bruen to justify a ban through historical tradition. But the panel immediately pushed back with Gomez.

One judge pointed counsel to the Second Circuit’s 2025 decision in United States v. Gomez, which treated “common use” as part of Bruen step one and suggested the plaintiff bears the burden of proving the weapon is commonly used for lawful self-defense. From there, the questioning focused on the record: What actual evidence did plaintiffs submit? How many stun guns are out there? How are they used? Is there admissible proof they are commonly possessed by ordinary civilians for lawful purposes?

That line of questioning is important because it shows where the panel may be headed. Instead of announcing that stun guns are not protected arms, the court may simply say the plaintiffs did not submit enough evidence to prove common use under Rule 56. Bloomberg Law described the hearing the same way, reporting that the judges signaled there was not enough evidence in the record to fully analyze whether New York City’s ban violates the Second Amendment.

That would be a narrow ruling on paper, but the practical effect would still be to keep the ban alive.

The City Tried to Recast the Case as Purely Procedural

The city’s lawyer leaned hard into that narrower approach. According to the argument, New York City did not tell the panel stun guns are categorically not “arms.” Instead, the city argued that the district court simply lacked enough evidence to decide the question in plaintiffs’ favor. The city’s position was that after Gomez, plaintiffs bear the burden at step one to show common use for lawful purposes, and that they failed to supply reliable record evidence on how many stun guns and tasers are in civilian hands, how they are typically used, and whether they are commonly possessed for self-defense.

The city even attacked the kinds of sources the challengers relied on—other court decisions, a Congressional Research Service source, a New York Post article, and Justice Alito’s concurrence in Caetano—as insufficient proof for summary judgment. During argument, the judges repeatedly returned to that point, asking whether newspaper articles and findings from other courts could really carry the plaintiffs’ burden in this record. The court also seemed ready to ignore the superior court’s, which in this case is the United States Supreme Court’s, opinion on this matter.

Why That “Narrow” Approach Is Still a Problem for Gun Owners

Gun owners should not be fooled by the “this is just Rule 56” framing. The district court already granted summary judgment to New York City in March 2025, holding that plaintiffs failed to establish that stun guns and tasers are presumptively protected arms because they did not show those arms were in common use. The opinion expressly treated common use as part of the threshold analysis rather than as part of the government’s historical burden.

That is exactly the sort of doctrinal sleight of hand that has become common after Bruen. If lower courts can move “common use” into the plain-text stage, then the citizen challenging the law carries the burden early, and the government may never have to prove that the ban matches the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. NRA-ILA’s amicus brief in the case made that point directly, arguing that the burden should not be on plaintiffs to prove stun guns are “common enough” before receiving constitutional protection, because bearable arms are presumptively covered and it is the government’s job to show otherwise.

So while the city framed its argument as procedural modesty, the effect is substantive. A court can keep an anti-gun law in place simply by saying the plaintiff did not bring enough evidence to pass a gatekeeping test the Supreme Court never clearly assigned to the plaintiff in the first place.

Caetano Is Still the Problem the Second Circuit Cannot Escape

That is why Caetano hangs over this case, no matter how carefully the Second Circuit tries to write around it.

In Caetano, the Supreme Court summarily reversed a Massachusetts decision that had upheld a stun gun ban. The Court rejected the idea that weapons are unprotected because they were not in common use at the Founding or because they are modern inventions. Justice Alito’s concurrence went further, pointing to evidence that hundreds of thousands of stun guns had been sold to private citizens and emphasizing that the Second Amendment does not protect only arms that existed in the 18th century.

The challengers in Calce leaned on that. At oral argument, their lawyer argued that the district court had become an outlier and noted that other courts, including the Illinois Supreme Court and federal courts in New York, had treated stun guns as protected arms or at least had not adopted the district court’s cramped approach.

That leaves the Second Circuit in an awkward spot. If it says too much, it risks inviting Supreme Court review. If it says too little, it still leaves in place a ban on a class of arms the Supreme Court has already ruled are protected.

The judges did not sound fully sold on the city’s theory that stun guns are outside the Second Amendment. At one point, a judge openly suggested having “a hard time” with the argument that stun guns or tasers are not within the meaning of protected arms, especially given that they are less lethal than handguns. But the panel also repeatedly pressed plaintiffs on the weakness of their evidentiary record and on why they had not submitted more concrete proof about civilian ownership and lawful use.

The case remains active in the Second Circuit under docket number 25-861, and no decision has been issued yet.

If the panel affirms on narrow grounds, New York City will still have won what matters most in the short term: the ban stays in place. But a decision like that would also sharpen the larger question for higher review—whether “common use” is really a Bruen step-one burden on the citizen, or whether lower courts are using that theory to keep dodging the Supreme Court’s command that the government must justify modern gun-control laws with actual history.

That is the real fight in Calce. The stun gun issue is important on its own. But the bigger issue is whether lower courts get to nullify Bruen by turning every arms-ban case into a battle over plaintiff-supplied statistics before the government ever has to prove its ban is constitutional.

As Mark Smith of the Four Boxes Diner put it, this should be a layup under Caetano, and if the Second Circuit still twists itself into a narrow ruling to protect New York City’s ban, it will just prove once again that some lower courts are still looking for ways to dodge the Supreme Court’s Second Amendment framework.

---

from https://ift.tt/W9Yole7
via IFTTT