Virginia “Assault Firearm” Ban Challenged With Emergency Injunction

GOA, VCDL, John Crump, and other plaintiffs are asking a Virginia court to block enforcement of the state’s new “assault firearm” and magazine restrictions before they take effect. img Duncan Johnson

Virginia gun owners are not waiting around for Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s new gun-control scheme to become another legal trap.

The plaintiffs challenging Virginia’s new so-called “assault firearm” ban have now asked a Lancaster County court for emergency relief, filing a motion for a Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction against the state’s new restrictions on common firearms and standard-capacity magazines.

The motion was filed in John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation v. Colonel Jeffrey S. Katz, the lawsuit brought against the Superintendent of the Virginia State Police in his official capacity.

The underlying case challenges the gun-control package signed by Gov. Abigail Spanberger, which is scheduled to take effect July 1, 2026.

The message from the plaintiffs is simple: do not let this law take effect while the courts decide whether Virginia Democrats just trampled the Commonwealth’s own constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms.

The latest motion asks the Circuit Court for Lancaster County to block enforcement of the state’s new “assault firearm” and “large capacity ammunition feeding device” restrictions while the case moves forward. It relies on an accompanying memorandum for the detailed legal arguments, but the motion itself lays out exactly what the plaintiffs want stopped.

At the top of the list is Virginia’s new definition of “assault firearms,” along with the ban on the import, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of those firearms. The motion also targets the related penalties and derivative crimes that would flow from the new regime.

As AmmoLand previously reported, the complaint argues that Virginia’s law reaches a broad class of ordinary rifles, pistols, shotguns, magazines, and firearm configurations commonly owned by law-abiding Americans.

Virginia Democrats can call them “assault firearms” all day long. Gun owners know what is really being targeted: common semi-automatic firearms and magazines that millions of Americans use for self-defense, training, competition, collecting, and lawful commerce.

The motion also asks the court to block Virginia’s public-carry restriction for “assault firearms.” That part of the law is especially alarming because the complaint says the definition can sweep in firearms ordinary Virginians would recognize as standard defensive handguns or commonly owned long guns.

In other words, this is not just about future sales. It is about whether the Commonwealth can brand ordinary arms as politically unacceptable and then restrict how law-abiding citizens acquire, transfer, and carry them.

The plaintiffs are also seeking to block Virginia’s ban on the import, sale, barter, transfer, or purchase of “large capacity ammunition feeding devices.” That is the gun-control lobby’s preferred phrase for magazines that are standard equipment for many of America’s most popular firearms. There is nothing “large capacity” about a magazine that comes standard with a common defensive pistol or rifle. The phrase is political marketing. The practical effect is a state-imposed limit on the tools citizens may use to exercise a constitutional right.

The motion further targets the forfeiture provision that would allow prohibited “assault firearms” and “large capacity ammunition feeding devices” to be seized. That is where the threat becomes very real. Gun control is sold as paperwork, definitions, and “common sense.” Then the penalties arrive, and the forfeiture language shows up. Then ordinary citizens find out the state has turned yesterday’s lawful property into tomorrow’s felony.

The case is also notable because the complaint is brought under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The plaintiffs argue that Virginia’s own constitutional protection is at least as strong as the Second Amendment.

Either Article I, Section 13 means what it says, or it is just another constitutional promise politicians may ignore when the target is gun owners.

The complaint attacks not only the scope of the ban but also its vague language. The challenged laws use feature-based terms and definitions that leave ordinary people guessing what conduct is lawful, while giving police and prosecutors enormous discretion after the fact.

That is the pattern with modern gun control. Lawmakers who do not understand firearms write sweeping restrictions on firearms. Then gun owners, dealers, trainers, manufacturers, and journalists are told to hire lawyers and hope for the best.

John Crump’s role in this case is crucial. He is a law-abiding Virginian, concealed handgun permit holder, firearms journalist, YouTuber, and AmmoLand contributor whose work involves receiving, testing, reviewing, and discussing the types of firearms and magazines Virginia now seeks to restrict.

Crump made clear that the emergency motion is not the end of the fight. It is the opening move.

“As I have said from the beginning, this law is repugnant of the United States and Virginia Constitutions,” Crump told AmmoLand. “We, as Virginians, will use everything in our power to prevent the law from taking effect. The motion for a TRO and PI is just the start of our legal strategy.”

Virginia gun owners should not be forced to wait until July 1, get trapped by a confusing and unconstitutional law, and then beg the courts for relief after the damage is done. The whole point of emergency relief is to prevent the government from enforcing a statute that violates fundamental rights.

Once July 1 arrives, the damage is not theoretical. Lawful commerce will be banned. Events and competitions get altered or canceled. Gun owners stop buying, selling, carrying, and training because the state has made the rules broad, punitive, and unclear.

Anti-gun politicians understand that. Sometimes the point is not immediate confiscation. Sometimes the point is to make the exercise of a right risky, expensive, confusing, and legally exhausting.

This motion asks the court to stop that game before it starts.

Virginia has now become one of the major Second Amendment battlegrounds in the country. A separate federal lawsuit is also challenging Virginia’s new ban. Spanberger and anti-gun Democrats are trying to drag the Commonwealth into the same failed blue-state playbook used in places like California, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Illinois: demonize common firearms, relabel standard magazines, criminalize ordinary transactions, and dare gun owners to spend years fighting in court.

GOA, VCDL, John Crump, and the other plaintiffs are refusing to wait.

The court should grant the injunction and keep Virginia from enforcing this law while the case proceeds. A constitutional right is not supposed to be violated while politicians experiment with new ways to restrict it.

Virginia gun owners are not asking for special treatment. They are asking the court to enforce the plain promise of their own constitution: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

---

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/tHlTnUY
via IFTTT

Why the US Supreme Court Skipped AR-15s This Term — And Why It’s Coming

“The Supreme Court didn’t skip the AR-15 case this term out of hostility or neglect — they ran out of bandwidth on a generational docket, and Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already telegraphed that the AR-15 case is coming as soon as October 2026.” — Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

I’m often asked why the Supreme Court didn’t take an AR-15 or “large-capacity” magazine case this term. The implication is usually that the Court is dodging the Second Amendment. But there is another, more basic explanation: the Justices have one of the most packed, precedent-setting dockets in living memory, and Chief Justice John Roberts decided to ration the Court’s political capital for now.

To be the smartest person in the room on this, you have to start with the institutional reality. The Supreme Court hears roughly 60 to 70 cases per term on the merits docket. Every granted case demands briefing, oral argument, conference deliberation, opinion drafting, concurrences, and dissents, and the Justices have themselves and a small group of clerks. Behind the merits docket sit thousands of cert petitions a year, each one screened and assessed. And on top of all that is the emergency docket (sometimes called the “shadow docket”), which consists of urgent applications like the one Virginia just filed and lost trying to engage in mid-decade redistricting. Those applications get no oral argument but still consume enormous attention.

The Generational Docket That Crowded Out The AR-15 Ban Cases

Let’s look at what is on the merits docket this term. The Court is deciding birthright citizenship — whether children of illegal aliens and tourist visa holders are automatically American citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s deciding Mullin v. Al Otro Lado, the Remain in Mexico fight, as well as Mullin v. Doe, the case over President Trump’s authority to revoke the Temporary Protected Status that Biden handed to Haitian nationals. It has already decided Learning Resources v. Trump, addressing the President’s authority concerning tariff policy — a loss for the administration, but a separation-of-powers ruling that will be read by scholars and students for decades to come.

Then there is the executive-power blockbuster: Trump v. Slaughter, teed up to overturn Humphrey’s Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602 (1935). For ninety years, that New Deal-era precedent has forced Republican presidents to keep Democrat holdovers operating their executive agencies. If Humphrey’s Executor goes into the trash bin of history, the deep state’s statutory immunity largely goes with it.

The Court has already handed down Louisiana v. Callais and Allen v. Caster (Alabama)–two decisions that held federal judges cannot use the Voting Rights Act to force red states to draw racial majority-minority districts where the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments prohibit using race in governmental decisions. Those rulings reshaped the 2026 midterm map and served up a terrible blow to the Democrats.

On the cultural front, Chiles v. Salazar struck down Colorado’s one-way talk-therapy regime as a First Amendment violation, i.e., Colorado law said talk therapists could help individuals transition to a new gender, but those same therapists could not discourage gender transitioning. And West Virginia v. B.P.J. is teed up to decide whether states can keep biological boys out of girls’ high school sports consistent with federal Title IX.

These groundbreaking, precedent-setting cases were sitting in front of the Justices when the AR-15 and magazine cert petitions were being considered.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 20" Nitride Rifle-Length 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 Rifle W/Carry Handle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99
	PSA PA-15 16"Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE AR-15 Rifle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99

The AR-15 Fight Didn’t Make the Cut-For Now

Here is the part the cynics leave out: The Court granted cert in two important Second Amendment cases this term.

United States v. Hemani asks whether the federal government can disarm unlawful users of marijuana under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3). Wolford v. Lopez asks whether Hawaii can set as a default law that every place generally open to the public (restaurants, gas stations, laundromats, etc.) is a government-mandated gun free zone unless a CCW holder can first procure express permission to carry from the owners. Both decisions will land by the end of June. Neither is an AR-15 case, but they are precedential rulings that will shape Second Amendment doctrine for years to come.

Remember the distinction I always draw: every case is important to the parties in it, but not every case is precedential. Hemani and Wolford are precedential. The Court took the Second Amendment seriously this term. It just couldn’t take every 2A case.

Next Term Is Likely the AR-15 Term

Justice Kavanaugh signaled in spring 2025 that the Court needed to take an AR-15 case in the next term or two. That phrasing was not accidental. He was looking down the chessboard. With the executive-power, immigration, redistricting, and tariff cases eating up this term, the AR-15 fight likely gets pushed into the October 2026-June 2027 term — exactly the term Kavanaugh had telegraphed.

I think the vehicle is already in the pipeline. The Seventh Circuit’s Barnett case out of Chicago and the Third Circuit’s Cheeseman/ANJRPC case out of Philadelphia both involve state-level “assault weapons” bans, and the Trump DOJ has already weighed in on both. One of those will likely be the cert vehicle.

So when someone asks whether the Supreme Court is afraid of the AR-15 question, my answer is no. The Justices ran out of room this term due to an insanely-significant docket.

The history of the future has yet to be written, but the chessboard tells me the AR-15 case is coming next term — and when it does, the Second Amendment is going to win hugely.

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith, host of the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on YouTube, is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar. His Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the Supreme Court in NYSRPA v. Bruen and in U.S. v. Rahimi.

His most recent book is DISARMED: What the Ukraine War Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms.

---

from https://ift.tt/zFpV8Ol
via IFTTT

Minnesota “Assault Weapon” Ban Dies as DOJ Targets Gun Bans Nationwide

Minnesota’s latest gun-control push failed at the Capitol, but Minneapolis is moving ahead with its own ordinance as DOJ challenges AR-15 bans across the country. iStock-1249586582

A few days after the assassination attempt at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner, Hope Walz, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s daughter, shared some thoughts on TikTok.

“Gun control doesn’t just save Democrats’ lives, it also saves Republican lives,” She opines in a selfie. “Um, you’d think we would be at a point now where we could, um, call for some commonsense legislation. But, I don’t know: I don’t know.”

Having watched her dad’s clownish machinations to get the Minnesota Legislature to pass an assault weapons ban, it’s easy to see the apple doesn’t fall from the tree.

In a solid win for gun rights, the fat lady has sung for a ban in this session of the Minnesota Legislature. [The fat lady didn’t sing; she loudly harangued a Republican House member and allegedly made a remark that was both obscene and violent.]

Democrats in the Minnesota House have gone completely UNHINGED

When house dems didnt get the vote they wanted on the most extreme gun-grabbing bill in the country HF5140 one of their own, Rep. Gomez, actually told Republican @elliottengenMN to “go fucking kill himself.”… pic.twitter.com/nwNwZ9FjEw

— Drew Roach (@DrewRoachMN) May 15, 2026

Thanks to Speaker Lisa Demuth and the united Republicans in the evenly divided Minnesota House, HF 5140 died in committee Sunday night when the legislative session ended. HF 5140 included an assault weapons ban and other anti-gun measures.

While the Legislature was fighting over a state ban, Minneapolis mayor Jacob Frey signed a city ordinance that mirrored HF 5140.

Calling it one of the “(L)eading pieces of legislation in the entire country,” Frey said, “Think about families, think about kids that have tragically lost their lives and the many more lives that will be lost if we do not act now,”

“We’re not talking about your father’s hunting rifle.* We’re talking about the ability to reel off 20 or 30 bullets before you have to reload. We’re talking about high-capacity magazines and guns that were quite literally built to kill people in large numbers. There’s no reason to have those on our streets.”

Mayor Frey and the City Council were undeterred by Minnesota’s preemption law. Frey commented, “This is going to set us up so that if the preemption is lifted, Minneapolis won’t need to act because we already did.”

About 1,200 miles to the southeast, Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the Commonwealth’s ban into law. James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and George Mason would be so ashamed.

What is it that makes assault weapons bans so irresistible to gun control fanatics? Is it a requirement for their gun control merit badges? Is it Pavlovian conditioning or too much Kool-Aid?

Out of all the cockamamie measures on the gun-grabbers’ wish list, bans are the most useless. We know this from experience. The 1994-2004 ban didn’t reduce the number of mass shootings and had a negligible effect on violent crime. In fact, FBI Uniform Crime Reporting System statistics show the use of rifles in homicides declined more in the ten years after the ban ended than it did during the ban.

Joe Biden’s rose-colored memories, like the claims of the gun control gang, bear no resemblance to the truth. Pay no attention to them.

What is even crazier is the frenzy to pass more bans when there is a very high probability they will be ruled unconstitutional.

There have been numerous challenges to state bans. Unfortunately, they had to be litigated in U.S. Appellate courts generally sympathetic to gun control laws. This includes courts in the First, Second, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits.

Judicial excuses include the resemblance of the banned rifles to military weapons, which would be ridiculous if it weren’t absurd, and denying they are in common use for lawful purposes, even though there are an estimated 32 million in circulation in the U.S.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 20" Nitride Rifle-Length 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 Rifle W/Carry Handle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99
	PSA PA-15 16"Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE AR-15 Rifle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99

The Supreme Court has been dragging its feet. However, recent Department of Justice actions may light a fire under the justices.

Based on the court’s holdings in Heller and Bruen, the Second Amendment protects arms in common use for lawful purposes.

Using that standard, the DOJ has filed lawsuits against the District of Columbia and Denver, Colorado.

In recent comments, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said:

“I think the AR-15 ban is one that really is a kind of low-hanging fruit, because the Supreme Court held in a 9-0 opinion in the Smith and Wesson case that the AR-15 is the most commonly owned and operated rifle in the United States. And so when you add that statistic to the ruling in the Bruen and Heller decisions, which talk about firearms that are in common use and for law-abiding citizens, that leads to the inexorable conclusion that the AR-15 is presumptively legal all over America.”

“And denial of the right to own it and, in fact, criminalization of that in Denver, is something that is long overdue to be updated. And we intend to make sure they do that.”

Here’s what the Supreme Court actually said in Smith & Wesson v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos:

“Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country). The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too.”

The court’s opinion was written by Justice Elena Kagan. All nine justices concurred.

Assistant Attorney General Dhillon also intends to sue Virginia but says she will likely hold off until the court takes its summer break. While she isn’t taking any bets yet, she believes the Supreme Court will make the AR ban-proof.

See you in court! pic.twitter.com/lL37OTUOXH

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) May 15, 2026

Common sense and gun control make an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Nowhere in the known universe would garbage like the gun grabbers’ agenda make any sense at all.

*Frey’s remark about “your father’s hunting rifle” is literally straight out of the gun control playbook. He’s assuming his audience is as ignorant as he is. This is a bad idea, considering how popular hunting is in Minnesota.

The first American-made semiautomatic rifle offered to hunters was the Winchester Model 1903. The first semiautomatic rifle with a detachable magazine capable of holding more than ten rounds appeared in 1907.

The first American bolt-action rifle designed for hunters was the Savage Model 1920. Before then, bolt-action rifles were Army surplus Krag-Jorgensens and M1903 Springfields. Unlike the AR-15, these rifles really were

The Colt AR-15 Sporter went on sale 61 years ago. I am a grandfather. I hunted varmints with an AR in the days when Nixon was President.

NICS Denial Alert Turns Into 14 Days in Jail for Florida Gun Owner

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

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

ATF Director Cekada Defends $1.65B Budget Request Amid Senate Scrutiny

On Tuesday, the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee grilled agency leaders over the budgets of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the U.S. Marshals, and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA).

At the hearing, Robert Cekada, Director of the ATF, appeared alongside FBI Director Kash Patel, DEA Administrator Terrance C. Cole, and U.S. Marshals Service Director Gadyaces S. Serralta. Cekada’s testimony was described as more routine and less contentious than Patel’s. He expressed appreciation for the budget’s maintenance of current services while noting limitations on expansion.

The ATF is requesting $1.652 billion in funding for salaries and expenses. The ATF has 4,749 full-time employees (FTEs). The ATF has added 89 more FTEs compared with previous years. They are asking for $67 million more than the FY2026 budget, which Congress cut by $40 million. The ATF’s request aims to reverse last year’s cuts and enhance the Bureau’s core operations.

The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee asked Director Cekada what the budget will be used for. He highlighted several of the ATF’s new priorities. He stated that his first priority is to reduce violent crime. Director Cekada said the Bureau will focus on illegal firearms trafficking, straw purchases, and gun violence. He said the ATF will especially focus on partnerships with local and state law enforcement.

The second priority highlighted by Director Cekada is expanding “crime gun intelligence.” These tools include the NIBIN (National Integrated Ballistic Information Network) and eTrace. The Director also highlighted partnerships with institutions of higher education, such as Wichita State University. These partnerships give pause to some in the gun community who highlight the exploitation of respected universities such as Johns Hopkins University by anti-gun groups.

Piggybacking on the ATF’s first priority, Cekada said the Bureau will concentrate on supporting state and local partners. According to the ATF, prior budget cuts to the agency strained these relationships and prevented the ATF from helping these law enforcement agencies as much as they would like. He pledged not to use these funds to burden law-abiding gun owners.

This notion of not targeting the average gun owner is a welcome change from the ATF of previous presidential administrations.

Another area where the Director said the budget will be used is countering illegal explosives, arson investigations, and regulatory oversight, while emphasizing Second Amendment protections. The ATF recently issued 34 new rules to lighten the burden on the gun industry and the American gun owner. These rules included allowing firearms to be shipped to gun buyers’ doors, repealing the pistol brace rule, and simplifying the Firearms Transaction Form (ATF Form 4473).

It was also highlighted that the ATF has redirected personnel to immigration enforcement. The ATF claims that over 1,000 agents have been reassigned to help with immigration enforcement. Democratic Senators pushed back on the reallocation of these resources, claiming that the reassignments diverted from the ATF’s original mission of dealing with firearms.

Overall, Director Cekada emphasized his support for the requested budget. He believes the increase is needed to expand the agency’s capacity for traditional law enforcement missions in line with the Trump administration’s priorities.

DOJ Targets D.C. AR-15 & Suppressor Bans as Second Amendment Civil Rights Violations

---

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/Z0P7Rk5
via IFTTT

ATF Gun Trace Data Leak Puts Tiahrt Amendment Back in the Spotlight

On Thursday, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Director Robert Cekada testified before the House Oversight and Government Reform Subcommittee on Federal Law Enforcement. The hearing was titled “Privacy Protections & the Second Amendment: Examining ATF’s Relationship to the Tiahrt Amendment.”

The hearing focused on the Tiahrt Amendment, enacted as part of a 2003 DOJ appropriations bill and subsequently renewed. The amendment restricts the ATF from releasing detailed firearms trace data (such as the origin and sales chain of crime guns) to anyone outside law enforcement or prosecutors for specific criminal investigations. It prohibits the use of that data for academic research, civil lawsuits against gun manufacturers or dealers, or by cities, states, or the public. It also limits requirements for gun dealers to submit regular inventory data. The purpose of the amendment is to protect the privacy of lawful gun owners, dealers, undercover officers, and informants, while preventing data misuse that could endanger people or support gun-control lawsuits.

Chairman Clay Higgins (R-La.) expressed concern about the ATF’s inconsistent adherence to the amendment and Second Amendment protections. He called for an investigation into how trace data is being used. These concerns followed the ATF’s accidental release of unredacted data to Gun Owners of America (GOA) in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. After the release, the ATF attempted to retrieve the information from the gun-rights group. GOA refused to delete the documents, prompting the government to seek a restraining order to prevent their disclosure. The ATF and GOA are currently in court over the matter.

ATF Director Robert Cekada was the sole witness at the hearing. He was confirmed by a 59-39 vote in the Senate on April 29. The hearing revealed a clear partisan divide. Republicans focused on Second Amendment protections and alleged ATF overreach. Democrats emphasized “gun violence prevention.” Some Democrats, including Squad member Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), suggested that Cekada and other regulators were influenced by the “gun lobby.”

“The gun lobby is controlling the regulators, while our communities are paying the price,” Pressley said. “Burying loved ones and raising children in fear — the shame of it all.”

The biggest point of contention was the need for the Tiahrt Amendment. Chairman Higgins strongly defended the law and highlighted past ATF violations, especially during the Biden era, involving mishandling and data leaks. He called for stronger enforcement and possible permanent codification of the amendment. Ranking Member Summer Lee (D-PA) pushed back, criticizing the hearing for prioritizing gun industry privacy over public safety and attacking the Trump administration’s regulatory rollbacks and closure of anti-gun programs.

Director Cekada acknowledged past failures by the ATF in preventing the disclosure of protected data but said new safeguards have been implemented to avoid future accidental releases. He blamed software issues and employee errors for the past leaks. His assurances did not fully ease the committee members’ concerns, particularly regarding the existence of roughly a billion digitized records from out-of-business dealers stored at the ATF’s West Virginia facility.

Director Cekada pushed back on the notion that these records constitute a database or national registry.

Democrats criticized Cekada over the ATF’s newly revealed 34 rules intended to reduce the burden on the gun industry and American gun owners. He defended the changes, noting that none of them compromise public safety. Director Cekada emphasized that the ATF’s mission is to target violent criminals, citing more than 8,700 arrests since January 2025. He also highlighted major improvements in NFA/eForm processing times and the replacement of the ATF’s former “zero tolerance” policy for Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs) with a fairer enforcement approach.

In a notable exchange, Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ) asked Cekada what the Second Amendment means. While past ATF directors have dodged the question, Cekada answered directly. He acknowledged that the Second Amendment is about defending against tyranny, a welcome statement to many American gun owners. Rep. Crane also inquired about the case of Tate Adamiak.

Tate Adamiak should never have been imprisoned over collectible items and parts kits that ATF improperly classified as prohibited weapons.

Being a collector is not a crime, and this abuse of the NFA must be reversed.

Free Tate Adamiak. https://t.co/e1YJ6OG9uO pic.twitter.com/Me2YqaEgqY

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 15, 2026

Mr. Adamiak, a decorated Navy sailor, was convicted of NFA violations after selling a parts kit to an undercover ATF agent. He had originally purchased the kit from GunBroker. He was also convicted of possessing an RPG after buying a demilled RPG at a California flea market. The ATF had welded the hole cut into the side of the RPG closed and installed a fire control unit to reactivate it. The U.S. Attorney’s office then charged Adamiak as if he possessed a functioning RPG.

Director Cekada said the ATF is working on the case and is in contact with Adamiak’s attorneys. He noted that the Department of Justice is reviewing the matter, which is currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. Adamiak is scheduled for a rehearing in June.

AI Could Turn ATF’s 4473 Stockpile Into the Gun Registry Congress Banned

---

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/BwJ0IHu
via IFTTT

GOA, VCDL, John Crump Sue Over Virginia Assault Weapons Ban

Virginia gun-rights groups sued over Spanberger’s new assault weapons ban, magazine limits, and public carry restrictions affecting common firearms. img Duncan Johnson

Virginia’s new so-called “assault firearm” ban is already headed to court. A newly filed complaint in Lancaster County argues that the Commonwealth’s new laws do far more than target politically demonized rifles. According to the plaintiffs, the new regime criminalizes the future sale, purchase, manufacture, transfer, and even public carry of a broad class of common firearms and standard-capacity magazines that ordinary Virginians lawfully own and use every day.

The lawsuit was brought by AmmoLand contributor John Crump, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation, and Virginia Citizens Defense League against Virginia State Police Superintendent Col. Jeffrey S. Katz in his official capacity. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against Virginia’s new “assault firearm” and “large capacity ammunition feeding device” restrictions, which Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed into law on May 14, 2026, with an effective date of July 1, 2026.

Virginia Democrats have crossed the line from punishing criminal conduct to criminalizing the way law-abiding citizens buy, own, transfer, and carry ordinary firearms. The plaintiffs argue the state is trying to ban guns and magazines overwhelmingly chosen by Americans for lawful purposes.

Gun Owners of America Senior Vice President Erich Pratt put it bluntly: “Governor Spanberger has declared war on the rights of all Virginians. By banning the most commonly-owned firearms and standard-capacity magazines in America, the state is disarming law-abiding citizens, while doing absolutely nothing to stop violent crime.”

Chris Stone, Director of State Affairs for Gun Owners of America, was equally direct: “Governor Spanberger and the anti-gun Democrats in the General Assembly are proud to openly violate the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Virginians, and their glee is an afront to the motto and ethos of this commonwealth. Gun Owners of America and our friends at Virginia Citizens Defense League look forward to challenging them in court.”

The complaint is brought under Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, not the federal Second Amendment. That provision says “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” and the plaintiffs argue Virginia’s constitutional protection is at least as strong as the federal one.

Virginia courts should apply the same text-and-history framework laid down in Bruen and Heller, and under that framework, a ban on arms in common use cannot stand.

The firearms and magazines Virginia is targeting are not fringe items. They are in common use across the country. The complaint leans on modern case law and even the U.S. Supreme Court’s own recognition that AR-15 rifles are widely legal, widely purchased by ordinary consumers, and that “the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.” It also cites cases recognizing that magazines holding more than 15 rounds number in the hundreds of millions and come standard with many of America’s most popular firearms.

In other words, Virginia Democrats and Gov. Spanberger are going after firearms and magazines that sit at the center of ordinary American gun ownership.

The complaint challenges the statutory definition of “assault firearm,” the ban on importing, selling, manufacturing, purchasing, or transferring those firearms, the separate prohibition on certain sales, the public-carry restrictions, the ban on so-called “large capacity ammunition feeding devices,” and the forfeiture provisions that allow the Commonwealth to seize prohibited items. It also challenges several of the law’s terms as unconstitutionally vague under Virginia’s due process protections.

For example, the complaint argues that the law bans certain semiautomatic centerfire rifles and pistols “with” magazine capacities over 15 rounds, but never clearly explains what “with” means in practice.

Does a handgun become an “assault firearm” only when a larger magazine is inserted, or does mere proximity count?

The complaint says John Crump and gun owners do not know whether possessing a larger-capacity magazine near one of their firearms could expose them to prosecution. That is not how serious laws are supposed to work. That is how laws are written when the real target is lawful ownership itself.

The lawsuit also attacks feature-based terms such as a grip that “protrudes conspicuously” and a barrel “shroud” that partially or completely encircles the barrel. The complaint argues those terms are so imprecise that ordinary Virginians are left guessing what the law actually covers, while police and prosecutors are handed broad discretion to decide later.

Virginia’s new definitions are broad enough to reach handguns, AR-style pistols, tactical shotguns, detachable-magazine shotguns, firearms capable of accepting belt-fed devices, and ordinary magazines that exceed the state’s arbitrary 15-round limit.

The complaint specifically points to the way the law reaches centerfire pistols with magazines over 15 rounds, meaning that guns many Americans would regard as standard defensive handguns can now be swept into Virginia’s “assault firearm” category.

That connects directly to one of the most alarming parts of the case: public carry.

The complaint says a separate measure, SB727, folds in the new definition of “assault firearm” and makes it unlawful to carry such a firearm on public streets, roads, alleys, sidewalks, rights-of-way, parks, and “any other place of whatever nature that is open to the public.”

According to the plaintiffs, that means not only public property but also private property open to the public, including stores, shopping centers, event venues, and even gun stores. The complaint further argues there is no meaningful exemption for ordinary Virginians who simply want to bear arms for self-defense.

This law does not merely block future sales of common arms. According to the complaint, it also strips ordinary citizens of the ability to carry many of them in public at all.

John Crump is a law-abiding Virginian, a concealed handgun permit holder, a firearms journalist, a YouTuber, and an AmmoLand contributor who regularly reviews firearms and magazines. The complaint says his work includes receiving and testing products from federally licensed manufacturers and dealers, including products the new statutes classify as prohibited.

Crump says he wants to buy or receive a range of now-covered firearms and magazines, including a KelTec PR-5.7 pistol, a Daniel Defense DDM4 V7 rifle, Magpul PMAG magazines, Glock 17 magazines, a PSA AR-style pistol with a brace, a Benelli M4 Tactical shotgun, a Derya DY12 shotgun, parts for a belt-fed build, and components to assemble a rifle from a stripped lower. The complaint also says he wants to engage in routine conduct such as private sales, gifts, and public carry, but will refrain because of the credible threat of prosecution once the law takes effect.

Crump also framed the fight in personal and historical terms, saying: “Virginia has a deep history of firearms ownership. Our constitution is strong on the right to keep and bear arms. The framers of the Constitution would be horrified at these Draconian laws. My family has lived in the Commonwealth since before the founding of the country. It is my duty, as a Virginian, to fight back.”

The organizational plaintiffs also allege direct harm. GOA and VCDL say they conduct raffles, events, range days, and other activities involving the kinds of firearms and magazines Virginia now seeks to outlaw. GOA further says its Caliber Club network includes gun stores and ranges that will face restricted markets and lost business. This is not just a lawsuit about one man being denied one purchase. It is a challenge to a legal regime that the plaintiffs say harms gun owners, gun clubs, advocacy groups, and lawful commerce across the Commonwealth.

Virginia does not get to dodge constitutional scrutiny by pretending this law only bans sales, purchases, or transfers rather than possession. The plaintiffs argue that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire arms and magazines in the first place.

A right that exists only in theory, but cannot be exercised through lawful purchase, transfer, training, or ordinary use, is not much of a right at all.

That argument goes to the heart of the modern gun-control playbook. When they cannot immediately confiscate what people already own, gun-control activists try to strangle the supply chain, kill off lawful transfer, block future acquisition, and wait for the right to wither. This lawsuit calls that bluff.

The complaint also highlights the irrationality of the statutory scheme. It asks the court to clarify whether multi-caliber magazines remain legal if they hold 15 or fewer rounds of one caliber but more than 15 of another. Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Virginians may still manufacture magazines from raw materials, kits, and component parts because the statute bans import, sale, barter, transfer, and purchase, but not manufacture. There are also questions whether a shotgun provision covering weapons with “one of the following characteristics” actually reaches shotguns that have more than one such characteristic.

Those arguments may sound technical, but they expose a truth: lawmakers who know little about firearms keep writing laws that govern them anyway. The result is predictable — confusion for honest citizens, selective leverage for the state, and yet another pile of legal bills for taxpayers.

The penalties are no joke, either. The complaint says violations are generally Class 1 misdemeanors punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a fine of up to $2,500, with firearms and magazines subject to forfeiture. It also points to related consequences, including restrictions affecting firearm possession, concealed handgun permit eligibility, and dealer employment. That is a serious hammer to bring down on people whose real “crime” is wanting to buy the same types of guns and magazines millions of Americans already own.

At bottom, this case asks whether Virginia courts will treat Article I, Section 13 of the state constitution as a real guarantee or as an empty decoration. If the courts mean what the Constitution says, the plaintiffs have a powerful case. The state has labeled common firearms and standard magazines as forbidden items, criminalized ordinary transactions, extended that regime into public carry, and done it all with vague language that leaves law-abiding people guessing what they may lawfully possess or do.

Gun owners nationwide should pay close attention. This is not merely a fight over one bill. It is a fight over whether the Commonwealth may treat peaceable citizens as presumptive criminals for wanting the same arms, magazines, and carry options that Americans across most of the country still lawfully enjoy. If Virginia can get away with this, other blue-state politicians will take notes.

Government cannot erase a constitutional right by banning the common tools needed to exercise it.

DOJ Warns Virginia It Will Sue Over AR-15 Ban, Gun Control Bills

---

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/0y6eICb
via IFTTT

LEGO Gun Suspension a Continuation of ‘Zero Tolerance’ Bullying of Children by ‘Adults’

LEGO handgun toy image generated by Grok Imagine, an AI model from xAI.

“A woman in Georgia is questioning her son’s three-day suspension after school officials said the 8-year-old brought a small LEGO creation resembling a gun to class, sparking debate over zero-tolerance discipline policies for young students,” KVUE reported Sunday. “The mother said her son, who has autism and ADHD, did not threaten anyone or behave aggressively.”

It’s hardly the first time that school officials have reacted this way. It’s been going on for a long time.

In 2010, a fourth-grade boy playing with LEGOs during lunch faced suspension “over the two-inch toy gun carried by a standard policeman figure,” NBC 4 New York reported. The official position was made clear for all to heed:

Margie Feinberg, a spokeswoman for the Department of Education, told the Staten Island Advance that there is a no-tolerance policy for toy guns in schools.

“Connecticut School Calls Police After Student Builds Lego Gun,” Athlon Outdoors reported, adding:

“This is just the latest example of school students facing disciplinary action over firearms. A high school senior in Woodbridge, Conn. was suspended and arrested in March after posting a photo of an airsoft gun on Snapchat. In Ohio last year, a middle school student received a 10-day suspension for “liking” a photo of an airsoft gun on Instagram. In addition, a 16-year-old student in Alabama was expelled from school last year after she was caught with a toy water gun. Furthermore, a 12-year-old autistic boy was arrested last week for pointing an imaginary rifle at his art teacher.”

Then there was the seven-year-old “Pop Tart gun” boy in Maryland who bit a pastry in the shape of a gun and had his suspension upheld by a judge.

And AmmoLand reported on a three-year-old deaf boy in Nebraska named Hunter, forbidden to use sign language for his name because “the forefinger and middle fingers crossed and extended, slightly resembl[ed] the ASL sign for a gun, or a finger gun that children might make during a game of cops and robbers.”

Many more such examples can be found, but it’s pretty clear what’s going on and what the education establishment is teaching its charges about guns the minute it gets its hands on them. The engineered results are predictable: Ignorance begets fear and fear begets hate.

And, anti-bullying policies aside, the biggest bullies are teachers and administrators enforcing “zero tolerance” policies with no regard to common sense or the effects draconian intolerance has on young people looking to adults for cues on what to believe and how to behave.

Compare all this to countries like Poland, where “Weaponry class is now mandatory in Polish schools and could soon become a favorite,” and “Russian Schools Training Children to Shoot Guns.”

Some states are beginning to come on board with the basics.

“Arkansas, Tennessee and Utah are the first states to enact laws that require public schools to teach children as young as 5 the basics of gun safety and how to properly store guns in the home,” U.S. News & World Report related in 2025. It’s basically avoidance stuff, “but in Arkansas, the law allows parents to opt into alternative curriculums, such as an off-campus firearm safety course that could include live guns.” (It’s still a far cry from the way things used to be, back in the days before school shootings when the Chicago Vocational High School ROTC color guard was equipped with M1s Garands, and the armory with even more.)

None of which pleases the “commonsense gun safety” groups who, in true Opposite Day fashion, object to any form of training, thereby ensuring that if children under their influence encounter an unattended firearm, exploitable tragedy will be the likely result.  Meg Beauregard, policy counsel fellow at Everytown for Gun Safety, says leave the kids out of it and “pass laws that hold adults accountable, such as secure.”

Mandated ignorance extends to drawings of guns, and quotes from Growing Up in Santa Cruz show what “progressive” mothers demand as a universal rule:

Gina Grajewski, a Santa Cruz parent, agrees that no guns should be drawn in the classroom under any circumstance. “It’s my understanding that this is just a rule. No guns at school. No drawings. Period. No gun play. Period. No guns. Period,” said Grajewski, a PVUSD parent… One Santa Cruz parent, Kathy Vega, also takes the position of no gun pictures in schools. “I agree with the rules of not drawing guns or weapons at school,” she said. “If anything, we should try to educate our children not to touch guns in hopes that they will make that decision if they happen to be in a situation where they have access to one.”

What will happen is they will have no clue about basic rules of gun safety and be in no position to know what danger they are in.

Meanwhile, none of this will have any effect on budding predators who don’t need to build LEGO guns or draw them, as a “study determ[ining] the frequency, prevalence, and turnover in gang membership between ages 5 and 17 years in the United States” makes obvious.

Kids won’t learn how the same “adults” who demand ignorance on guns politically enable and make that inevitable, either. What they will learn is acting like normal kids used to in a simpler time will get them bullied, punished and ostracized by those in authority.

Those people would have had apoplectic meltdowns over some of the old lunchboxes kids used to bring to school.

DOJ Targets D.C. AR-15 & Suppressor Bans as Second Amendment Civil Rights Violations

---

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/ph9i2PT
via IFTTT