Massachusetts’ highest court upheld the state’s prohibition on issuing handgun carry licenses to adults under age 21. IMG Duncan Johnson
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) has ruled that the state’s law restricting firearm carry licenses to those age 21 and older is constitutional under the Second Amendment.
The decision came in Commonwealth v. Thomson (SJC-13856), decided October 20, 2026. It arose from Mikai Thomson’s December 2021 arrest in Dorchester. Police stopped a car after it ran a red light. Thomson, then 20 and riding as a passenger, fled on foot and discarded a loaded 9mm semiautomatic handgun. He was convicted of carrying a firearm without a license under G.L. c. 269, § 10(a). Massachusetts law (G.L. c. 140, § 131(d)) requires applicants to be at least 21 to obtain a license to carry. Thomson never applied for one. He appealed, arguing the age minimum violates the Second Amendment. The SJC transferred the case and, in an opinion by Justice Wolohojian, affirmed the conviction.
Massachusetts Upholds Ban on Carry Licenses for Adults Under 21
The court applied the framework from New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen (2022), as refined by United States v. Rahimi (2024). Step one asks whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct. The court assumed, without deciding, that Thomson was part of “the people” despite his age. It noted that a handgun is a bearable arm. Because the conduct was covered, the restriction was presumptively protected, and the burden shifted to the Commonwealth.
In step two, the state must show that the regulation is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation through relevantly similar analogues. Courts examine the “how” and “why” of the laws; a modern restriction need not be a historical twin. The SJC focused on founding-era militia rules. Able-bodied males (initially from age 16, later 18) were required to serve, but parents, guardians, or masters, not the minors themselves, had to furnish and equip them with the required arms. Towns supplied arms when parents could not. Towns stored and issued arms only for supervised militia duty.
The court also relied on the common-law infancy doctrine, which barred minors from entering most contracts or controlling their own earnings, so the court reasoned they generally could not acquire firearms independently because they could not control their earnings in the founding era until age 21. The court viewed these rules as temporary, age- and supervision-linked limits intended to protect young people from the consequences of immaturity.
Massachusetts’ graduated system—FID cards at younger ages with parental involvement, and unrestricted license-to-carry only at 21—was held closely analogous. Both the historical and modern schemes restrict the same group (those under 21) for a limited period, under supervision or parental involvement, for the same protective purpose. The majority concluded this satisfied Bruen and Rahimi.
Two Justices Question the Majority’s Historical Analysis
The decision was not unanimous. Justices Kafker and Wendlandt concurred in part and dissented in part, agreeing on standing but arguing that the historical analogy required more expert briefing and analysis before it could be drawn reliably. The majority leaned on the Eleventh Circuit’s en banc ruling in NRA v. Bondi, which upheld Florida’s under-21 firearm purchase ban. It gave little weight to contrary decisions from the Third Circuit (Lara), Eighth Circuit (Worth), and Fifth Circuit (Reese), which struck down various age-based restrictions on 18-to-20-year-olds. The ruling, therefore, deepens an existing circuit split on whether adults under 21 fall within the Second Amendment’s core protections and whether age-based limits have adequate historical support.
Thomson can petition the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court grants review in only about 1% of cases, but a clear and deepening split among the federal circuits on an issue that affects large numbers of adults makes a grant more likely than average. The case highlights ongoing post-Bruen disagreement over the scope of the right for young adults and the proper use of founding-era militia and capacity rules as analogues.
The Massachusetts decision leaves adults ages 18 to 20 facing sharply different interpretations of their constitutional rights depending on where they live. Federal courts have struck down restrictions on young adults purchasing or carrying firearms, while Massachusetts has concluded that those same adults may be denied handgun carry licenses until their 21st birthday.
The Second Amendment does not state that the right to keep and bear arms begins at 21. The historical record showing that young Americans were expected to be armed for militia service deserves serious examination, not reinterpretation into a justification for disarming them.
Until the U.S. Supreme Court resolves these competing interpretations, states will continue applying conflicting constitutional standards to a right that belongs to the people, not merely to those whom state legislators consider old enough to exercise it.
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
Florida, Idaho, and Mississippi officials recognize federal NFA relief, Montana lawmakers prepare legislation, and Maryland insists that federal registration requirements remain in place.
States are responding differently to ATF’s October 9 decision to stop enforcing major federal NFA registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled firearms. IMG Tim Potter
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has stopped enforcing major National Firearms Act (NFA) registration requirements nationwide, but the fight over short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and suppressors is far from over.
Since ATF issued its October 9 guidance, officials in Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, and Maryland have taken different approaches to the federal government’s retreat from NFA enforcement. Some have recognized that federal registration is no longer mandatory under the current policy, others are preparing legislation to remove state restrictions, and Maryland has instructed gun owners that its registration requirements remain firmly in place.
The differing responses reveal another obstacle standing between Americans and their Second Amendment rights: state laws built around a federal registration scheme that a federal court has found unconstitutional.
As AmmoLand previously reported, ATF’s October 9 guidance followed the federal government’s decision not to appeal the injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. The agency announced that it would no longer enforce specified NFA making, transfer, registration, and tax-stamp requirements for SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, and certain other weapons.
The nationwide relief comes through the Department of Justice’s exercise of enforcement discretion, while the federal injunction protects the plaintiffs and other covered parties. ATF also made clear that its policy does not override state or local firearms laws.
That distinction is now driving action in statehouses, attorneys general’s offices, and law enforcement agencies across the country.
Montana Lawmakers Prepare to Remove State NFA Restrictions
Montana is moving toward legislative reform following the federal developments.
State Sen. Wylie Galt of Martinsdale requested legislative drafts in September. Sen. Carl Glimm of Kila and Rep. Braxton Mitchell of Columbia Falls are also involved, with lawmakers planning corresponding bills in both chambers. Galt made his position clear:
“We never want to see the feds get ahead of Montana on protecting Second Amendment rights, so we’re going to axe these unnecessary regulations as fast as possible.”
The legislation would address state restrictions that remain an obstacle despite the federal government’s changed enforcement policy.
As promised. I’ve been working with MT Leg. Republicans on a bill to REPEAL all Montana state laws requiring ATF Form 4 tax stamps for suppressors, SBRs and SBSs in Montana.
Kudos to Senators Wylie Galt and Carl Glimm, and Rep. Braxton Mitchell. https://t.co/LTSNdONFCx
Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen has acknowledged that changes to state law are necessary. His office previously warned that federal relief does not automatically eliminate Montana’s own criminal statutes governing certain NFA firearms.
The legislative proposals have not yet been enacted. Until Montana changes its laws or receives a controlling judicial ruling, gun owners must still account for the state’s existing restrictions.
Nevertheless, the announcement establishes a path toward removing those restrictions rather than continuing to rely on federal registration as a condition of lawful ownership.
Florida Prosecutor Confirms Federal Registration Is Not Required Under His Interpretation of State Law
Florida has taken a different approach, with a state attorney examining how the federal developments affect existing Florida law.
On October 11, Brian S. Kramer, State Attorney for Florida’s Eighth Judicial Circuit, issued a memorandum to sheriffs, police chiefs, and law enforcement command staff covering Alachua, Baker, Bradford, Gilchrist, Levy, and Union counties.
Kramer addressed Florida Statute § 790.221, which generally prohibits possession of short-barreled rifles and shotguns but exempts firearms lawfully owned and possessed under federal law. His memorandum concludes that Florida law does not independently require ATF registration or a tax stamp for SBRs and SBSs that are otherwise lawfully possessed under federal law. That interpretation has consequences beyond whether a gun owner must possess an approved ATF form.
Kramer advised law enforcement that the mere possession of an SBR, SBS, or suppressor without federal registration paperwork should not, by itself, establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause for detention, search, seizure, or arrest. In other words, officers should not automatically treat an otherwise lawful firearm or suppressor as evidence of criminal activity simply because its owner lacks NFA paperwork.
The memorandum also recognizes that Florida does not independently prohibit suppressor possession and that separate restrictions involving prohibited persons, criminal use, or other unlawful circumstances remain applicable.
.@GunOwners fought the NFA, beat its registry in court, and pushed for nationwide relief. ATF now makes registration voluntary for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs & AOWs.
Florida adds no separate NFA registration requirement under 790.221. You can legally own them with no NFA forms. https://t.co/gAUIgTLjXb
Kramer’s guidance is significant because it addresses both Florida’s statutory restrictions and the Fourth Amendment protections of gun owners.
However, it is important to understand the scope of the memorandum. Kramer is an elected state attorney responsible for six counties, not Florida’s attorney general. His interpretation concerns statewide law, but it does not bind prosecutors throughout Florida or constitute a statewide court ruling.
The memorandum provides a clear example of a Florida prosecutor recognizing the practical consequences of ATF’s NFA retreat without waiting for the Legislature to rewrite the statute.
Idaho Attorney General Announces NFA Relief for Gun Owners
Labrador pointed to Idaho’s participation alongside 14 other states in the Silencer Shop Foundation litigation, which challenged the federal registration system after Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes on the covered firearms.
The Idaho attorney general’s announcement recognizes the practical effect of the federal victory for residents of a state that does not impose the same registration barriers as states such as Maryland.
However, Labrador also acknowledged a weakness in relying on federal enforcement discretion: a future administration could reverse the policy.
That possibility remains relevant throughout the country. Although DOJ declined to appeal the federal injunction, ATF’s nationwide nonenforcement policy is broader than the court’s party-specific relief.
The federal government’s retreat is a substantial victory, but the right to keep and bear arms should not depend on whether a particular administration chooses to enforce an existing statute.
Mississippi AG Confirms Suppressor Form 4 Is Voluntary
Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch has also recognized the implications of the federal guidance.
In an October 12 statement, Fitch concluded that ATF Form 4 registration is voluntary for suppressors under Mississippi law following the federal government’s change in enforcement policy.
Mississippi Code § 97-37-31 connects lawful suppressor possession to federal authorization. Fitch’s interpretation recognizes that the state’s reference to federal requirements does not independently make Form 4 registration mandatory under the current circumstances.
As AmmoLand reported on October 13, Fitch also plans to seek legislative changes during the 2027 session to remove references to federal law and address additional restrictions, including provisions concerning concealed possession of suppressors.
The American Suppressor Association welcomed Fitch’s announcement and expressed support for the planned legislative changes.
Unlike Idaho’s announcement, which expressly addressed suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs, Fitch’s October 12 statement focused on suppressors. It should not be interpreted as a blanket declaration removing all Mississippi restrictions on short-barreled firearms.
Mississippi’s approach illustrates why permanent statutory reform remains necessary even in states where officials have issued favorable interpretations of the federal developments.
Maryland State Police Insist Federal SBR Registration Remains Mandatory
While other states recognize the federal changes or prepare to remove remaining restrictions, Maryland has issued guidance reaffirming its existing registration requirements.
“The ATF’s open letter does not change Maryland’s requirements for NFA firearms.”
Maryland Public Safety § 5-203 generally prohibits possession of SBRs and SBSs unless they have been registered with the federal government in accordance with federal law, subject to statutory exceptions.
The Maryland State Police further instructed that individuals seeking to make, acquire, or transfer these firearms must continue submitting the appropriate ATF Form 1 or Form 4 and obtain approval before completing applicable Form 4473 and Maryland 77R requirements.
Maryland’s statute also places the burden on defendants to establish lawful registration when prosecuted under the provision. Violations can result in imprisonment of up to five years, a fine of up to $5,000, or both.
Maryland, unlike Montana, Florida, and Idaho, is insisting that its existing requirements remain enforceable despite ATF’s decision to stop mandating federal registration.
That creates a particularly troubling situation for gun owners. The federal government has stepped away from enforcing registration requirements for covered firearms, yet Maryland continues to condition lawful possession on compliance with that federal paperwork system.
ATF has said it will continue accepting voluntary NFA applications partly because state laws still require registration. Maryland is expressly directing gun owners to use that process.
The October 15 advisory specifically addresses SBRs and SBSs. It should not be interpreted as imposing a new federal registration requirement on suppressors.
Gun Rights Groups Target NFA Restrictions in 15 States
The conflict is not confined to the five states that have issued the announcements or proposals discussed above. On October 9, Firearms Policy Coalition announced that its attorneys had sent letters to the attorneys general of 15 states whose laws connect possession of certain firearms or suppressors to federal NFA requirements.
Those states are Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin.
FPC called on state officials to immediately stop enforcing restrictions dependent on the federal registration scheme and work toward permanent legislative repeal. The laws are not identical. Some condition possession on federal registration, while others incorporate federal authorization or compliance requirements in different ways.
The letters do not establish that each state has agreed to change its enforcement policy. They do, however, identify the next significant area of litigation and legislative action following the federal NFA victory.
The American Suppressor Association has also committed to addressing state restrictions, recognizing that federal nonenforcement does not necessarily translate into lawful possession under every state’s statutes.
The developments in Florida, Idaho, Mississippi, Montana, and Maryland demonstrate how complicated the legal landscape has become since ATF abandoned enforcement of major NFA registration requirements.
Gun owners must also remember that federal relief is not unlimited. Machine guns and destructive devices remain subject to the NFA, federal dealer-transfer requirements under the Gun Control Act still apply, and interstate transportation of SBRs and SBSs continues to require ATF Form 20 approval.
More importantly, the nationwide nonenforcement policy is not the same thing as Congress repealing the registration statutes. ATF has acknowledged that a future administration could change course, and federal law provides no automatic guarantee that currently unregistered firearms would be grandfathered if enforcement resumes.
The federal victory has exposed the problem with allowing state criminal laws to depend on a federal registration system that is no longer being enforced.
Florida’s prosecutor has recognized that possessing an unregistered SBR does not automatically establish criminal conduct. Idaho and Mississippi officials have acknowledged the federal changes. Montana lawmakers are preparing to remove their restrictions.
Maryland, meanwhile, continues to insist on federal registration as a condition of lawful possession.
The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege granted by ATF, nor should exercising it require Americans to navigate conflicting interpretations of federal and state registration laws.
The courts have already dealt a significant blow to the NFA’s registration scheme. Now state lawmakers and officials must confront the restrictions that remain.
Ending federal enforcement was a major victory. Eliminating the remaining state prohibitions and making those protections permanent is the next fight for gun owners.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
Researchers are developing AI technology that uses Wi-Fi signals to detect concealed handguns, raising concerns about government surveillance of law-abiding gun owners. AmmoLand News / AI-generated illustration
“A group of AI researchers at the Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOI) has developed an AI system that can identify concealed handguns using Wi-Fi signals, offering a non-intrusive alternative to visible cameras and cumbersome metal detectors,” computer technology site Tom’s Hardware reported Sunday. “To ensure the system could specifically distinguish a handgun from everyday items of similar shape or material, the researchers trained it on recordings of a plastic handgun, a metal water bottle, a real metal handgun, and a phone,” the report elaborates.
Prior experiments showed “ordinary Wi-Fi routers identify people with 99.5% accuracy,” and these latest controlled trials show “an average handgun-detection precision of 72.5%.” Where the system falters is “pinpointing the weapon’s exact location on the carrier, precision dropped to 53.8%. The neural network also struggles to perform accurately in unfamiliar, untested indoor layouts.”
“Planned improvements” are in the works, of course, and it’s a sure bet that government and private prohibitionist interests will be incentivized to see the system develop to where it can be as widely deployed and ubiquitous as Ring and Flock cameras.
Other systems utilizing different technologies are already out there, including ventures like the Omnilert AI gun detection system, which basically appears to recognize openly carried guns. There’s also ZeroEyes, which “detect[s] potential threats, from visible firearms and knives, to intruders,” and competitors like Brivo, “to identify brandished guns in a person’s hand…”
The adage “When seconds count, police are minutes away” comes to mind. So do warnings about false assumptions and misplaced trust.
“Police swarm student after AI security system mistakes bag of chips for gun,” Fox News reported on an Omnialert -generated fiasco last October. “Taki Allen, 16, was handcuffed by armed officers after a school security system flagged his snack as a gun.”
It wouldn’t be funny if panicked cops had opened fire.
Aside from such obvious risks and liabilities, the in-development Wi-Fi system raises all kinds of privacy and legal exposure concerns. Because the absence of metal detectors or visible cameras notwithstanding, this is hardly, as the report characterizes it, a “nonintrusive alternative.” It’s highly intrusive and overrides the entire purpose of concealed carry.
It also leaves many questions unanswered: In addition to private businesses, where gun owners at least have the option not to patronize, will the system signal blanket public areas and alert law enforcement along the lines of Shot Spotter detectors? Will notices need to be posted to avoid self-incrimination? Will detections lead to armed response arrests with the inherent dangers those present? How secure will the systems be from hackers? What will the liabilities be if a gun owner decides not to risk detection, leaves his gun at home, and ends up getting himself and/or his loved ones hurt or killed because he was rendered defenseless?
Here’s the big one: Will Fourth Amendment protections apply?
With no reasonable expectation of privacy in public places, technologies employing CCTV cameras, facial recognition, license plate scanners and the like generally don’t cross a “plain view” legal threshold, although there’s movement to reconsider how much is allowable, especially when surveillance becomes prolonged for tracking purposes.
But what if it’s a real bad guy? Since when has requiring you and I to be disarmed done anything but give predators the advantage?
Naturally, those intent on controlling not just guns but their fellow man, will be all for expanding the surveillance state if they can seize the power to do it. What laws to do that can we expect them to enact, and how will the courts react to challenges, especially if Democrats win the midterms , then take over in ’28, and start reshaping the Supreme Court to reverse Bruen, McDonald, Heller, and more?
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.
“Common sense” gun laws failed in Oregon, where an armed citizen succeeded. iStock-1489034470
The 16-year-old perpetrator who opened fire with what some reports indicate was a shotgun at the Silver Rail Elementary School in Bend, Oregon, violated several “common sense gun laws” before he was stopped by a legally-armed private citizen, whose actions are now being hailed by a wide range of people, including a national gun rights leader and Oregon’s far-left Democrat governor.
Three students, ages 5, 8, and 11, were killed, along with a teacher at the school. Two other people were wounded, a student and another teacher.
But Oregon’s Democrat U.S. Senator Ron Wyden was quick to reflexively “shoot from the lip” with a statement declaring, “My heart goes out to the innocent victims of today’s horrific shooting at Silver Rail Elementary School and their loved ones now facing the awful consequences of yet another school shooting in America. The best way to honor these victims is to at long last pass common-sense gun laws that reduce the risks of more children, parents, teachers and staff forced to live in fear of similar nightmares for their schools.”
The teenage killer brought a gun into a “gun-free” school. He had already fired that gun at a motorist outside of the school. Then, he opened fire inside the school building. He committed four homicides before being shot dead by the armed citizen who saw him enter the school and—as described by Bend Police Chief Mike Krantz during the first press briefing—”The suspect was shot by a community member who saw the suspect enter the school and pursued him and engaged him.”
All of those offenses fall within the left’s definition of “common sense” gun laws, and none of those laws, or any of the other gun control measures adopted by Oregon lawmakers in recent years prevented the perpetrator from entering the school.
The teen gunman reportedly fired at door locks in order to gain entry into the school, which immediately went into lockdown. It’s not clear how far he was able to get inside before the armed citizen intervened and stopped the rampage. So far, there is no established motive for the attack.
It was noticeable that authorities, including Gov. Tina Kotek, seemed determined to identify the heroic Samaritan as a “community member” rather than simply as an armed citizen, as if the mention on of a citizen being legally armed in public is to be avoided. To her credit, during the first press briefing, Kotek recognized the armed citizen’s timely intervention, stating, ” To the community member who heroically intervened to stop further loss of life, your actions carry a heavy emotional burden and I just want you to know my thoughts are with you as well.”
After all, Bend is located in east-central Oregon along the Deschutes River and there are a lot of armed citizens in that community. It is the county seat of Deschutes County, on the east side of the Cascade Mountain range. Bend is home to Nosler, Inc., the family-owned company founded by the late John Nosler in 1948 and now led by his grandson, which is a giant in the reloading industry. Gun owners in this part of Oregon are as common as fir and pine trees.
Even KGW News in Portland called the unidentified hero a “bystander” and “community member,” and referred to the individual with politically correct “they” and “their” pronouns.
“Once again,” Gottlieb said, “an armed citizen with a concealed carry license has intervened in a tragic incident, bringing it to an end and preventing further loss of innocent lives. We are heartbroken that three children and a teacher died in this horrendous event, but we are gratified that a local resident had the tool, and the courage, to take quick action.”
“When the need arose,” he said, “an armed citizen was fortunately there to immediately respond. We can all be proud that such people are our neighbors and friends.”
Appearing Friday morning on Fox News, Rob Chadwick—now a training advisor for the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) and former head of the Tactical Training Unit at the FBI Academy in Quantico—described the Bend hero as a “responsibly armed citizen.”
The incident uncomfortably reminds anti-gunners that gun control laws do not prevent such tragedies, whether at a school, shopping mall big box store or any other place where a determined person, regardless of age, will stage an attack.
It also underscores the importance and value of an armed citizenry, and once again reminded the country that a good guy with a gun is the best defense against a bad guy with a gun.
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.
The Supreme Court declined to review Maine’s 72-hour firearm waiting period in Beckwith v. Frey, leaving the First Circuit’s ruling in place. iStock-1413053087
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear a challenge to Maine’s mandatory 72-hour firearm waiting period, leaving law-abiding gun buyers subject to a three-day delay even after passing a background check.
The Court denied certiorari in Beckwith v. Frey, No. 26-258, on October 19, 2026, without explanation or a noted dissent. The decision leaves standing a controversial First Circuit ruling that separates the constitutional right to keep and bear arms from the ability to acquire them.
The denial is not a ruling on the constitutionality of Maine’s law. However, it leaves unresolved a significant disagreement among federal appeals courts over whether states can force Americans to wait before exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Maine’s Waiting Period Survives Another Constitutional Challenge
Maine enacted its 72-hour waiting period in 2024 following the mass shooting in Lewiston. The law requires most firearm purchasers to wait three days before taking possession, regardless of whether their federal background check has already cleared.
The law was challenged by Maine residents, firearms businesses, and gun-rights advocates, including Andrea Beckwith, a firearms instructor who has worked with domestic violence survivors seeking the means to protect themselves.
As AmmoLand previously reported, U.S. District Judge Lance Walker issued a preliminary injunction in February 2025, finding that the challengers were likely to succeed under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework. The district court determined that acquiring firearms falls within the Second Amendment’s protections and that Maine had failed to establish an adequate historical justification for its waiting period.
The First Circuit reversed that injunction in April 2026. In its opinion, the appeals court concluded that firearm acquisition is not directly protected by the Second Amendment’s plain text because purchasing a firearm occurs before keeping or carrying it.
That interpretation allowed the court to avoid requiring Maine to demonstrate that its waiting period was consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The court instead treated the delay as a presumptively lawful commercial regulation.
The constitutional problem is obvious. Americans cannot exercise their right to keep and bear arms without first acquiring them. A government empowered to delay access to firearms can obstruct the exercise of that right without directly prohibiting possession.
Federal Courts Disagree Over Gun Waiting Periods
The First Circuit’s decision stands in direct conflict with the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Ortega v. Grisham, which found New Mexico’s seven-day firearm waiting period unconstitutional. Unlike the First Circuit, the Tenth Circuit recognized that delaying a lawful purchaser’s access to a firearm burdens the Second Amendment and requires historical justification.
The challengers emphasized that disagreement in their Supreme Court petition. The Second Amendment Foundation and the National Rifle Association supported Supreme Court review. Montana and 24 other states also filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers.
AmmoLand previously covered those efforts. The petition for certiorari included the compelling case of a woman facing a stalker who purchased a firearm for home defense, passed her background check, and still had to leave the gun at the dealer. Her three-day statutory wait was extended by the store’s Sunday and Monday closures.
For Americans facing an immediate threat, a mandatory waiting period is more than an inconvenience. It can leave someone defenseless when protection is needed most.
Maine’s law remains enforceable while the underlying litigation continues. The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene leaves gun owners facing different constitutional standards depending on where they live.
The Second Amendment does not grant government officials authority to decide when law-abiding Americans have waited long enough to defend themselves. The right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes acquiring those arms, and that right cannot be conditioned on an arbitrary government-imposed waiting period. A right delayed is a right denied.
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
An armed citizen stopped the October 15 attack at Silver Rail Elementary School. Bend-La Pine Schools adopted a policy prohibiting licensed concealed carry on school grounds. iStock-944927240
“Three little kids and a teacher were shot and killed at their school today in Bend, Oregon. Two more were injured,” Sen. Mark Kelly and wife Gabby Giffords bemoaned on X Thursday. “It’s disgraceful that extremists keep blocking critical, lifesaving laws while kids die in their classrooms.”
They were hardly alone in exploiting more murders in a “gun-free” zone, this time at the Silver Rail Elementary School.
Brady used the shooting to “remember what we already know: school shootings are not inevitable.” They will be if the edicts they demand prohibit the true first responders, the victims, from fighting back.
Knowing better than to get ratioed on X, Everytown and its wholly owned Moms Demand Action subsidiary opted to do their virtue signaling on the leftist BlueSky platform, respectively attacking “unfettered access to guns” and using the “opportunity” to expand its spam list.
Democrat politicians were, as always, primed to jump on the blood-dancing bandwagon to demand more citizen disarmament.
Three little kids and a teacher were shot and killed at their school today in Bend, Oregon. Two more were injured.
Our hearts are broken and we’re angry. It’s disgraceful that extremists keep blocking critical, lifesaving laws while kids die in their classrooms.
“A teenager used a gun to murder innocent children. An educator died in a job that should not be life threatening,” Sen. Adam Schiff, seeing a potential midterm elections propaganda advantage, proselytized. “And yet the GOP majority will again resist any meaningful effort to stop the next school shooting.”
Name an anti-gun group or politician and similar opportunistic declarations will likely be at the top of their social media feeds. What they won’t tell you is succinctly stated in a Fox News headline:
Armed bystander fatally shoots suspected teen gunman after 3 children, 1 adult killed at Oregon school: feds. Three children ages 5, 8 and 11, and a teacher were killed before a ‘community member’ heroically intervened.
If not for an armed citizen, something the gun prohibitionists exist to legally discourage and eliminate, the body count would have been higher. Also left unsaid: The shooter was a 16-year-old, forbidden by Oregon law to possess a shotgun for unlawful purposes without parental/guardian consent. Speaking of which, there’s a lesson in here for Democrat-voting “Fudds,” quick to throw EBR (Evil Black Rifle) owners under the bus as long as their “sporting arms” are safe (which they ultimately won’t be once the need for useful idiots has passed).
Oregon Gov. Tina Kotek praised school staff, parents and first responders, along with the community member “who heroically intervened to stop further loss of life.” “Your actions carry a heavy emotional burden, and I just want you to know that my thoughts are with you as well,” Kotek said.
Her thoughts should be with him, as should those demanding more “gun control,” at least if they’re to be consistent. Because while the defender was acknowledged as a concealed carry permit holder, his actions still broke a major law they all demand be enforced with no exceptions.
“Hey @maxasteele, are you and @everytown going to do a press release on how the hero violated your endorsed law/policy (which this district enacted), saved many lives by doing so and should be prosecuted because of it?” a Second Amendment advocate (and frequent WarOnGuns blog contributor) asked Everytown’s Senior Director of Communications.
Hey @maxasteele are you and @everytown going to do a press release on how the hero violated your endorsed law/policy (which this district enacted), saved many lives by doing so and should be prosecuted because of it?
https://t.co/iiOfimn5JX
CC: @MorosKostas @DLoesch @ChrisLoesch https://t.co/3eAjk9VMWq
He has a point. Schools are mandated predator empowerment zones, unless they are in forward-thinking states where laws encourage programs like Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response (FASTER), so that the choice to defend themselves and their charges are not forbidden to teachers and administrators.
All the anti-gun groups and Democrats who oppose that (along with the “enforce existing gun laws” crowd) should demand the heroic citizen be prosecuted. That they won’t proves they know they’re opposing the one thing that will reduce school shooting body counts. That and they don’t have the courage of their convictions.
Daring them to do that is a great way to get more Americans, at least the ones capable of reason, to see these people for what they are.
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.
Original AI-generated editorial illustration depicting restrictions on firearm-related publishing. AmmoLand documented a ChatGPT refusal of an H&R T48 Daily Deal request on September 29, 2026.
One day after Everytown for Gun Safety published recommendations for restricting firearm-related assistance from AI chatbots, ChatGPT refused to help build an AmmoLand Daily Deal post for an H&R T48 rifle.
The September 29 refusal came just five days after ChatGPT had completed an ammunition deal article for AmmoLand. It also occurred on the date listed on OpenAI’s updated Commerce Policies, which exclude firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories from its shopping experiences.
AmmoLand’s experience matches the timeline highlighted by Lee Williams in his October 14 report about an Ohio gun shop encountering similar refusals. It gives this publication its own firsthand example of AI restrictions disrupting work involving lawful firearms commerce.
From Writing Daily Deals to Refusing Them
On September 24, ChatGPT helped produce an AmmoLand Daily Deal article and SEO package for US Cartridge 9mm subsonic ammunition, it had also helped build many deals for firearms, optics and ammunition in the past. The work included checking the offer, calculating the price per round, and preparing the article. On September 29, an H&R T48 rifle deal request received a different response.
“I can’t write an affiliate sales post, purchase CTA, or price comparison promoting the sale of this rifle.” ChatGPT replied.
When challenged, the chatbot said: “I can’t write an affiliate sales post, purchase CTA, or price comparison promoting the sale of this rifle. I can help with a neutral AmmoLand product overview of the H&R T48, including verified specifications, what distinguishes the configuration, and an SEO package without purchase links or sales language.”
During the exchange, it acknowledged that the published policy did not specifically prohibit drafting firearm affiliate articles. Nevertheless, it maintained the refusal based on its interpretation of weapons procurement.
AmmoLand was requesting publishing assistance for an article about a commercially available firearm. The chatbot had previously performed the same general type of work. Those refusals prompted this editor to move Daily Deal production away from ChatGPT and to Grok.
AmmoLand has used AI since 2022 for SEO work, fixing website code and errors, identifying broken links, and general quality control. We continue to use AI tools to find high-quality deals from our affiliate partners and create visually impactful feature images. AI is also increasingly integrated into the web-based tools we use every day. These tools have become a practical part of running a firearms news publication, which makes restrictions on ordinary, lawful work a business issue with consequences for how we serve our readers.
Ohio Gun Dealer Describes a Similar Reversal
In his report at The Gun Writer, Williams described a similar experience involving Hesseling & Sons Firearms & Gunsmithing in Lima, Ohio.
Co-owner Gennifer Hesseling told Williams she had used ChatGPT for marketing copy and advertising campaigns. Earlier this month, she requested help promoting incoming gold-plated Desert Eagle pistols. The chatbot refused.
“I was not selling anything illegal,” Hesseling told Williams. “I was asking my chatbot to assist with sales of lawful products.”
Hesseling said the business had relied on the service for more than a year. She switched to Grok, but said rebuilding her marketing workflow required substantially more time.
Her account and AmmoLand’s experience show the practical consequences: a business incorporates a service into its operations, receives useful assistance, and then encounters refusals when requesting work the service previously performed.
Everytown’s September 28 report urges AI companies to refuse specified firearm-related information, review conversations involving firearms and indications of violence or self-harm, and strengthen law-enforcement referral procedures.
Its recommendations also include providing information about red-flag orders and alternatives to firearms for home defense. Everytown further calls for companies to give greater weight to information it describes as vetted or evidence-informed. everytownresearch.org
Those recommendations raise a question gun owners should take seriously: Whose views will determine which firearms information an AI system provides, discourages, or refuses?
An organization committed to restricting gun ownership is seeking influence over tools people increasingly use for research and business. Those organizations would prefer that they are the only voice heard on the subject so that they can continue to spread their anti-gun rhetoric.
What the Policies Establish—and What Remains Unanswered
OpenAI’s Commerce Policies explicitly exclude firearms, ammunition, and firearm accessories from its shopping experiences. Those restrictions cover lawful product categories, including magazines. The policy concerns shopping listings and merchant participation. openai.com
Its broader Usage Policies, effective October 29, 2025, prohibit weapons “development, procurement, or use,” including conventional weapons. The published policies do not clearly explain how that language applies to every dealer advertising request or publisher’s affiliate article. openai.com
The chronology is clear: Everytown published September 28. OpenAI’s commerce page carries a September 29 update date. On September 29, ChatGPT refused AmmoLand’s rifle deal request.
That sequence supports questions about what happened and what appears to be a private company working as the puppet for an anti-gun group. It does not establish that Everytown directed OpenAI’s decisions or that the firearm-shopping exclusion first appeared that day. AmmoLand’s refusal, however, is a concrete event in that timeline.
Lawful firearms businesses and publishers deserve clear answers about restrictions affecting their work. Gun owners should also challenge the premise that ordinary firearms commerce belongs behind a digital barrier of censorship created by a freedom-hating group like Everytown.
The right to keep and bear arms deserves respect throughout the tools Americans use to learn, communicate, and conduct business. Artificial intelligence should respect that right as well.
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
