History Shows Pistols Were Common in Revolutionary America iStock-2158871985
Pistols were commonly owned in America at the time of the Revolution. Clayton Cramer & Joseph Edward Olson lay out extensive evidence in their paper.
Numerous people claim that pistols were not common during the American Revolution. This is done to imply concealed arms were not included in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. Clayton Cramer and Joseph Edward Olson published a paper outlining extensive evidence of pistol ownership at the time of the American Revolution. The paper was published in the Willamette Law Review on June 3, 2008, pages 699-722.
In early America, pistols were distinguished from guns or firearms. The distinction between pistols and guns, and by extension firearms, persisted in common usage until 1828. One of the most telling pieces of evidence showing the commonality of pistols is the accounting of the weapons turned in to General Gage after the battles of Lexington and Concord occurred on April 19, 1775.
On April 23, 1775, General Gage offered to allow Boston residents to leave if they surrendered their arms. Boston, through the selectmen, voted to accept the offer. By April 27, the people had delivered over 3,400 weapons. From the paper:
As an incentive, General Gage offered passes to leave Boston to all who turned in their weapons, because no weapons or ammunition were allowed to leave Boston. On April 27th, the people delivered to the selectman 1778 fire-arms, 634 pistols, 973 bayonets, and 38 blunderbusses.
Aside from the bayonets, pistols accounted for over 25% of the weapons turned in. This was probably an undercount, because pistols are easier to hide than the other weapons. After telling the Bostonians the weapons would be returned to them, General Gage confiscated them some months later.
The paper goes on to show numerous examples of pistols being offered for sale, pistols in estates, pistol powder for sale, and remnants of pistols found from the era.
In addition, at least one law exempted pistols from the regulation of long guns, the opposite of what is generally seen today. Boston banned people from leaving unattended loaded firearms in buildings because of fire hazards. There was no law banning the carry of loaded firearms. The usage of the time separated firearms from pistols. The ban may not have included a prohibition on leaving loaded pistols in houses. Pocket pistols were mentioned in an account from 1772. There were many concealable arms during the revolutionary period. No evidence of laws against the carry of concealed weapons has been found from this period.
The paper is worth reading for any Second Amendment supporter. It shows handguns were in common use at the time of the revolution, and into the early Republic. Clayton Cramer is well known for his meticulous historical research.
Pistols, while not as common as long guns during the American Revolution, were common and readily used. The story of Samuel Whittemore during the battle of Lexington and Concord is an illustration.
Samuel Whittemore learned of the British attack and armed himself with his prized sword and pistols, grabbed his trusty musket, and went to defend his home. By this point, Whittemore was at least 78, possibly as old as 80. He found a position to hide and observe the British advance and when they got close enough he revealed himself and shot one of the soldiers at nearly point blank range. With no time to reload Whittemore drew his pistols and killed two more soldiers.
Whittemore was shot, clubbed, and bayonetted at least 13 times. Against all odds, he survived and lived for two more decades.
Modern handguns were estimated to account for 27% of the privately owned firearms in the United States in 1945, according to figures in Gary Kleck’s highly acclaimed book, Point Blank. As America has become more urban, handguns have become more popular. In 2023, handguns made up 54% of the firearms added to the private stock in the USA that year.
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.
Connecticut’s House passed HB 5043, a “convertible pistol” bill targeting Glock-style handguns over illegal switches. The bill now heads to the Senate. IMG Jim Grant
The Connecticut House of Representatives voted 86 to 64 on April 22, 2026 to pass HB 5043, legislation that would effectively ban the sale of Glock handguns and similarly designed striker-fired pistols in the state. All House Republicans and 15 Democrats voted against the measure.
Gov. Ned Lamont introduced the bill on February 5, 2026, as a governor’s bill pursuant to Joint Rule 9. He held a press conference promoting the legislation in early March and has expressed his intent to sign it. Key legislative supporters include Rep. Steven Stafstrom of Bridgeport, who led the floor debate, along with Rep. Eleni Kavros DeGraw, Rep. Josh Elliott, Sen. Derek Slap, and Sen. Martha Marx.
The bill bans the future sale, importation, distribution, and advertising of “convertible pistols” in Connecticut. The legislation defines a convertible pistol as “any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with a common household tool into a machine gun solely by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter.”
This definition targets Glock handguns and similarly designed striker-fired pistols, which are among the most popular handguns in the United States. Violations would be classified as a Class D felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
The ban would take effect on October 1, 2026, under the current House-passed version. Current Glock owners could keep their firearms and sell them privately. The bill also redefines unfinished frames and receivers as firearms to target ghost guns and strengthens existing bans on bump stocks.
The stated rationale is to pressure manufacturers like Glock to redesign their pistols. Hartford police seized 51 modified Glocks between 2023 and 2024, and one such weapon was used in the killing of a 20-year-old woman and her 4-year-old son. Lamont noted that Glock already sells a modified version in Germany that is harder to convert.
Second Amendment supporters have raised serious objections. The NRA-ILA called the bill “draconian” and warned it is “on shaky constitutional footing.” The organization noted that since Glock is the most commonly owned handgun in the nation for self-defense, banning its sale is constitutionally suspect under District of Columbia v. Heller, which protects arms “in common use.”
Rep. Craig Fishbein stated, “‘Shall not be infringed’ still appears in the U.S. Constitution… I own firearms capable of being converted… None of them have been converted into machine guns.”
Rep. Doug Dubitsky raised the alarm that if the rationale of banning any firearm capable of illegal modification is accepted, it could logically extend to all semi-automatic handguns.
Rep. Greg Howard pointed out that even Glock’s redesigned V-series was found to be convertible within days of its release. “For as long as human ingenuity is going to exist… somebody, somewhere is going to find a way to manufacture, design something that can overcome the reset cycle of a pistol and make it fully automatic,” Howard argued.
House Minority Leader Vin Candelora argued the bill will not reduce violence. “They could pass every law in the books to regulate guns and restrict guns and prohibit the purchase of guns — it doesn’t actually accomplish, I think, what we want to see, and that is a reduction of gun violence.”
Opposition was overwhelming. Critics also noted that convertible pistols could still be legally purchased out of state and brought into Connecticut, and that no law enforcement exemption exists for police departments to purchase new Glocks. The NRA is already challenging California’s nearly identical law in Jaymes v. Bonta and has signaled it will pursue the same challenge if Connecticut’s law is signed.
The bill now heads to the state Senate, where it is widely expected to pass easily. If signed, Connecticut would become the third state, after California and Maryland, to effectively ban Glock sales based on the convertible pistol framework.
If Gov. Lamont signs HB 5043 into law, Connecticut residents will lose access to the most popular defensive handgun in America based on the theoretical possibility that criminals might illegally modify it. The legislation punishes law-abiding citizens for the actions of criminals who are already violating federal law by possessing machine gun conversion devices.
This bill sets a dangerous precedent that could be used to justify banning virtually any semi-automatic firearm on the grounds that some aftermarket part might someday be invented to modify it. Connecticut gun owners should recognize this for what it is: another step in the incremental disarmament of the American people disguised as a public safety measure.
José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.
The NRA’s 155th Annual Meeting in Houston showed signs of reform momentum, but restoring member trust remains an ongoing challenge.
The National Rifle Association held its 155th Annual Meeting in Houston this past weekend, along with three days of Board and committee meetings.
As an NRA Board member, I flew out to Houston on Wednesday for committee meetings on Thursday and Friday, then the Members’ Meeting on Saturday morning, and the Board meeting on Monday. Between meetings, I spent as much time as I could in the exhibit hall looking at the latest and greatest offerings from the industry, the amazing historical displays, and especially talking with exhibitors and attendees about their impressions of the show and the NRA in general.
The show was great, and the mood was definitely upbeat. While not quite as big as the shows of a few years ago, we had a very good turnout of around 73,000 people in attendance over the three days – a few thousand more than last year’s event, I think. I expect to get official numbers in a day or two, including what appear to be very good reports on new and upgraded NRA memberships through the weekend. From my observations, I was very pleased with the turnout and the positive attitudes among the attendees and the exhibitors.
News on the NRA story was positive as well. The Board continues to work hard to bring the NRA back – to restore member trust, to get the finances straightened out, and to make sure we’re on the right course with strong safeguards in place to ensure good governance and fiduciary responsibility.
The Bylaw amendment I discussed in my last column, reorganizing the Board’s Executive Committee into something more like a “governance committee,” passed with minor, positive changes. Under this new structure, the Executive Committee has a total of 9 members, including the President, First Vice President, Second Vice President, and the Chairs of the Finance, Audit, Legal Affairs, and Membership committees, along with 4 additional members who meet specific qualifications, elected by the Board.
This newly restructured Executive Committee is empowered to meet – mostly electronically – much more frequently than the full, 76-member Board, and exercise many of the powers of the Board, though we included a long list of things the Executive Committee is not authorized to do on its own.
Importantly, we included a requirement that all members of the Board of Directors be notified of all Executive Committee meetings and be able to attend or monitor them. We also included term limits for members of the Executive Committee other than the three officers, who typically rotate through the chairs on a two-year schedule. For the others, we set the bar at 6 consecutive years. This might require some tweaking going forward to deal with questions of how long they must sit out before regaining eligibility – if ever – but I think this is a good baseline.
Another important, and related, Bylaw amendment we passed allows for the Board to meet electronically in between our three regular meetings, or possibly in place of a regular meeting. This was needed to ensure we – the full Board – could reasonably assemble on short notice and at little expense, in case the Executive Committee ever strays from the straight and narrow and needs to be reined in by the Board. An additional Bylaw amendment I intend to push at our September meeting would lower the threshold for calling an emergency meeting of the Board from the current standard of 50%+1, down to something more like 30%, just to make it easier for a group of Directors to do so if needed.
The Executive Committee restructuring proposal, along with an amendment regarding handling legal action against the Association from a member, were put out to the members present at the Annual Meeting of Members on Saturday. This was unprecedented in modern NRA history and was well received by the members, though I wish there had been more members in attendance.
That legal proposal, in simple terms, requires that any dispute between an NRA member and the Association be resolved through arbitration rather than in court. Some discussion of this proposal has been published here on AmmoLand recently, raising all sorts of questions regarding member rights. My take on this is that it is a simple necessity in this day and age of aggressive lawfare and zealous attorneys. Arbitration is much less expensive for all parties concerned and provides for a fair hearing of issues without the expense, extended risks, and delays of going to court. This type of provision is standard in nonprofits and the corporate world, and it protects the NRA from becoming the victim of a lawsuit mill.
In the Board meeting, we reelected our entire leadership team. Bill Bachenberg was reelected as President for a second year, which will be his last, as the President is limited to only two one-year terms. We also cleaned up the Bylaws language regarding presidential term limits, providing a formal mechanism for overriding the limit, only by a 3/4ths vote of the Board, where it has been done by a simple majority in the past.
We fixed some other language in the Bylaws, such as removing the “Order of Business” for meetings. It was a superfluous repetition of Roberts’ Rules of Order, which, per the Bylaws, guide our association’s meetings. There was some argument about this change, but I think that was based on the conflation of “Order of Business” with an “Agenda.” The “Order of Business” is an outline, set by Roberts’ Rules, while the “Agenda” is the outline filled in with specific topics, usually set by the President, which is then adopted – or amended – by the body at the beginning of the meeting, and can be deviated from on a 3/4ths vote of the body during a meeting. I should also mention that Secretary John Frazer has announced his intention to step down, but has agreed to stay on while a search is conducted for a suitable replacement.
The final topic to report from the Board meeting was an amendment to remove “mail” and related words from the rules regarding elections. The objective with this was to “neutralize” the language of the Bylaws, to allow for voting and elections by other means, if we ever find something that would work. This is not part of any move to electronic balloting or online voting. There is currently no plan to move in that direction, but we do recognize that it’s a possibility for some time in the future, as such a move would save the Association hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. Again, though, there is currently no move in that direction, and if we ever do start contemplating something like that seriously, there would, by necessity, be a lot of public discussion and a long transition period.
Regarding term limits, I let it be known at this meeting that I hope this will be my last year on the Board. When I ran and was elected, I expected to spend most of my first 3-year term voting with an upraised middle finger as the Board steamrolled past me. Imagine my surprise when I arrived at my first Board meeting in 2024 to find fully half of the Board ready to partner with me on reforming the Association. I never could have imagined we would move so far so fast.
At this point, I believe we have the NRA ship turned around and on a good course, with solid leaders in the wheelhouse. I think Mark Keefe, the head of NRA Media, nailed it when someone asked him why he thought I would be considering not running again. His answer was: “No more windmills.”
I sought a seat on the NRA Board to help right the ship and save an organization that I love and our country needs. I won’t say “Mission Accomplished,” but I believe I’ve had a positive impact and moved things in the right direction, and I’m confident that with a little more fuel – members and money – Doug Hamlin, our Executive Vice President, and his staff, along with the ever-improving Board, will keep the Association on track and serving our members.
While I try not to reply to comments on these articles, I do endeavor to read the comments and am always interested in hearing what you have to say, so please share your thoughts.
As Doug Hamlin is fond of saying: Full steam ahead!
Jeff Knox is a dedicated political activist and the director of The Firearms Coalition, following in the footsteps of his father, Neal Knox. In 2024, Jeff was elected to the NRA Board of Directors, underscoring his lifelong commitment to protecting the Second Amendment. The Knox family has played a pivotal role in the ongoing struggle for gun rights, a legacy documented in the book Neal Knox – The Gun Rights War, authored by Jeff’s brother, Chris Knox.
Founded by Neal Knox in 1984, The Firearms Coalition is a network of individual Second Amendment activists, clubs, and civil rights organizations. The Coalition supports grassroots efforts by providing education, analysis of current issues, and a historical perspective on the gun rights movement. For more information, visit www.FirearmsCoalition.org.
The D.C. Court of Appeals has granted rehearing en banc in Benson, vacating the earlier panel opinion and reopening the fight over the District’s magazine ban and gun registration rules. (Photo: Scott Witner – Magpul PMAG (Left) BCM Metal Mags (Right)
The legal fight over Washington, D.C.’s ban on so-called “large-capacity” magazines is not over. In a new order filed April 22, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals granted rehearing en banc in Benson v. United States, vacated the panel’s March 5 opinion and judgment, and set the case for argument before the full court.
That means the earlier panel ruling is no longer controlling, at least for now. The full court will take a fresh look at one of the most important Second Amendment cases to come out of the District in years, and gun owners should be paying very close attention.
This development did not come out of nowhere. Earlier this month, AmmoLand reported that Jeanine Pirro’s U.S. Attorney’s Office said it was no longer defending the constitutionality of D.C.’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, had moved to vacate Benson’s conviction on that count, and was no longer prosecuting violations of that statute. But the government still wanted Benson’s other convictions tied to D.C.’s licensing, registration, and ammunition laws to remain in place.
According to the order, the new briefing must focus on two questions: first, whether D.C.’s ban on magazines capable of holding “more than 10 rounds of ammunition” violates the Second Amendment, either facially or as applied, and if so, which of Benson’s convictions must be reversed; and second, whether the District’s licensing and registration requirements violate the Second Amendment. The second question is whether D.C.’s licensing and registration requirements violate the Second Amendment.
That second question matters just as much as the first, and maybe more. Magazine bans get headlines because they are easy for people to understand. A government says your standard magazine is suddenly contraband, and the constitutional problem is obvious. But D.C.’s licensing and registration regime goes to the deeper issue: whether the government can force peaceable citizens to ask permission, submit paperwork, and clear bureaucratic hurdles before they can exercise a fundamental right at all.
As AmmoLand previously reported, the District filed its own petition for rehearing en banc after the March panel decision. The United States then filed a response arguing the panel went too far when it overturned Benson’s convictions for carrying a pistol without a license, possessing an unregistered firearm, and unlawful possession of ammunition. Benson’s counsel, in turn, argued that the government’s filing was really an untimely rehearing petition in disguise.
The full court has now swept past that interim fight and put the central constitutional questions squarely on the table. The order also resets the case procedurally. Benson’s opening brief is due within 30 days of the order, the appellees’ briefs are due 30 days after that, any reply is due 21 days later, and any amicus brief must be filed within seven days of the opening brief of the party it supports. The court also said the new briefs will supersede all prior briefs and must be specifically designed for the en banc court.
There is also a practical reason the government and the District wanted this rehearing. In the earlier filing covered by AmmoLand, the U.S. Attorney’s Office warned that the panel’s remedial analysis could affect roughly 300 pending gun prosecutions and potentially reach already closed convictions as well. In other words, the concern was not just Benson. The concern was what Benson might mean for the broader machinery of D.C.’s gun-control enforcement regime.
That is exactly why this case matters to ordinary gun owners far beyond Washington, D.C. This is not just about one man’s convictions. It is about whether courts are finally willing to confront the reality that magazine bans, registration mandates, and licensing schemes are all part of the same anti-gun architecture. One prohibits what millions of Americans commonly own. The others criminalize simple possession unless the citizen first satisfies the government’s preferred process.
For now, the bottom line is simple. The March 5 panel opinion is vacated. The full D.C. Court of Appeals will hear Benson en banc. And the court has explicitly told the parties to brief not only the magazine ban, but also whether D.C.’s licensing and registration requirements themselves can survive Second Amendment scrutiny.
That is big news. It means one of the country’s most hostile gun-control jurisdictions is now headed for a full-court showdown over whether it can keep treating the right to keep and bear arms like a government-managed privilege. Gun owners should watch what happens next, because the answer will not stay confined to the District for long.
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.
Governor Abigail Spanberger’s recommended changes to SB 749 and HB 217 may widen the reach of Virginia’s pending ban on many commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and magazines over 15 rounds. Image Duncan Johnson
The Virginia General Assembly passed both SB 749 and HB 217 earlier this year. The identical bills would ban the future transfer, sale, and manufacture of many commonly owned semi-automatic firearms classified as “assault firearms,” along with standard-capacity magazines holding more than 15 rounds. These restrictions would not apply to firearms or magazines lawfully owned before the July 1, 2026, effective date.
The bills reached Governor Abigail Spanberger’s desk, but the former CIA agent returned them to the legislature with recommended amendments. The General Assembly is now considering whether to accept or reject those changes. If lawmakers reject the amendments, they can still allow the original bills to pass by taking no further action.
Governor Spanberger’s recommendation would make an already constitutionally questionable bill significantly more restrictive. Specifically, it would remove the word “fixed” from the definition of an assault firearm.
Under the original language, a semi-automatic centerfire rifle or pistol with a fixed magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds would be banned for transfer. The governor’s change would broaden the ban to cover many more semi-automatic firearms that accept detachable magazines exceeding 15 rounds, effectively restricting a wider range of commonly owned handguns and rifles and further limiting their lawful carry in public.
With the bills now “passed by” in their amended form, they will return to the Governor’s desk.
Spanberger can sign them into law, veto them, or take no action, allowing them to become law automatically after 30 days. Most believe that a veto is almost guaranteed not to happen, meaning that these bills will become law.
— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) April 22, 2026
Many legal observers view this process as a potential stall tactic designed to shorten the window for legal challenges before the laws take effect on July 1, 2026. Organizations including Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) have vowed to file lawsuits immediately upon enactment. Because suits cannot be brought until the bills are officially signed or become law without signature, the delay reduces the time available for courts to issue injunctions against the new laws.
Legal challenges are expected in both federal and state courts.
Virginia’s Constitution provides robust protection for the right to keep and bear arms through Article I, Section 13, which explicitly states that the right belongs to the people and is not limited to military service. The provision, strongly influenced by George Mason, reflects the founders’ deep concerns about tyranny and standing armies.
Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution reads: “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.”
Whether or not the amendments were accepted by the Virginia General Assembly doesn’t mean the battle is over. The core fight over these bills continues.
Virginia has served as ground zero for the national gun-rights debate in recent years, and this latest round of legislation ensures the battle will intensify in the months and years ahead.
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.
HB14 would have protected citizens forced to defend themselves and then fight for their freedom in court. Wyoming’s failure to pass it shows the Second Amendment still gets second-class treatment. iStock-1304844629
Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas spoke at my alma mater a few days ago. After his speech, he sat down for a Q&A with William Inboden, the executive vice president and provost at the University of Texas at Austin.
Those of us hoping for some insider insight into the current antics at 1 First Street, NE came away empty-handed. Thomas’ speech and comments didn’t have much to say about the Second Amendment at all. Of course, it’s possible there was an agreement to avoid questions about the court’s prolonged inactivity.
It was Thomas’ repeated judicial and extra-judicial comments about the treatment of the Second Amendment as a “second-class right” that resonated with me as I read Dean Weingarten’s report on the failure of the Wyoming House to advance House Bill 14, Protecting Self-Defense-Reimbursement.
HB14 would have helped citizens acquitted of charges arising from using deadly force in self-defense. It would have allowed the citizen to recover some of their legal expenses from the prosecuting county and would have applied to both acquittals and dropped charges. There was even a provision to expedite expungement: There would be no records to haunt the citizen in the future.
Though Wyoming is one of the reddest states, House Bill 14 failed to advance. Twenty-nine Republicans voted for it; 26 Republicans and six Democrats killed it. It’s likely cost was a factor. Eight of Wyoming’s 23 counties have fewer than 10,000 residents, and it wouldn’t take a particularly large settlement to bankrupt them.
It’s a pity we can’t cut to the chase and enact this as a federal law. The cost of defending oneself from charges such as this can easily run into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars and would bankrupt most people. But any such law passed by Congress would apply only to federal cases. [Note: The one big exception could be clarifying the interstate transportation of firearms under the Firearm Owners Protection Act and adding sanctions like those in Wyoming HB14 to discourage malicious enforcement and prosecution by certain states we all know and loathe.]
In reality, contrary to the “second-class right” meme, a more accurate description would be “steerage.”Steerage is the lowest class of passenger on a ship. It was usually called “third-class,” but in practice it was more like “fourth-class.”
Sounds about right.
The foundation of our system of justice is the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Gun control turns this on its head. Far too many politicians and their fellow travelers assume the only reason anyone wants a gun is so they can commit evil with it.
In a similar vein, a citizen should be free to exercise all of their Enumerated Rights unless it can be proven beyond the shadow of a doubt they have misused or abused the right. No prior restraint, such as permits for purchase or possession. No usurpation of property rights by fiats designating private property open to the public as gun-free zones.
Public property is just that: Property owned or used in the name of, or for the benefit of, the public. There must be a compelling reason to deny the public the right to exercise their core civil liberties. Prohibiting members of the public from personally exercising their right to defense, especially when compelled to be in that place, means the government assumes full responsibility and liability for the citizen’s defense. No hiding behind South v. Maryland, Warren v. District of Columbia, DeShaney v. Winnebago County, or City of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.
It’s foolish to say there are no possible exceptions. Courtrooms when the court is in session; jails, prisons, legislative, county, or municipal chambers while in session or during official meetings.
Prohibitions on lawfully carried firearms in public schools should be subject to the same requirements. A provision for an armed responder at all times on every campus or an opportunity for qualified carry by designated citizens.
One thing an awful lot of people fail to understand — and even more people refuse to accept — is that the Second Amendment is an integral part of the U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the land. With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868 and the amendment’s incorporation under the Due Process Clause in 2010, the Second Amendment, as written and ratified, outranks every federal, state, county, or municipal law or ordinance.
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.
New anti-gun federal legislation introduced by Virginia Senators Tim Kaine and Mark Warner amounts to a direct attack on the Second Amendment. iStock-483315547
Federal legislation introduced this month by perennial anti-gun Senate Democrats Tim Kaine and Mark Warner, both from Virginia—where embattled gun owners are facing legislative demagoguery as freshman Gov. Abigail Spanberger seems determined to ignite a new Civil War with the Justice Department over gun rights—would spread the Commonwealth’s efforts to erode the Second Amendment nationwide.
Kaine and Warner’s “Virginia Plan to Reduce Gun Violence Act” was announced in a press release extolling the “virtues” of both Capitol Hill gun prohibitionists. They remind the media, and anyone else who bothers to read their self-serving announcement, that last year, they “reintroduced the Assault Weapons Ban of 2025, legislation that would revive the 1994 nationwide ban on assault weapons two decades after the original ban expired in 2004.”
They then go on to say, “In 2022, Warner and Kaine helped pass the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, legislation that contains many provisions of the Virginia Plan, including improving background checks, strengthening safeguards for victims of domestic violence, and incentivizing states to implement their own Extreme Risk Protection Orders to remove firearms from individuals who pose a high risk of harming themselves or others.”
Here are the tenets of their “new” plan, taken directly from their news release, which is an expansion of every gun prohibitionist’s dream scheme to trample the right to keep and bear arms:
One-Handgun-a-Month: Limits purchases of handguns to one per month to curtail the stockpiling and trafficking of firearms, promoting domestic and international security.
Reporting of Lost or Stolen Firearms: Requires gun owners to report lost or stolen firearms to the appropriate state or local law enforcement agency within 48 hours. State and local law enforcement agencies would be directed to report the collected data to the FBI’s National Crime Information Center.
Preventing Firearm Access to Minors: Promotes responsible gun ownership and safe storage practices by holding individuals liable for leaving a loaded, unsecured gun in a place a minor could access it. This will prevent the most common cause of accidental shooting deaths among children.
Protection Order Prohibitions: Strengthens safeguards for victims of domestic violence by closing the “boyfriend loophole,” which currently allows abusive non-spousal partners to possess firearms, and expands firearm laws to prohibit persons convicted of stalking or subject to a domestic violence restraining order from possessing firearms.
Extreme Risk Protection Orders: Establishes a federal extreme risk protection order process to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who pose a high risk of harming themselves or others and incentivizes states to implement their own extreme risk protection laws and court protocols.
Lucia’s Law: Establishes criminal liability for a caregiver who gives a child in their care access to a firearm when they are aware that the child is a danger to themselves or others.
Assault Weapons Sale Prohibition: Prohibits the sale, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons.
Assault Weapons Age Restriction: Prohibits the possession of assault weapons by someone under the age of 18, with exceptions if the child is under the supervision of a parent, grandparent, or legal guardian, or participating in an educational or training program.
Prohibition of Ghost Guns: Bans the purchase, sale, importation, or possession of complete or incomplete firearms without a serial number and anyone enabling someone to create such a firearm. Updates the definition of an “Undetectable Firearm” so the definition covers firearms that are not detected by machines commonly used at airports, government buildings, schools, correctional facilities, and other locations for security screening.
Secure Storage of Firearms in Unattended Vehicles: Requires gun owners to securely store a handgun if it is left in an unattended vehicle. Every nine minutes, a firearm is stolen from an unattended vehicle.
Domestic Violence Firearms Relinquishment: Creates a grant program incentivizing states to establish a process to confirm that any firearms possessed by someone newly prohibited from possessing a firearms because they were convicted of a misdemeanor of domestic violence or they are subject to a domestic violence restraining order is no longer in that individual’s possession, because it was transferred to someone who can legally possess the firearm, or it was removed by law enforcement.
Prohibition on Firearms in or near Hospital and Mental Health Services Facilities: Creates a “Mental Healthcare Facility Zone” similar to current gun-free school zones, prohibiting the possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a hospital or mental health facility that provides mental health services or developmental services.
Enhances Safety at Public Higher Education Institutions: Prohibits the possession of firearms in public college & university buildings unless the firearm is being used for an approved educational purpose or in support of public safety.
In their joint release, Warner and Kaine declare this 53-page proposal “would build on Virginia’s commonsense framework to reduce gun violence.”
In reality, the requirements outlined in their announcement would literally turn the right to keep and bear arms into a government-regulated privilege. The only thing missing is a permit-to-purchase restriction, a nasty mandate which Democrats lately have embraced in Colorado and Washington.
It translates into an open declaration by Democrats that their party’s war on the Second Amendment has entered a new phase in which they’re not even trying to disguise their intentions.
The legislation may not move during the remainder of this session, but if Democrats recapture the Senate in November, it’s a safe bet they will try ramming it through in 2027. Whatever else the Kaine/Warner bill might be, it amounts to a warning to gun owners they better not skip voting this fall.
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.
