AG Uthmeier Forces Tradition HOA to Rescind Unlawful Gun Ban

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier says HOAs cannot use private rules to disarm law-abiding residents in violation of state firearms preemption law. IMG Travis Pike, AmmoLand

Last month, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier issued a strong warning to the Tradition Community Association in Port St. Lucie regarding its recently adopted firearms ban in common areas. The AG gave the homeowners’ association (HOA) until June 1 to respond in writing and confirm it would cease enforcement. In a positive development for gun rights advocates, the association quickly agreed not to enforce the ban.

In a formal letter sent to the association’s leadership, Uthmeier explained that the rule prohibiting firearms in shared spaces directly conflicts with Florida Statute 790.33, the state’s broad firearms preemption law. This statute makes it clear that the Florida Legislature occupies the entire field of firearms regulation, rendering local ordinances and private rules that impose stricter restrictions largely unenforceable when they infringe on the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The HOA’s policy applied to all residents, guests, and contractors. It banned both open and concealed carry in common areas, including parks, trails, recreation spaces, gathering facilities, and the town square. Critics described it as a de facto gun ban that lacked any force of law. Local law enforcement in Port St. Lucie publicly stated they would not enforce the HOA’s rule, reinforcing that it carried no criminal weight.

Florida Statute 790.33 not only preempts government entities but also protects employees, contractors, residents, guests, and prospective homebuyers from discrimination for lawfully carrying firearms. The rule had reportedly been passed without adequate notice to many community members. Some residents who carry for self-defense in their daily lives were caught off guard and concerned about being disarmed in areas where they and their families spend significant time.

Because the HOA promptly responded to the AG’s demand, Uthmeier’s planned next step — filing a lawsuit to block enforcement of the ban — became unnecessary. Florida maintains some of the strongest preemption laws in the nation, designed to prevent a patchwork of local and private restrictions that could undermine statewide Second Amendment protections. Had the case proceeded to court and the HOA lost, the association could have faced significant financial penalties, attorney fees, and other legal consequences.

AG Uthmeier noted that his office had received complaints from residents in other Florida HOAs with similar restrictive policies. He assured concerned citizens that the action against Tradition was only the beginning. “This is not New York or California,” Uthmeier has emphasized in public statements. “In Florida, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

On X, the Attorney General wrote: “Tradition Community Association agreed to stop enforcing its unlawful firearm ban in common areas. We are working with the Association to ensure this policy change is permanent and complies with FL law. For others who’ve reached out about their HOAs, don’t worry, we hear you.”

Tradition Community Association agreed to stop enforcing its unlawful firearm ban in common areas. We are working with the Association to ensure this policy change is permanent and complies with FL law.

For others who’ve reached out about their HOAs, don’t worry, we hear you. https://t.co/X031UjnGCf

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) June 4, 2026

Uthmeier has built a reputation as a vocal and active defender of Second Amendment rights. He has repeatedly stated that attorneys general have no duty to defend laws they view as unconstitutional. At the 2026 National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) SHOT Show, he addressed fellow AGs and reminded federal officials of this principle in relation to certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA).

Compared to some previous Florida Attorneys General — including former AG Pam Bondi — Uthmeier has shown a willingness to move beyond rhetoric and take concrete action. His intervention in the Tradition case sends a clear message to HOAs across the state: attempts to disarm law-abiding residents in common areas will face swift pushback from the state’s top law enforcement officer.

While HOAs play a role in maintaining neighborhoods, they cannot override Florida’s strong protections for the right to bear arms. Uthmeier’s decisive response reinforces that in the Sunshine State, Second Amendment rights remain a priority.

New York Passes Law Mandating Non-Existent Technology to Block 3D-Printed Guns

---

About John Crump

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

---

from https://ift.tt/K7IgVi1
via IFTTT

Virginia Judge Blocks State Police From Enforcing Universal Background Checks

A Lynchburg judge ruled that Virginia officials cannot ignore an existing injunction blocking universal background checks on private firearm sales. iStock-2217396059

A Lynchburg judge on June 3, 2026, firmly rejected a request from the Virginia State Police (VSP) and Attorney General Jay Jones to dissolve an existing injunction blocking the enforcement of Universal Background Checks (UBCs) on private firearm sales.

The controversy dates back to the fall of 2025, when a Lynchburg court issued a landmark ruling blocking Virginia’s attempt to impose Universal Background Checks for private firearm transactions. The court order explicitly prevented the Virginia State Police from enforcing the law, determining that it violated Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia State Constitution, which protects the right to keep and bear arms. Following the decision, the Virginia State Police immediately ceased processing background checks for private sales in compliance with the judicial injunction.

However, the political landscape shifted dramatically just a month later. Democrats secured the governor’s mansion and maintained control of both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly. Upon taking office in January 2026, the new Democratic majority moved quickly to advance an aggressive gun control agenda. Among the flurry of gun-related bills was legislation specifically designed to resume and mandate background checks for private firearm sales.

Democrats heavily criticized the earlier court ruling, repeatedly labeling it the “Lynchburg Loophole” in public statements and media appearances. Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the bill into law. While most newly enacted legislation in Virginia takes effect on July 1, the governor utilized an emergency clause to make this particular measure effective immediately upon signing.

Shortly after the bill became law, the Virginia State Police initially released a statement acknowledging that they would not enforce the new requirement due to the standing court order declaring such checks unconstitutional. This position held until May 27, 2026, when the VSP abruptly reversed course. The agency sent an email to all federal firearms licensees (FFLs) across the state, announcing that it would begin conducting background checks on private sales, a direct challenge to the existing court injunction. The VSP also notified major gun rights organizations, including the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA), of its intent to enforce the law. The following day, the agency updated its official website to reflect this new policy.

Gun rights groups responded swiftly and forcefully. Chris Stone, Director of State Affairs for Gun Owners of America, issued a strong statement:

“Attorney General Jay Jones is attempting to resurrect Virginia’s unconstitutional ‘universal background check’ scheme after a court already struck it down and permanently blocked its enforcement statewide. That injunction is not a suggestion—it is a binding decision. Our letter makes clear that unless the issuing court or a higher court says otherwise, Virginia officials have no authority to enforce these checks. Any official who ignores that injunction and attempts to enforce this law anyway risks exposing themselves and their agency to serious legal liability.”

In response, GOA and VCDL immediately filed a motion for contempt against both the Virginia State Police and Attorney General Jay Jones. According to sources within the State Police, Jones’ office had advised them that the newly passed law superseded the prior court order, giving them authority to resume enforcement. A Lynchburg judge subsequently scheduled a hearing for June 3 to determine whether the injunction remained in effect.

At the June 3 hearing, which was attended by representatives from GOA and VCDL, the judge delivered a clear rebuke to the state. He affirmed that the injunction is still fully in place and emphasized that no new legislation can unilaterally supersede a court’s constitutional ruling against the Virginia State Police’s enforcement of background checks on private sales.

Following the judge’s decision, the VSP agreed to cease conducting background checks for private transactions and committed to updating its website accordingly to reflect the court’s order.

Neither the Virginia State Police nor the Attorney General’s office responded to AmmoLand’s request for comment on the ruling.

This case highlights the ongoing tension in Virginia between gun control advocates and Second Amendment supporters. Universal Background Checks have long been a priority for Democrats, who argue they close loopholes and enhance public safety. Gun rights organizations counter that such measures infringe on constitutional rights, create bureaucratic burdens for law-abiding citizens, and do little to stop criminals who obtain firearms through illegal means.

The “Lynchburg Loophole” saga underscores the importance of judicial checks on legislative power and the enduring strength of Virginia’s constitutional protections for firearm ownership. As the state continues to be a battleground for gun policy, this ruling serves as a reminder that court injunctions carry significant weight and cannot be easily overridden by political majorities. Legal experts expect the issue may eventually reach higher courts, potentially setting important precedents for gun rights nationwide.

Virginia Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban — and They’re Dead Right

---

About John Crump

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

---

from https://ift.tt/oug8CaO
via IFTTT

SAF Lawsuit Challenges New Jersey’s “Guilty by Association” Gun Confiscation Scheme

An amended federal lawsuit has been filed in a challenge to policies in Bergen County, which require gun confiscation from anyone residing with someone who may be considered a prohibited person. iStock-901659046

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and New Jersey Firearms Owners Syndicate (NJFOS) have expanded a civil rights lawsuit, originally filed last November on behalf of New Jersey resident Elsid Aliaj, contesting the confiscation of his legally-owned firearms and ammunition, to now include two additional plaintiffs.

Joining the lawsuit are Garden State residents Martin Hroncich and Luis Rene De La Cruz Franco.

It is a case with considerable implications, as the outcome could significantly change how prosecutors and police handle situations involving law-abiding gun owners who happen to live with someone who may be prohibited from owning firearms. Beyond that, specifically in Aliaj’s case, it raises questions about conversing with someone to whom English may be a second language, and recognizing the emotional swings related to pregnancy.

According to the original complaint from last Nov. 3, the Fort Lee Police Department, “based on a report from the Englewood Police Department (“EPD”) that Aliaj’s wife (hereinafter referred to as “L.A.”) had been involuntarily admitted to New Bridge Medical Center for a mental health evaluation (in what turned out to be a language-related misunderstanding, resulting in L.A.’s discharge with a diagnosis of “Adjustment disorder with depressed mood Seven weeks pregnant”)—confiscated Aliaj’s firearms, ammunition, and related accessories from his home.” This happened on April 17, 2025.

At the time the original lawsuit was filed, the following November, authorities were still unwilling to return Aliaj’s firearms, “even though Aliaj is not under any legal, mental, or physical disability that would disqualify him from exercising his fundamental right to keep and bear arms.”

Leap ahead six months. By now, the Aliaj case has gotten some attention and other people, according to a source close to the case, have come forward with similar allegations. Two such people are Hroncich and De La Cruz.

“Bergen County’s very clear policy is: If you live with a prohibited person, or even someone suspected of being prohibited, your rights can be taken away,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack, in a SAF release announcing the expanded case. “This took the form of permit denials and revocations, and outright gun confiscations. What we learned after filing this case on behalf of Mr. Aliaj is that the constitutional abuse he suffered was all too common in Bergen County. Additional individuals, including new plaintiffs Mr. Hroncich and Mr. De La Cruz, started coming out of the woodwork. Each had a similar story: their rights under the Second Amendment were taken from them purely as the result of concerns Bergen County officials had about loved ones of theirs.”

Sack also confirmed to Ammoland News that SAF and NJFOS are financially supporting the case, while not participating as plaintiffs. Aliaj is a SAF member.

The amended complaint was filed on June 1 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, Newark Vicinage. Defendants are the Bergen County Prosecutor’s office, Prosecutor Mark Musella, along with the Borough of Fort Lee, the Borough of Paramus, and the Township of Rochelle Park.

Plaintiffs are represented by attorney Edward Andrew Paltzik with Taylor Dykema in Houston, Texas.

As alleged in the amended complaint, “…Defendants have adopted, implemented, enforced, and maintained a series of related policies that together deprive individuals, including plaintiffs, under County Defendants’ jurisdiction, from exercising their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment, not premised upon any allegation that Plaintiffs themselves are prohibited, but rather by association with a cohabitant who is so prohibited or otherwise disqualified, or by association with a cohabitant who County Defendants perceive to be so prohibited or otherwise disqualified.”

According to SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb, the situation in Bergen County, while alarming, is not unique.

“Cases like this confirm what we hear from SAF members in gun-grabbing states like New Jersey all the time: local officials do what they want, when they want, without any respect for the law or the Constitution,” Gottlieb said in a prepared statement. 

Sack, in a telephone conversation with Ammoland News, pointed to language in the amended Aliaj complaint, which states, “County Defendants have adopted, implemented, enforced, and maintained a series of related policies that together deprive individuals, including Plaintiffs, under County Defendants’ jurisdiction, from exercising their fundamental rights under the Second Amendment, not premised upon any allegation that Plaintiffs themselves are prohibited, but rather by association with a cohabitant who is so prohibited or otherwise disqualified, or by association with a cohabitant who County Defendants perceive to be so prohibited or otherwise disqualified.”

That’s not all. The amended complaint further alleges:

• These Challenged Policies include at least the following: (a) Confiscation of firearms, ammunition, and related accessories based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications1 (the “Confiscation Policy”); (b) Compelled sales of firearms, ammunition, and related accessories based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Compelled Sale Policy”); (c) Revocation of Firearms Purchaser Identification Card (“FPIC”) or other firearms licenses or permits validly issued under the laws of New Jersey based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Revocation Policy”); (d) Denial of applications for FPICs or other firearms licenses or permits that would otherwise be validly issued under the laws of New Jersey based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Denial Policy”); and (e) Compelled production of cohabitant medical records based solely on one or more Cohabitant Disqualifications (the “Compelled Production Policy”).
• County Defendants routinely and illegally cite, invoke, or rely on the Duty to Warn Statute, the ERPO Act, or the Issuance Disqualifiers to disarm law-abiding firearms owners when the individual who is subject to disqualification is not the firearms owner, but rather, the owner’s cohabitant.
• County Defendants also routinely and lawlessly enforce the Challenged Policies based on nothing more than “the State’s concerns,” which are not codified in any law.

The amended complaint quotes “Bergen County Prosecutor’s Office Law Enforcement Directive No. 2019-2” which states, in part:

“Under this Directive, whenever a Bergen County law enforcement agency receives information or a warning related to a threat of imminent, serious physical violence to self or others made by an individual suspected of suffering from a mental illness, whether that information comes from a mental health provider or any other source, the respective police department must ascertain whether the individual has been issued a firearms purchaser identification card (“FPIC”), any permit to purchase or possess a firearm, or whether the patient may possess or have access to any firearm . . . .

“Additionally, if the respective law enforcement agency determines that the individual possess a FPIC or permit to purchase or possess a firearm, or possesses or has access to a firearm, the law enforcement agency must attempt to secure the identification card, permit, and/or firearms either consensually or with a warrant if consent is denied, on the basis of the imminent threat of serious harm.”

The 35-page amended complaint demands a jury trial.

ATF Director Cekada Talks Gun Rights, Rule Rollbacks & Reform with Shermichael Singleton

---

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/kzUQtjO
via IFTTT

New York Passes Law Mandating Non-Existent Technology to Block 3D-Printed Guns

So-called ghost gun bans are increasingly being used to justify broader restrictions on digital files, 3D printers, CNC machines, and lawful gun owners. iStock-1432499275

New York Governor Kathy Hochul signed a bill into law that effectively outlaws 3D-printers over concerns that they “might” be used to print guns.

The law requires all 3D printers to have technology installed that prevents the printing of firearms. This non-existent technology would scan printable files for guns and gun parts. Any printer that cannot scan for such items would be banned in the Empire State. Since no 3D printer can currently do that, the law is a de facto ban on the technological marvel that has revolutionized rapid prototyping by increasing the speed and lowering the cost of designing.

The state does not define what the technology will look like. It could be hardware, software, or a combination of the two. If a company doesn’t come up with a solution to satisfy New York State, it could face a civil penalty of $ 5,000 per product sold. Most products are produced overseas, so collecting fines from 3D printing companies could be almost impossible. The retailers will bear the fines.

The new law creates a working group of experts in additive manufacturing technology and artificial intelligence (AI). The group will also include members of anti-gun groups, though it isn’t clear how they would help, as they have no expertise in the technology. The group will develop minimum censorship standards for 3D printers. The goal will be to fit the law into existing technology.

One idea is to use AI to scan files to look for “signatures” that match firearms or gun parts. Since no 3D printer can run a local large language model (LLM), the printer would need to be always online and use an ecosystem such as Bambu Labs cloud printing. That would require all files to be uploaded to Bambu Lab’s servers in China before a user can print. This raises national security concerns by forcing users to upload files to servers run by a global adversary.

It also raises serious First Amendment issues. By restricting what the printer can print, the law is making the final arbiter of what speech is allowed. This restriction is exactly what the First Amendment was trying to prevent. This is a level of censorship that will surely be challenged in court.

“This is ultimately asking tools not to work for the creator and go through a filter, a censorship filter,” said Rory Mir, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s director of open access and tech community engagement.

The law also raises Fourth Amendment concerns. By requiring every file to be scanned, New York State is creating a surveillance state where, in order to buy a 3D printer, one must invite the government into one’s home to monitor their activities. This creates a system akin to the one in George Orwell’s “1984,” where New York State acts as Big Brother.

Even if the technology is developed, the law’s targets are usually power users. People who print guns are technically savvy. There is already custom firmware for printers. It isn’t a stretch to assume that almost as soon as blocking technology is developed, the user community would develop a workaround, whether that is custom software or replacing boards inside a printer.

The law admits that it isn’t currently possible to block 3D-printed guns and firearms parts. It says if the regulation is “not technologically feasible,” the law states, it will report its finding and “no regulations shall be required to be promulgated … until such time as the working group determines that it is technologically feasible.”

The law reminds many gun owners of micro-stamping. A technology that is still not possible, but has been on the books for a decade. In the end, this is a law to appease the anti-gun groups that have given millions to Democrats.

Virginia Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban — and They’re Dead Right

---

About John Crump

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

---

from https://ift.tt/a5xChY7
via IFTTT

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Remain Among America’s Most Law-Abiding Citizens

Concealed carry permit holders continue to show extremely low conviction and revocation rates, undercutting the gun control narrative that armed citizens are the problem. IMG Travis Pike, AmmoLand

People with concealed carry permits are among the most law-abiding groups in the United States. Police officers have crime rates far below the general population. People with concealed carry permits are more law-abiding than police officers.

The arrest rate for the overall adult population in the USA is about 2,100 – 2,200 per 100k in recent years.  The arrest rate for police officers has been about 170 per 100k. This may be low because no one officially tracks police arrests. Officials may be reluctant to charge police officers. The conviction rate for concealed permit holders is about 17.6 per 100k in Texas, according to an academic paper by John Lott, Moody, and Wang published in 2025. From the paper:

Of the 43,932 total convictions in the Texas DPS 2023 report, only 284 — or 0.6 percent — were convictions of LTC holders, a conviction rate of 17.6 per 100,000.

Convictions are not the same as arrests. Arrests for felonies tend to result in about 65% convictions. Arrests for misdemeanors result in about 45% convictions. A conviction rate is likely to be about half of the arrest rate.  If we double the conviction rate to approximate the arrest rate, concealed permit holders have less than one-fifth the arrest rate of police officers. Concealed carry permit holders have an arrest rate 1.7% lower than the general population.

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC) sums up how law-abiding permit holders are for convictions of firearm-related violations:

Concealed handgun permit holders are extremely law-abiding. In Florida and Texas, permit holders are convicted of firearms related violations at one-twelfth of the rate at which police officers are convicted.

Minnesota tracks the number of carry permits that are revoked each year. A look at the Minnesota numbers shows that revocations of permits are close to the number of concealed permit convictions in Texas. The numbers and methodology may be significantly different in the two states. In 2024, the number of permit holders in Minnesota was about 400 thousand. The number of permit revocations was 47. That is a revocation rate of 11.5 per 100k in 2024.

The crime rates of permit holders are much, much lower than those of the general population and much lower than those of police officers.

Very few people believe disarming the police is a good idea. Police officers, even retired police officers, have the legal right to carry in most places where most people are prevented from carrying weapons. Police officers have the legal right to carry in all states and territories of the United States.

Congress created the LEOSA Act as a way to protect the public with more responsible armed people on the streets. They also created it as a way to protect police officers. The same logic applies to people with concealed carry permits. Those people are much less likely to break laws than even police officers are.

It is common sense to increase the number of such protectors. There are about 700 thousand sworn police officers. There are about another 500 thousand retired officers. There are over 20 million Americans with concealed carry permits.

NRA, FPC, SAF Sue Maryland Over Glock-Style Handgun Ban

---

About Dean Weingarten:

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

---

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

Virginia Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce Spanberger’s Gun Ban — and They’re Dead Right

“A prosecutor who indicts you for possessing or carrying an AR-15 semi-automatic rifles carries the constitutional burden of proving that the rifle is dangerous AND unusual under the Supreme Court’s Heller precedent. Yet, each of the nine U.S. Supreme Court justices have already said AR-15s are commonly-owned firearms. Thus, a prosecution arising from possessing an AR-15 should be dead on arrival — and many Virginia prosecutors apparently know it.” – Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

A legal rebellion is brewing in Virginia. As Governor Abigail Spanberger’s new “assault firearms” ban prepares to take effect, a growing roster of the Commonwealth’s Attorneys has announced they will not enforce it. The reason why is simple: the ban is unconstitutional under both the Second Amendment and Virginia’s own state constitution. According to the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), 10 prosecutors have now planted their flags — and they are correct to do so.

The Prosecutors Honoring Their Oath

Here are the heroes, as compiled by VCDL: Leslie Fleet (Appomattox), Matthew Bass (Clarke), John Lumpkins Jr. (Goochland), Phillip Blevins (Smyth), Dayna Bobbitt (Patrick), Rob Cerullo (Powhatan), Justin Griffith (Pulaski), Kyle Kilgore (Scott), Ryan Mehaffey (Spotsylvania), and John Bell (Warren).

Editor’s Note: The number of prosecutors who have announced they will not enforce Virginia’s “assault firearms” ban has risen to 13.

Here is number 13. I know that another two are on the way and will be announced soon! Watch for the VA-ALERT.

Page County Commonwealth Attorney, Chapman L. Good, Sr., is standing with the Constitution!https://t.co/RAcjOVKzDa

— Philip Van Cleave VCDL (@VCDL_ORG) June 2, 2026

Prosecutors in Virginia swear an oath to the United States Constitution — the supreme law of the land — and also to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia. A statute that violates either one is verboten, and prosecutors may not enforce it. Doing so would be in violation of the oath every prosecutor takes. These ten Virginia prosecutors recognize this dynamic.

Why the Gun Ban Law Fails — Text First, Then Historical Burden

Virginia’s Article I, Section 13 guarantees “the right of the people to keep and bear arms,” and the Second Amendment declares the same. Under District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), you begin with a linguistic analysis of those words — using founding-era dictionaries like Samuel Johnson’s and Noah Webster’s. Those sources teach us that “keep” means to possess, “bear” means to carry, and “arms” means any object that can be used offensively or defensively. Firearms are obviously weapons and AR-15s are obviously bearable arms under the plain text of the Second Amendment.

Banning the purchase and transfer of firearms necessarily implicates the text of the Second Amendment, because acquiring a gun is the prerequisite to keeping or bearing one. Once the plain text is implicated, the burden shifts — entirely — to the government.

In arm ban cases, the government bears the burden to show that the arm being banned is dangerous and unusual. That is a conjunctive test, spelled out in Heller and reinforced by Justice Samuel Alito’s concurrence in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016). Both prongs of the test must be met. The Supreme Court already engaged in the historical spade work in identifying the “dangerous and unusual” test as being the only historical tradition of firearms regulation that could justify an arms ban. The Court did this work and articulated the standard when deciding Heller in 2008 and, thus, finding that DC’s handgun ban violated the Second Amendment. Here, the semiautomatic rifles that Virginia’s statute bans are not unusual by any measure.

Nine SCOTUS Justices Have Already Conceded the Key Fact

In one form or another, every sitting Justice on the Supreme Court has acknowledged that semi-automatic firearms, including the AR-15, are commonly owned by Americans for lawful purposes. We see evidence of this in Smith & Wesson Brands v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280 (2025), and in Garland v. Cargill, 602 U.S. 406 (2024), the bump-stock case, where even the liberal justices referenced it. See also Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994) (distinguishing machine guns from semi-automatic firearms), and then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s dissent in Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (known as “Heller II”).

For a prosecution under Virginia’s assault firearms ban to succeed, the Commonwealth’s prosecutor bears the burden of demonstrating that the AR-style semi-automatic rifle owned by tens of millions law-abiding Americans is somehow unusual. The evidence runs overwhelmingly the other way. No prosecutor acting in good faith could meet that burden set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court. End of story.

Virginia Criminal Code is also on the Side of the Prosecutors

Virginia’s statutes empower criminal prosecutors with the prosecutorial discretion to refuse to commence or even walk away from a criminal prosecution. Section 15.2-1627(B) of the Virginia Code says that a Commonwealth’s Attorney “may in his discretion” prosecute Class 1, 2, and 3 misdemeanors. The language “may in his discretion” means that a prosecutor may choose not to prosecute. The assault-firearms violation is a Class 1 misdemeanor in that HB217 creates “a Class 1 misdemeanor for any person who imports, sells, manufactures, purchases, or transfers an assault firearm, as that term is defined in the bill with some exceptions…”

Section 19.2-265.6 of the Virginia Code, enacted in 2020, provides that upon the Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss a charge with the defendant’s consent, a court “shall grant the motion” unless it finds by clear and convincing evidence that the motion was the product of bribery or unlawful victim bias. That is not in play here since there are (presumably) no bribes and there are certainly no victims (since an AR-15 transfer ban is a victimless crime).

Between these two Virginia statutes, and the inherent authority prosecutors have in charging decisions, every one of these prosecutors stands on solid statutory ground.

Discretion Is Justice

Prosecutorial discretion has always been a part of our legal system. Prosecutors are supposed to do justice, and not merely prosecute statutes in a vacuum especially in cases where there are no victims. Instead, prosecutors should be laser-focused on convicting violent thugs — the murderers, rapists, robbers, and predators who commit crimes that are malum in se, evil in themselves. Banning a rifle sitting quietly in a closet is enforcing a malum prohibitum law: wrong only because a legislature arbitrarily said so.

Ironically, many of the anti-gun left have spent years refusing to enforce drug laws. Yet, the difference between Virginia’s assault firearms ban and the drug laws is obvious: there is no textual constitutional right to keep and bear cocaine. But there is a textual constitutional right to keep and bear arms in both the federal Constitution and in Virginia’s Constitution. That puts these ten prosecutors on far firmer legal and moral footing than prosecutors declining to charge drug offenses.

Our Founding Fathers anticipated a moment such as today’s attempt by a government to start disarming ordinary Americans. And that is one reason why our Founders enshrined the fundamental right to keep and bear arms into the Constitution, thus denying legislatures the authority to do so.

Virginia Defies Court Order: State Police Resume Unconstitutional Background Checks

---

About Mark W Smith

Constitutional attorney and bestselling author Mark W. Smith hosts the Four Boxes Diner Second Amendment channel on Youtube and Rumble; is a member of the U.S. Supreme Court Bar; and his Second Amendment scholarship has been cited by many attorneys and judges, including by attorneys in legal briefs submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court. Professor Smith’s most recent book is ISRAEL DISARMED: What the October 7 Attack Teaches Americans about the Right to Bear Arms and he has lectured at Harvard Law School, Yale Law School, Princeton University, the Wharton School at U. Penn, and Oxford University. He is a frequent speaker at the Federalist Society’s Annual National Lawyers Convention in Washington, D.C.

• @fourboxesdiner
• On The Web

---

from https://ift.tt/ZfukO67
via IFTTT

CPRC: Murders Committed With “Glock Switches” Are Very Rare

Glock Switches IMG ATF File Photo

Murders committed with handguns patterned after the extremely successful Glock line of pistols, equipped with “Glock switches”, are extremely rare, according to research done by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC). The research was published on May 27, 2026.

No database of cases where “Glock switches” are used to murder people is maintained by the federal government. The CPRC did what they characterize as “an exhaustive search” for incidents where such a “Glock switch” was used to murder people, from 2021 through most of May, 2026.  They found 20 incidents where 43 people were killed over the more than five years studied.

Every murder is a tragedy. However, the number of murders committed with “Glock switches” is a tiny blip in the overall number of murders in the USA, over the five years examined by the CPRC.

The CPRC carefully and correctly states they may have missed some murders committed with “Glock switches”. It is the nature of crime that some go undetected. It is the nature of the media that some events are not reported in a way that is easily found. The demonization of these devices works to ensure most known events are reported.

Handguns do not make good automatic weapons. They are more difficult to master than rifles or shotguns, even when one shot is fired for every trigger pull. They are much more difficult to control on full auto, especially a full auto with a high cyclic rate of fire. With practice, expert users can use them effectively. Machine pistols, as they are called, have not been a popular item with military services because of these limitations.

“Glock switches” take an excellent handgun design and transform it into a bad machine pistol. As noted by the CPRC, the “Glock switches” are dangerous to the user and to everyone near the user, including the user’s allies and confederates.

“Glock switches” override the handgun’s disconnector, allowing the handgun to fire before it is fully locked. The difficulty of controlling a handgun in full auto, with an extreme cyclic rate, makes the danger of shooting in a direction that is not desired a real possibility. This may be a reason the “Glock switches” are not used more commonly.

CRPC notes that the total number of murders committed from 2021 to 2024 is about 80,657 murders in the USA, according to the FBI. The numbers for 2025 have not been officially released. Of those from 2021-2024, we know 29 were committed with modified firearms using machinegun conversion devices.  It is impossible to know if more or fewer murders would have been committed without the “Glock switches” being used. It is plausible, perhaps likely, that the use of the switches prevented some murders because of the difficulty and danger of use, and the inherent lack of accuracy with such devices. If the first shot is on target, it is likely that the second and following shots are not on target.  The homicide rate in the USA has been falling since 2021. The murder rate in the USA is at an historic low, probably the lowest ever recorded in the USA.

As mentioned in the CPRC article, these devices are mostly used by criminal gangs. Most of the murders appear to be during gang wars. “Glock switches” are already illegal to produce or own for nearly all people in the United States. Only licensed machine gun manufacturers, law enforcement, and the military have the ability to legally possess them.

The focus on “Glock switches” is another attempt at creating a crisis where none exists. The purpose appears to be to pass legislation to make items that are already illegal to own, double or triple illegal. The desired effect seems to be to ban ordinary Glock pistols.

Glock-type pistols may be the most popular pistol in American society, perhaps in the world.

Those who wish to disarm the population have never been concerned with logic, facts, or cost-benefit ratios. Most people still value logic, facts, and cost-benefit ratios.

The CPRC article sheds light on a subject primarily shrouded in myth and emotion. It is likely the emotion-based laws against Glock pistols will run into difficulties as they are challenged in the courts. Commonly owned firearms, which are used for legal purposes, are protected by the Second Amendment.

Glock pistols are common, and they are overwhelmingly used for legal purposes.

NRA, FPC, SAF Sue Maryland Over Glock-Style Handgun Ban

---

About Dean Weingarten:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/WOPDw4N
via IFTTT