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

@SpanbergerForVA is on notice: 2A rights SHALL NOT BE infringed.

We are closely watching—in the event any unlawful legislation is enacted, we will sue. @CivilRights will protect the 2A rights of law-abiding citizens in Virginia.

2A Section Lawyers are standing by… pic.twitter.com/h2DfXwgaKC

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) April 10, 2026

For years, gun owners have watched blue-state politicians pass one unconstitutional restriction after another while the federal government mostly stood on the sidelines. That may be changing.

In a April 10, 2026, letter to Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger, Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon put the Commonwealth on formal notice: if Virginia enacts a slate of anti-gun bills now sitting on the governor’s desk, the U.S. Department of Justice Civil Rights Division is prepared to sue.

That is the federal government warning a state executive, in writing, that certain proposed gun-control measures appear to violate the Second Amendment and will trigger litigation if signed into law.

The biggest target named in the letter is SB 749, which DOJ says would force Virginia law enforcement agencies to participate in “a practice of unconstitutionally restricting the making, buying, or selling of AR-15s and many other semi-automatic firearms in common use.”

For ordinary gun owners, this is the heart of the issue. Anti-gun lawmakers have incessantly sought to ban the most popular rifles in America as “public safety” measures. AR-15 pattern rifles are not rare, unusual, or outside the American tradition of lawful ownership. They are among the most commonly owned rifles in the country, used for home defense, recreation, training, and competition by millions of law-abiding citizens.

Dhillon’s letter cites the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, noting the Court described AR-15s as “both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers.” She also cites Garland v. Cargill, including Justice Sotomayor’s dissent, for the proposition that AR-15s are “commonly available, semiautomatic rifles.” The letter then points to Justice Kavanaugh’s statement respecting denial of certiorari in Snope v. Brown, which referenced arms possessed by “literally tens of millions of Americans.”

In a footnote, the letter acknowledges that the Fourth Circuit currently has contrary precedent, citing Bianchi v. Brown, the case upholding Maryland’s ban on so-called assault weapons. But DOJ flatly says that the case was wrongly decided. That is a major statement. Federal agencies do not lightly send a governor a formal warning letter saying a controlling appellate decision in that circuit was wrong.

The letter also goes beyond rifle bans. Dhillon warns that bills requiring constitutionally protected firearms to be kept in an inoperable state are unconstitutional under District of Columbia v. Heller.

Gun-control advocates love to market storage mandates as “common sense,” but the actual effect is often to make a defensive firearm less useful when seconds matter most. Heller dealt with that problem directly when it struck down a requirement that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. A gun locked up in a way that prevents ready access for self-defense is not much use when someone kicks your door in at 2 a.m.

Dhillon says Virginia lawmakers have sent the governor several bills that would mirror restrictions struck down in Heller or otherwise interfere with the lawful use of protected arms for self-defense. She then broadens the warning further, stating that the General Assembly has forwarded “over 20 bills” restricting Second Amendment rights.

The Civil Rights Division has now formally created a Second Amendment Section and has already begun bringing Second Amendment cases in federal district and appellate courts. States like Virginia may no longer be able to assume they can pass whatever they want and dare private plaintiffs to spend years and fortunes challenging it.

Under Harmeet Dhillon, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division has already begun treating the Second Amendment like an actual civil right instead of a constitutional orphan. Her division sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over concealed-carry permit delays after reviewing thousands of applications, sued the District of Columbia over its ban on registering AR-15s and other common semiautomatic firearms, and sued the Virgin Islands Police Department over licensing practices DOJ said reduced the right to bear arms to a “virtual nullity.”

Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division has also filed amicus briefs backing gun owners in major appellate fights, including California’s ammunition background-check case in Rhode v. Bonta and the New Jersey challenge to bans on AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines. In other words, Virginia is not hearing empty talk. It is hearing from a DOJ Civil Rights Division that has already started building a record of intervening when governments treat the Second Amendment as optional.

Of course, gun owners should stay realistic. This letter is not a court order. It is not an injunction. It does not prevent Virginia from enacting these bills on its own. If the Governor Spanberger signs them, litigation will still take time, no matter how aggressive the DOJ chooses to be. It also does nothing to solve the news that the ATF and DOJ plan to enforce Biden-era gun control, as well as a long list of recent betrayals.

However, it is still significant that a formal warning from the Civil Rights Division was sent before the bills were signed into law. It tells Virginia lawmakers and the governor that they are not just picking a fight with gun-rights groups anymore. They may be picking a fight with the federal government as well.

That is exactly what should happen when a state moves to ban some of the most common firearms in America and restrict the ability of law-abiding citizens to keep usable arms for self-defense.

For too long, anti-gun politicians have behaved as though the Second Amendment is the one constitutional right they can regulate, narrow, and insult without consequence. Virginia may be about to learn that this approach comes with consequences after all.

If Governor Spanberger signs these bills, the next fight may not just be in Richmond. It may begin with the Department of Justice walking into federal court and telling a judge that Virginia crossed a constitutional line.

ATF to Keep Biden-Era Frames and Receivers Rule in Place

---

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/YvBrlOd
via IFTTT

Maryland Democrats Move to Ban Glock-Style Pistols

Maryland lawmakers have advanced a bill targeting many Glock-style handguns, raising major constitutional questions over a ban on common-use firearms. iStock-2187744341

Maryland lawmakers have sent a bill to Governor Wes Moore’s desk that would ban most Glock pistols and Glock clones, making it the second state in the nation, after California, to attempt a Glock ban.

Prince George’s County Democrat Del. Nicole Williams introduced the bill in the Maryland House of Delegates as HB 577. A Senate companion bill (SB 334) was introduced by Montgomery County Democrat Sen. Sara Love. Both bills passed the legislature after party-line votes. The legislation criminalizes the transfer of any pistols with a cruciform trigger bar after January 2027. These pistols include Gen 1-5 Glocks and Glock clones. Glocks are one of the most popular firearms brands in the country.

“If you currently own one, you can keep it,” said Williams during the House debate on the bill. “No one is taking your gun away. If Glock modifies its design, you can purchase that new version.”

The bill’s sponsor calls pistols with cruciform trigger bars “machine gun convertible pistols.” They point to so-called “Glock switches” as evidence that these firearms are especially dangerous.

Glock switches enable a user to convert a semi-automatic pistol into a fully automatic machine gun. These devices have largely been imported from Chinese websites. Since these devices were all produced after the passing of the 1986 Hughes Amendment, all these machine gun conversion devices (MCDs) are already illegal on the federal level and are specifically banned by Maryland state law for the general public.

The bill was supported by Michael Bloomberg’s anti-gun group Everytown for Gun Safety. The Baltimore Police Department also campaigned for the bill’s passage. Maryland and Baltimore have both sued Glock over its designs. Glock has redesigned their pistols to make them harder to convert into machine guns. While Glock changed its designs, multiple other companies still use cruciform trigger bars. Glocks remain popular choices for self-defense.

“The danger posed by a firearm modified in this manner is difficult to overstate,” the Police Department said in written testimony. Once the trigger is pulled on a converted weapon, it will “continue to fire, sometimes at a rate of up to 1,200 rounds per minute, until there is no more ammunition.”

Glocks make up a large portion of gun sales for federal firearms licensees (FFL). AmmoLand was informed that Glock sales account for 30% to 40% of all gun sales at Hafer’s Guns in Hagerstown, Maryland. The banning of these pistols will cut into the profits of gun stores, causing them financial hardship. Although Democratic lawmakers claim the law is needed for public safety, gun rights advocates say the bill’s purpose is actually to add hardship for gun owners and gun stores.

Although average Maryland citizens will be banned from acquiring the guns, the bill does have a carveout for those with special privileges. Current and retired police officers are still allowed to buy and transfer the guns. Members of the military will also be allowed to buy older Glocks and Glock clones. Many believe these special privileges are unfair for those who need the guns the most – the average citizens who live in high-crime areas.

The law is expected to be signed by Governor Moore. Legal commentators expect the restriction to be challenged in court because it is constitutionally doubtful.

The United States Supreme Court ruled in Heller that arms in common use cannot be banned. Glock-style pistols are among the most common firearms in the country, accounting for a large share of pistol sales. The Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen opinion also stated that if a conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, the state must provide analogues from the founding era to prove a law is consistent with the history and tradition of the nation’s firearms regulations. Maryland will have a hard time providing those analogues.

If the two anti-gun states’ laws are upheld, it could start a tidal wave of bans across liberal states.

First Circuit Says Second Amendment Does Not Protect Buying Guns in Beckwith v. Frey

---

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/fqb8tI9
via IFTTT

California’s 11% Gun and Ammo Tax Faces Major Second Amendment Challenge

Gun dealers are asking a California court to strike AB 28’s 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition as unconstitutional. IMG iStock-1189937492

California’s 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition is now facing a serious constitutional challenge, and this time the argument is being put to the court in a posture that could bring a decisive ruling without waiting for a full trial.

In a motion for summary judgment filed in Poway Weapons & Gear v. Gonzales, Poway Weapons & Gear and Sacramento Gun Range are asking the Sacramento County Superior Court to rule that AB 28’s tax scheme violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.

At the center of this case is a question every gun owner should be asking: Can a hostile state deliberately price the Second Amendment out of reach for ordinary Americans simply because the people in power despise the right itself?

California’s AB 28 slapped an 11% excise tax on the retail sale of firearms, firearm precursor parts, and ammunition starting July 1, 2024. Technically, Sacramento put the burden on licensed dealers, manufacturers, and ammunition vendors. In reality, everyone knew from day one who was really going to pay for it: the law-abiding gun buyer standing at the counter. That is exactly how it has played out, with dealers adding the charge as a line item on receipts. So while politicians can pretend this is just a tax on industry, ordinary Californians are the ones getting hit with yet another deliberate attempt to make lawful gun ownership more expensive, more burdensome, and harder to exercise.

California will try to hide behind the same tired bureaucratic excuse that this is somehow just a tax on businesses. That is nonsense.

When the state deliberately targets the sale of constitutionally protected firearms and ammunition, knowing full well the bill will be dumped on the backs of the very people trying to lawfully buy them, it is not innocently regulating commerce. It is putting a price tag on the exercise of a constitutional right.

The plaintiffs argue that under Heller, McDonald, and especially Bruen, the Second Amendment does not just protect some hollow, paper right that kicks in only after a firearm is already in your safe. It protects the ability of law-abiding Americans to actually acquire the firearms and ammunition needed to exercise that right in the first place. A right to keep and bear arms is worthless if the government can choke it off at the gun counter by piling targeted taxes and financial barriers onto the very tools the Constitution protects.

California is not going for an outright gun ban here because it knows that would draw immediate fire in court. Instead, it is using the same backdoor playbook anti-gun governments always reach for when a direct attack is harder to pull off. Jack up the cost, bury people in paperwork, and pile on enough regulatory friction that exercising the Second Amendment becomes more difficult, more expensive, and less within reach for ordinary citizens. For years, hostile states have tried to smother gun rights from every angle while pretending they are not really attacking the right itself.

The motion leans heavily on a principle the Supreme Court has recognized in other contexts for decades: government cannot single out the exercise of a constitutional right for special taxation.

The brief points to cases involving the press, voting, and religious exercise, where courts rejected attempts to impose targeted taxes on protected conduct. The reasoning is straightforward and powerful. The state cannot put a special tax on newspapers because it dislikes the press. It cannot put a tax on voting because it wants fewer people to cast ballots. It cannot demand payment as the price of exercising a constitutional liberty and then pretend that liberty is still fully intact.

California would never dare announce an 11% surcharge on attending church, publishing a newspaper, or voting in an election. But when it comes to gun rights, politicians in the state still act as though the normal constitutional rules are optional. That is exactly the mindset the Supreme Court was supposed to shut down when it reminded lower courts and hostile states alike that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.

SAF’s Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack drove the point home, framing California’s tax for what it really is: an attempt to put a price tag on the exercise of a constitutional right.

“Fundamental rights cannot be hidden by the state behind a paywall,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that conduct protected by a constitutional right cannot, for any reason, be singled out for special taxation. The right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment is meaningless if the government has the power to prevent the acquisition of arms and ammunition in the first place. And the power to tax is exactly that – the power to make unavailable. The present tax rate itself is immaterial, the authority to tax a fundamental right at 11% is the authority to tax it 150%. And anyone even superficially aware of California lawmakers’ tendencies know how much they love taxes and hate your gun rights.”

Firearms Policy Coalition President Brandon Combs made the same point in even blunter terms, arguing that California’s tax scheme is unconstitutional and deliberately punitive.

“This unlawful tax scheme is designed to destroy the right to keep and bear arms, and California cannot be allowed to get away with it. You cannot specially tax the exercise of a constitutional right – full stop. If courts allow an 11% tax today, nothing stops them from making it 50% or 100% tomorrow. We are suing to end this direct attack on the rights of peaceable people, and we intend to win,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.

That is why California should get nowhere with the argument that it is only 11%, as if a smaller infringement somehow stops being an infringement. The problem is not the exact number. The problem is that the state is claiming the power to single out a constitutional right for special financial punishment in the first place. Once government gets away with taxing a protected liberty just to make people think twice about exercising it, there is no real limiting principle left. The power to tax a right becomes the power to destroy.

Poway Weapons & Gear remitted $34,666 for the third quarter of 2024 alone, then continued paying significant sums quarter after quarter. Sacramento Gun Range did the same, paying $24,640 for that same quarter before later making additional quarterly payments in the tens of thousands. Those are real financial hits on ordinary gun businesses, and because those costs get passed straight through to the counter, they become direct burdens on law-abiding Californians trying to legally buy firearms and ammunition.

If this tax survives, there is every reason to expect other anti-gun states to copy the model. Lawmakers hostile to the right to keep and bear arms are always looking for new ways to discourage ownership without running headlong into a direct ban that will get them hauled into court. A targeted tax fits that strategy perfectly. Dress it up as public safety, assign the revenue to some politically marketable fund, and then pretend you are not really burdening a right even while you make it more expensive to exercise.

“California is the primordial ooze from which new novel Second Amendment infringement tactics are born,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “If this tax is allowed to stand, it’s only a matter of time before every non-2A friendly state across America adopts similar legislation. California taxes gas to dissuade people from driving and cigarettes to dissuade people from smoking, so it’s no secret what the state doing here: taxing guns to dissuade people from exercising their rights.”

This is not about whether California can squeeze more money out of gun stores and gun buyers. It is about whether a hostile state government can use taxation as a weapon against a constitutional liberty it dislikes.

The plaintiffs also come into court with a cleaner posture than a lot of challengers do. They paid the tax, filed refund requests, and went through the administrative process, only to be told that the tax agency lacked authority to grant relief on constitutional grounds unless a higher court had already struck the law down. In other words, the agency effectively admitted the real question has to be answered by the judiciary. That is where the case now stands. The dealers exhausted the process and are now asking the court to decide the legal issue directly.

If California can put the Second Amendment behind a paywall, other states will try it too.

And if courts bless that strategy, then the right to keep and bear arms will remain on the books while being steadily priced further out of reach for the very people it was meant to protect.

SCOTUS Lets Illinois Public Transit Carry Ban Stand, Leaving a Dangerous “Sensitive Places” Theory in Place

 

---

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/NKk8xQO
via IFTTT

Hemani at SCOTUS: Will Marijuana Users Stay Banned From Gun Ownership?

The Supreme Court’s review of United States v. Hemani could become one of the most important gun-rights cases in years, especially for gun owners caught in the legal gray zone created by state marijuana laws and federal firearms prohibitions. iStock-2165461881

Early last month, the Supreme Court heard United States v. Hemani, a challenge to 18 U.S. Code §922(g)(3). This is the prohibition on firearm possession by anyone “(W)ho is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”

The Federal Firearms Act of 1938 contained the first bans, which applied to those convicted of “crimes of violence.”

“The term ‘crime of violence’ means murder, manslaughter, rape, mayhem, kidnapping, burglary, housebreaking; assault with intent to kill, commit rape, or rob; assault with a dangerous weapon, or assault with intent to commit any offense punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.”

On April 27, 1961, Senate Bill 1750, “An Act to strengthen the Federal Firearms Act” was introduced.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That section 1 of the Federal Firearms Act, as amended (52 Stat. 1250; 15 U.S.C. 901-909), is further amended by repealing paragraph (6), by deleting the words “crime of violence” in paragraph (7) and inserting in lieu thereof the words “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”, and by renumbering paragraphs (7) and (8) as paragraphs (6) and ( 7 ).

“SEC. 2. Section 2 of such Act is amended by deleting the words “crime of violence” in subsections ( d ), (e), and (f) and inserting in lieu thereof the words “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year”.

The bill passed the Senate on June 13, 1961; the House approved it on September 19; and became Public Law 87-342 on October 3, 1961.

For the first time, it didn’t matter whether an offense was described as violent or nonviolent, a felony or a misdemeanor. Even if the sentence was suspended or the judgment included no jail time, a lifetime ban was imposed.

In 1968, possession of marijuana was a felony virtually anywhere in the United States. The rise of the counterculture and the increasingly widespread use of marijuana, psychedelics like LSD, opiates, and other substances was a hot-button issue. It was no surprise to see a new class of prohibited persons added to the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Ironically, just about seven months after the GCA ’68 became effective, the Supreme Court declared the Marijuana Tax Act of 1937 unconstitutional. The case was Leary v. United States.

The Marijuana Tax Act was the federal government’s first law that specifically regulated marijuana. It was a revenue measure based on the National Firearms Act of 1934. The actual crimes were possession of untaxed weed and failing to have the required federal license.

After the Supreme Court’s decision, Congress repealed the law. It was replaced by the Controlled Substances Act of 1970.

Today, virtually all states allow for at least medicinal use of marijuana. Twenty-four states have legalized adult recreational use; the rest have reduced simple possession of small amounts to a misdemeanor.

This includes the federal government: Possession of a small amount of marijuana is now a misdemeanor with a maximum penalty of a year in jail. It no longer meets the standards set by the Federal Firearms Act of 1938 or the 1961 expansion. It also fails to meet the Fifth Amendment’s threshold for depriving a citizen of their civil liberties, including the right to keep and bear arms.

The Supreme Court’s own jurisprudence doesn’t support the status quo. The “history and tradition” test required under Bruen reveals there were no truly analogous laws during either the Founding or Reconstruction Eras.

Right now, the best outcome would be a favorable ruling in Hemani. Otherwise, we have to rely on an extremely reluctant Congress that must have watched Reefer Madness one too many times.

Even though the Drug Enforcement Agency is part of the Executive Branch, there’s not a lot the President can do: The DEA administrator, currently Terrence Cole, has the final word on which drugs go where.

President Trump issued Executive Order 14370 last December. However, it was more focused on research on the medical uses of marijuana and cannabidiols. The goal was to persuade the DEA to move marijuana from Schedule I to Schedule III. After four months, there have been no updates.

Hemani has forced the Supreme Court to confront a question Congress has avoided for decades: whether the government can keep treating marijuana users as a class of prohibited persons when the country itself no longer treats simple marijuana possession as the kind of grave offense that justifies stripping away a constitutional right.

Under Bruen, the government is supposed to point to a real historical tradition of comparable disarmament, not just modern policy preferences dressed up as public safety. If the Court rules the right way, it could finally put real limits on one of the most outdated and incoherent bans in federal gun law. If it does not, gun owners will be left waiting on a Congress and bureaucracy that have shown little urgency in fixing a problem they helped create.

Supreme Court Signals Trouble for Federal Law Disarming Regular Marijuana Users

---

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/0goWYjA
via IFTTT

Democrat Gun Control Backfires as Virginia Gun Sales Surge, New Jersey Carry Permits Spike

The Second Amendment is in the spotlight in New Jersey and Virginia, where public actions show Democrat politicians are out of step. iStock-2217328079

Two very revealing articles in two different East Coast states are showing plenty of evidence that Democrat gun policies are dramatically out of step with the public, as people in both jurisdictions are briskly exercising their gun rights.

In Virginia, where freshman Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s popularity is tanking after only a few months in office as she has just presided over a legislative session that saw lots of gun control measures passed, WJLA News says a new poll shows her losing ground by “double digits.”

Across the Old Dominion, according to the Cardinal News, “Early indicators suggest Virginians responded to a slate of proposed gun control legislation with a noticeable increase in firearm background checks… There were 79,846 firearm background checks initiated in Virginia in March, according to data from the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System, or NICS. The figure marks one of the highest monthly totals since the surges in March and June 2020.”

In addition to the COVID-19 pandemic, the story added, this was the first year since 2020 when a  Democratic trifecta advanced gun control legislation.

Go north to New Jersey, where restrictive gun control laws were “dismantled”—at least temporarily—by the 2022 Supreme Court Bruen decision, and the Asbury Park Press is reporting the number of concealed carry permit approvals has “increased nearly tenfold” over the past four years.

New Jersey is also a Democrat stronghold, but in 2025, according to the Asbury Park Press report, “the state issued more permits than the years 2019 to 2023 combined.”

If these reports, which do not seem coincidental, don’t tell anti-gun Democrats their policies toward the Second Amendment are out of touch, perhaps nothing will.

The Cardinal News ran down a list of gun control measures passed earlier this year by Democrats in Richmond. The report included a quote from firearms retailer Ben Goldberg in Henrico County which says more than any public opinion poll.

“Every time the Democratic Party does any sort of gun legislation, gun sales go through the roof,” Goldberg reportedly said. “We’re talking at least quadruple the volume that I was doing before that.”

While liberal lawmakers may not see it—or at least pretend it’s not happening—citizens in both states are clearly signaling they want to exercise their Second Amendment rights, regardless what politicians say.

New Jersey’s state constitution does not have a specific right-to-bear-arms provision.

Virginia’s state constitution (Article 1, Section 13) says, “That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

Both states must comply with the Second Amendment, however, since it was incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment in 2010 as part of the Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago, a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation and Illinois State Rifle Association.

According to the Asbury Park Press report, during the 2 ½ years from July 2022 through December 2025, Garden State law enforcement agencies issued “more than 88,000 new permits to carry handguns.” The data source was the state Attorney General’s office.

It seems clear that people in a state where gun rights were extremely restricted prior to the Bruen ruling are eager to exercise their restored right to bear arms.

Meanwhile, in Virginia—where gun ownership has deeper roots—citizens are scrambling to obtain firearms before Democrat lawmakers and governor can legislatively choke their rights. As noted by WVEC News, Spanberger is up against a deadline where the gun control bills are concerned. The station says 10 gun bills are on her desk, including a measure banning so-called “assault weapons.” It seems almost certain there will be legal challenges, despite a provision which will allow people who already own such firearms prior to the bill’s enactment will be allowed to keep them.

Gun owners in Rhode Island headed to the capitol Wednesday, where the legislature is also considering more gun control laws.

In Massachusetts, Spectrum News is reporting that new requirements for gun permit applications are now in place. The new requirements include a written examination and live fire exercise, and applicants must learn about safe storage and “disengagement tactics.”

On the plus side, various reports are saying that Harmeet Dhillon, who heads the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division and is very pro-Second Amendment, is in line to be promoted to the position of associate attorney general. Bloomberg News is reporting that moving Dhillon into a higher position would expand “her authority over election integrity, which falls under the associate AG’s purview, as the midterms approach.”

In the gun rights community, such a promotion might also mean more activity by the Justice Department to challenge restrictive state gun control laws which clash with the Second Amendment.

March NICS Show Steady Gun Demand, While NFA Checks Explode More Than 121%

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

---

from https://ift.tt/mtDhO95
via IFTTT

Judge Roger Benitez Retires, Leaving Behind a Major Second Amendment Legacy

Judge-Court-Law-Gun-Rights-iStock-2180021491

Judge Roger T. Benitez, also known as “Saint” Benitez by supporters of the Second Amendment, has retired from federal service as of April 2, 2026. Judge Benitez was born in December 1950 in Havana, Cuba. He fled the Castro regime in Cuba in 1960 with his brother, speaking only Spanish at the time. His family was reunited and eventually settled in the Imperial Valley of California.

Judge Benitez graduated from the Central Union High School in El Centro, California, then obtained an Associate’s degree from Imperial Valley Community College in 1971, a Bachelor of Arts degree from San Diego State University in 1974, and a J.D. degree from Western State University College of Law’s San Diego campus in 1978. He spent 19 years in private practice in the Imperial Valley. He became a California Superior Court Judge from 1997 to 2001. Judge Benitez was appointed as a federal Magistrate judge in 2001. He was elevated to Federal District Judge in 2004 despite opposition from the American Bar Association. Judge Benitez assumed senior status on December 31, 2017

Judge Benitez first became known as “Saint” Benitez after his decision in Duncan v. Becerra, later renamed Duncan v. Bonta.

Judge Benitez was assigned the case before he assumed senior status. The case took nearly two years to adjudicate. In this case, Judge Benitez granted a motion for summary judgment against the State of California. The summary judgment was in effect from March 29 to April 5, 2019. It became known as “Freedom Week”. Estimates suggest hundreds of thousands of magazines were legally purchased and shipped into California during that week.

Seven years later, the case is still under review. It has been appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The three-judge panel affirmed Judge Benitez’s decision on August 14, 2020. Then the Ninth Circuit decided to hear the case en banc. The en banc panel reversed the decision of the three-judge panel on June 22, 2021. The case was appealed to the Supreme Court. On June 30, 2022, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit en banc decision and remanded the case back to the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case back to the District Court and Judge Benitez.

Judge Benitez issued the decision on September 22, 2023. Judge Benitez again found the law to be unconstitutional in a well-written and argued decision. The state appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit the same day.

The Ninth Circuit, in an unprecedented move, voted to bypass a three-judge panel and rehear the case en banc. The en banc panel issued its opinion in March 2025, again reversing Judge Benitez’s decision, with strong dissents. The case became Duncan v. Bonta due to a change in the California Attorney General. The case is again being appealed to the Supreme Court. As of the time of Judge Benitez’s retirement on April 2, 2026, the Supreme Court had not yet decided whether to hear the case for a second time.

Now I’m going to be even more angry if SCOTUS fails us in Duncan.

Judge Benitez deserves vindication! https://t.co/Lgb80l7Wkl pic.twitter.com/mRtUbk65Ay

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) April 7, 2026

In addition to Duncan v. Bonta, Judge Benitez issued a decision that the California ban on the AR-15 and similar firearms violated the Second Amendment in 2021. The Ninth Circuit put that decision on hold pending the final decision in Duncan v. Bonta.

Judge Benitez decided a law requiring background checks to purchase ammunition was unconstitutional in 2024. In 2025, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Benitez’s decision on the ammunition law.  The panel’s decision was appealed to the en banc Ninth Circuit, which is now considering it.

In a case about the Second Amendment on short clubs “billies”, Judge Benitez originally found for the State of California. The Supreme Court sent the case back to Judge Benitez after its Bruen ruling. Judge Benitez, following the Bruen decision, found the California law to be unconstitutional. California has appealed the case, which is now pending, awaiting the final decision in Duncan v. Bonta.

Judge “Saint” Benitez has now retired from the court. He is 75 years old. He leaves a rich legacy of cases and decisions that are superbly argued and written.

Coming from a family that suffered significant persecution by the unlimited government in Cuba, he held limitations on government power in the United States to be clear and legitimate.  His story is one of the American dream, from fleeing communism to his ascent to high office, against the odds. His presence on the court will be missed.

SCOTUS Lets Illinois Public Transit Carry Ban Stand, Leaving a Dangerous “Sensitive Places” Theory in Place

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/vi7nbdL
via IFTTT

ATF to Keep Biden-Era Frames and Receivers Rule in Place

The ATF has decided to keep the Biden administration’s 2022 frames and receivers rule in place, preserving federal restrictions on certain unfinished frames, receivers, and parts kits. Image Duncan Johnson

In a development that is sure to send ripples through the firearms industry, Second Amendment advocacy groups, and law enforcement circles, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) has signaled it will keep the Biden administration’s 2022 “frames and receivers” rule intact. The agency had previously requested stays in two key federal lawsuits, VanDerStok v. Bondi and Defense Distributed v. Bondi, to draft a replacement regulation.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs have now been informed that no new rule will be forthcoming.

The decision marks a significant pivot for the Trump administration’s Department of Justice, which was formerly under Attorney General Pam Bondi and is now under Todd Blanche. Nearly a year after President Trump directed a comprehensive review of Biden-era ATF regulations on February 7, 2025, the agency appears to have concluded that revising the rule, already upheld in key respects by the U.S. Supreme Court, would be impractical or unnecessary.

The move leaves in place one of the most contentious gun-control measures of the past decade, which regulates so-called “ghost guns” by treating certain unfinished firearm components and parts kits as regulated firearms.

The rule, formally known as ATF Final Rule 2021R-05F and titled “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms,” was finalized on April 26, 2022. It dramatically expanded the regulatory reach of the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA). Under the original 1968 law, a “firearm” includes “any weapon…which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive” or “the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” Traditionally, the ATF interpreted “frame or receiver” to mean a completed, functional part capable of housing the firing mechanism.

The 2022 rule changed that. It redefined “frame or receiver” to encompass “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” frames and receivers that can be readily completed with common tools. It also classified certain “weapon parts kits” bundles of components that include an unfinished frame or receiver, along with other parts, as firearms themselves if they are “designed to or may readily be converted” into a working gun.

Sellers of these kits must now obtain federal firearms licenses (FFLs), serialize the items, conduct background checks on buyers, and maintain record-keeping requirements previously avoided by many manufacturers of 80% lowers, polymer kits, and build-your-own kits popular with hobbyists.

The ATF justified the change by pointing to an alleged surge in untraceable “ghost guns.” Law enforcement reports showed ghost gun recoveries in crimes skyrocketing from roughly 1,600 in 2017 to over 19,000 in 2021. Although this stat includes guns with obliterated serial numbers, homemade or kit-built firearms lack them; the ATF claims this makes them difficult to trace in investigations. Proponents, including anti-gun organizations like Everytown for Gun Safety, hailed the rule as a common-sense update to close a loophole exploited by criminals and prohibited persons.

Critics, however, argued it overreached. Groups like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and manufacturers such as Polymer80 and Defense Distributed contended that the ATF was rewriting congressional intent. They pointed out that millions of Americans have legally built firearms at home since the founding era, a practice protected by the Second Amendment and never subjected to such broad serialization mandates for unfinished parts. The rule, they said, turned law-abiding hobbyists into potential felons overnight and burdened small businesses.

The rule faced immediate legal challenges. In VanDerStok v. Garland (later VanDerStok v. Bondi), plaintiffs, including Jennifer VanDerStok, Michael Andren, Tactical Machining, and others, filed suit in the Northern District of Texas. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor vacated the rule nationwide in 2022, ruling it exceeded the ATF’s authority under the GCA. The Fifth Circuit largely affirmed, holding that the statute’s plain text covered only complete weapons and finished frames or receivers, not kits or partially machined parts.

The Biden administration appealed to the Supreme Court. In a landmark 7-2 decision on March 26, 2025, the Court reversed the Fifth Circuit in Bondi v. VanDerStok.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, held that the rule was not facially inconsistent with the GCA. The Court reasoned that terms like “weapon,” “frame,” and “receiver” are “artifact nouns” that can encompass unfinished items when their intended purpose is clear. For example, a Polymer80 “Buy Build Shoot” kit, assemblable in about 20 minutes with basic tools, qualifies as a “weapon…which…may readily be converted.” Similarly, some partially complete frames fall within the statutory definition. However, the ruling was narrow: it applied only to a facial challenge and left open as-applied challenges for more incomplete kits. Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.

The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings. A parallel challenge by Defense Distributed, the company founded by Cody Wilson, known for 3D-printed firearms and the “G80” kit, remained active. Plaintiffs there shifted their focus to constitutional claims under the Second Amendment and the Due Process Clause, arguing that the rule burdens the right to possess arms for personal use, a tradition dating back centuries.

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling and Trump’s February 2025 executive order directing review of Biden-era ATF rules for Second Amendment consistency, the DOJ under Bondi sought time to reassess.

In early April 2026, in VanDerStok v. Bondi, the government requested a 90-day stay of proceedings, citing plans to promulgate a revised frames-and-receivers rule. A joint status report in the case explicitly referenced the upcoming new regulation, which the DOJ said might resolve or moot some of the plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Similar requests were made in the Defense Distributed litigation.

Gun rights advocates expressed cautious optimism. Many expected the new rule to narrow the definition, exempt more unfinished parts, or provide clearer guidance, potentially aligning with Trump’s pro-Second Amendment stance. Industry groups like 80 Percent Arms had already updated their websites to reflect the ongoing uncertainty.

Then came the breaking news. Lawyers for the plaintiffs were informed this week that the ATF has decided not to issue a new rule. The Biden-era regulation will remain in effect. The about-face stunned observers.

BREAKING

Trump’s Department of Justice has decided to ADOPT Biden’s anti-gun rule that heavily restricts homemade firearms.

This is in stark contrast to the White House, which just called this Biden rule an “attack” on gun owners that “undermine[s] the Second Amendment.” pic.twitter.com/7ev3B8sQof

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) April 9, 2026

No official explanation has been released, but AmmoLand sources close to the litigation suggest internal reviews concluded that rewriting the rule would invite further legal and political complications, especially after the Supreme Court’s endorsement of its core framework. The agency may also prioritize other enforcement priorities amid its broader “new era of reform,” which has already included ending zero-tolerance policies for FFLs.

Anti-gun advocates welcomed the decision. Everytown and similar groups praised it as preserving a vital tool against untraceable firearms, noting that ghost guns continue to appear in mass shootings and street crime. They urged the ATF to enforce the rule vigorously.

On the other side, Second Amendment organizations reacted with frustration. The FPC and SAF, lead plaintiffs in the cases, called the retention “a betrayal of the review process” and vowed to press forward with constitutional challenges.

“The fight is far from over,” a Defense Distributed spokesperson said. “We will seek preliminary injunctions and argue that the rule violates the historical tradition of private arms-making.”

Manufacturers worry about compliance costs: serialization of 80% lowers could drive up prices and force many small businesses out of the market. Hobbyists fear that even basic jigs and unfinished parts could trigger federal scrutiny.

Law enforcement perspectives are mixed. While anti-gun groups argue the rule aids tracing in some investigations, critics within police ranks note that most ghost guns are still assembled by law-abiding citizens, not criminals. The rule’s vagueness, relying on subjective “readily convertible” tests, has already led to inconsistent enforcement.

The ATF’s decision does not end the litigation. The district court in Texas must now address the remanded claims, including whether the rule is lawful as applied to specific products and whether it survives Second Amendment scrutiny under the Bruen framework. Congress could also intervene, though prospects for legislation remain dim in a divided landscape.

For now, the 2022 rule stands as the law of the land. Americans selling certain unfinished frames, receivers, or parts kits must treat them as firearms or risk felony charges.

First Circuit Says Second Amendment Does Not Protect Buying Guns in Beckwith v. Frey

---

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/RbTGjIi
via IFTTT