Michigan Senate Candidate Abdul El-Sayed Thinks the Second Amendment Only Protects Muskets

Michigan Democrat Abdul El-Sayed claims the Second Amendment protects muskets, not modern firearms. The Supreme Court rejected that argument in 2008. Now, the Senate candidate’s latest remarks are drawing renewed attention to his previous proposal to replace the Second Amendment entirely.

Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed argued that the Second Amendment’s protections should be interpreted in light of founding-era muskets, a position addressed by the Supreme Court in Heller. IMG iStock-2263107177

Michigan Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed apparently believes Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, so long as those arms are muskets from the 18th century.

During a recent campaign appearance, El-Sayed attempted to explain constitutional originalism before suggesting that because muskets were commonly used when the Second Amendment was ratified, Americans today should have the right to those same weapons.

“When they promised the right to bear arms, they had muskets. So, yeah, everyone should have equal rights to a musket.”

There is one glaring problem with El-Sayed’s argument. The Supreme Court already rejected it nearly two decades ago.

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), Justice Antonin Scalia specifically addressed the claim that the Second Amendment protects only firearms available during the founding era, describing that reasoning as “bordering on the frivolous.”

Yet here we are in 2026, with a candidate for the United States Senate repeating the same argument while attempting to lecture Americans about the Constitution.

El-Sayed’s remarks, highlighted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and examined by J.D. Tuccille at Reason, are particularly revealing when compared with his previous statements about the Second Amendment.

In 2023, El-Sayed openly proposed replacing the constitutional right to keep and bear arms with a right to healthcare. When confronted about that proposal during his Senate campaign, he declined to directly disavow it.

Taken together, El-Sayed’s statements go beyond the usual Democratic gun-control rhetoric about banning AR-15s and other semiautomatic firearms. He has explicitly proposed replacing the Second Amendment itself. His latest argument would effectively deny constitutional protection to modern firearms, something the Supreme Court has already rejected.

This is not merely a disagreement over firearm regulations. El-Sayed has publicly questioned whether the constitutional protection of gun ownership should continue to exist in its present form.

Justice Scalia Already Destroyed the Muskets-Only Argument

El-Sayed is hardly the first politician to suggest that the Second Amendment should be limited to muskets. Anti-gun activists have recycled versions of this argument for years, often claiming the Founders could never have imagined modern semiautomatic firearms.

Unfortunately for that argument, the Supreme Court settled the underlying constitutional question in District of Columbia v. Heller, No. 07-290.

Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia rejected the notion that constitutional protection ends with 18th-century technology.

The Court explained that the Second Amendment extends presumptively to bearable arms that did not exist at the founding, just as the First Amendment protects modern communications and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern methods of searching.

That ruling also affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms independent of militia service, including for lawful self-defense in the home.

El-Sayed’s understanding of the amendment runs directly against those conclusions.

He attempts to use originalism to limit Americans to weapons from the founding era, but originalism does not mean constitutional rights are confined to the technology available in 1791.

It means the Constitution is interpreted according to its original public meaning.

The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not specify muskets, flintlocks, or any other particular firearm. It certainly does not establish a technological expiration date for the constitutional rights of American citizens.

The Supreme Court reinforced the historical approach to Second Amendment cases in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), holding that firearm regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Neither decision supports the ridiculous notion that a constitutional right becomes obsolete whenever technology advances.

By El-Sayed’s Logic, the First Amendment Wouldn’t Protect the Internet

The constitutional problem with El-Sayed’s argument becomes even more apparent when the same reasoning is applied to other rights protected by the Bill of Rights.

The First Amendment was ratified in 1791. At the time, Americans relied on printing presses, handwritten correspondence, newspapers, and public speeches to communicate political ideas.

There were no smartphones, televisions, radio broadcasts, or social media platforms.

Does that mean the government can censor speech on Facebook or X because James Madison never owned an iPhone?

Of course not.

The Fourth Amendment was also written long before computers, GPS tracking, thermal imaging devices, and electronic surveillance. Yet Americans retain constitutional protections against unreasonable government searches involving those technologies.

Imagine a politician arguing that police could search private emails without constitutional restraint because the Founders communicated through handwritten letters.

That is essentially the same reasoning El-Sayed is applying to the Second Amendment.

As J.D. Tuccille explained in Reason, accepting this interpretation would leave constitutional protections limited to the technology of the 18th century.

The entire Bill of Rights would become increasingly meaningless as society developed new technologies.

The Constitution’s original meaning remains unchanged. What changes are the tools Americans use to exercise the rights it protects.

Americans do not lose their freedom of speech when they exchange printing presses for computers. They do not lose their Fourth Amendment protections when government agents exchange handwritten warrants for electronic surveillance.

And they do not lose their Second Amendment rights when firearms manufacturers develop better rifles, pistols, and ammunition.

The Founding Fathers Knew About Repeating Firearms

El-Sayed’s argument also demonstrates a poor understanding of American firearms history.

Anti-gun politicians frequently suggest that the Founders could never have imagined repeating firearms, much less the semiautomatic rifles and handguns owned by millions of Americans today.

That claim ignores firearms technology that existed long before the Second Amendment was ratified.

During the Revolutionary War, inventors and gunsmiths were already developing breech-loading rifles, repeating flintlocks, and firearms capable of delivering multiple shots without the conventional process of reloading a single-shot musket.

Some of those designs attracted the attention of the Continental Congress itself.

As firearms historian Logan Metesh documented in AmmoLand’s Fact Check: The Founding Fathers DID Know About Repeating Rifles, Philadelphia inventor Joseph Belton approached Congress in April 1777 with a repeating flintlock design that he claimed could fire multiple rounds in rapid succession.

Congress was sufficiently interested to authorize the construction or modification of 100 firearms using Belton’s improvements.

The project ultimately fell apart over Belton’s compensation demands, but the historical record establishes that America’s Founders were familiar with the concept of repeating firearms more than a decade before the Second Amendment was ratified.

Belton was far from the only firearms innovator of the era.

The Lorenzoni repeating flintlock employed an internal magazine and a rotating breech mechanism capable of delivering successive shots without conventional muzzleloading.

Kalthoff repeating firearms had existed since the 17th century.

The Ferguson rifle, developed before the American Revolution, featured a breech-loading mechanism that allowed a trained shooter to reload considerably faster than with a conventional musket.

The Girardoni repeating air rifle, introduced before the Bill of Rights was ratified, offered another example of firearms technology advancing beyond the ordinary single-shot musket.

These firearms were expensive, mechanically complicated, and generally uncommon, but they demonstrate that the Founders were not ignorant of repeating-firearm technology.

AmmoLand recently explored this tradition in Revolutionary War Gunsmiths & the Second Amendment, examining the craftsmen and inventors who developed, manufactured, and improved firearms during America’s founding.

The Founders understood that weapons technology would advance. They had already witnessed those advancements.

But even without these historical examples, El-Sayed’s argument would still fail. The Second Amendment protects a preexisting right to keep and bear arms, not a particular design of firearm.

El-Sayed Already Proposed Replacing the Second Amendment

El-Sayed’s recent musket comments are especially concerning when compared with his previous statements about the right to keep and bear arms.

In August 2026, The Reload uncovered a previously public YouTube video from April 6, 2023, in which El-Sayed suggested replacing the Second Amendment’s protection of gun ownership with a constitutional right to healthcare.

“What if we tweaked the Constitution? Amended the amendment, and instead of the right to bear arms, we change it to the right to have health care.”

That was not a proposal for another background check, waiting period, or ban on a particular type of firearm. El-Sayed was proposing to replace the constitutional guarantee itself. The video was subsequently removed from public access, although The Reload recovered a transcript of the recording.

During the same discussion, El-Sayed questioned the individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, suggesting that its purpose involved state militias rather than the private possession of firearms. That argument also conflicts with Heller, which recognized the Second Amendment as protecting an individual right independent of militia service.

When the 2023 recording resurfaced during his Senate campaign, El-Sayed’s campaign said he respected the Second Amendment. However, it did not directly answer whether he continued to support replacing it.

During an August interview, El-Sayed was asked directly whether he wanted to replace the Second Amendment. Rather than disavowing the proposal, he shifted the discussion toward healthcare. According to The Reload’s August 27 follow-up, El-Sayed repeatedly avoided giving a direct answer.

Now, during his campaign for the United States Senate, he is again questioning the extent of the Second Amendment’s protections, this time by suggesting the constitutional right to bear arms should be understood in terms of muskets.

The statements form a public record that extends beyond ordinary disagreements over gun-control legislation.

In 2023, El-Sayed proposed replacing the Second Amendment. In August 2026, he declined to directly reject that proposal. Now he is advancing an interpretation that would leave modern firearms outside constitutional protection.

Americans have good reason to examine those statements closely, especially when they come from someone seeking a seat in the United States Senate.

The Second Amendment Protects Modern Arms, Not Just Antique Muskets

The Supreme Court did not hold in Heller that every firearm is constitutionally protected in every circumstance. It did, however, reject excluding weapons from Second Amendment protection simply because they were invented after the founding.

That remains a critical point in today’s legal battles over AR-15s, magazines, semiautomatic firearms, and the government’s authority to restrict commonly owned weapons.

Millions of Americans lawfully own modern firearms for self-defense, sporting purposes, competition, and other lawful activities. Those firearms are not automatically excluded from constitutional protection because they operate differently from the weapons carried during the Revolutionary War.

The right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people, not merely to the government, its military, or its police officers. El-Sayed’s musket argument would turn that principle on its head.

That is why the original meaning of the Second Amendment matters. The Founders did not write the Bill of Rights to grant government officials the power to decide which technological advancements citizens could use to exercise their liberties. They adopted constitutional protections intended to restrain government power.

The Second Amendment was not written to preserve a particular model of firearm. It was adopted to secure the people’s preexisting right to keep and bear arms against government infringement.

The Second Amendment’s original meaning remains unchanged, and its protection does not evaporate when firearms improve.

The right to keep and bear arms is not a government-issued permission slip to own an antique musket. It is a constitutional protection against government infringement, and Americans do not surrender that right simply because they choose a modern firearm.

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/iNBynL7
via IFTTT

Gun-Control Groups Ask Supreme Court to Gut Bruen and Strip AR-15s of Second Amendment Protection

Gun-control groups defending AR-15 bans before the Supreme Court are asking justices to weaken Second Amendment protections, relying on historical Bowie knife restrictions, Reconstruction-era Winchester rifle regulations, and arguments that America’s most popular semiautomatic rifle falls outside the Constitution.

The Supreme Court will hear arguments in two major AR-15 ban cases on December 2, 2026, as gun-control groups defend restrictions on commonly owned rifles. iStock-2281848066

The gun-control lobby is showing its hand in the Supreme Court’s upcoming showdown over AR-15 bans. With the constitutionality of restrictions on America’s most popular semiautomatic rifle on the line, the organizations defending those bans are making it clear just how far they are willing to go to preserve them.

In an October 28 amicus brief, Giffords Law Center argues that the Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen if that precedent requires striking down bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

Virginia’s attorney general goes even further, telling the justices that AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment. Meanwhile, a group of historians is relying on 19th-century Bowie knife restrictions and questionable comparisons involving Winchester repeating rifles to defend modern bans on semiautomatic firearms.

These are not hypothetical arguments from your local anti-gun crackpot. They appear in documents submitted to the nation’s highest court in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566, two consolidated cases that could determine whether governments can continue banning rifles owned by millions of law-abiding Americans.

Giffords Wants Bruen Gone if It Means Protecting AR-15s

Perhaps the most revealing argument comes from Giffords Law Center, one of the country’s most prominent gun-control organizations. On page 18 of its brief, Giffords introduces an entire section with the heading:

“Striking Down the Challenged Laws Would Prove That Bruen Is Unworkable and Must Be Overruled.”

The organization first argues that the rifle bans can survive under Bruen. But if the justices disagree and conclude that the decision requires striking down those restrictions, Giffords offers another solution. On page 19, the organization writes:

“if Petitioners are right that this is the result Bruen commands, then Bruen is unworkable and must be overruled.”

Remember what Bruen established. The government cannot justify restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms simply by claiming that a law promotes public safety. Instead, it must demonstrate that the restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

That standard rejected the interest-balancing approach lower courts had repeatedly used to uphold gun-control laws despite their interference with an enumerated constitutional right.

Now Giffords is arguing that if the Supreme Court’s own Second Amendment test prevents lawmakers from banning commonly owned rifles, the Court should abandon that test.

The group’s brief also emphasizes the authority of state and local governments to address public-safety concerns. That argument reflects a familiar problem with gun-control advocacy: the suggestion that constitutional rights should depend on what elected officials believe their communities need.

The Second Amendment does not mean something different because someone crosses a county or state line. It protects an individual right against infringement by federal, state, and local governments.

Virginia Claims AR-15s Are Essentially Machine Guns

Virginia’s October 28 amicus brief takes a different, but equally troubling, approach. Rather than asking the Court to overturn Bruen, Virginia argues that the AR-15 does not qualify as a protected arm under the Second Amendment. The brief states on page 3:

“AR-15s are not ‘Arms’ that the Second Amendment protects.”

Virginia then advances an extraordinary comparison, describing AR-15s as machine guns except for their semiautomatic firing mechanism. That argument dismisses one of the most fundamental distinctions in firearms design.

A standard semiautomatic AR-15 fires one round for each pull of the trigger. A fully automatic machine gun can fire multiple rounds with a single sustained trigger pull. These are materially different operating systems, and federal firearms law recognizes that distinction.

Calling an AR-15 essentially a machine gun does not change how the rifle actually operates.

Virginia also argues that AR-15s are not commonly used for lawful self-defense, challenging the gun-owner surveys and ownership estimates cited by the petitioners.

But the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller recognized protection for arms typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. Nothing in that principle requires Americans to have already fired their firearms in self-defense before their ownership receives constitutional protection.

Virginia’s position is particularly significant because the Commonwealth enacted its own restrictions on semiautomatic rifles in 2026, which have faced constitutional challenges and preliminary injunctions.

The state has an obvious interest in convincing the Supreme Court that governments can prohibit rifles commonly owned by their citizens.

Historians Turn to Bowie Knives and Winchester Rifles to Defend AR-15 Bans

Perhaps the most revealing historical arguments appear in a separate amicus brief submitted by historians, including David J. DeLay and other academics who have examined historical firearms regulations.

The historians argue that 19th-century restrictions on Bowie knives, along with selected regulations involving Winchester repeating rifles, establish a tradition of regulating weapons considered particularly dangerous.

Their discussion of Winchester rifles is particularly interesting.

Repeating rifles were a major technological advancement in the 19th century. The Henry rifle and subsequent Winchester designs allowed Americans to fire multiple rounds without reloading after every shot. Like today’s semiautomatic rifles, they represented a significant improvement over earlier firearms.

Yet the historians do not identify a broad American tradition of categorically prohibiting ordinary civilian possession of Winchester repeating rifles.

Instead, they rely on a handful of examples that deserve much closer examination.

One concerns an 1893 Florida law requiring a license for Winchester rifles. The National Rifle Association has challenged that law’s relevance, identifying its discriminatory history. The historians dispute that characterization and argue that concerns about murders involving Winchesters also contributed to its passage.

A late-19th-century licensing law, particularly one challenged as racially discriminatory, is a questionable foundation for justifying modern bans on commonly owned firearms.

The other examples are even more revealing.

The historians describe South Carolina’s efforts during Reconstruction to disarm Ku Klux Klan members who had obtained Winchester rifles. They also cite a subsequent South Carolina law requiring civilians to return Winchesters intended for state use. That is not the same thing as banning law-abiding citizens from purchasing and possessing their own repeating rifles.

Then there is Louisiana. The historians point to an 1870 order issued by Louisiana Adjutant General James Longstreet concerning Winchester rifles held in the New Orleans armory. The order restricted disassembling the rifles or using them for parades and drills without authorization.

In other words, the historians are citing military rules governing government-controlled firearms as historical evidence supporting restrictions on privately owned AR-15s.

The distinction should be obvious to anyone familiar with firearms or American history.

An order controlling how state-owned rifles are handled in an armory is not a prohibition on ordinary citizens possessing their own rifles. Neither is recovering government weapons from unauthorized hands.

Second Amendment Foundation attorney Kostas Moros, the organization’s director of legal research and education, has challenged the use of historical outliers to justify bans on common rifles. His broader legal scholarship argues that America’s historical tradition does not support prohibiting ordinary repeating firearms simply because they offered technological advantages over earlier weapons.

Starting the Giffords brief. It’s funny how they argue different states should be allowed to pass different things based on their needs.

If that’s true, why do they argue for a national AWB?

As usual, Giffords is intellectually dishonest, hiding what its true goal is to suit its audience. We have seen this time and time again from them, e.g.:

1. Opposing constitutional carry because shall issue exists, but being angry when blue states were forced to go shall issue;

2. Opposing our NFA win because NFA registration has, they claim, made it so that suppressors and SBRs are rarely used in crimes, but they still support states like California having total bans on suppressors.

Plenty more examples.

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) October 28, 2026

The central question remains unanswered by these narrow examples: Where is the historical tradition of categorically banning an entire class of commonly owned repeating rifles from law-abiding citizens?

Pointing to Bowie knife taxes, restrictions on carrying particular weapons, and military armory rules does not establish such a tradition.

Another Attempt to Rewrite Bruen’s Constitutional Test

The effort to weaken Second Amendment protections does not stop with historical comparisons.

In another amicus brief, legal scholars Luke Smith Morgan and Jacob D. Charles ask the Supreme Court to conduct a more substantial historical examination at the first stage of the Bruen analysis.

Under Bruen, courts first consider whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the individual’s proposed conduct. If it does, the government must justify its restriction by demonstrating consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

Morgan and Charles argue that courts should examine the historically understood boundaries of the right when deciding whether the conduct falls within the Amendment’s protection in the first place.

The danger is that this approach could allow lower courts to exclude firearms from constitutional protection before requiring the government to justify its restrictions under Bruen’s historical-tradition test.

Gun owners have already watched lower courts find creative ways around Heller and Bruen. Giving those courts another opportunity to decide that an ordinary firearm falls outside the Second Amendment’s protection risks perpetuating that problem.

In a separate brief, law professor Joseph Blocher challenges the idea that the number of firearms in circulation should conclusively determine whether those firearms receive constitutional protection.

Blocher raises questions about how a strict common-use test would operate in other circumstances.

But the Supreme Court does not need to resolve every hypothetical firearms classification dispute to decide whether AR-15s are protected.

These rifles are already widely owned by law-abiding Americans for self-defense, recreation, competition, and other lawful purposes.

If the government can acknowledge that millions of Americans lawfully possess a firearm and still declare it outside the Second Amendment, what meaningful protection does the common-use principle provide?

States and Gun-Control Organizations Line Up Against AR-15 Owners

The October 28 deadline brought dozens of additional amicus submissions defending Cook County’s and Connecticut’s rifle restrictions.

The Supreme Court docket includes submissions from Giffords, Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, Sandy Hook Promise, law enforcement associations, medical organizations, legal scholars, local governments, and members of Congress.

A coalition consisting of Massachusetts, New Jersey, 16 other states, and the District of Columbia submitted a brief supporting the respondents. Their position contrasts with the coalition of states supporting the gun owners challenging the bans.

On the other side, the Second Amendment Foundation and its fellow challengers have received support from the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, National Shooting Sports Foundation, and numerous other organizations defending the right to own commonly used rifles.

The United States also filed an amicus brief supporting the challengers.

The constitutional dispute is not about whether politicians believe AR-15s are desirable firearms. It is about whether the government has the authority to prohibit Americans from possessing arms protected by the Constitution.

The Supreme Court Must Decide Whether Common Use Means Anything

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Viramontes and Grant on December 2, 2026.

At the center of these cases is a straightforward constitutional question: Can the government ban an entire category of rifles that millions of Americans lawfully own?

The challengers argue that the Second Amendment’s text, America’s historical tradition of firearms ownership, and the Supreme Court’s own precedents prohibit such bans.

Their opponents are offering the justices several ways around that conclusion. Some argue AR-15s are too dangerous to qualify as protected arms. Others want to diminish the significance of common ownership. Historians point to Bowie knives and narrowly targeted Winchester regulations, while Giffords is prepared to argue for overturning Bruen if its application requires invalidating the bans.

None of those arguments changes the constitutional text or the reality of America’s longstanding tradition of civilian firearms ownership.

The AR-15 is an arm. It is commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes. Its modern design and effectiveness do not make it an exception to the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court does not need to invent another test or retreat from its existing precedents. It needs to enforce the Constitution as written.

The right to keep and bear arms does not disappear because gun-control organizations find the firearms Americans choose to own politically inconvenient.

Related: Every Amicus Brief in Viramontes and Grant: Supreme Court Fight Over AR-15 Bans

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/4lVb7nc
via IFTTT

Down to the Wire in WA: Why State Supreme Court Election is Critical to 2A

Washington state gun owners are being prodded to turn in their ballots, especially to elect a new independent state Supreme Court majority in anticipation of legal challenges to the state’s permit-to-purchase gun control law. iStock-2265632503

The nail-biting in Washington state has begun, with the eyes of gun owners focused on the effort to flip the State Supreme Court from an entirely liberal makeup to one with at least five by-the-book independent justices who are being supported by conservatives, many independents, and gun rights activists.

Next Tuesday’s election will determine whether legal challenges to an insidious permit-to-purchase law, passed entirely by Democrats and opposed by Republicans—House Bill 1163—will succeed or fail.

Ammoland News broke the story back on Sept. 11 that this purchase permit will cost at least $126, and that does not include fees for the mandatory training requirement in order to qualify for the permit, which could cost several hundred dollars more.

The law will undoubtedly be challenged in state and federal court under provisions of Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution, and under the Second Amendment, which was incorporated to the states by the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago. There is no small irony in the fact that the McDonald case was brought by the Second Amendment Foundation, which is based in Bellevue, Wash.

Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution says, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.”

Nowhere does it state, or even suggest, that this right is dependent upon completion of a safety course or the acquisition of a permit-to-purchase. Instead, this right, as spelled out by a state constitution adopted on Nov. 1, 1889, “shall not be impaired.” Critics of the new law, which takes effect May 1, 2027, say prior restraint mandates such as purchase permits and expensive training requirements are impairments.

It will be up to the State Supreme Court to make that determination, at least at the state level.

This and similar ads promoting five candidates for the Washington Supreme Court have been showing up on social media for the past month.

The campaign to elect candidates Scott Edwards, Dave Larson, David Stevens, Sean O’Donnell, and Todd A. Bloom has seen a considerable amount of money spent by the opposition.

And then there’s the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the cornerstone of the Bill of Rights. It reads a bit differently:

“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.”

Nowhere does it say people must first obtain a purchase permit to exercise this constitutionally-protected and enumerated fundamental right. It says this right “shall not be infringed.” What that means, according to the 2008 Supreme Court’s Heller ruling, is simply that government must keep its hands off.

Evidently, Washington state Democrats didn’t take courses in American government or Civics, and there is an embarrassing video floating around of Republican State Rep. Jim Walsh asking a panel of high school students testifying in support of a gun control measure whether they have read the state RKBA provision, and none had. Then, seated to Walsh’s left, House Judiciary Chair Rep. Jamila Taylor (D-District 30) admits she has not read that section of the state constitution, either.

Ammoland first looked at the Washington Supreme Court campaign back in August, and it has intensified since then.

Gun owners and conservatives in general have traditionally been lethargic during midterm elections, so there has been a vigorous effort to get them to return their mail-in ballots. The future of gun rights in the state could literally be riding on the outcome of the State Supreme Court elections.

All of the opposition candidates have been hand-picked by Democrat governors and/or they are supported by the far left.

Washington has seemingly been abandoned by the national Republican Party because voters along the I-5 corridor (Vancouver, Olympia, Tacoma, Seattle, Everett and Bellingham) traditionally vote Blue and they get a better turnout, while voters in conservative districts have become increasingly discouraged.

In addition, there has been an exodus of gun owners and traditionally conservative voters to friendlier states, putting those who remain at a numeric disadvantage.

But this year is different. Not only is the state high court up for grabs, there is a trio of politically incendiary initiatives on the ballot, which could bring conservatives out of the woodwork: I-645 to stop the so-called “Millionaire income tax,” I-638 to protect girls’ sports and I-001, protecting parents’ rights. Democrats and liberals are opposed to all three measures, but there is strong support among conservatives and even Independents. “YES” votes on all three are important to the state’s future, say supporters.

These Washington races will be the ones to watch, which is why Evergreen State gun owners, many of whom are in the field right now hunting deer or elk, are being begged, cajoled, motivated or outright browbeaten to get off their duffs for five minutes, fill out their ballots, drop them off at local ballot drop boxes (NOT at the post office, which cannot be depended upon to process ballots in time for Tuesday’s voting deadline) and perhaps flip the political landscape for the first time in decades.

Related: Washington 2A Advocates Focus on Supreme Court Election: ‘You Must Vote!’

---

About Dave Workman

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

---

from https://ift.tt/u421hsq
via IFTTT

NYPD Makes Gun Owners Wait Up to 18 Months for Pistol Permits Despite Six-Month Law

New York law gives the NYPD License Division six months to act on a firearm license application. AmmoLand’s investigation found New Yorkers waiting two to three times longer for a pistol permit.

Valdosta police say an armed shopper stopped New York law generally requires licensing decisions within six months, but the NYPD faces allegations of pistol permit delays lasting up to 18 months. iStock-901659046

AmmoLand investigation has found that the NYPD is holding up some pistol permits in New York City for 12 to 18 months. If you read Roger J. Katz’s October 26 piece at AmmoLand, “NYPD Exposed for Illegal Delays in Firearms Licensing,” you already know the outline of this problem. Since then, what we have uncovered is how long some people are actually waiting for a pistol permit, and it’s a lot longer than the law allows.

Penal Law § 400.00(4-b) says the licensing officer “shall act upon any application for a license pursuant to this section within six months of the date of presentment.” There’s a narrow exception. The officer can go past six months only “upon written notice to the applicant specifically stating the reasons for any delay,” and the statute says that delay “may only be for good cause and with respect to the applicant.” When the officer finally acts, he must either deny the application “for reasons specifically and concisely stated in writing” or grant it and issue the license.

Six months. The state wrote that number itself. Pistol permit wait times are double or triple that.

So how does the NYPD get away with it? The statute sets a deadline and then never says what happens if the city misses it. As Katz wrote in the first story, “No penalty attaches for the failure of the NYPD License Division” to process an application within six months, or to explain the holdup in writing. The applicant has to follow every rule to the letter. The department, apparently, doesn’t.

Katz also wrote that a timely answer “isn’t just a matter of common courtesy. It is a compulsory legal obligation, and one the License Division routinely shirks.” Our earlier report found the License Division “sitting on thousands of unprocessed applications, many going back a couple of years,” and with a backlog like that, a year-or-more wait for a pistol permit shouldn’t surprise anybody.

Then there’s the money. Research shows that New York City applicants pay a $340 nonrefundable licensing processing fee, including an $88.75 fingerprint fee, and the required gun safety course run between $400 and $500, sometimes more. That money is gone, whether the License Division gets back to you in six months or lets your file sit for a year and a half.

Why So Many New Yorkers are Applying

Some of this is a demand story, and the demand didn’t come out of nowhere. In 2022, the Supreme Court decided New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and told New York its carry restrictions went too far. According to NYPD data Gothamist obtained in March 2024 and highlighted by Colion Noir, applications to the License Division for a residence rifle or handgun license rose 80% from 2022 to 13,369 in 2023, almost triple what the department received in 2019.

Carry applications jumped even more. The NYPD took in just 258 of them in 2019. By 2023, it was 6,751. In the first two months of 2024, Gothamist reported, carry applications had already passed the combined total for 2019, 2020, and 2021. You’d think a jump like that would push the License Division to staff up and move faster. From what we’ve seen, it hasn’t.

AmmoLand is not the only one saying so. Gothamist noted back then that the NYPD was already facing a class-action lawsuit claiming it takes too long to review applications. A separate federal suit, Milani v. New York City, No. 1:25-cv-01732, was filed in the Southern District of New York on March 3, 2025, by nine applicants represented by the Law Office of Mirel Fisch. The complaint accuses the City of “excessive, unreasonable, and unjustifiable delays in processing firearms license applications,” and it puts a familiar number on the record. According to the complaint, a License Division investigator told one applicant in a recorded call in October 2024 that it “generally takes . . . twelve to eighteen months to process.” When he asked whether that wasn’t too long, the suit says she answered, “No, no, we, that’s the general umm, the general length.”

Those are allegations, and the City hasn’t had its day in court on them. But they line up with what we found. The complaint also claims the License Division has a practice of “deciding applications 12-18 months after the applications were first presented,” which it argues makes it “inherently impossible to comply with State law.” According to the filing, lead plaintiff Robert Milani didn’t get his license until February 6, 2025, “one year, six months, and four days after he first submitted his application.” The plaintiffs are asking for compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and a jury trial.

Why are people lining up? Because they don’t feel safe, and it’s hard to tell them they’re wrong. The AmmoLand piece quotes data saying New York’s 2025 crime rate was “1.2 times greater than the U.S. average” and “higher than in 88.4% of U.S. cities,” and that the last five years have brought a rise in violent crime and increasing property crime. Katz also points out that New York City is the most populous city in the country, almost 8.6 million people packed in together. The police can’t be on every block.

Think about who’s actually in that line. Maybe it’s a woman being followed home. Telling her to check back in a year and a half doesn’t help her tonight.

The Part Nobody at One Police Plaza Wants to Talk About

There’s another angle here I won’t skip. Katz wrote that, “Anecdotally, we have heard some License officers are accepting bribes merely to do what State law mandates from them, timely processing of handgun licenses.”

Katz was careful to call that anecdotal, and so am I. But the License Division has been down this road before. The earlier report points back to CNN coverage from more than ten years ago quoting retired NYPD officer Stephen D’Andrilli, who said New York’s restrictive laws “have created an environment that allows a black market to exist.”

Katz and the Arbalest Quarrel say they’ve sent a letter to Police Commissioner Jessica S. Tisch about all this. As Katz put it, “This situation is untenable and begs for corrective legal action.” We agree with him. If the NYPD can’t act on a pistol permit in six months, the law already tells it to put the reason in writing and send it to the applicant. The statute doesn’t allow a file to sit for 12 or 18 months.

Bruen settled whether New Yorkers have the right to carry. Whether the city will let them use it on any reasonable timeline is still an open question, and we’re going to keep digging into it. If you’re stuck in the License Division backlog right now, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) needs to hear from you. Readers can file a complaint for delayed pistol permits or other licensing delays here.

Related: NYPD Exposed for Illegal Delays in Firearms Licensing

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. 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/cRnPuYU
via IFTTT

Armed Woman Shoots Intruder Who Kicked Down Airbnb Door at 3 A.M. in North Carolina

An armed woman shot an alleged intruder after he kicked down the door of an occupied Airbnb in West Jefferson, North Carolina, according to the Ashe County Sheriff’s Office. iStock-2283690626

WEST JEFFERSON, N.C. — A North Carolina woman refused to become a helpless victim when a man allegedly kicked down the door of her Airbnb rental in the middle of the night. Instead, she exercised her right to armed self-defense, shooting the intruder as he entered the occupied home.

The October 13 defensive shooting in West Jefferson left the suspected intruder hospitalized and later facing felony burglary and assault charges. Now, Ashe County Sheriff B. Phil Howell is publicly standing behind the right of Americans to defend themselves and their families.

According to an October 26 press release from the Ashe County Sheriff’s Office, deputies responded to a 911 call at approximately 3 a.m. from a woman staying at an Airbnb on Sunset Ridge Road. The caller reported that a man had kicked down the door and that she shot him when he entered the residence.

Deputies and emergency medical personnel arrived alongside officers from the West Jefferson and Jefferson police departments. Authorities identified the wounded man as 33-year-old Icon Christen of Long Branch, New Jersey.

Christen was initially transported to Ashe Memorial Hospital before being flown to Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem for further treatment. He survived his injuries and was subsequently released from the hospital.

Suspect Arrested on Burglary and Assault Charges

Investigators determined that Christen had been involved in a domestic dispute the previous evening.

According to the sheriff’s office, the incident began around 7:45 p.m. on October 12, when an out-of-town woman contacted dispatchers to report a dispute involving her husband. Deputies located the woman in a wooded area behind a residence and helped arrange transportation out of the county with family members.

Several hours later, authorities responded to the shooting at the Airbnb, where they identified Christen as the same man involved in the earlier domestic dispute. The sheriff’s office did not clarify the relationship between the woman who fired the defensive shot and the woman involved in the earlier dispute.

Following an investigation, deputies obtained arrest warrants for Christen. He was arrested on October 21 and transported to the Ashe County Detention Center.

Christen faces charges of felony first-degree burglary and assault on a female. Authorities reported that he was being held without bond.

Sheriff Defends Second Amendment and Right to Self-Defense

Ashe County Sheriff Howell did not hesitate to defend the right of an armed citizen to protect herself when someone forces entry into an occupied residence.

In the department’s public statement, Howell declared:

“I am a strong supporter of the Second Amendment and the right to protect yourself and your family. No one should have to fear for their safety inside their own home.”

The sheriff added that forcibly entering an occupied residence creates a dangerous situation and reaffirmed his commitment to lawful self-defense.

His statement reflects a fundamental principle of the right to keep and bear arms: Americans have the right to protect themselves against violent criminal threats.

The right to armed self-defense does not disappear simply because someone is staying in a temporary rental rather than their permanent residence. Criminals do not get to decide when or where their intended victims may defend themselves.

An Armed Citizen Stops a Dangerous Home Invasion

There is a reason home invasions are especially dangerous. Someone willing to kick down the door of an occupied residence at 3 a.m. has already crossed a serious line, leaving those inside with little time to determine what the intruder intends to do next.

In this case, the woman had a firearm available when the suspect allegedly forced his way inside. Rather than being left defenseless against an intruder who had already breached the home’s physical security, she was able to respond immediately.

This incident also follows another defensive shooting involving an Airbnb guest that AmmoLand reported in September. In that case, an armed guest in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, shot an alleged intruder during an attempted robbery at a short-term rental property.

Likewise, in July, AmmoLand reported on a 74-year-old North Carolina homeowner who shot a suspected burglar attempting to enter his residence through a window.

These incidents illustrate why armed self-defense remains an essential part of personal security. Locks, doors, and other precautions may help deter criminals, but they cannot guarantee that someone determined to force entry will be stopped.

The West Jefferson case is another example of an armed citizen refusing to surrender her safety to a criminal who allegedly decided to break through an occupied home’s front door.

The suspect survived and now faces criminal charges. The woman who fired the shot was not identified in the sheriff’s October 26 announcement, and no charges against her were reported.

Americans should not have to live in fear inside their own homes. The ability to defend yourself when a violent intruder comes through the door is precisely why the Second Amendment matters.

Related: Armed Airbnb Guest Shoots Home Invasion Suspect During Fort Lauderdale Robbery Attempt

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/CqIQE8j
via IFTTT

California Forces Home-Based Gun Dealers to Record Private Conversations 24/7, Ninth Circuit Asked to Intervene

The Goldwater Institute is urging the Ninth Circuit to overturn California’s mandatory firearms dealer surveillance law, arguing that operating a lawful gun business does not mean surrendering constitutional privacy protections.

California requires licensed firearms dealers, including home-based FFLs, to maintain continuous surveillance of designated business areas. AI-generated illustration / AmmoLand News.

California is forcing federally licensed firearms dealers, including those operating businesses from their homes, to continuously record video and audio inside designated business areas, even when no firearms transactions are taking place. The recordings must be preserved for at least a year and made available to government authorities under the state’s inspection and access provisions.

Now, the Goldwater Institute is asking the full Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to reconsider a ruling that allowed California’s 24-hour surveillance mandate to stand.

In an amicus brief filed October 23, 2026, Goldwater argues that the state’s recording requirement violates the First and Fourth Amendment rights of firearms dealers and threatens the privacy of customers, employees, and family members whose conversations can be captured by government-mandated microphones.

The case, Richards v. Newsom (No. 25-693), raises a constitutional question that extends beyond firearms sales: Can the government force Americans to record private conversations inside their homes simply because they operate a licensed business?

California’s 24-Hour Surveillance Mandate

Under California Penal Code § 26806, which took effect January 1, 2024, federally licensed firearms dealers must maintain a digital surveillance system that operates 24 hours a day.

The law requires cameras to monitor entrances and exits, firearm display areas, and points of sale. Cameras located inside the premises must also record audio. Dealers must preserve the recordings for at least one year and post signs warning customers that their images and conversations may be recorded.

The mandate applies to traditional gun stores and home-based FFLs alike.

Many firearms dealers already use security cameras to protect their inventory, employees, and customers. There is a substantial difference, however, between a business voluntarily installing security equipment and the government ordering that business to record conversations continuously for potential future inspection.

California’s law makes that recording mandatory, regardless of whether the dealer is conducting a firearm transaction, discussing legislation with a customer, or simply having a private conversation in a covered area after business hours.

The surveillance system must remain operational even when the store is closed.

Home-Based Gun Dealer’s Office Also Serves as a Law Practice

One of the plaintiffs, Adam Richards, is a California attorney who operates a federally licensed firearms business from a detached office on his residential property. Richards also uses the office for approximately half of his legal practice, including confidential telephone conversations with clients. His family members, including his children, visit him there.

Because California requires firearms dealers to maintain continuous recording equipment in designated business areas, conversations unrelated to selling firearms can be captured by the surveillance system. That includes discussions involving Richards’ legal practice and private conversations with family members when they occur within the monitored space.

Goldwater Institute Senior Attorney Tony Napolitano argues that the constitutional violation begins before government officials ever review the recordings.

“The constitutional injury begins when the state orders the cameras and microphones turned on—not merely when a bureaucrat presses play,” Napolitano wrote.

Goldwater’s argument challenges the idea that a business owner forfeits constitutional protections by entering a regulated industry. The organization contends that the government cannot use licensing requirements to compel Americans to create permanent recordings of private conversations for potential inspection.

Ninth Circuit Previously Upheld California’s Surveillance Law

As AmmoLand News reported in August, a divided three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the constitutional challenge to California’s surveillance mandate. The August 27, 2026, decision rejected claims that the law violated the First, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments.

Writing for the majority, Judge Lucy Koh concluded that requiring gun dealers to operate recording equipment does not, by itself, constitute a government search under the Fourth Amendment.

The majority reasoned that the plaintiffs had not alleged an actual physical government intrusion or government access to the recordings. It also rejected the argument that requiring dealers to operate the cameras transformed them into government agents. The court dismissed the First Amendment challenges, finding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently established that the recording requirement violated their rights to free speech, anonymity, or association.

Judge Kenneth Lee disagreed, issuing a partial dissent that warned about the consequences of compulsory audio surveillance. Lee questioned why California needed to record conversations continuously when the state’s stated reasons for the law involved preventing firearm thefts and investigating illegal straw purchases. Video footage could help identify someone stealing a firearm, but the dissent questioned what legitimate purpose was served by recording every conversation between a firearms dealer and customers.

Lee also emphasized the unusual nature of California’s requirement.

“Neither the federal government nor the other 49 states have ever enacted such an intrusive audio-recording requirement for any business activity,” Lee wrote.

The dissent recognized that gun stores are places where Americans regularly discuss firearms laws, constitutional rights, and political issues. Mandatory audio recording creates an additional concern when those discussions are preserved for possible government review.

Goldwater Seeks Full Ninth Circuit Review

Goldwater’s latest filing supports the plaintiffs’ petition for rehearing en banc, which would allow a larger group of Ninth Circuit judges to reconsider the panel’s ruling.

The organization’s October 23 amicus brief argues that the panel failed to properly account for the constitutional intrusion created by government-compelled recording.

According to Goldwater, the Fourth Amendment question should not depend entirely on whether a government agent has already accessed the footage.

California is requiring private citizens to create and preserve recordings of their activities and conversations for possible government inspection. Goldwater argues that the compelled creation of those records is itself constitutionally significant.

The brief also challenges the panel’s First Amendment reasoning, particularly its conclusion that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated a sufficient chilling effect on protected speech.

Knowing that conversations about politics, legislation, and constitutional rights are being recorded and preserved can discourage people from engaging in those discussions, even if the government never reviews the recordings.

Goldwater further argues that California’s position threatens privacy protections in homes and offices used for multiple purposes. Simply operating a licensed business from a residence should not give the government authority to require surveillance of activities unrelated to that business.

Second Amendment Organizations Have Fought the Mandate for Years

Goldwater’s involvement adds another constitutional advocacy organization to a legal challenge already being pursued by several major Second Amendment groups. The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), Gun Owners of America (GOA), Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California (GOC), and California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) are among the plaintiffs challenging the recording requirement.

In September 2025, SAF and its partners filed an appellate reply brief arguing that California’s mandate violated multiple constitutional protections while imposing substantial financial burdens on lawful firearms businesses.

“This law violates not only the Fourth Amendment, but the First and Fifth as well,” SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut said at the time. “The state has certainly hit the trifecta of infringement with this one.”

Kraut also criticized the expensive logistical requirements imposed on firearms businesses, arguing that the regulation discourages participation in a constitutionally protected industry.

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb warned that installing a compliant surveillance system could cost more than five figures, adding another financial burden to businesses already operating under California’s extensive firearms regulations.

The California case is not the only legal fight involving government inspection powers over home-based gun dealers.

In Pennsylvania, SAF is challenging regulations and inspection policies affecting firearms businesses, including dealers operating from private residences. That case, Schmidt v. Paris, similarly raises questions about whether the government can condition a firearms dealer’s license on surrendering constitutional protections against unreasonable searches.

Both cases concern the limits of government authority over lawful firearms businesses and the constitutional rights of the people operating them.

A Firearms License Should Not Mean Surrendering Constitutional Rights

California’s recording mandate is particularly troubling because firearms dealers facilitate the exercise of a right expressly protected by the Second Amendment. Purchasing a firearm from a federally licensed dealer is a lawful activity. So is discussing gun legislation, criticizing government officials, or organizing opposition to firearms restrictions.

The government should not be able to use the licensing process to impose unnecessary surveillance on those activities.

California has defended its law as a measure intended to prevent gun thefts and assist criminal investigations, but those objectives do not explain why the state needs year-round recordings of private conversations that have nothing to do with criminal activity.

The constitutional questions raised by Richards v. Newsom also extend beyond the firearms industry. If the government can require home-based FFLs to continuously record private conversations because they operate licensed businesses, other licensed occupations could face similar demands.

The Goldwater Institute is asking the Ninth Circuit to prevent that precedent from taking hold. For now, California’s mandatory surveillance requirement remains in effect while the plaintiffs seek rehearing. The full Ninth Circuit has not granted that request or overturned the August panel decision.

The outcome could determine how far California and other states may go in demanding that lawful business owners surrender privacy as a condition of remaining in business.

Operating a firearms business does not erase the Constitution, and the government should not be allowed to turn a citizen’s home office into a round-the-clock surveillance operation simply because that citizen holds an FFL.

Read the Goldwater Institute’s amicus brief in Richards v. Newsom and the Ninth Circuit’s August 27 decision.

---

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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/dCHfK8L
via IFTTT