James Harden Arrest Shows Even Texas Gun Owners Face Legal Traps

James Harden’s Texas gun arrest raises a question every gun owner should care about: why is the government micromanaging how someone travels with a legally owned firearm in a constitutional carry state? iStock-1899042226

James Harden probably did not expect to become a Second Amendment cautionary tale, but that is exactly what happened after his arrest in Houston.

The Cleveland Cavaliers guard was arrested June 13 on a misdemeanor charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon after police reportedly found a handgun inside a vehicle he owned or controlled. According to reports citing Harris County court records, Harden was stopped by Houston police around 3:41 a.m., booked just before 5 a.m., and later released on a $100 bond. He is scheduled to return to court June 22.

The reported issue: police allegedly saw a handgun in plain view inside the vehicle, and the gun was not in a holster.

Texas is a constitutional carry state. Texans generally do not need a government permission slip to carry a handgun if they are legally eligible to possess one. Open carry is lawful. Vehicle carry is lawful. Yet Texas still has a technical trap in its law: a handgun that is in plain view in a motor vehicle must be carried in a holster. The state does not even appear to define what kind of holster is required.

So, in a state where lawful carry is supposed to be normal, a man can still be arrested because the gun was allegedly visible and sitting loose.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said Harden’s arrest raises serious questions about why this charge was brought at all.

Andrew Gottlieb, CCRKBA’s executive director, noted that, “Harden had a gun, in Texas, which is a ‘Constitutional carry’ state where no carry license is required, open carry is legal and it was not in a holster. It was in his vehicle, allegedly in ‘plain view’ even though it probably wasn’t visible to any other motorist, but only to a police officer who approached the vehicle after it was stopped. We could argue all day long about the holster issue, but this seems like government trying to micromanage how someone travels from Point A to Point B with a legally-owned firearm in a state where gun ownership is as common as cowboy boots and sirloin steaks.”

Texas is a constitutional carry state where no carry license is required and where open carry is legal. If the gun was lawfully possessed, and if there are no hidden facts the public has not yet seen, why is the government treating a holster issue like a criminal matter?

That does not mean gun owners should ignore holsters. Quite the opposite. A good holster protects the trigger, secures the firearm, and keeps the gun under control. Responsible carry includes responsible gear. Harden, assuming the reports are accurate, would have been far better off with the handgun secured properly. But there is a difference between telling someone, “Buy a holster,” and putting him in handcuffs for not having one.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Safariland INCOG-X Right-Hand IWB Holster for Smith & Wesson M&P 9 2.0 with Weapon Lights	GunMag Warehouse	$ 102.99
	Safariland Incog-X Glock G43X/G48 IWB Holster RH Thermoplastic Gray - Sleek, Durable for Concealed Carry and Comfortable - INCOG-0-895-A-7S-CX1-61-MC	Palmetto State Armory	$ 134.00
	Safariland Incog X Multicam Holster GX4 Micro	Ammunition Depot	$ 40.99
	Safariland INCOG IWB Holster Right Hand Glock 43X, 48 with Weapon Light Polymer Gray	MidwayUSA	$ 134.00

Even in a supposedly pro-gun state like Texas, there are still plenty of hooks in the water to catch unaware gun owners.

The “plain view” issue also deserves scrutiny. Plain view to whom? Another driver? A passenger? An officer standing next to the vehicle during a traffic stop? CCRKBA pointed out that a firearm not visible to passing motorists might only become “plain view” after an officer approaches the stopped vehicle and looks inside.

Harden is famous, rich, and able to hire good lawyers. Most gun owners are not. For the average Texan, a similar arrest could mean missed work, attorney fees, court dates, and the possibility of losing firearm rights while the case crawls through the system.

Texas lawmakers should look hard at whether this law is serving public safety or simply creating another process crime for otherwise lawful gun owners. If the only allegation is an unholstered handgun in a vehicle, the sane answer is education, not prosecution.

Constitutional carry was supposed to mean the right to bear arms is not treated like a government-granted privilege. Harden’s arrest is a reminder that even in Texas, gun owners still have to watch the fine print.

Federal Judge Upholds Texas Carry Bans at Bars, Sporting Events & Racetracks

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

---

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/B2x5yWs
via IFTTT

GOA Petitions Virginia Supreme Court as “Assault Firearms” Ban Looms

GOA, VCDL, and John Crump are asking the Supreme Court of Virginia to act before Virginia’s July 1 “assault firearms” ban takes effect. IMG Jim Grant

Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation are asking the Supreme Court of Virginia to step in before Virginia’s new “assault firearms” and magazine ban takes effect on July 1.

The emergency petition, filed in Crump v. Katz, comes after the Lancaster County Circuit Court stayed the case and canceled a June 12 hearing on the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. The plaintiffs include John Crump, GOA, GOF, Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Virginia Citizens Defense Foundation.

The purpose of the filing is straightforward: force the lower court to hear the already-filed injunction motion before the law takes effect, or have the Virginia Supreme Court block the law itself while the case continues.

BREAKING

GOF, @GunOwners, & @VCDL_ORG filed a Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the Virginia Supreme Court.

The lower court’s refusal to reinstate our hearing effectively denies our request for a Temporary Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction to protect VA gun owners. https://t.co/7JBfupiQY5 pic.twitter.com/7iR21iQvRj

— Gun Owners Foundation (@GunFoundation) June 16, 2026

Virginia Democrats passed a ban on some of the most common firearms and magazines in America, and now procedural maneuvering could allow that ban to kick in before gun owners even get a hearing on their request to stop it.

GOA’s update says the plaintiffs petitioned Virginia’s high court for an urgent ruling because constitutional rights cannot wait on court scheduling games. The petition asks for a writ of mandamus compelling the Lancaster court to promptly decide the pending motion. In the alternative, it asks the Virginia Supreme Court to issue a preliminary injunction against the ban.

This is not just another “assault weapon” lawsuit. The immediate story is that gun owners are telling the Virginia Supreme Court that constitutional rights cannot be put on hold because the government wants to consolidate cases.

The timeline is important. Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed SB 749 into law on May 14. The plaintiffs sued the next day in Lancaster County Circuit Court. Within days, they filed their motion asking the court to block enforcement before July 1. A June 12 hearing was scheduled. Briefing was completed. According to the petition, the state did not object to the hearing date. Then the court stayed the case.

The reason given was that the Commonwealth had asked to consolidate multiple lawsuits challenging the ban under Virginia’s Multiple Claimant Litigation Act. That consolidation request is now before a three-judge panel, but the petition argues there is no guarantee that panel will act before July 1. In the meantime, the plaintiffs’ emergency motion sits undecided.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 5.56 Ammo 55 Gr FMJ 150rds - WM193150	Palmetto State Armory	$ 102.99 $ 91.99
	Winchester - 5.56 Nato - 5.56x45mm - 62 Grain - FMJ	True Shot Ammo	$ 110.00
	Winchester 5.56 MM M855 62 FMJ Lake City 420RDs STRIPPER CLIP (GREEN TIP)	Bereli	$ 569.00
	Winchester 5.56 NATO 55 Gr FMJ BT 500 Projectiles	Ammunition Depot	$ 68.99

If the court system waits until after July 1, gun owners may suffer the very harm they went to court to prevent.

SB 749 bans the import, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of firearms Virginia labels “assault firearms.” The definition reaches common semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns based on ordinary features such as adjustable stocks, pistol grips, threaded barrels, barrel shrouds, braces, and detachable magazines.

The law also targets magazines and similar feeding devices holding more than 15 rounds. These are standard-capacity magazines for many of the most popular firearms in the country.

Another law, SB 727, expands restrictions on the public carry of covered firearms. The petition says the amended language reaches public streets, roads, sidewalks, parks, public rights-of-way, and any place open to the public. That could include private businesses, stores, event venues, and even gun shops.

The petition argues that these laws violate Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Virginia’s Supreme Court has previously treated that right as coextensive with the Second Amendment. Under Heller and Bruen, the government cannot simply ban arms commonly owned by law-abiding citizens.

GOA Senior Vice President Erich Pratt said, “The Article I, Section 13 rights of Virginians to keep and bear arms are at stake. GOA and GOF will not sit idly by as those rights are attacked from Richmond. We hope that today’s petition to the Virginia Supreme Court will expedite a ruling on our motion for preliminary injunction, and that Virginians will remain free to purchase and carry popular firearms and magazines come July 1.”

The Virginia Supreme Court now has a narrow but critical question in front of it: Will gun owners get a ruling before the ban takes effect?

The answer should be yes. Rights do not become less important because the government wants to run out the clock. Virginians deserve a hearing before July 1, not after the damage is done.

Virginia Assault Firearms Law Sparks Chaos as Sponsors Contradict Each Other

Virginia Claims State Constitution Does Not Protect Individual Gun Rights in Crump v. Katz

---

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/jhikLDc
via IFTTT

Moser v. Nessel Challenges Michigan Pistol Purchase Permit & Registry

Moser v. Nessel challenges Michigan’s pistol purchase permit system and state-maintained handgun registry. IMG Travis Pike

Michigan gun owners are taking Attorney General Dana Nessel to federal court over the state’s pistol permission-slip system, and the lawsuit goes straight at one of the left’s favorite tools: making citizens ask the government for approval before exercising a constitutional right.

The case is Moser v. Nessel, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. The plaintiffs include four individual Michigan gun owners, the National Rifle Association, Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners, Michigan Gun Owners, and Michigan Open Carry. The defendants include Nessel, Michigan State Police Director Col. James Grady II, and several local governments and law enforcement officials involved in administering Michigan’s License to Purchase system.

At issue is Michigan’s License to Purchase, Carry, Possess, or Transport a Pistol, commonly called an LTP. Under Michigan law, people who do not have a Michigan Concealed Pistol License generally must obtain an LTP before they can purchase a pistol. That means a law-abiding adult can walk into a gun shop, be legally eligible under federal law, pass a NICS background check, and still be told that Michigan wants another layer of permission first.

The complaint argues that Michigan’s system is a discretionary licensing scheme that violates the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

After Bruen, the government cannot simply say a gun-control law sounds reasonable. It must show that the restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The plaintiffs say Michigan cannot do that. They argue there is no historical tradition that allows a state to force ordinary, law-abiding citizens to obtain a single-use government license before acquiring a common handgun for lawful purposes.

The lawsuit also attacks the way Michigan officials can deny an LTP. Under the challenged statute, an issuing authority may deny a license if it has “probable cause” to believe the applicant would be a threat to himself or others, or would commit an offense with the firearm. The plaintiffs say the standard is vague, subjective, and ripe for abuse.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 19 Gen 6 Compact 9mm (OR) 15rd Pistol, 4.02" GMB Barrel	Bereli	$ 620.00
	Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 17rd Pistol, 4.49" GMB Barrel	Bereli	$ 620.00
	Glock 17 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.49" Barrel 17+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00

Michigan has created a “shall issue” system on paper that can operate like a “may issue” system in real life.

Bruen specifically rejected licensing systems that give officials broad discretion to decide who gets to exercise the right to keep and bear arms. A constitutional right cannot depend on whether a local police department likes the applicant, trusts the applicant, or feels comfortable with the applicant.

The individual plaintiffs’ stories show how that discretion can work in practice. Dean Moser says Troy denied his LTP based on alleged prior “contacts” and an unsubstantiated suspicion. According to the complaint, the denial did not identify the source of the information, and Moser was told there was no appeal process. Later, when he tried again in Battle Creek, he says Battle Creek denied him because Troy had denied him.

Thomas Overly’s allegations are just as troubling. He says Kentwood denied his LTP application, then federal authorities later confirmed he had no prohibiting record and issued him a UPIN. A UPIN is commonly used when a person has been wrongly delayed or denied because of a records mix-up or mistaken identity issue. But according to the lawsuit, Kentwood still refused to let him submit a new application.

The due process problem should be obvious. Michigan is not merely delaying some minor government benefit. It is blocking access to a fundamental constitutional right. The plaintiffs say the state provides no clear statutory appeal process, no neutral decision-maker, no meaningful notice of what disqualified the applicant, and no reliable procedure to correct mistakes.

The lawsuit does not stop with the purchase permit. It also challenges Michigan’s pistol sales record and database system.

The complaint argues that Michigan requires pistol transaction information to be submitted to government authorities for entry into a statewide database maintained by the Michigan State Police. Those records link a specific purchaser to a specific pistol, including identifying information about the firearm.

The plaintiffs argue that Michigan’s system creates a de facto pistol registration scheme unsupported by the historical tradition required under Bruen. The complaint says the state is not merely recording that a transaction occurred. It is collecting and retaining information tying individual citizens to specific firearms.

The NRA has framed Michigan’s system as both abusive and discretionary. NRA-ILA said the regime forces law-abiding citizens to obtain a redundant government permit even though federal law already requires background checks for firearm purchases from licensed dealers. It also pointed to the subjective dangerousness standard, lack of meaningful safeguards, lack of a statutory appeals process, and database requirements linking specific firearms to individual owners.

Michigan is not just running background checks. The state is forcing citizens through an extra government approval process, giving local officials discretion to say no, offering little meaningful recourse when the system gets it wrong, and feeding pistol ownership data into a statewide law enforcement database.

The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs want the court to declare the challenged licensing and registration provisions unconstitutional, block enforcement, stop the continued collection and use of pistol ownership data, and require the destruction or deletion of records obtained under the challenged system.

Michigan built a system that treats lawful gun ownership like a privilege to be managed by police departments and state databases.

Now gun owners are asking a federal court to remind Lansing that the Bill of Rights is not a permission slip.

Armed Citizens Confront Missouri Grocery Store Shooter, Police Say They Likely Saved Lives

Ukraine Considers Civilian Firearms Reform and Armed Self-Defense

---

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/6NsZnO4
via IFTTT

Virginia Assault Firearms Law Sparks Chaos as Sponsors Contradict Each Other

Virginia’s new “assault firearms” ban is so poorly written that even the lawmakers behind it can’t agree on what it does. IMG Hank Strange

The architect of the Senate version of Virginia’s “assault firearms” laws has made the new regulations more confusing by describing what the law does and when it will be enforced. His statements directly contradict the architect’s comments on the House of Delegates version of the same bill. Not even law enforcement is sure what the truth is, leading to confusion among Virginia gun owners and those traveling into the Commonwealth.

Sen. Saddam Salim (D-Fairfax) said the law only becomes relevant if a firearm falling under the state’s definition of an assault weapon — one acquired after July 1 — is tied to another criminal act. Sen. Salim was the author of the Senate version of the bill, but it does not contain the language he referenced. This has left many confused about whether they would be violating the law if stopped for a traffic violation while transporting a covered firearm into Virginia from another state. This includes transporting the firearm to or from a range or gunsmith.

“If you happen to get (a firearm) from North Carolina, and then you come to Virginia, and you don’t commit any crimes, none of us know that you have this,” Salim said. “Law enforcement in Virginia is never going to go knock on your door and ask you, ‘Do you have a gun at your home? When did you get that?’”

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA JAKL Knurled Charging Handle - ODG	Palmetto State Armory	$ 34.99
	PSA Upper JAKL, 10.5" 5.56 NATO 1:7 Nitride, With BCG and Lower Build Kit, JAKL Smoke MOE EPT w/ Brace, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 899.99
	PSA Upper JAKL, 10.5" 5.56 NATO 1:7 Nitride, With BCG and Lower Build Kit, JAKL MOE EPT w/o Brace, ODG	Palmetto State Armory	$ 799.99
	PSA Upper JAKL, 10.5" 5.56 NATO 1:7 Nitride, With BCG and Lower Build Kit, JAKL Smoke MOE EPT w/o Brace, Smoke	Palmetto State Armory	$ 799.99

Although Salim believes the law only applies to firearms tied to a criminal act, rabidly anti-gun Del. Dan Helmer (D-Fairfax), who authored the House of Delegates version, says gun owners can be prosecuted for violating the law even if no other crime was committed. This stance directly contradicts Salim’s statements and has left many wondering how law enforcement officials will enforce the new law.

“Anybody who brings an assault weapon into Virginia after July 1 is committing a misdemeanor and could face consequences,” Helmer said. “And if you choose to break the law, you should do so knowing full well that doing so could get you caught, could land you with hefty fines, and even in jail.”

Law enforcement agencies across the state have been fielding questions from concerned citizens about the lack of clarity in the law. Many agencies and Commonwealth’s Attorneys have already said they will not enforce the new gun laws, which many view as a violation of both the United States and Virginia Constitutions. Even those who plan to enforce the ban will have to interpret the vague language, likely leading to inconsistent application across the Commonwealth. Police in Fairfax County might apply one standard, while those in Loudoun County might view the law differently.

CONFUSING ANTI-2A VIRGINIA LAWS: EVEN THE LAWS’ SPONSORS CAN’T AGREE!

RTD: Virginia law enforcement fielding questions about incoming assault weapons ban

… “Across multiple jurisdictions, officials say most questions from residents are about how it will apply in everyday… pic.twitter.com/29xAe2QIq5

— Virginia News Vanguard (@VaNewsVanguard) June 14, 2026

The stakes for gun owners are high. Violating the law can lead to a costly court battle or even the loss of one’s freedom. It also puts law enforcement officers in a precarious position — charged with enforcing a law that lacks clarity — even as some officers have vowed to uphold their oath and not infringe on the constitutionally protected rights of their fellow citizens.

There are several lawsuits at the state and federal levels challenging the new law. The state cases, including Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) backed case (Crump v. Katz) that involves this journalist, have been paused after Commonwealth Attorney General Jay Jones — who in the past has advocated for the murder of his political opponents and their children — asked the Virginia Supreme Court to merge the cases. A three-judge panel will decide whether to allow the cases to continue individually or as a merged action.

Virginia Claims State Constitution Does Not Protect Individual Gun Rights in Crump v. Katz

Virginia Judge Stays Crump v. Katz Hearing as July 1 Gun Ban Deadline Looms

---

About John Crump

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

---

from https://ift.tt/nBv3dUY
via IFTTT

Maryland Court Finds Gun Possession Alone Not Enough For Police Stop

The Appellate Court of Maryland ruled that police cannot stop a citizen based solely on firearm possession without reasonable suspicion of illegal activity. IMG Scott

In Steven Hicks v. State of Maryland, the Appellate Court of Maryland delivered a post-Bruen warning to police and prosecutors: the mere sight of a gun is not a blank check to stop, handcuff, disarm, and search a citizen.

The Appellate Court of Maryland, sitting en banc, reversed the conviction of Steven Hicks after ruling that Baltimore police violated his constitutional rights when they stopped and searched him based on the alleged sight of a handgun “printing” through his shirt. The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is applauding the ruling as another post-Bruen sign that courts are starting to understand a basic point: exercising a constitutional right is not suspicious behavior.

CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb called the Hicks ruling a “wake-up call” for Maryland police and said officers can no longer treat a constitutional right like a “regulated privilege.”

On July 5, 2023, Baltimore City police were in the area of St. Charles and Belvedere for an investigation unrelated to Hicks. Detective Mitchell Ramsey, a member of the department’s Group Violence Unit, was riding in an unmarked vehicle when he saw a group of people congregating. Hicks began walking away as the vehicle approached.

Hicks was wearing a satchel across the front of his body. According to the court opinion, Detective Ramsey said he saw the rear handle of a handgun in Hicks’ waistband and could see the angular outline of the firearm “physically printing” through Hicks’ shirt.

Ramsey got out, activated his body-worn camera, and ordered Hicks to put his hands up. Hicks asked why and immediately said he had a license. Ramsey told him he was being stopped because a firearm was printing in his waistband. Hicks was handcuffed. He repeated that he had a permit and asked if he could retrieve it.

Hicks was not a prohibited person in this case. The permit later produced had an expiration date of February 28, 2026, and no restrictions. The State stipulated that it was the permit recovered that day.

Police removed a holstered handgun from Hicks’ waistband. Officers then continued searching. A second firearm was found in Hicks’ satchel, and suspected cocaine was recovered from his pants pocket. Hicks was charged with multiple firearm and drug offenses. After the trial court denied his suppression motion, he entered a conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm with a nexus to drug trafficking and received a five-year sentence without parole. The appellate court reversed.

The key question was not whether police can protect themselves during a lawful stop. The court said they can. The problem was more fundamental: police need a lawful basis for the stop in the first place.

Before New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Maryland courts routinely treated gun possession as enough to justify a stop. That was easier for the state under the old anti-carry regime, when Maryland made ordinary people prove a “good and substantial reason” before they could exercise the right to carry a handgun in public.

Bruen changed the landscape. The Supreme Court made clear that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry a handgun outside the home for self-defense. Maryland was forced to abandon its “good and substantial reason” requirement and move into a shall-issue world.

If public carry is presumptively lawful, police cannot automatically treat the sight of a gun as evidence of a crime. The Appellate Court of Maryland said the mere possibility that someone with a gun might not have a permit is not enough. Officers need reasonable suspicion that the person is illegally possessing the firearm or is otherwise involved in criminal activity.

Hicks was licensed to carry, and the search went beyond what the Constitution allows. Armed citizens do not lose their Fourth Amendment rights simply because they are carrying a firearm.

The court did not leave much room for Maryland to spin what happened. This was not a case where police had a report of a crime, recognized Hicks as a prohibited person, or had some independent reason to believe he was carrying illegally. The State defended the stop as a gun-possession stop, and the appellate court addressed it that way.

As noted by the Appeals Court, “The case was presented…as a stop justified solely on the possession of a gun, and it was presented in the briefs on appeal the same way. That is the argument that we have addressed, and it is the basis for our conclusion that the stop was unconstitutional.”

Judge Kathryn Grill Graeff put the rule plainly.

“The police must have reasonable suspicion that the person is possessing the gun illegally or otherwise engaged in criminal activity,” Graeff wrote. “Because the officers here stopped appellant based solely on his possession of a gun, without reasonable suspicion that he was possessing the gun illegally or otherwise involved in criminal activity, they did not have reasonable suspicion to stop him. The stop, therefore, violated appellant’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable seizures.”

A firearm is not probable cause and a citizen exercising the right to bear arms does not automatically become a criminal suspect.

The ruling is not a blanket statement that armed people can never be frisked. If police lawfully stop someone for another reason and know the person is armed, the court said officers may conduct a protective frisk for safety. Gun owners should understand that distinction.

What police cannot do, at least under this ruling, is treat a gun as an automatic reasonable suspicion.

A right is not much of a right if exercising it gives the government permission to seize you. That is true for speech, religion, travel, and self-defense. The government does not get to say, “You may carry, but the moment we notice it, we can handcuff you, disarm you, search your bag, and rummage through your pockets.”

Maryland presented this case as a stop justified solely by possession of a gun, and the court rejected that theory.

Maryland officials may not like it, but the Constitution is not suspended because a citizen is armed. If the state wants to stop and search someone, it needs more than anti-gun assumptions. It needs actual reasonable suspicion.

Delaware Supreme Court Hears Challenge to Gun Ban on Adults Under 21

---

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/PF34JKN
via IFTTT

Supreme Court Lets New York’s Anti-Gun Lawfare Continue in NSSF v. James

The Supreme Court denied review in NSSF v. James, leaving New York’s public nuisance law against the firearms industry standing for now. iStock-1304844629

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. James, leaving New York’s gun-industry public nuisance law standing for now and giving anti-gun states a dangerous opening to continue their lawfare campaign against lawful gun makers, distributors, and dealers.

The Court’s June 15 order in docket No. 25-1026 says only two words that matter here: “Petition DENIED.”

That is not a ruling on the merits or an endorsement of New York Attorney General Letitia James’s attack on the firearms industry. It is not a declaration that Congress’s Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act is meaningless. But in practical terms, it leaves the Second Circuit’s bad decision in place and allows New York’s anti-PLCAA workaround to survive another day. That should concern every gun owner in America.

New York’s law was signed in 2021 by then-Governor Andrew Cuomo and was designed to expose firearm industry members to civil lawsuits under a so-called public nuisance theory. The law targets gun makers, wholesalers, distributors, and dealers for allegedly endangering public safety through the sale or marketing of firearms and ammunition.

New York wants to hold the lawful firearms industry responsible when criminals misuse guns.

That is exactly the sort of lawsuit Congress tried to stop when it passed PLCAA in 2005. Congress understood what gun-control politicians and trial lawyers were doing. They were not merely trying to win traditional lawsuits based on actual wrongdoing. They were trying to bankrupt the firearms industry through endless litigation over crimes committed by third parties.

A gun manufacturer does not commit a robbery. A distributor does not pull the trigger in a gang shooting. A licensed dealer who follows the law is not responsible because a criminal somewhere down the line breaks the law. That basic principle should not be difficult, unless the real goal is not justice but destruction of the industry.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CCI 9mm Shotshell Ammunition 10rds- - -3790	Palmetto State Armory	$ 19.99
	Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Reflex Sight - Enclosed and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 603.53
	Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Reflex Sight and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 589.22
	Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Miniature Reflex Sight and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 437.58

NSSF and 14 additional plaintiffs sued New York Attorney General Letitia James to stop enforcement of the law. The plaintiffs argued that New York was trying to overrule the judgment of Congress, regulate out-of-state businesses, and trample constitutional limits.

The case made its way through the federal courts, and the Second Circuit upheld the law in July 2025. The panel said NSSF had not met the burden for a facial, pre-enforcement challenge. It also held that New York’s statute fit within PLCAA’s “predicate exception,” did not violate the dormant Commerce Clause, and was not unconstitutionally vague.

That “predicate exception” is the heart of the fight. PLCAA generally blocks lawsuits against the firearms industry for harms caused by criminal misuse of firearms. But it allows certain lawsuits when a gun industry defendant knowingly violates a law applicable to the sale or marketing of firearms and that violation causes the harm.

New York’s trick is to write a broad, gun-specific nuisance law and then claim that any lawsuit brought under that law falls inside PLCAA’s exception. If that maneuver works, the exception swallows the rule. Congress closes the front door, and New York crawls through a side window.

That is why the Supreme Court petition mattered. AmmoLand reported in March that a major amici brief, including the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, Independence Institute, Montana, and 23 other states, warned the justices that New York’s law was not merely a local consumer-protection measure. It was an attempt to revive the same junk lawsuits Congress barred in 2005 and let one hostile state pressure the national firearms market.

The danger is not limited to New York. Once one blue state gets away with this scheme, others can copy it. The formula is simple: pass a statute aimed only at the firearms industry, dress it up as public nuisance law, claim it fits within PLCAA’s predicate exception, and then let government lawyers and private plaintiffs drag gun companies into expensive lawsuits over crimes they did not commit.

The firearms industry is not asking for special treatment. It is asking for the same basic fairness every other lawful industry receives. Ford is not sued out of existence because a drunk driver kills someone in an F-150. Anheuser-Busch is not blamed every time a criminal drives drunk after drinking beer. We do not hold kitchen knife makers responsible for stabbings. We do not sue baseball bat manufacturers every time a thug uses a bat as a weapon.

But when the product is a firearm, the left suddenly throws causation, personal responsibility, federal law, and constitutional rights into the trash.

That is the real issue here. The Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, but that right depends on the ability of Americans to acquire arms, ammunition, parts, and accessories through a functioning lawful market. If anti-gun politicians cannot ban guns outright, they try to attack the supply chain. If they cannot confiscate every rifle and handgun, they try to sue the companies that make and sell them into submission.

The end result is the same: fewer dealers, fewer manufacturers willing to serve hostile states, higher prices, less access, and a constitutional right that exists on paper while becoming harder to exercise in real life.

The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari does not end the fight, or that future application of New York’s law is lawful. It does not stop as-applied challenges if New York or private plaintiffs use the statute to pursue the exact sort of blame-the-industry lawsuits Congress meant to prohibit.

But it does mean New York’s law remains alive. It means the Second Circuit’s decision remains the law in that circuit. And it means gun owners should expect anti-gun states to take the denial as encouragement.

This is how the modern gun-control machine works. When regulations fail, they litigate. When Congress protects lawful commerce, they relabel the same old lawsuits as “public nuisance” claims and pretend nothing has changed.

The Supreme Court had a chance to stop that tactic now. It chose not to.

Gun owners, the firearms industry, and pro-Second Amendment lawmakers should treat that as a warning. PLCAA was passed because the left’s anti-gun lawfare campaign was real. New York is proving it still is.

The Supreme Court’s Sneaky-Important 2A Ruling is a Big Win for Gun Rights

---

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/zfx6Dri
via IFTTT