Everytown Data Shows Washington Gun Homicide Rate Rose 33% Despite Tougher Laws

In Washington state, the media is a “gun-free zone,” where failure is success on a different scale, which the press never questions. iStock-1295573667

Has Everytown for Gun Safety unintentionally just acknowledged that increasingly strict gun control laws adopted in Washington state since 2014 have delivered less than stellar results?

Take a careful look at statistics and comments posted on Everytown’s data page, EveryStat and reach your own conclusion.

The Evergreen State has become something of a test tube for all manner of gun control schemes. A November 2014 citizen initiative (I-594) started the piecemeal shift with its “universal background check” mandate, although there were exemptions for immediate family members. The law took effect in December 2014 and the following year, 2015, was the first full year of its effectiveness.

Washington’s Decade-Long Gun-Control Experiment

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report for 2015, Washington state recorded 209 total homicides, of which 141 involved firearms. In 2016, the number of homicides dipped to 195, again according to FBI data, but in 2017, the number of Evergreen State homicides jumped to 228 and in 2018, it spiked to 232.

In 2018, Washington voters approved Initiative 1639, an even tougher gun control law regulating so-called “assault weapons” and adding restrictions on purchasers. Also, the Democrat-controlled legislature has adopted a string of strict gun policies which, if one believes social media, have caused many gun owners in the state to relocate to Idaho, Oklahoma, Texas, Montana, Tennessee, Arizona or some other rights-friendly jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, the number of homicides in Washington dropped again in 2019 to 194, but in 2020, the number shot right back up again, dramatically.

• KING in Seattle reported 302 homicides in 2020.
• The Tacoma News Tribune reported 327 murders in 2021.
• The Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs (WASPC) reported 394 murders in 2022.
• For the following year, 2023, WASPC reported 376 slayings, a decrease of 5.8%, but still well above pre-gun control numbers.
• Seattle’s KING reported 312 murders in 2024, the most recent year for which data is available.

Here’s how EveryStat reported things: “The rate of gun deaths has increased 12% from 2015 to 2024 in Washington, compared to a 15% increase nationwide. This means that in 2024 there were 197 more gun deaths than in 2015.”

EveryStat also noted, “In Washington, the rate of gun suicide increased 4% and gun homicide increased 33% from 2015 to 2024, compared to a 16% increase and 14% increase nationwide, respectively.”

And, yet, Everytown contends, “After passing a slate of new gun safety laws in the past decade, Washington is among the top 10 states in terms of gun law strength.”

There were other observations. “In an average year, 950 people die by guns.” Notice how the firearm is blamed, instead of the person pressing the trigger.

Recent data provided to Ammoland News by the Washington Department of Licensing revealed the number of active concealed pistol licenses remained steady through May and June, with a slight bump last month. At the end of May, the agency reported 691,336 active CPLs, and at the end of June, the number had crept up to 691,443 active licenses.

Washington’s Rifle Ban Faces a Supreme Court Reckoning

In 2023, former Democrat Gov. Jay Inslee signed legislation banning so-called “assault weapons.” While people who already owned modern semiautomatic rifles were not affected, no new guns may be manufactured, imported or sold in the state. Inslee did not run in 2024, and he has been succeeded by fellow Democrat Bob Ferguson, the former attorney general who has repeatedly bragged he has never lost a case to the “gun lobby.”

However, now that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a pair of gun ban cases in the fall, the future of Washington’s gun ban is in question, even though this state’s ban is not part of the high court’s review, set for hearing during the October 2026 session. Washington is among 10 states with such bans, and if the high court rules banning such firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment, those states—all controlled by Democrats—will have to adjust their laws, although the more likely course of action—based on recent past history following the 2022 Bruen ruling—will find those states scrambling to dance around the Court decision.

Historic FBI data has always shown that rifles of any kind, including semi-autos, are used in a fraction of all homicides. Indeed, more people are murdered every year with knives, or are beaten or bludgeoned to death, than are killed with rifles.

One fact routinely overlooked or simply ignored by the gun prohibition lobby and their allies in the Washington legislature is the number of convicted felons arrested in Seattle and elsewhere in the state for illegal possession of a firearm. Type in the phrase “Seattle police arrest felon with gun” and see what pops up on your search engine. We used Google, and immediately saw reports from March 3, April 12, April 27, and May 19. Clearly, none of these suspects obeyed any Washington gun laws, and none of the state’s strict Democrat-adopted gun laws prevented them from obtaining firearms.

As for the original question, the answer is ‘No, Everytown nor any other gun prohibition lobbying group has acknowledged—nor would they ever admit—that their gun control schemes have lived up to expectations, or legislative sales pitch.”

The truth is that anti-gunners deny they’ve failed to deliver, and instead juggle the data or simply develop lockjaw, same as when a legally-armed citizen intervenes in a criminal incident and saves lives by taking out the criminal or crazy person trying to harm innocent people. Their silence is, as usual, deafening.

---

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/b6SnQK5
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Ducks the 1791 vs. 1868 Second Amendment Fight—Again

“The United States Supreme Court has now refused again to decide this big fight between when you interpret the Second Amendment, whether it’s the year of our Lord 1791 when it was written, or is it 1868 after the Civil War, with the adoption of the 14th Amendment,” constitutional attorney and host of The Four Boxes Diner Mark W. Smith informed his followers Monday. “After the Civil War, there were three constitutional amendments that were adopted to basically expand the Bill of Rights … to all Americans, not just as applied against the federal government, preventing the federal government from stopping you from exercising these rights, but also making sure that states and local governments could no longer impact or infringe on your rights as well.”

The technical holdup is essentially one of emphasizing due process and ignoring privileges and immunities, which to a layperson seems a bit like arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Legal precedents aside, there’s a more basic argument: The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified based on the understanding of the people and their representatives with debates based on arguments posited in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist essays. There has never been a magic crystal ball that allows decisions to be based on what will happen in the future.

And while it’s inarguable that the Fourteenth Amendment mandates “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” another basic question needs to be explored:

Would the Framers have thought it necessary?

“The Founders Intended for the Bill of Rights to Apply to the States,” Second Amendment writer Brian Puckett concluded back in 2001. “[I]f we set aside any Supreme Court decisions relating to that matter, we are left with the writings of the Founders and – most important of all – the actual legal document they produced, the Constitution and its first ten Articles of Amendment.”

“Who is this guy and what are his legal qualifications to make such an assertion?” seems a legitimate question only if one ignores the arguments he makes and the questions he raises, which then makes such a challenge ad hominem, that is, a logical fallacy. What has to be refuted and dismissed are his assertions, not the man, and he offers some that naysayers need to refute, if they can.

Proof of this understanding is contained in a passage from William Rawle. In his book View of the Constitution, published in 1829, Rawle wrote about the Second Amendment: “No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give the Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under a general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any pursuit of an inordinate power either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.” [emphasis added].

In other words, Rawle says that the Second Amendment may be used as a legal argument to quash an attempt by either Congress or a state legislature to disarm the people. It cannot be any clearer that Rawle – a contemporary of the Founders and the man to whom George Washington offered an appointment as the first U.S. Attorney General – understood that the Second Amendment (and by extension the entire Bill of Rights) applied to the state governments as well as to the federal government. Keep in mind that View of the Constitution was the standard constitutional law text at Harvard until 1845 and at Dartmouth until 1860.

Rawle’s was not the only voice.

“The man most involved in writing the Constitution, James Madison  [argued] for adding a national bill of rights by pointing out that some states have insufficient bills of rights,” Puckett added. “The logical implication is that this national bill of rights will correct the problem of states that have insufficient bills of rights. Therefore, he is acknowledging that the national bill of rights will apply to the states.”

There’s another historical/legal example – from the Supreme Court — that predates the Fourteenth Amendment that must also be considered, and that was in the Dredd Scott decision, which noted:

 “It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.” [Emphasis added]

Stipulating that I’m not a lawyer versed in the intricacies of case law, just a citizen who somewhat knows how to read, I’ve seen those who are qualified admit stare decisis über alles may not be what the Founders intended, particularly when it comes to the Bill of Rights. So don’t take this as a critique of  admittedly more formally educated Second Amendment scholars. I’m not trying to start a fight.

Consider it instead a hope that they’ll add the Rawle, Madison, and Scott examples to the arguments they’ll want the High Court to consider – or cogently explain to the rest of us why they’re irrelevant in determining Founding intent.

---

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/0Uopbz1
via IFTTT

Gun-Rights Groups Tell Sixth Circuit the NFA’s SBR Registry Is Unconstitutional

A Sixth Circuit brief says 1.17 million registered SBRs are protected arms and that the federal registry rests on a 1934 drafting accident—not American historical tradition. IMG Jim Grant

One-tenth of an inch can separate an ordinary rifle from a federal felony. Now four major gun-rights organizations are asking the Sixth Circuit to explain how that arbitrary line can coexist with the Second Amendment.

The National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Second Amendment Foundation, and American Suppressor Association filed an amicus brief July 13 in United States v. Machamer. Represented by NRA attorney Joseph G.S. Greenlee, the groups argue that short-barreled rifles are protected arms and that the National Firearms Act’s registration scheme fails the Supreme Court’s history-and-tradition test.

What Happened in United States v. Machamer?

The case began with a January 2024 federal search of Christopher Machamer’s North Canton, Ohio, home and a safe at his parents’ residence. According to the FBI, agents recovered multiple AR-style rifles with approximately 9.25-inch barrels, unserialized receivers, a drill press, two CNC mills, suppressors, handguns, and other firearms. Machamer later pleaded guilty to five counts and received a sentence exceeding five years.

The constitutional question on appeal is narrower than every allegation against Machamer. The amici expressly address only 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812, 5841, and 5861(d)—the NFA’s approval, registration, and possession provisions as applied to SBRs. They do not address his separate charges for making firearms.

Amici Say SBRs Are Protected Arms

The district court rejected Machamer’s Second Amendment challenge after concluding that SBRs were “unusual or dangerous” and therefore not “Arms” covered by the Constitution. That formulation does two things the amici say Supreme Court precedent forbids.

First, Heller, Bruen, and the Court’s recent Wolford v. Lopez decision establish that the plain-text inquiry asks whether the government is restricting a bearable arm. Courts cannot load historical limitations into that first step to spare the government from defending its law. Second, the traditional exception covers weapons that are both “dangerous and unusual,” not dangerous or unusual.

Short-barreled rifles are hardly unusual. The brief reports 1,178,348 registered SBRs as of June 8, 2026, and says they may be lawfully possessed in 45 states. Americans use them for home defense, hunting, and recreational shooting. Their shorter barrels make them more maneuverable than standard rifles, while their stocks make them easier to control accurately than handguns.

The NFA’s “Historical Accident”

The amici also demolish the mythology surrounding the NFA’s barrel-length cutoff. The legislation that became the NFA did not originally target SBR possession. The minimum rifle-barrel length was added as a safe harbor after lawmakers worried that the bill’s concealable-firearm language might accidentally impose a steep tax on ordinary hunting rifles.

“The NFA’s application to short-barreled rifles was thus a historical accident and not a necessary measure to keep arms away from criminals,” the brief argues. It adds that “no one mentioned a short-barreled rifle having any criminal use” during the relevant Senate hearings.

The government’s supposed historical analogues are even less persuasive. Prosecutors cited a 1631 Virginia census that recorded arms alongside corn, cattle, hogs, goats, boats, gardens, and orchards. But that census helped ensure colonists could comply with laws requiring them to possess and carry firearms. A colonial gun mandate is not a federal gun registry.

Other examples concerned selling arms to hostile foreign powers, proof-testing defective barrels, and inspecting gunpowder storage. None required peaceful Americans to submit fingerprints and photographs, obtain advance federal permission, and enter their rifles into a national registry under threat of felony imprisonment.

Miller, Wolford, and the Trump DOJ

The government also leans on United States v. Miller, but that 1939 case concerned a short-barreled shotgun, not a rifle, and the defendant never appeared or presented evidence. More importantly, Heller and Bruen focus on arms in common use today. Constitutional protection is not frozen according to whatever evidence was missing from an uncontested record nearly 90 years ago.

AmmoLand readers have watched the NFA’s foundation weaken since Congress reduced the transfer tax on SBRs, suppressors, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs to zero. The registry survived even after its revenue rationale disappeared. Machamer now presents the Sixth Circuit with the criminal-law consequence: a paperwork regime without historical support can still send an American to federal prison for many years.

FPC President Brandon Combs put the political stakes directly on the Trump administration.

“The Trump DOJ wants courts to treat the Second Amendment like a second-class right instead of a full constitutional guarantee,” Combs said. “Fundamental rights are not privileges to be sold back to Americans through special taxes and bureaucratic permission slips.”

That is the question now before the Sixth Circuit. Can Washington turn a commonly owned rifle into contraband unless its owner receives bureaucratic permission, when the government cannot identify a comparable American tradition?

The answer should be no. A drafting accident, a livestock census, and laws against arming foreign enemies cannot justify registering American citizens—or imprisoning them for refusing to ask permission before exercising a constitutional right.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/y49HofS
via IFTTT

GOA Warns ATF’s Gun Dealer Rule Rollback Still Leaves Gun Owners Exposed

ATF’s proposal would remove the Biden rule’s formal presumptions, but GOA says it still leaves gun owners vulnerable to the same underlying enforcement theories. iStock-1398682785

The ATF’s proposed rollback of the Biden administration’s “Engaged in the Business” rule would eliminate its formal presumptions against gun owners—but it would not provide the clean break many expected.

Published in the Federal Register on May 6, the proposal would remove the provisions that presumed certain firearm sales constituted unlicensed dealing. It would also discard Biden-era restrictions on what qualifies as a personal collection. At the same time, ATF says conduct previously covered by those presumptions may still be considered circumstantial evidence when determining whether someone is dealing firearms without a license.

That distinction is now drawing opposition from Gun Owners of America, one of the plaintiffs that secured the nationwide vacatur of the Biden rule in Texas v. ATF on June 12. GOA argues that removing the presumptions while preserving some of the agency’s underlying enforcement theories leaves gun owners exposed to another round of regulatory abuse.

“ATF has proposed a replacement rule that claims to ‘rescind’ the Biden rule, but in reality keeps key parts of its legal framework in place,” GOA warned in a June 29 action alert.

The proposed regulation is not yet final, and the 2024 rule it would revise has already been struck down. The dispute is therefore no longer about whether the old rule survives. The dispute is whether ATF’s proposal fully restores the pre-Biden limits or, as GOA contends, preserves enforcement theories the Texas court rejected. Gun owners have until August 4, 2026, to submit comments on the proposal.

Why GOA Says Gun Owners Still Face Risk

In an action alert, the GOA said the initial rule “tried to twist the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to impose backdoor universal background checks by redefining who counts as a ‘dealer.'” It then flagged that the replacement “claims to ‘rescind’ the Biden rule, but in reality keeps key parts of its legal framework in place and leaves gun owners exposed.”

The objection rests on an admission the ATF makes openly. While the agency vows to drop a handful of Biden’s presumptions and pare back a few definitions, it states outright that “some sections of the Biden rule will be retained.” To GOA, that means the real threat never went anywhere.

“ATF still treats everyday behavior by gun owners as suspicious: keeping a simple list of your firearms, reselling the same model within a short window, or even just offering to sell a firearm can be used as evidence that you are ‘engaged in the business’ without a license,” the group wrote.

It pressed further, noting that “the agency continues to push the idea that intent alone can be enough evidence to prosecute law-abiding gun owners as illegal firearms traffickers, despite the court’s ruling and the clear limits Congress placed in law.”

GOA refuses to accept any surviving fragment of the regulation. “The rule must be rescinded in its entirety,” the organization declared.

The group is also arming members with a prewritten letter to fire off to regulators before the comment window shuts. That letter brands the proposal as “a recycled version of the Biden Administration’s effort to impose backdoor universal background checks through executive action rather than legislation,” language the group ties to “a clear breach of trust with America’s law-abiding gun owners.”

The message ends by pushing the ATF to “withdraw this proposal and issue a new rule that faithfully follows the plain language of federal law, respects the rights of law-abiding gun owners, and clearly rejects the flawed legal theories that federal courts have already rejected.”

Texas Court Vacated the Biden Rule Nationwide

The frustration stems from the dispute’s origins. Back in 2024, the Biden ATF signed off on a rule that sharply widened the pool of people counted as firearms dealers required to carry a federal license and process background checks. The agency built its case on the Safer Communities Act of 2022, which had already scrapped the older livelihood test and opened the door to labeling anyone who sold guns for profit a dealer.

From there, the ATF layered on rebuttable presumptions, casting routine acts like logging your own firearms, flipping the same model, or listing a gun for sale as proof of dealing without a license. GOA challenged the measure at once, and the group credits a Texas federal judge with striking down the entire rule for reaching past the authority Congress granted.

Trump’s return to the White House prompted his DOJ to draft a substitute. In late April 2026, freshly confirmed ATF Director Robert Cekada unveiled a sweeping slate of proposed rules, one purporting to cancel the “Engaged in the Business” regulation.

At first glance, it resembled an outright triumph. The catch lives in the details of the replacement, which the agency logged in the Federal Register on May 6, 2026. The filing confirms portions of the abandoned rule will remain, which means recording a personal gun collection, reselling one model inside a narrow window, or advertising a firearm for sale can still be turned against an owner, while the agency clings to the position that intent by itself justifies a trafficking charge, a theory the courts have already discarded.

GOA’s central grievance is direct, since scrapping only part of a rule amounts to no repeal. Because a federal court already voided the Biden regulation, the group contends the ATF has no legal ground to salvage a portion of it under a new title, a tactic GOA sums up as changing the wrapper while protecting the contents.

Gun Owners Have Until August 4 to Comment

The comment stage matters for reasons that reach past routine participation. Each remark becomes part of the formal administrative record judges pore over once a rule lands in court, so complaints lodged today can later show the agency ignored serious objections and behaved arbitrarily under the Administrative Procedure Act. GOA is pressing gun owners to seize the chance before it closes. “If ATF doesn’t listen, these comments build the record that will be used in future legal challenges,” the organization wrote. “Let ATF know that gun owners expect real change, not a recycled version of Biden’s universal background check rule.”

The lesson for gun owners is plain, since a rule that survives in fragments still binds the same law-abiding Americans it targeted from the start. Nothing short of a full repeal honors the plain text of federal law or the rights the Constitution already guarantees.

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/Mik0Nfo
via IFTTT

Maryland Defends Glock Ban by Treating Common Pistols Like Machine Guns

Maryland is defending SB 334, which will block future sales and transfers of many Glock and Glock-style pistols beginning January 1, 2027. IMG Duncan Johnson

The constitutional fight over Maryland’s Glock ban comes down to one question: Can the state ban law-abiding citizens from acquiring some of America’s most popular handguns because criminals can illegally modify them with an already-prohibited machinegun conversion device?

Gun-rights groups say the answer is clearly no. Maryland now says Glock-style pistols can be treated differently from other semiautomatic handguns because of what they could become after an illegal modification.

That dispute is at the center of Bathras v. Moore, the federal Second Amendment challenge to Maryland Senate Bill 334.

Amended Complaint Adds Maryland Gun Owners and Dealer

AmmoLand covered the original lawsuit after the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation sued Gov. Wes Moore and other Maryland officials on May 26—the same day Moore signed SB 334. That immediate filing leaves Maryland’s newly asserted laches defense, which requires unreasonable and prejudicial delay, with no apparent factual basis.

A June 25 amended complaint added Maryland residents David J. Bathras Sr. and Roslyn Mickens, along with Atlantic Guns in Rockville. The case is now captioned Bathras v. Moore.

Bathras owns a Glock and wants to purchase additional Glock-style pistols. He also wants to retain the ability to sell or transfer his current handgun through lawful channels. Mickens is a registered gun collector and licensed firearms instructor who also wants to acquire covered pistols.

Atlantic Guns has sold firearms in Maryland since 1950. The dealer says the law will force it to stop stocking and selling a substantial category of popular defensive handguns.

These plaintiffs are challenging a law that directly prevents them from buying, selling and transferring arms they otherwise may lawfully possess.

Maryland’s Ban Targets Factory-Built Semiautomatic Pistols

Beginning January 1, 2027, SB 334 prohibits ordinary Marylanders from manufacturing, selling, purchasing, receiving or transferring what the state calls a “machine gun convertible pistol.”

The definition targets semiautomatic pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that can supposedly be converted into a machinegun by replacing the slide’s backplate with a pistol converter. That language is expected to cover nearly every Glock, along with Glock-pattern pistols such as the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, Ruger RXM and many Shadow Systems handguns.

A first offense can bring up to three years in prison, a $5,000 fine or both.

A factory Glock is not a machinegun. It fires one round per function of the trigger. Making it fire automatically requires someone to install an illegal conversion device or otherwise unlawfully alter the firearm.

Federal law already treats the conversion device itself as a machinegun. Maryland also bans pistol converters as “rapid fire activators.” Neither prohibition is being challenged. The lawsuit is about whether Maryland can ban the unmodified handgun because someone could attach a separate piece of contraband to it. As the amended complaint states:

“That is a handgun ban. The fact that the ban targets only one category of popular handguns does not make it constitutional.”

Plaintiffs Say Heller Protects Glock-Style Pistols

The plaintiffs’ Second Amendment argument begins with District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court held that handguns are at the core of the right to armed self-defense and that commonly possessed firearms cannot be banned as “dangerous and unusual.”

Glock pistols are plainly common. The amended complaint cites sales rankings, ATF production figures, civilian market data and widespread law-enforcement use. It alleges that Glock manufactured more than half a million handguns for the American market in 2021 alone, before imported pistols are even counted.

The complaint also notes that Glock pistols are widely issued to police—including Baltimore officers. Maryland considers these handguns suitable for police defensive use while attempting to block ordinary citizens from buying the same basic firearms.

Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the plaintiffs argue, the analysis is straightforward. Glock and Glock-style pistols are bearable arms. Buying and acquiring them is necessary to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. Maryland must therefore prove that its ban is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The amended complaint says no such tradition exists.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Aimpoint COA Optic - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 885.20
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - AmeriGlo Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 592.30
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - GLOCK Night Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 565.68
	GLOCK Blue Label G19 Gen 6 9mm Pistol - Fixed Sights - 3x 15rd Mags	Primary Arms	$ 513.65

Maryland Says Glocks Are Different

Maryland’s July 13 answer disputes the plaintiffs’ central claim that Glock-style pistols are not meaningfully different from other semiautomatic handguns.

The state instead says certain Glocks are “semiautomatic firearms that are capable of being fully automatic weapons.”

That appears to be the foundation of Maryland’s Second Amendment defense: These pistols can be singled out because their design allegedly makes illegal conversion easier.

But the state’s wording blurs the difference between a lawful factory pistol and the machinegun created after someone installs an illegal conversion device. The converter is not part of the unmodified handgun. Glock does not manufacture the illegal switches, and neither do the manufacturers of Glock-pattern pistols.

The government cannot turn a legal handgun into a machinegun on paper by pointing to an illegal part that is not installed. By that logic, an AR-15 could be banned because illegal auto sears exist, or a shotgun could be prohibited because a criminal might cut down its barrel.

The constitutional analysis should concern the arm as lawfully manufactured and possessed—not a hypothetical contraband configuration.

Maryland Avoids the Common-Use Evidence

Maryland also refuses to concede that Glock pistols are among the most commonly owned handguns in America.

When responding to the complaint’s allegations about Glock’s market share, production numbers, sales rankings and law-enforcement use, the state repeatedly says it is “without knowledge or information.”

That is a remarkable position for a government defending a sweeping firearm ban. Maryland knew enough about Glock pistols to prohibit their future sale and transfer, but it now declines to acknowledge public evidence showing just how common they are.

Common use is central because Maryland cannot plausibly call a firearm “unusual” when millions are owned for lawful purposes. A handgun does not lose Second Amendment protection simply because anti-gun legislators give it a menacing new name.

The Supreme Court reinforced that point in Wolford v. Lopez. At the plain-text stage, the question is whether the regulated weapon is an “Arm.” Maryland cannot avoid that threshold by relabeling an ordinary semiautomatic pistol a “machine gun convertible pistol.”

Maryland Has Not Offered a Historical Tradition

Maryland’s answer says Bruen “speaks for itself,” but the filing identifies no Founding-era or Reconstruction-era tradition of banning ordinary handguns because criminals might illegally modify them.

The state may present a fuller historical argument in later briefs. An answer is not ordinarily where the government lays out its entire constitutional defense. Still, Maryland has now made clear where the parties disagree.

The plaintiffs say Glock-style pistols are common semiautomatic handguns protected by Heller and Bruen. Maryland says their potential for illegal conversion makes them different.

That leaves the court with a basic choice: Judge the handgun as it lawfully exists, or allow Maryland to ban it based on a crime somebody might commit with a separate illegal device.

The Second Amendment protects the actual firearm in the citizen’s holster—not the imaginary machinegun Maryland politicians have constructed around it.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/GMaK2gD
via IFTTT

Delaware Keeps Fighting to Ban Guns for Adults Under 21

In the federal challenge to HB 451, Delaware argues that binding Third Circuit precedent protecting young adults does not control restrictions on buying and possessing firearms. iStock-2217396059

Delaware is asking a federal judge to keep Birney v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, the federal challenge to the state’s under-21 gun ban, on hold.

In a July 13 filing, state officials opposed the Birney plaintiffs’ request to reopen proceedings over House Bill 451. That law was written to prohibit most adults ages 18 to 20 from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling firearms and ammunition, subject to limited exceptions.

The immediate question before U.S. District Judge Richard G. Andrews is procedural: Should the federal case remain frozen while Delaware continues defending HB 451 in state court?

Delaware says it should. The state also argues that Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police, the Third Circuit’s major ruling recognizing the Second Amendment rights of adults under 21, does not control the Birney case.

Its reason is the heart of this latest filing. Lara involved public carry, Delaware says, while Birney challenges restrictions on purchasing and possessing firearms.

That is a hard argument to square with reality. A person cannot keep a firearm he is forbidden to possess, and he cannot bear one the government prevents him from acquiring in the first place.

Delaware Wants the Federal Case Kept on Ice

HB 451 was written to prohibit most adults under 21 from purchasing, owning, possessing, or controlling firearms and ammunition, subject to limited exceptions.

As AmmoLand previously reported, Delaware Superior Court Judge Reneta L. Green-Streett ruled in August 2025 that the age-based restrictions violate Article I, Section 20 of the Delaware Constitution. She granted summary judgment to Gavin Birney, the Delaware State Sportsmen’s Association, and the Bridgeville Rifle and Pistol Club.

Delaware appealed that loss. The challengers cross-appealed, asking the Delaware Supreme Court to address the federal Second Amendment claim under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework.

Meanwhile, the parallel federal case, Birney v. Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, has been stayed since 2023. On July 10, the federal plaintiffs asked Judge Andrews for a status conference and requested that the stay be lifted.

Delaware’s response was essentially: keep waiting.

The state wants the federal case held until the Delaware Supreme Court proceedings conclude. It has also requested that the state appeal be sent back for expert reports and an evidentiary hearing concerning Delaware’s concealed-deadly-weapon licensing system.

Delaware argues that adults ages 18 to 20 who obtain a concealed-carry license are exempt from HB 451’s criminal penalties. That exception may narrow the law’s reach, but it does not change the law’s starting point: an entire class of adult citizens is prohibited unless they qualify for a government-approved escape hatch.

An exception to a ban is not the same thing as a right.

Lara Is Binding, Even If Delaware Dislikes Its Reach

The Third Circuit’s published 2025 decision in Lara held that adults ages 18 to 20 are presumptively among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

The court also examined Founding-era militia laws requiring young men to acquire arms and report for service. That history showed that young adults were expected to be armed, not treated as a prohibited class until their 21st birthdays.

AmmoLand covered the Third Circuit victory and its subsequent refusal to rehear the case en banc.

On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court denied Pennsylvania’s petition, leaving the Third Circuit judgment intact. That denial did not turn Lara into a nationwide ruling. It did, however, leave Lara as a binding precedent inside the Third Circuit, which includes Delaware.

Lara did not directly decide on a purchase-and-possession ban. The state cannot ignore Lara’s holdings that 18-to-20-year-olds are protected adults and that Founding-era history does not support treating them as a disarmed class.

Delaware’s filing instead points to out-of-circuit decisions upholding other age restrictions, emphasizing that the Supreme Court recently declined to hear appeals from those cases.

A certiorari denial is not a Supreme Court endorsement. It decides only that the justices will not hear that particular appeal. Those out-of-circuit decisions remain persuasive authority in Delaware, while Lara remains binding authority.

You Cannot Keep What You Cannot Acquire

Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros reacted to Delaware’s argument on X, calling the theory that acquiring firearms receives less protection “unserious.”

His point is straightforward. The Second Amendment does not merely prohibit the complete elimination of firearm ownership. It says the right shall not be infringed.

The Tenth Circuit made the same point in Ortega v. Grisham, a case involving New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period:

“One cannot keep or bear arms if one cannot acquire them.”

The court in Ortega rejected the threshold claim that firearm acquisition somehow falls outside the Second Amendment simply because the word “purchase” does not appear in the text.

The right to acquire arms is necessarily connected to keeping and bearing them. Otherwise, a state could destroy the right while pretending it had never technically prohibited “keeping” or “bearing.”

This argument that acquiring firearms is somehow not a right or less protected because the Second Amendment only applies to the literal “keeping” or “bearing” of arms has always been unserious.

Perhaps if the Second Amendment said “the right to keep and bear arms shall not be… https://t.co/JPPyHzQXaD

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) July 13, 2026

Delaware’s Filing Does Not Discuss Reese

Delaware cites decisions from other circuits that upheld age restrictions, but its July 13 filing does not discuss the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Reese v. ATF.

That case is particularly relevant because it involved a federal prohibition on licensed dealers selling handguns to adults under 21. The Fifth Circuit held that the right to keep and bear arms “surely implies the right to purchase them” and found no adequate Founding-era tradition supporting the restriction.

Reese is not binding in Delaware, but neither are the pro-restriction decisions Delaware wants Judge Andrews to consider. It demonstrates that the appellate disagreement is hardly one-sided, and it addresses firearm acquisition far more directly than Lara does.

A Broader Ban Demands More History, Not Less

Delaware’s basic theory turns the breadth of HB 451 into a defense. The state says Lara involved carrying a firearm during an emergency, while HB 451 involves purchasing and possessing one. But HB 451’s broader reach should require a stronger historical justification, not weaker constitutional protection.

Under Bruen, Delaware bears the burden of identifying a historical tradition supporting its restriction. Expert reports can explain that history. They cannot manufacture a Founding-era tradition that did not exist.

Judge Andrews has not yet ruled on whether the federal case will remain stayed. The July 13 filing is Delaware’s request, not a court decision.

Still, the state’s strategy is plain. It wants the federal challenge delayed while asking courts to confine Lara to the narrowest possible box.

Adults do not fall out of “the people” when they step off the sidewalk and into a gun store. If Delaware wants to disarm them, it must justify that policy with Founding-era history, not modern preferences and not a stack of certiorari denials.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/Ljo6QXf
via IFTTT

GOA Sues Pennsylvania After Veteran Denied Carry License Over 1994 Marijuana Conviction

GOA and GOF are challenging Pennsylvania’s lifetime denial of a carry license to Air Force veteran Craig Philips over a minor marijuana conviction from 1994. iStock-2196791813

In light of the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Hemani, Gun Owners of America (GOA) has filed a lawsuit challenging a Pennsylvania law that permanently bars residents with a minor misdemeanor drug conviction from obtaining a license to carry a firearm.

The case centers on Pennsylvania resident and United States Air Force veteran Craig Phillips. In 1994, Phillips was arrested and convicted for possessing a small amount of marijuana. His offense occurred long before shifting public attitudes led many states to reduce or eliminate penalties for cannabis possession.

The lawsuit, Philips v. Bivens, attacks a Pennsylvania statute that permanently denies a License to Carry Firearms (LTCF) to anyone convicted of an offense under the state’s Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act—even when the offense was minor, nonviolent, and committed decades ago.

A 1994 Misdemeanor Became a Lifetime Carry Ban

Phillips has not used any drugs since that single incident more than three decades ago. Yet Pennsylvania’s outdated law has stripped him of his constitutionally protected right to bear arms ever since. Despite evolving public opinion and scientific understanding of cannabis, the Commonwealth has refused to modernize its statutes. Now, this law-abiding gun owner and longtime GOA member has teamed up with the organization to sue and restore his God-given Second Amendment rights.

In 2024, Philips applied for a Pennsylvania carry license in Butler County. His application was denied solely because of the 1994 marijuana conviction. That denial does more than prevent Philips from carrying concealed. Without an LTCF, Pennsylvania law substantially restricts his ability to carry a handgun in a vehicle, carry openly or concealed in Philadelphia, or remain armed on public property during a declared emergency.

In other words, Pennsylvania allows Philips to own a handgun but blocks him from practically bearing that handgun for self-defense throughout much of his daily life.

Hemani Puts Pennsylvania on the Defensive

The timing of the lawsuit is no coincidence. Recently, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a unanimous 9-0 ruling in Hemani. That case addressed a federal law criminalizing firearm ownership by “unlawful users” of marijuana. Prior to the decision, it was a federal offense for individuals to possess guns while being classified as unlawful marijuana users, even if their use was infrequent or in the distant past.

The Supreme Court took up the case after the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal prohibition was inconsistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court struck down the restriction.

Under the Bruen test, courts must first examine whether the plain text of the Second Amendment covers the conduct at issue.

In Hemani, the plaintiff was indisputably a member of “the people”—the class protected by the Amendment—having reached the age of majority. The same holds true for Phillips. The conduct in Hemani involved keeping arms, while Phillips seeks to exercise the right to bear arms. Both are explicitly protected by the Second Amendment’s text.

The second step of the Bruen analysis shifts the burden to the government to demonstrate that the challenged law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This requires the state to identify relevant historical analogues, typically from the Founding era.

In Hemani, the government’s primary analogues were racist “Black Codes” enacted during the Reconstruction era to disarm newly freed Black citizens. The Supreme Court soundly rejected these as improper historical comparators. Instead, the justices noted that many of the Founding Fathers themselves consumed alcohol regularly, sometimes heavily, without forfeiting their right to keep and bear arms. The unanimous decision made clear that only those who are actively intoxicated can have their rights restricted on that basis. Passive or historical drug use does not justify a lifetime ban.

Pennsylvania Must Produce the History

This ruling creates a significant roadblock for Pennsylvania in defending its law. The Commonwealth will struggle to produce Founding-era analogues that support permanently disarming someone for a decades-old minor misdemeanor. Legal experts believe Phillips v. Bivens could become one of the first major cases to apply the Hemani standard to strike down a state-level restriction.

Beyond historical analogues, Pennsylvania faces another glaring inconsistency: the state already deems individuals like Phillips safe enough to own firearms, yet it prohibits them from carrying those same firearms for self-defense. This distinction lacks logical or constitutional support under the Bruen framework, which treats the right to keep and bear arms as a unified whole.

GOA’s involvement underscores the organization’s commitment to defending the rights of veterans and everyday Americans against government overreach. For Phillips, this lawsuit represents more than just legal advocacy—it is a fight to reclaim a fundamental liberty denied for over 30 years because of one youthful mistake.

The outcome of Phillips v. Bivens could have far-reaching implications. A victory would not only restore Phillips’ rights but also set a powerful precedent for challenging similar restrictions across the country. As post-Bruen and post-Hemani litigation continues to reshape the legal landscape, courts are increasingly forcing states to justify their gun control measures with history rather than modern policy preferences.

Gun rights advocates see this as a critical step toward ensuring that the Second Amendment’s protections are not eroded by outdated statutes or selective enforcement. For veterans like Craig Phillips, who served their country honorably, the right to self-defense should not end with a decades-old minor conviction.

---

About John Crump

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

---

from https://ift.tt/W1sDtd3
via IFTTT