My 2nd Amendment Today

Monday, May 11, 2026

George Peterson’s NFA Suppressor Case Exposes the Danger of Federal Gun Registries

George Peterson was a law-abiding citizen and federal firearms licensee (FFL) who believed in the principles of the United States Constitution. He was raising his children in his Louisiana home, living the American dream. He had a loving family and his dream of owning a firearms business. Nothing could be any better.

That all changed one Thursday morning in 2022, just days after former President Joe Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA) into law. It started with a knock on the door. Then a rush of 50 to 100 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) agents and local law enforcement officers barged into the home that Peterson shared with his wife and juvenile children. These agents came in with ballistic helmets and body armor, armed with M4 rifles. The agents of the federal government held the man’s children, ages 12, 16, and 18, at gunpoint. At the same time, his FFL business was also raided.

“So, this happened back in 2022, where it was just a typical Thursday morning, and knock on the door, next thing I know, we have 50 to 100 ATF agents and local law enforcement in my home and in my office, where my FFL was, my little shop was,” Peterson told AmmoLand News. “And basically they came in with ballistic helmets, body armor, pointing M4 machine guns, assault weapons at my children and me, my juvenile children, ages 12, 16, and 18. They had machine guns pointed at them. And this was all over paperwork basically.”

The raid would be understandable if he were a dangerous, violent criminal, but Peterson was a family man with no criminal record. The show of force was out of the blue.

Mr. Peterson didn’t know what was going on. His first thought was that it was over a tax issue. He was a little behind on paying sales taxes. This was a one-man show, and his taxes got complicated by local, online, and gun-show sales. He has been working with an accounting firm to get up to date.

“I was a little bit behind on my sales taxes, but I had an accounting firm that was working with me to get things caught up, you know, because it’s a complex business,” Peterson told AmmoLand News. “You know, you have online sales, you have your local sales, you have your gun show sales, you have your uh concealed carry classes. It can get a little complicated. And I was basically a one-man show at the time. And so I had an accounting firm helping me to kind of get things caught up. But that’s what I thought it was.”

Little did Peterson know that taxes were the least of his concerns. They accused him of straw purchases, making too many trace requests, and failing to keep his paperwork up to date. With two bomb squad trucks parked on his front lawn, the agents started their search of his property with Assistant US Attorney Charles Struss Jr. on-site and calling the shots of the raid.

“Assistant US attorney Charles Strauss Jr,” Peterson said. “He was actually on site for the raid. He actually orchestrated and coordinated the raid. It wasn’t done with law enforcement. It was done through the prosecution. So, the prosecution actually was the ones who did the raid, orchestrated it, and it was because of the bipartisan Safer Communities Act…the US assistant US attorney, actually told my attorney that Peterson will never traffic firearms again. That was one of his statements.”

After the raid, George Peterson was arrested. He wasn’t arrested for anything listed in the affidavit. During the raid, the ATF and local law enforcement forced their way into a safe in the man’s bedroom. Law enforcement found a solvent trap that had been milled into a suppressor. The item lacked a serial number, so agents considered its existence a violation of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

“So, the only thing I was charged with, even though the affidavit for the ATF had all these allegations, you know, like straw purchases and, too many, too many times to crime trace requests,” Peterson said. “They, I never filed any of those Fourth Amendment violations. The multi-handgun reports and my paperwork were sloppy. The only thing that they charged me with was the possession of a uh solvent trap suppressor that was in my safe in my bedroom.”

Mr. Peterson, through his attorney, negotiated a contingent plea agreement with the prosecution. He would plead guilty to the charge as long as he had a right to appeal. Mr. Peterson was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment for committing a victimless crime.

“So, my local attorney, uh, my good friend Rick Toffen, actually negotiated with the prosecution and the court to do a contingent plea agreement where we would plead guilty to the charge as long as we have the right to appeal,” Peterson said. “So, we didn’t even really have a trial, per se.”

Mr. Peterson would appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where he would lose before a three-judge panel. In response to the request for an en banc hearing, the Department of Justice (DOJ) would make an astonishing claim: suppressors are not arms and are not protected by the Second Amendment.

This statement sparked outrage across the firearms and political worlds. This opinion flies in the face of even the ATF’s opinion. Less than a week after the court filing, the DOJ withdrew its brief.

“The acting US attorney filed some documents agreeing with the court, you know, agreeing that you know the district court that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment,” Peterson told AmmoLand News. “They’re just accessories.”

This is when the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and the law firm of Cooper and Kirk stepped in to help Peterson. They would represent him in front of the full bench of the Fifth Circuit during an en banc rehearing if granted. The DOJ’s lawyers would argue that the NFA is constitutional because it imposes only a modest burden on a constitutional right, even though modest burdens are not allowed under other amendments.

The Fifth Circuit would deny an en banc hearing, relying heavily on Footnote Nine of the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. Footnote Nine states that a permitting system is not necessarily unconstitutional. Even though Peterson’s charges didn’t have anything to do with concealed carry. This ruling meant Peterson would need to rely on the United States Supreme Court to grant a writ of certiorari to remain free.

Amicus briefs poured in from across gun rights groups, urging the Supreme Court to take the case. Unfortunately for Peterson, the Supreme Court would deny cert. This denial would be the end of the road for Cooper and Kirk, but Peterson hasn’t given up. He plans to launch a habeas corpus collateral challenge. This is a long shot, but it is his best chance of avoiding prison. Right now, he is waiting to find out when he reports for his two-year sentence.

Federal Judge Orders More Briefing in Challenge to NFA Registration Scheme

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

from https://ift.tt/JHBZ4hN
via IFTTT

The “Accessory” Gambit: Why the Eleventh Circuit’s Mechanical Logic Fails the Second Amendment

By Sean Maloney, Esq.

Machinegun conversion device / “Glock switch” examples shown in an ATF/DOJ fact sheet. Image cropped and composited from DOJ/ATF source material.

In the recently published decision of United States v. Alsenat (2026), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction involving Machine Gun Conversion Devices (MCDs), specifically “Glock switches.” The panel rested its holding on the claim that machineguns are not protected arms in common lawful use. However, the district court also accepted the government’s fallback theory that unattached conversion devices are mere “accessories” or “accoutrements,” not protected “Arms.”

That accessory framing should alarm gun owners.

To the casual observer, this may seem like a minor semantic point. To a firearm attorney, it is a transparent attempt to deconstruct the Second Amendment by its parts.

As one of the attorneys who represented the Buckeye Firearms Association in our successful suit against the City of Cincinnati regarding their bump stock ban, I have seen this “accessory gambit” before. It failed in Ohio, and it should fail in the federal courts as well.

Lessons from Buckeye Firearms Association v. City of Cincinnati

When Cincinnati attempted to bypass Ohio’s firearm preemption law (R.C. 9.68) to ban bump stocks, their primary legal tactic was to argue that a bump stock was a mere “accessory” and not a “component” or “part” of a firearm. They believed that by changing the label, they could evade the state’s “uniform laws” mandate.

Our legal team challenged this head-on. We argued that a device that interacts with the fire-control group to enable a specific cycle of fire is, by definition, part of the firearm. The Court of Common Pleas agreed, and the First District affirmed, providing a definitive rebuke to the City’s logic. The court recognized a fundamental truth: you cannot regulate the function of an arm by arbitrarily declaring its internal timing and fire-control components to be “accessories.” The ruling stated clearly that components like a bump stock are included within the definition of “firearms.”

The Mechanical Truth of the Glock Switch

The Alsenat court pretends a machinegun conversion device is a bolt-on trinket, leaving the base pistol untouched. That’s fiction in engineering; function defines firearm components. The switch replaces the factory slide cover plate, a static cover in stock form. Once installed, it transforms that “spot” into the active sear and striker-timing mechanism.

If you extract it from a tuned setup, you are left with a gutted slide, an inert striker, and a brick. This brings us to the point that you can’t call a heart an “accessory” to a human body just because it can be transplanted. Similarly, you shouldn’t call a sear or a timing mechanism an accessory just because it can be swapped. By any “Mechanical Essentiality Test,” the part is integral: absent the part, the configured arm fails to operate as intended. If a part is necessary for the firearm to function in its current configuration, that part is the firearm.

Deconstructing the “Arm”

The heart of the Alsenat error lies in the definition of a “Fire Control Group” (FCG). In any machine, the parts that maintain synchronization, like the timing belt in an engine are internal components, not optional decorations. By labeling the component that dictates the timing and release of the striker as an “accessory,” the court suggests that a firearm’s most vital “organs” can be stripped of constitutional protection.

If the courts are permitted to redefine integral fire-control components as “accessories,” they grant the government the power to deconstruct any modern firearm into a series of “unprotected” pieces. Under this logic, a trigger assembly, a bolt carrier group, or even a barrel could be reclassified as an “accessory” to circumvent the Second Amendment.

The Constitutional Sleight-of-Hand

The Eleventh Circuit used Heller’s “dangerous and unusual” idea to avoid checking the real mechanics of Glock switches. It is a convenient shortcut. Instead of engaging with the rigorous history-and-tradition test established in Bruen, the court relied on wordplay.

If the Supreme Court seeks to reverse Alsenat, it cannot rest on a faulty mechanical foundation alone. The Court must ground its reasoning in Bruen’s history or Heller’s core protections, unmasking the “accessory” label as constitutional sleight-of-hand. Rahimi and Bruen require the government to show a historical analogue for such bans, not just a clever new vocabulary.

Conclusion

Cincinnati proved it: parts that make a gun work aren’t add-ons; they’re the gun. Law must match how guns actually function.

When a court calls a firing mechanism an “accessory,” it isn’t just misinterpreting engineering—it is eroding the very definition of the “Arms” we have a right to keep and bear.

ATF Revised Machine Gun Definition Does Not Go Far Enough

About Sean Maloney

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, co-founder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He is a nationally recognized speaker on critical topics, including the Second Amendment, self-defense, the use of lethal force, and concealed carry. Sean has worked on numerous use-of-force and self-defense cases and has personally trained hundreds of civilians to respond safely and legally to life-threatening situations. He is a passionate advocate for restoring the cultural legitimacy of the Second Amendment and promoting personal responsibility in self-defense.

Sean Maloney

from https://ift.tt/1rLXa5d
via IFTTT

Friday, May 8, 2026

ATF Draft Form 4473 Changes Marijuana Question, Opens Door to Direct Gun Shipping

NICS Background Check Marijuana Exclusion ATF Form 4473 Firearms Transaction Record Question. iStock-919659526 — ATF’s draft revised Form 4473 would shorten the firearms transaction record and change several buyer questions affecting gun owners and FFLs. iStock-919659526

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has released a draft of its new “Firearms Transaction Record” form (ATF Form 4473), which has been shortened and simplified.

The first change to the form is the removal of “Non-Binary” under “Sex.” There are now only two choices: “Male” or “Female.” Some have claimed that the elimination of “Non-Binary” is a de facto transgender gun ban, but that claim doesn’t square with reality. Gun buyers are instructed to choose the sex they were assigned at birth. Since everyone is born either male or female, the question doesn’t prevent anyone from buying a gun.

In its current form, the 4473 asks the potential firearms buyer whether they are the “actual transferee/buyer” of the item in question. The way the question is worded makes it seem like you cannot legally buy a gun for another person.

That is not and never has been the law.

The new change to the question specifically calls out straw purchasing, which is against federal law. The change addresses concerns among family members and friends about buying firearms as gifts for others.

The ATF added a section that asks about the purpose of the firearms transfer. The new options are a transfer for oneself, where the transferee uses their own money to purchase the firearm as a gift for someone who is not a prohibited person, where someone is picking up a firearm as a gift or reward, or picking up a repaired firearm for someone else who is not prohibited.

Question 21 b. has also been removed from the 4473. That question asked if you intended to “sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm listed” on the form. It is not illegal to sell a privately owned firearm. This question can lead many to believe that selling a gun is illegal. The ATF rolled up the original intent of that rule into the new rule about “straw purchases.”

Question 21 f. has also changed. This question has largely remained intact with one big caveat. The old question used to imply that using marijuana for any reason, including medical use. Even if it is decriminalized in your state, it would disqualify a potential buyer from purchasing a gun. The new question removes references to medical marijuana. It only highlights the use of recreational marijuana.

This change consists of the rescheduling of the drug “Schedule I” to a “Schedule III” controlled substance, which is much less restrictive than the original scheduling.

ATF-4473-Update

The ATF Form 4473 removes the check box to specify if a firearm is a “long gun,” “handgun,” or “other.” The old form also had a redundant box where the federal firearms licensee (FFL) had to write the type of firearm being transferred. The new form eliminates redundancy to prevent mismatches. The new form includes checkboxes at the top for “Firearms handler check only” and “Private party transfer only.”

The most exciting thing about the new form is the options at the bottom of page three.

This option allows the FFL to choose an option for “Non-over-the-counter transactions.” This option covers ordering firearms online and having them shipped to a gun buyer’s door without the need to go to the gun shop of the transferer, if the transferer is in the same state. The rule for non-over-the-counter was published in the Federal Register yesterday and has been the most popular change for the Second Amendment community.

ATF-4473-Transfer-update

The new form has eliminated three pages from the current form, reducing it to four pages from seven. The simplification of the form, along with other changes, should lead to fewer paperwork errors, which the Biden administration used to revoke many FFLs through its zero-tolerance policies.

ATF Revised Machine Gun Definition Does Not Go Far Enough

About John Crump

from https://ift.tt/EiVjK31
via IFTTT

SAF Urges Ninth Circuit To Strike California Open Carry Ban

The RXM works with my Glock based Safariland holsters. — SAF and its partners are urging the Ninth Circuit to strike down California’s open-carry ban in Baird v. Bonta. img Travis Pike

SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros cut straight to the heart of California’s open-carry problem.

“The plain text of the Second Amendment protects the right to bear arms – openly or concealed – and open carry has been the default manner of lawful carry for most of American history. California’s ban has no foundation in our nation’s tradition, and this Court should reaffirm that open carry is protected just as the Founders and generations of Americans understood it to be. As our brief argues, neither open nor concealed carry may be banned today.”

The Second Amendment protects the right to “bear arms.” California does not get to rewrite that command into a narrow government-approved privilege. The right is not limited to concealed carry. It is not erased because a state leaves behind a different, heavily regulated pathway to legally carrying. The Second Amendment is certainly not subject to California’s public-safety panic language dressed up as constitutional law.

The Second Amendment Foundation, joined by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, filed an amicus brief in Baird v. Bonta, now before the Ninth Circuit en banc. The brief supports plaintiff-appellant Mark Baird in his challenge to California’s restrictions on open carry.

The procedural posture is important. A Ninth Circuit panel previously held that California’s ban on open carry in counties with populations greater than 200,000 was inconsistent with the Second Amendment. That panel opinion has now been vacated after the Ninth Circuit voted to rehear the case en banc.

California’s scheme is not some small technical regulation. The panel opinion described California as banning open carry in counties with more than 200,000 residents, which covers roughly 95% of the state’s population. Even in smaller counties, the supposed ability to obtain an open-carry license is limited and, based on the record described by the panel, often theoretical at best.

SAF’s amicus brief attacks the state’s position at the foundation. The brief argues that history shows a longstanding tradition of lawful open carry predating the Founding, and that the Second Amendment protects open carry for lawful purposes. The brief also argues that concealed carry is protected today, even though some nineteenth-century laws treated concealed carry differently. The bottom line is simple: the state may not ban both, and it may not erase one mode of carry by pointing to the other.

California’s argument depends on treating open carry and concealed carry as interchangeable. Gun owners and gun rights groups say they are not. For most of American history, open carry was the ordinary, lawful way Americans bore arms in public. The brief notes that this included California from statehood in 1850 until 1967. Earlier generations understood open carry and concealed carry as different practices, not fungible substitutes.

That is where California’s position collapses. The state wants courts to accept a trade: California effectively bans open carry, leaves behind a highly regulated version of concealed carry, and then claims the Second Amendment supposedly survives.

The Supreme Court rejected that kind of logic in Heller. The government could not ban handguns because other firearms remained available. California should not be allowed to ban open carry because a version of concealed carry remains available.

The amicus brief also warns the Ninth Circuit not to misuse Bruen. SAF argues that some lower courts have turned Bruen’s “plain text” step into a way to avoid real historical analysis altogether. The brief describes this as a restrictive “Goldilocks” test, where a Second Amendment claim is either too far removed from the text to count or too specific to survive unless the plaintiff clears extra judge-made hurdles.

That is not Bruen. That is interest balancing by another name.

The Ninth Circuit should not turn the Second Amendment into a right that exists only after judges decide the conduct is sufficiently familiar, sufficiently popular, and sufficiently comfortable for the government. The Constitution does not ask California whether open carry makes politicians nervous. It asks whether the state can justify its restriction through this nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Gun rights groups say California cannot meet that burden.

The brief also takes aim at California’s public-safety claims. California has argued that allowing open carry would create fear, panic, and chaos. SAF responds that Bruen rejected judge-empowering interest balancing and that public-safety appeals do not replace historical tradition. The brief further points out that the overwhelming majority of states allow open carry, and the predicted chaos has not followed.

California’s argument is the standard gun-control argument: trust the government, surrender the right, and accept whatever narrow substitute remains. That is not how constitutional rights work.

The right to bear arms is not a concealed-carry-only right. It is not an open-carry-only right. It is the right to bear arms.

As SAF’s brief concludes, California’s ban on open carry in populous counties fails Bruen and should be struck down.

The Ninth Circuit now has a clean choice. It can apply Bruen faithfully and recognize that California has no historical tradition supporting a broad open-carry ban. Or it can once again bend Second Amendment doctrine to save another California gun-control law.

Kostas Moros framed it exactly right: “neither open nor concealed carry may be banned today.”

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

from https://ift.tt/IJkRD7F
via IFTTT

Tennessee Deadly Force Bill SB1847 Heads to Gov. Lee After Narrowing Property Defense Language

9mm pistol self-defense hollow-point ammo iStock-1899043269 — Tennessee lawmakers passed SB1847/HB1802, a narrowed deadly-force property defense bill now headed to Gov. Bill Lee. iStock-1899043269

The Tennessee Legislature has sent Gov. Bill Lee a narrow but important reform to the state’s deadly-force law, and the fight over SB1847/HB1802 shows how much can change between a bill’s introduction and the final version that reaches a governor’s desk.

The Tennessee Legislature passed SB1847 on April 23, the last day of the legislative session. SB1847 includes the legal justification to use deadly force to protect property under certain limited circumstances. In this correspondent’s reading of the law, the legal ability to use deadly force under the bill is not very wide or broad. In the previous law, residents could use force to protect or recover property, but not deadly force.

The new language allows residents to use deadly force to prevent “the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or aggravated cruelty to animals; “if the resident reasonably believes the property cannot otherwise be protected and the use of lesser force would expose the resident or a third party to “a risk of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse.”

The initial versions of the law were more radical. They allowed the use of deadly force to prevent trespassing. They prohibited a person from using deadly force if the suspect was facing away from them. Both instances were radical changes in the use of deadly force law in Tennessee. In the final debates leading to the passage of the bill, both the trespass and “facing away” parts of the bill were removed in the last amendment before both houses passed the bill.

In legislatures across the United States, it is common to have a post-vote process to send the bill to the governor for signature. An administrator or bureau checks the bill to ensure the language matches the language that was voted on. Then the House and Senate leadership sign declarations that the bill language is correct. These are checks to verify the bill’s legitimacy. After the legislative leadership signs off on the bill, the bill is sent to the governor for signature. States vary significantly in how long a governor has to sign a bill and what happens if the governor vetoes it or refuses to sign it.

SB1847 passed with significant super-majorities in both houses. The final votes on the amended bill were: 62-24 in the House, 3 present and not voting; 23-5 in the Senate. The final votes on the bill occurred on April 23, the last day of the session. The bill was not enrolled (checked and made ready for signatures) until April 30, a week later. The Speaker of the Senate signed the enrolled bill on April 30. The Speaker of the House did not sign the enrolled bill until May 7, 2026.

In Tennessee, the bill is automatically sent to the Governor after the signatures. In Tennessee, the governor has 10 days, excluding Sundays, to veto or sign the bill. If the governor does not veto or sign the bill during the 10 days, it becomes law. The 10 day clock does not start until the bill is officially received by the governor.

The rules for sending the bill to the governor can be used to play legislative games, depending on whether the leaders of the legislature want to see the bill vetoed, want to discredit the governor, or want to insure the bill is made into law. This correspondent has seen legislatures accelerate the process so the governor receives a bill one or two days after the vote. Legislators have been known to delay the process to allow the governor to veto the bill without the concern of a veto override in some states. Sometimes the timing is a matter of convenience, to allow the Governor to arrange a bill signing ceremony, for example.

The two-week span to send SB1847 to Governor Bill Lee is a mild cause for concern. It may mean the legislative leaders are not worried about a veto. The Tennessee legislature can override a veto with a simple majority in both houses. It would appear to be an easy thing to do, with the super-majorities that voted for SB1847. Ballotpedia shows that of the four vetoes done in Tennessee from 2010 to 2020, only one was overridden by the legislature.

If Governor Lee officially receives SB1847 on May 8th, he has until May 20 to sign, veto, or allow the bill to become law without his signature.

Connecticut Glock-Style Pistol Ban HB 5043 Heads to Gov. Lamont

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/4VRBu9j
via IFTTT

Pennsylvania Gun Owners Push Constitutional Carry and Preemption Bills in Harrisburg

Glock21 Gen5 MOS 01 — Second Amendment supporters are watching as Pennsylvania lawmakers consider SB 357 and SB 822, Constitutional Carry and stronger statewide firearm preemption enforcement. IMG Jim Grant

Pennsylvania gun owners have two major Second Amendment bills moving in Harrisburg, and anti-gun cities should be paying attention.

SB 357 would bring Constitutional Carry to Pennsylvania. SB 822 would put real enforcement behind statewide firearm preemption. One bill protects the right to carry without a government permission slip. The other puts financial consequences on local governments that keep trying to create illegal gun-control traps.

If SB 357 becomes law, Pennsylvania would become the 30th Constitutional Carry state, confirming what gun owners already know: permitless carry is not an outlier. It is the normal rule across most of America.

Pennsylvania Gun Rights, the state affiliate of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR), is now urging gun owners to contact key senators and push for SB 357 to pass the full Senate “with no anti-gun amendments.” Their action alert notes that Pennsylvania has fallen behind the 29 states that already have Constitutional Carry laws on the books and says Republicans need to hear from gun owners as the bill moves forward.

Shall Not Be Questioned

The PA Constitution says the right to bear arms “shall not be questioned.”

Why hasn’t PA joined 29 states in passing Constitutional Carry?

Republicans in the State Senate are on the verge of passing it!

Make your voice heard NOW

— Pennsylvania Gun Rights (@PennGunRights) May 8, 2026

SB 357: Constitutional Carry Moves To The Full Senate

SB 357, sponsored by Sen. Cris Dush, was reported out of the Pennsylvania Senate Judiciary Committee on May 6, 2026, by a 9–5 vote and received first consideration the same day. The bill has not passed the full Senate yet, which is why gun-rights groups are turning up the pressure now.

The bill does more than clean up licensing language. It repeals provisions related to carrying firearms without a license and creates a new section titled “License not required.”

The heart of SB 357 is straightforward: a person in Pennsylvania who is not prohibited from possessing firearms under state or federal law would have an “affirmative, fundamental and constitutional right” to keep and bear firearms, including carrying openly or concealed, loaded or unloaded, without a Pennsylvania carry license. The bill also makes the License to Carry Firearms optional rather than mandatory.

That is how a constitutional right should be treated. A right does not become real only after a citizen pays a fee, fills out paperwork, and waits for government approval.

SB 357 also repeals Pennsylvania’s special Philadelphia carry restriction. Current law treats Philadelphia differently by restricting carry on public streets or public property unless the person is licensed or exempt. SB 357 would remove that city-specific trap and bring Philadelphia back under the same carry standard as the rest of the Commonwealth.

That change alone makes the bill worth fighting for. Gun owners should not become criminals because they crossed an invisible municipal line.

No Anti-Gun Amendments

The warning from Pennsylvania Gun Rights is the right one: pass SB 357 clean.

Gun-control lawmakers love amendments. They use them to turn strong bills into weak bills, delay bills until the clock runs out, or load them with new restrictions that defeat the purpose of the reform.

A Constitutional Carry bill should not become a vehicle for training mandates, new disqualifiers, expanded “sensitive place” restrictions, local carve-outs, or any other poison pill dressed up as a compromise.

Pennsylvania does not need watered-down carry reform. It needs real Constitutional Carry.

Live Inventory Price Checker

Timney Alpha Competition Trigger for Glock Gen 6 Pistols	GunMag Warehouse	$ 129.99
C&H Precision Pistol Red Dot Adapter Plate for Glock Gen 6 to Leupold Delta Point Pro, Eotech EFLX	MidwayUSA	$ 79.99
C&H Precision Pistol Red Dot Adapter Plate for Glock Gen 6 to to Holosun EPS, EPS Carry	MidwayUSA	$ 79.99
C&H Precision Pistol Red Dot Adapter Plate for Glock Gen 6 to Trijicon RMR, SRO, Holosun 407C, 507C, 507Comp, 508T, C&H EDC-XL, COMP	MidwayUSA	$ 79.99

SB 822: Preemption With Force Moves To The House

SB 822, sponsored by Sen. Wayne Langerholc, is the other half of this fight. The bill passed the Pennsylvania Senate on May 6, 2026, by a 30–20 vote and was referred to the House Judiciary Committee on May 7.

Pennsylvania already has firearm preemption, but preemption without enforcement invites abuse. Anti-gun local officials can pass illegal ordinances, force gun owners to fight them in court, and then use taxpayer money to defend laws they had no authority to pass in the first place.

SB 822 would change the calculation.

The bill declares that the General Assembly occupies the entire field of firearm regulation in Pennsylvania, including firearms, ammunition, magazines, accessories, firearm components, ammunition components, purchase, sale, transfer, taxation, manufacture, ownership, possession, use, discharge, transportation, and loss-or-theft reporting. Conflicting local ordinances, rules, practices, or enforcement actions would be preempted and declared null and void.

The enforcement section is where SB 822 gets its teeth. A person harmed by an illegal local gun ordinance or enforcement action could seek declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and actual damages. If the challenger gives 60 days’ notice and wins, or if the local government repeals the challenged rule after suit is filed, the court must award reasonable expenses.

The bill also protects gun owners dragged into court under illegal local gun laws. If a defendant successfully raises preemption and the case is withdrawn, dismissed, nolle prossed, or ends in acquittal on that basis, the court must award reasonable expenses payable by the county, municipality, or township.

Those reasonable expenses include attorney fees, expert witness fees, court costs, and compensation for lost income. The bill also recognizes membership organizations whose members include affected gun owners, giving pro-gun groups a clearer path to sue when local governments violate state preemption.

That is exactly what preemption needs. A law without enforcement is an invitation for Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and other anti-gun local governments to keep testing the line.

Two Bills, One Fight

SB 357 and SB 822 are different bills, but they belong in the same conversation.

SB 357 says law-abiding Pennsylvanians should not need a government permission slip to carry a firearm for self-defense.
SB 822 says local politicians should not be able to violate state firearm law and make gun owners pay the legal bill.

Pennsylvania gun owners need both.

Constitutional Carry protects the individual right to bear arms. Strong preemption protects that right from being chopped into pieces by city councils and local bureaucrats.

Without SB 357, Pennsylvania remains stuck behind the growing number of states that recognize permitless carry. Without SB 822, local governments, such as Philadelphia, can continue ignoring preemption and restricting constitutional rights.

The bills are not finished. SB 357 needs action from the full Senate. SB 822 has passed the Senate but now has to move through the House. Gun owners should not assume either bill is safe until it is signed into law.

The good news is that the fight is moving. Pennsylvania gun owners have a chance to push carry freedom forward and force local governments to obey state law.

New ATF Rule Will Allow Firearms to be Shipped to Your Door

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/F07RB3y
via IFTTT

Thursday, May 7, 2026

Democrats Fleeing ‘Socialism’ Bringing Anti-Gun Politics with Them

GunVote Gas Mask WASR Romanian AK47 I Voted sticker on MIRA gas mask with a Romanian WASR AKM behind it. — As high-tax blue-state residents look for exits, gun owners in freer states should pay attention to the politics that may arrive with them. IMG Jim Grant

“Seattle AI founder looks to leave as taxes rise: ‘Everybody that I know … is in the process of leaving’,” Fox News reported Saturday. “Jesse Proudman says Venice.ai is looking at Texas, Nevada, Florida and Tennessee as alternatives to Seattle’s tax climate.”

That’s three “red” states and one “purple” state that Proudman is setting his sights on. If he and “everybody he knows” move there, what can we expect from them?

The OpenSecrets donor lookup shows him solidly and consistently in the Democrat camp, with the first two entries going to Hillary Clinton and the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility. Clinton’s stance on the Second Amendment is well known: she’s a zealous prohibitionist.

So, what does the Alliance consider “gun responsibility”? Their “Timeline” shows their “Victories” over the past decade, and each one is a loss for gun owners. You got it, they want it.

That doesn’t bode well for freer states that Proudman and “everybody” he knows want to move to, where they will presumably continue to advance Democrat rule. They’re seemingly oblivious to the repeated human experience that once a majority is achieved, restraints against collectivist excesses can be thrown off. Besides, controlling everything is expensive. And if those in charge want it they can take it.

It’s almost like all freedoms are interconnected or something, and that an unrestrained government powerful enough to control guns is powerful enough to do whatever it wants.

That lesson appears lost on people who should be smart enough to know better. But the reality is, the self-styled “party of the working man” is increasingly the party of high-profile billionaires, even though the increasingly in-your-face Marxists the rope-selling capitalists are financing (like Seattle’s wholly unqualified Mayor Katie Wilson) have made no secret of their contempt for the well-heeled useful idiots who enable them.

While some are beginning to awaken to the fact that history is not kind to the “One Percent” when the proletariat decides they’re too fat and it’s too hungry, plutocrat lifeboat schemes like “guaranteed annual income” or Apocalyptic luxury bunkers will prove desperately delusional. The only thing that will work is what they’re helping to ban.

And it’s not just the wealthy Democrats.

“On the East Coast, New York City is facing a renewed exodus. According to a Citizens Budget Commission (CBC) study released earlier this month, the Big Apple lost more residents than it gained last year,” Fox News notes. “The report found that New York City lost approximately 114,000 more domestic residents to other U.S. cities than it gained in 2025, reversing two years of marginal growth.”

AOC’s mom loves the lower taxes. But her support for the “Green New Deal” shows she hasn’t learned a thing about politics.

“Boston’s affordability crisis drives young workers to consider leaving,” Fox Business adds. “Survey finds nearly half of those leaving the Northeast are heading south as rent hits $2,918 a month in Boston.”

How does that demographic vote again?

Proudman’s the one who brought up Texas, a state the gun prohibitionists have been eyeing to turn back to “blue” for some time (many younger gun owners today don’t remember Gov. Ann Richards, who wouldn’t let Texans vote on concealed carry). As things stand at this writing, committed gun-banner James Talrico leads both John Cornyn and Ken Paxton in the Senate race.

Who thinks an influx of hypocritical Democrats into these states, voters who don’t want to personally “pay their fair share” (their terminology, not mine) for the type of government they demand, will work out well for gun owners?

We’ve seen what happened in Colorado. We can see what’s happening all over the country in an analysis by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation, which blindly opines:

“Texas, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee were the biggest net winners from interstate migration, while California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts were the biggest net losers.”

If your only value is short-term financial gains, they may have a point. But long-term losses from increasingly strident collectivist demands – not just on incomes but on essential freedoms like the right of the people to keep and bear arms – are predictable.

And this just in:

For its size, South Carolina is seeing the biggest influx per capita of new residents from other states, equal to just over 1% of its population. In other words, for every 100 people living in the state, one new person moved in from elsewhere in the country… With the influx of residents, South Carolina gained more than 29,000 new tax filers and roughly $4.1 billion in income. This shift is likely to boost local economies in the state as new residents bring spending power and help fill open jobs in growing industries.

It’s all reminiscent of the story of Esau, who traded his birthright for a mess of pottage. And what’s not being factored in by these migrating Democrats is when their new nests become as fouled as the ones they abandoned, there will be no safe haven to fly to.