Update on Virginia ‘Assault Firearm’ Bans and Magazine Restrictions

Virginia Gun Bills Backpedal Under Pressure, but the Fight Is Far From Over Img Duncan Johnson

Thanks to strong resistance from gun owners across the state, and a message from Harmeet Dhillon, who is the head of the Second Amendment Division of the Civil Rights Department, the Virginia gun grabbers have been set back on their heels and have relented on a few things. That doesn’t mean we can relax. That means we speak louder and force them to abide by the Constitution.

This is a blatant violation of Supreme Court precedent and it will not stand. https://t.co/hezQAkbGsE

— AAGHarmeetDhillon (@AAGDhillon) January 26, 2026

As of February 9, 2026, here is an update directly from Philip Van Cleave, President of Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL).

A group of gun bills has passed the Virginia Senate, and another group has passed the House. There are also more in progress. February 18th is a cutoff. Currently, three of the bills are being revised due to pressure from gun owners. None of these bills has been stopped, which is what the VCDL and gun owners will ultimately want. For now, some concessions are being discussed by the gun grabbers.

The house version of the so-called “assault firearm” ban is HB 217, and although it bans the purchase or resale of those firearms, it will allow you to keep the firearms you already own. After significant pressure, the Virginia gun grabbers were forced to put the “grandfather” clause back in place. You won’t be able to buy any new “assault firearms” after July 1st of this year, nor will you be able to sell the ones that you have if the legislation is ratified with the current language. In essence, you’re frozen in place.

The gun grabbers are considering walking back their ban on 18 to 20-year-olds’ possession of “assault firearms.” The latest revisions have also added a grandfather clause for possession of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds.

Spanberger and her gang of gun grabbers thought they would get away with quietly removing the grandfather clause, but they were met with resistance that corrected their behavior.

SB749 brings with it all the same elements as HB217, with the exception of a 15-round magazine capacity limitation. So, you will still be able to buy and sell magazines that hold up to 15 rounds. This will likely be a point of contention between the House and Senate. We will see how this turns out.

SB727 still restricts the public carry of rifles and shotguns classified as “assault firearms,” but it walked back the public carry ban on handguns that could be classified as “assault firearms.”

Philip Van Cleave, President of Virginia Citizens Defense League, had this to say to AmmoLand:

“While pressure from gun owners has caused the Senate and the House to backpedal on some of these bills, and they are better than they were, we still do not support these bills. They are still wrong. Taking away guns like these from anybody is wrong and we will continue to fully oppose these bills until they are defeated and/or not signed into law.”

The recent concessions forced out of Richmond did not come from goodwill or compromise—they came from organized resistance. Virginia gun owners spoke up, applied sustained pressure, and exposed the legal and political weaknesses behind these proposals. That pressure worked, at least for now.

But make no mistake: a bad bill that is slightly less bad is still a bad bill.

What we are seeing is not a change of heart, but a tactical retreat. The same lawmakers who quietly attempted to strip grandfather clauses and criminalize common firearms are still pushing legislation that flatly contradicts Supreme Court precedent and treats the exercise of a fundamental right as a problem to be managed. As long as these bills remain alive, the threat remains real.

The goal has never been temporary concessions—it is the total defeat of these unconstitutional laws.

As VCDL President Philip Van Cleave made clear, gun owners cannot accept half-measures, freezes on future ownership, or age-based bans dressed up as “compromises.” Rights delayed, restricted, or rationed are rights denied.

Crossover day is approaching fast, and the coming weeks will determine whether these bills collapse under scrutiny or advance toward a governor’s desk. The outcome will depend entirely on whether Virginia’s gun owners stay engaged, vocal, and unrelenting.

This fight is far from over—and silence now would undo everything gained so far. AmmoLand will continue tracking every move, every amendment, and every vote. Stay alert. Stay involved.

Stay tuned. More to come on this in the upcoming weeks.

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

---

from https://ift.tt/le7XWb1
via IFTTT

January 2026 NICS Background Checks Dip Slightly While NFA Checks Surge

Opinion

GOA FOIA Shows NICS-Index-Self-Submission Form Was Used Beyond the FBI, iStock-919659512

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) adjusted figures for January 2026 show a slight decrease in the number of checks compared to 2025. From the National Shooting Sports Foundation:

“The January 2026 NSSF-adjusted National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) figure of 1,198,879 is a decrease of 0.7 percent compared to the January 2025 NSSF-adjusted NICS figure of 1,207,557. For comparison, the unadjusted January 2026 FBI NICS figure of 2,172,185 reflects a 5.6 percent decrease from the unadjusted FBI NICS figure of 2,299,989 in January 2025.”

As noted by the NSSF, the unadjusted NICS numbers, which include checks for various gun permits and re-checks for the same, are down 5.6%. This is likely a reflection of the increasing “permitless” or Constitutional Carry states.

On a positive note, the NSSF’s report on NFA items saw a massive increase compared to 2025. From the NSSF:

“The January 2026 NFA figure of 206,871 is an increase of 121.2 percent compared to the January 2025 figure of 93,518.”

Other than a slight jump up in 2006 – 2008, the rise in firearm sales reflected in the adjusted NICS figures corresponds to both the Heller decision in 2008 and the election of Barack Obama as President in late 2008. The prominent spikes in sales occurred just after the re-election of President Obama in 2013, the run-up to the election of President Donald Trump in 2016, and the aftermath of the 2020 election during the first year of the Biden administration.

By comparison, the years of the George W. Bush presidency, the first Trump term, the last three years of the Biden Administration, and the first year of the second Trump term have been relatively flat.  The jump from 2005 to 2025 has been enormous. 2000 – 2005 sales look flat and similar to 2022 – 2026.  When adjusted for population increase, estimated gun sales per capita have increased in January.

The US population 2000-2005 averaged about 287 million, with adjusted NICS about 535,000 for those first-of-the-year months. From 2022 to 2026, the population averaged about 337 million, with adjusted NICS about 1.20 million for those Januarys.

Several factors are in play. Foremost are the enormous changes in the political structure since 2008. President Obama, elected to bring closure to racial division in the United States, did the opposite, exacerbating and escalating racial strife to levels not seen since the 1960s. Obama’s policies created a weak USA, the elevation of Iran, a weak NATO, and advanced the climate hoax for the benefit of China. The reaction to these destructive policies was President Donald Trump. President Joe Biden was President Obama’s third term. It was disastrous. President Trump, in his Second term, is presiding over a counter-revolution to the “fundamental change” President Obama forced on the nation.

Both the Republican and the Democratic parties have been unwilling to take the heat to step away from the crippling and suicidal debt inflicted on the USA. The only solution appears to be extraordinary growth. President Trump has been promoting this potential avenue to survival.

Part of the growth is a tremendous increase in productivity in the United States. It is one of the reasons for the rise in firearm sales. Excellent, practical firearms are historically cheap in the United States, when considered in constant dollars. The primary reason is that the cost of making them has decreased due to advances in technology. This correspondent grew up with the Savage 99. It is an excellent deer rifle. So are the Winchester 94 and the Marlin 336.  They are wonderful examples of the gun-maker’s art at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the smokeless powder, non-corrosive primer era.

The requirements to produce those rifles are not well-suited to the more efficient technologies of the 21st century.  A new rifle in these models costs over $1200. A new semi-auto based on the AR15 platform performs as well, with better accuracy, for 1/3 to 1/2 the cost.  Good centerfire defensive handguns are available new for less than the constant-dollar cost of a surplus 1911A1 in 1960. A new, semi-auto .22 rimfire can be had for less than a quarter of the constant dollar cost of a semi-auto .22 in 1960. Despite rising prices, choking government regulation, and a recent dip in sales, NICS checks remain higher than the plateau of the early 2000s.

At the moment, sales appear to be leveling off. There may be some market saturation. Handguns have become more popular than rifles or shotguns.

Serious innovation might be rewarded in the future, but it is a gamble. Rising prosperity may bring more sales. Rising security may inhibit sales. The Trump Department of Justice has declared the USPS ban on mailing handguns unconstitutional. How this may affect sales is unclear.

ATF Warns of Hoax Homeland Security Letter ‘Suspending Second Amendment’

Robert Cekada Poised to become Next ATF Director After Confirmation Hearing

---

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/kriF0Xz
via IFTTT

Billionaire-funded 5th Edition of RAND’s Gun Policy Report as Anti-gun as First Four

Billionaire-funded 5th Edition of RAND’s Gun Policy Report as Anti-gun as First Four, iStock-2218869985

Once anti-gun billionaires Laura and John Arnold sent another check to the RAND Corporation for its annual report, “The Science of Gun Policy,” there was little doubt about what RAND researchers would find, since the Arnolds pay all the bills.

The annual report is part of a larger anti-gun initiative, which RAND has labeled “Guns in America.”

Before 2018, RAND funded the entire initiative themselves, through “unrestricted gifts from RAND supporters and income from operations.”

After 2018, however, the Arnolds pay for all of it through their left-wing philanthropy foundation called Arnold Ventures.

And for the fifth year in a row, the billionaire couple certainly got what they paid for.

Six RAND researchers needed more than 440 pages to claim that guns are bad, and that more anti-gun laws are needed.

Here are their major findings:

• The government should be able to order you to lock up your guns.
• Stand-your-ground laws are dangerous.
• The country needs to raise the minimum age to purchase a firearm.
• Waiting periods reduce homicides and suicides.
• Background checks for even private sales reduce homicides.
• Laws barring gun rights to those subject to a domestic violence restraining order decrease homicides.

Here are their recommendations:

• All states should order you to lock up your guns.
• All states should repeal stand-your-ground laws.
• All states should ban concealed carry and permitless carry.
• All states should raise the minimum age to purchase firearms and ammunition.
• All states should ban gun ownership by anyone subject to a restraining order.
• All states should require background checks, even for private sales.

RAND states that its report is cited by mainstream media 75-100 times a year.

They did offer some good news. This is the last edition of the report, which RAND says is still needed.

“In the United States, gun policies of every kind are being reconsidered and relitigated in the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision, which fundamentally altered the standards used to assess the constitutionality of firearm laws,” RAND states.

Most gun owners should strongly disagree with this comment, regardless of the numbers of PhDs held by its authors.

Bruen, did not fundamentally alter the standard used to assess the constitutionality of gun laws. Bruen simply returned it to normal, away from all of the confusing legal mess the anti-gunners had created and used for decades.

The Arnolds

On August 5, 2024, we published a special report about the Arnolds and their anti-gun activities titled “Billionaire anti-gun philanthropists backing biased anti-gun research.”

The story revealed how the Arnolds are a major part—the first step—of producing anti-gun information, which is then circulated across the country.

“An investigation by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project reveals how a former Enron trader and his wife are quietly paying millions of dollars every year to colleges, universities, think tanks and other groups for biased anti-gun research, which is then cited as gospel by the corporate media and used as propaganda by anyone who wants to infringe upon law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” the story states.

Most disturbing was the vast amount of money the couple paid for anti-gun “research,” which was conducted by RAND and other groups.

According to their nonprofit’s 2022 IRS form 990, the couple paid RAND at total of $2.8 million, of which $1.7 million was for anti-gun research. That same year, the couple paid more than $1.8 million for anti-gun research from other groups.

The couple remains very active in the anti-gun community. Recently, they awarded more than one-half million dollars for a study in Chicago, New York City, Texas and Washington D.C., which evaluates “the impact of prosecutor-led diversion programs for non-violent gun offenses.”

Takeaways

As we said just a year ago, the Arnolds have created a pipeline of sorts. Cash goes in one end and anti-gun propaganda emerges from the other, and given its storied 80-year history, it’s sad that RAND is playing along.

What their researchers presented was overwritten nonsense, of course, and given that it took them more than 440 pages, it may be the most overwritten anti-gun document ever produced. In fact, I’ve seen basically the same false claims on one-page brochures from very poorly funded anti-gun groups.

When the first story ran, Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, pointed out that we don’t have anything as elaborate as this anti-gun pipeline process, adding “We don’t need it. We simply rely upon the truth.”

That, friends, remains very true.

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

Anti-gun Group 97Percent is Back, Now Led by Anti-gun Ex-cop

Democrats Push Ammo Sales Ban while Courts Question Similar State Restrictions

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

---

from https://ift.tt/Zc8qNjd
via IFTTT

CCRKBA Blasts Sweeping New Mexico Gun Control Legislation

New Mexico Reverting to Old Mexico? IMG iStock-884193540.jpg

Anti-gun-rights Democrats—this time in New Mexico—are once again trying to reduce violent gun-related crime by penalizing people who aren’t responsible, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says in response.

“Senate Bill 17, which was passed by state Senate Democrats over the weekend, would ban semi-automatic firearms and original capacity magazines,” said CCRKBA Managing Director Andrew Gottlieb, “but it’s not going to prevent criminals from committing crimes. All this does s create the false impression that Democrats are doing something, when in reality they’re not accomplishing anything at all, except for adding burdens to firearms retailers and the law-abiding gun owners they serve.

“Proponents of this legislation have resorted to the usual inflammatory rhetoric we’ve come to expect, by calling these firearms and magazines ‘weapons of war,’” Gottlieb stated. “Tens of millions of law-abiding American citizens, including many New Mexicans, own such firearms and magazines, and they’re not a danger to anyone.”

The legislation, which may be read here, spans 17 pages. It passed on a 22-17 vote, with two Democrats crossing the aisle to vote against it.

“According to the World Population Review,” Gottlieb noted, “New Mexico is in the middle in terms of overall gun ownership, ranking 25th among the fifty states. It is astonishing that this sort of legislation is being pushed to the detriment of firearms retailers and their customers, none of whom has harmed anybody. Ratcheting down on the rights of honest people is not the way to fight crime.

“We’re encouraging gun owners in New Mexico to contact their state representatives and ask them to reject this legislation,” Gottlieb said. “Lawmakers need to go back to the drawing board and sit down with people from the firearms community to find solutions which do not penalize honest gun owners and firearms retailers.”

New Mexico Legislature Debates Ban on Semi-Automatics and Magazines Over 10 Rounds

Trump DOJ Submits Brief in Massachusetts Handgun Roster Case

---

About the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

With more than 650,000 members and supporters nationwide, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (www.ccrkba.org) is one of the nation’s premier gun rights organizations. As a non-profit organization, the Citizens Committee is dedicated to preserving firearms freedoms through active lobbying of elected officials and facilitating grass-roots organization of gun rights activists in local communities throughout the United States.

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

Committed Gun-Grabbers Claim to Support the Second Amendment

Committed Gun-Grabbers Claim to Support the Second Amendment iStock-wildpixel 1297054517

During the recent unpleasantness in Minneapolis, a surprising number of prominent gun-grabbers claimed they supported the Second Amendment. Admittedly, they did this to lash out at President Trump and ICE, but they actually said it.

Gabrielle Giffords claimed to support the right of the people to be armed. “ …(T)he Trump administration has attacked the First and Second Amendments. Every legal gun owner should be horrified.”

Giffords burnished her credentials by reminding everyone she owns a gun. “As a gun owner myself and the leader of Giffords Gun Owners for Safety, I am alarmed by how brazenly the Trump administration is threatening our rights.”

However, in April 2023, it was Giffords who said, “Guns, guns, guns. No more guns. Gone.”

California Governor Gavin Newsom used a January 27, 2026, press release to announce his support for the Second Amendment. “We should all be outraged not only by the senseless deaths at the hands of federal officials, but also by the erosion of our rights. We must act fast to protect them and prevent any further tragic loss of life.”

Back in 2023, Newsom introduced a 28th Amendment. Intended to replace the Second Amendment, it would have eviscerated the right to keep and bear arms, turning it into a government-controlled privilege.

It’s only fair that we should ask them if they understood what they said.

Hey there, gun control fans! We’re always happy to welcome folks to freedom, but we wonder if you realize what it means to support the Second Amendment.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

This is the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. It became part of the Constitution when it was ratified on December 15, 1791. It became binding on the individual states on July 9, 1868, with the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and was fully incorporated into the amendment on June 28, 2010 when the Supreme Court issued its ruling in McDonald v. Chicago.

The Second Amendment is very straightforward. The first 13 words state a reason for including the protected right in the federal Constitution. The next 10 words identify the right — to keep and bear arms — without any limitations on the type or quantity of the arms or how they might be borne. The final four words are a prohibition, barring the federal government from violating the right.*

The right to seek and bear arms was not granted by the Constitution and does not depend on it for its existence.**

The scope of the protected right includes acquisition, possession, and carriage of weapons and the acquisition, possession, and carriage of ammunition. Technically speaking, there is nothing in the Second Amendment that would allow for permits to purchase, permits to possess, or permits to carry.

Furthermore, since none existed at the Founding or the Reconstruction, the Second Amendment doesn’t allow wide-ranging bans. It doesn’t have to make allowances for changes in technology. Repeating rifles were used by the Danish Army in 1659; the Austrian Army adopted a repeating air rifle with a 20-round magazine in 1780, and the British used the Ferguson breech-loading rifle at the Battle of Yorktown.

Incidentally, contrary to the delusional assertions of a recent President, the Second Amendment does not prohibit buying cannons. George Washington bought two. Even today, American citizens can own fully functional military tanks.

That’s the real Second Amendment. It doesn’t allow provisos or quid pro quos like ‘commonsense’. But it’s what you claim to support.

The Founders had just prevailed in an eight-year war with the world’s dominant military power. Do you really think these men would not eagerly embrace a game-changing firearm like the AR-15? Or a Henry Rifle, Spencer Rifle, or Colt revolver? Even the bolt-action Springfield M1903 had a rate of fire 3-5 times that of the British Brown Bess.

We could give you the benefit of the doubt and excuse your ignorance. But we have a hunch you really support an entirely different Second Amendment. Something along the lines of Gavin Newsom’s 28th Amendment, filled with bans and barricades to gun ownership.

However, changing even a word in the Second Amendment requires a new amendment.

Getting supermajorities in the House and Senate to pass a new amendment is most likely a non-starter.

This means you need to corral 34 states to call a constitutional convention. If you get your amendment through a convention, you have to get 38 states to ratify it. If just 13 states refuse to ratify, your amendment is dead in the water.

Reality check: There are 16 states with Second Amendment protection or Second Amendment Sanctuary laws and resolutions. There are 45 states with Second Amendment analogs in their state constitutions. Do the math and stop kidding yourselves.

*The Second Amendment was extended to the states by the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868. The right to keep and bear arms was fully incorporated into the amendment under the Due Process Clause in 2010.

**U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Cruickshank (1875). Majority opinion written by Chief Justice Morrison Waite.

The 2nd Amendment: America’s Timeless Equalizer for the Weak & Vulnerable

U.S. Second Amendment: Means ALL Weapons & ZERO Infringements ~ VIDEO

---

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/sw6STa1
via IFTTT

Zombie Draconian Hawaii Knife Ban Bill Deferred Indefinitely

HUGE Knife Rights WIN! Draconian Hawaii Knife Ban Bill Stopped!

In Hawaii, another zombie bill from last year shuffled out of the graveyard and was heard in the Senate Committee on Safety and Military Affairs yesterday. Last year early intervention by Knife Rights resulted in the bill not even getting a hearing, but this year we were unable to accomplish that. Fortunately, one of the most egregious knife ban bills we’ve seen in the history of Knife Rights was “deferred indefinitely” yesterday.

SB433 would absolutely ban carry, open or concealed, of most knives, and all knives in many public places in Hawaii! Knife Rights Director of Legislative Affairs, Todd Rathner, testified against the bill.

Over 400 people signed-in against the bill, including numerous law enforcement agencies, civil rights organizations, and legal aid groups. Only four individuals signed in to support the bill.

“Deferred indefinitely” is not “dead.” We will continue to monitor the bill through the remainder of the session and will let you know if it arises once again like a zombie from the grave.

Please consider making a donation today to help us forge a Sharper Future for all Americans! – CLICK to DONATE!

After Mooting Cases by Allowing the Open Carrying of Non-Firearms, Hawaii Introduces Bill to Reinstate Ban

---

About Knife Rights

Since 2010 Knife Rights’ efforts have resulted in 58 bills & court decisions repealing knife bans & protecting knife owners in 36 states and over 200 cities and towns! Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans.

 

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

Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files

Gatalog Sued By California Over 3D Gun CAD Files iStock-Suebsiri 1010690668.jpg

California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu have launched a new legal assault on free speech and the right to keep and bear arms, filing a complaint on February 6, 2026, in San Francisco Superior Court against the Gatalog Foundation Inc., CTRLPew LLC, and individuals Alexander Holladay (known online as “CTRL Pew”), Matthew Larosiere (known online as “Fuddbusters”), and John Elik (known online as “Ivan The Troll”). The suit targets the distribution of digital files, computer code, and instructions for 3D-printing firearms and certain firearm accessories, claiming violations of California Civil Code sections 3273.61 and 3273.625, as well as the state’s broad Unfair Competition Law (Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.).

To gun rights and free speech advocates, this lawsuit represents yet another overreach by California officials desperate to suppress technological innovation and individual liberty in the face of advancing 3D printing capabilities.

The core allegation is that Gatalog and related entities make available over 150 designs for “lethal firearms and prohibited firearm accessories” via websites such as thegatalog.com and ctrlpew.com, which link to file-sharing platforms such as Odysee. Prosecutors even boasted that investigators downloaded files from a San Francisco IP address and allegedly built a functioning Glock-style handgun.

But what the complaint really attacks is information; pure speech in the form of code, blueprints, and instructions.

Distributing digital files that describe how to manufacture items using widely available tools is constitutionally protected expression. Code is speech, as federal courts have long recognized in cases involving encryption software and other digital designs. The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the principle that the First Amendment shields expressive conduct, including the publication of technical data. Attempts to criminalize or enjoin the dissemination of such information echo failed efforts to block online gun blueprints in the 2010s, when states sued to prevent Defense Distributed from posting files, efforts that ultimately crumbled under free speech scrutiny.

California’s laws at issue prohibit distributing “digital firearm manufacturing code” to unlicensed individuals and, as of January 1, 2026, knowingly aiding or facilitating the “unlawful manufacture of firearms” by unlicensed persons using 3D printers. These statutes are viewpoint-based restrictions that single out disfavored speech about firearms while ignoring similar code for other tools or devices. They also run afoul of the Second Amendment’s core protection of the right to possess arms for self-defense. The Supreme Court’s Bruen (2022) decision demands that gun regulations be consistent with historical tradition. Yet, there’s no 1791 or 1868 analog for banning the sharing of manufacturing instructions in an era before modern manufacturing existed.

The complaint paints a dire picture of “ghost guns” as an escalating crisis, citing recoveries rising from 26 in 2015 to over 11,000 annually (including auto-sears) from 2021 to 2025. It claims 3D-printed firearms are “easy to produce” and “fully assembled in less than a day.” Yet these statistics often lump together traceable and untraceable incidents, and many “ghost guns” are simply homemade firearms built legally by individuals exercising their rights. Federal data from the ATF shows ghost gun recoveries increasing nationally, but correlation isn’t causation; rising numbers may reflect better reporting or law enforcement focus rather than a direct link to online files.

More importantly, the real threat to public safety isn’t informed citizens accessing open-source designs; it’s criminals who disregard laws anyway.

Background checks and serialization requirements target law-abiding people, while bad actors build or acquire weapons illegally regardless of digital availability. 3D printing empowers individuals to exercise self-reliance in manufacturing, much like home gunsmithing has for centuries. Banning code doesn’t stop determined criminals; it only disarms responsible citizens who might use such knowledge for lawful purposes, such as prototyping or personal defense tools, in restrictive jurisdictions.

The defendants, successors to groups like Deterrence Dispensed, operate as a community-driven effort to democratize access to firearm knowledge. They sell related merchandise and solicit donations, activities protected as commercial speech tied to expressive content. The suit’s alter ego and conspiracy claims appear designed to pierce the veil of limited liability and chill association among like-minded individuals.

Matthew Larosiere, an attorney and legal commentator known online as “Fuddbusters,” told AmmoLand that California’s lawsuit hinges on a fundamentally flawed premise:

“California’s hook appears to be ‘The Gatalog Foundation LLC,’ and they tie all the named Defendants to it, and allege the Foundation is responsible, in some way, for all their woes. There is one problem with this. The Gatalog Foundation is an entity I founded with the intent to make a newsletter about gunsmithing. That never happened. The idea stalled, and the newsletter never left the planning stage. The Foundation previously had a bank account with $4 in it, which was closed due to inactivity. Another entity sued the Foundation in the past, but dropped all claims against the Foundation when they learned that the Foundation was nothing more than a stalled prospect of a hobby journal. Again, this would have been obvious to California if they had bothered to do any kind of reasonable pre-suit investigation.”

This case fits a pattern of California officials targeting 3D gun innovators. Past suits against Defense Distributed and others sought to block the distribution of files, often failing on jurisdictional or constitutional grounds. By framing code as “facilitation” of crime, the state attempts an end run around First Amendment protections, similar to how some jurisdictions have sought to hold platforms liable for user-generated content.

Pro-2A advocates see this as an existential fight: If governments can ban the sharing of manufacturing data, what’s next, prohibiting books on gunsmithing, CNC milling tutorials, or even chemistry texts for reloading? The right to keep and bear arms includes the practical ability to acquire and maintain them, which, in the digital age, encompasses information on how to lawfully produce them.

The complaint seeks a permanent injunction, civil penalties, and other relief to shut down these operations. Supporters of liberty hope the court recognizes this as censorship dressed as public safety. The fight over 3D-printed firearms isn’t just about plastic guns; it’s about whether Americans retain the freedom to innovate, share knowledge, and defend themselves without government gatekeepers deciding what information is too dangerous.

In an era when technology empowers individuals, California’s latest salvo threatens to drag the First and Second Amendments into the Stone Age. The Gatalog case could set a dangerous precedent, but if history is any guide, courts will ultimately hold that code is speech and that the right to arms cannot be nullified by banning bytes.

Robert Cekada Poised to become Next ATF Director After Confirmation Hearing

Defense Distributed Wins A Preliminary Injunction Against ATF’s “Ghost Gun” Rule

---

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/93WF7ec
via IFTTT