Lindsey Graham’s Second Amendment Legacy: The U.S. Senator Who Helped Build the Supreme Court

“Lindsey Graham never authored a Second Amendment opinion, but without his work on the Senate Judiciary Committee there is no Justice Gorsuch, no Justice Kavanaugh, and no Justice Barrett — and no Second Amendment majority on the Supreme Court today.” – Professor Mark W. Smith, Four Boxes Diner Host

Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina recently died at 71, and the tributes arriving from Washington will rightly dwell on three decades of service in the House and Senate. I want to focus on a narrower legacy, but one I consider his most consequential: without Lindsey Graham, the modern Second Amendment majority on the United States Supreme Court does not exist. That is not sentiment. It is a matter of record, built hearing by hearing on the Senate Judiciary Committee, and it deserves to be understood clearly at the moment of his passing.

THE SEAT HELD OPEN FOR THE PEOPLE

Justice Antonin Scalia, author of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), died on February 13, 2016, in the middle of that year’s presidential campaign. President Obama nominated Merrick Garland a month later. The Senate was in Republican hands, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, together with Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley, made the decision that no hearing would be held until the American people chose the next president. Graham was not chairman in 2016 — that gavel belonged to Grassley until 2019 — but as a senior member of that committee and a close ally of both McConnell and Grassley, he was part of the leadership triangle that held the line. Garland’s nomination expired without a vote on January 3, 2017.

Donald Trump won the presidency, and Neil Gorsuch was confirmed to the Scalia seat on April 7, 2017, by a vote of 54–45. It bears noting that Garland, who went on to serve as Attorney General, ran a Justice Department that argued against the Second Amendment claimants in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) — a case we won. The seat Graham helped hold open did not go to Merrick Garland who ran likely the most partisan anti-American Department of Justice in decades.

THE BRETT KAVANAUGH DEFENSE

Graham’s defining moment came in September 2018, when Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination was thrown into crisis by Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations before the Judiciary Committee. Graham’s response at that hearing is among the most quoted floor speeches in modern Senate history. He told his Democratic colleagues: “If you wanted an FBI investigation, you could have come to us. What you want to do is destroy this guy’s life, hold this seat open, and hope you win in 2020.”

And later, in the same hearing:

“Boy, y’all want power. God, I hope you never get it. I hope the American people can see through this sham.”

Kavanaugh was confirmed on October 6, 2018, by a vote of 50–48. As a judge on the D.C. Circuit, he had dissented in Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F.3d 1244 (D.C. Cir. 2011), arguing that a text, history, and tradition analysis forecloses banning semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15. He has been a reliable vote for the Second Amendment ever since, and I would not be surprised if he writes a future majority opinion vindicating that very dissent in the upcoming Grant v. Higgins and Viramontes v. Cook County AR-15 ban cases at the Supreme Court. None of that happens without the defense Graham mounted when the nomination was on the brink.

FIVE WEEKS IN THE FALL OF 2020

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg died on September 18, 2020, weeks before a presidential election. President Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett, and with a Republican Senate and Graham now chairing the Judiciary Committee, she was confirmed on October 26, 2020, by a vote of 52–48 — barely five weeks after the seat opened. Justice Barrett has since been a steady vote in Bruen, Rahimi, and in this term’s United States v. Hemani and Wolford v. Lopez. That speed, engineered under Graham’s committee leadership, foreclosed the kind of delay that cost Merrick Garland his seat four years earlier.

THE ONE VOTE I WOULD TAKE BACK

I will not pretend Graham’s record was spotless. In 2022, he voted for the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the gun-control package negotiated by Senator John Cornyn, which handed President Biden a legislative win I opposed then and oppose now. That vote is a legitimate blemish. But Graham was also on record as an AR-15 owner who kept one for his own self-defense, and no single vote erases three Supreme Court confirmations and the hundreds of lower-court judges he helped install.

CLOSING

No one’s record in Washington is perfect, and Graham’s was not. But when the history of the modern Second Amendment is written, his name belongs on the page alongside Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett — because without him, none of the three would sit on that Court today. My condolences go to his family, his staff, and his colleagues, including President Trump, who lost a genuine ally in the fight to restore the Constitution’s original meaning.

---

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/gdkVJnI
via IFTTT

Not Just Marijuana: CRS Says Hemani Could Put More Federal Gun Bans in the Crosshairs

The Supreme Court rejected automatic disarmament based solely on regular marijuana use, while CRS says Hemani may prompt Congress to reconsider other §922(g) gun bans. Composite image used for illustrative purposes. iStock.com/[Josiah S.] and iStock.com/[Anna Wroblewska].

Congressional researchers are already telling lawmakers how they could respond after the Supreme Court rejected the federal government’s attempt to strip a man of his Second Amendment rights solely because he regularly used marijuana.

The new Congressional Research Service report does more than summarize United States v. Hemani. It gives Congress options for rewriting the federal marijuana gun ban and, more importantly, flags the possibility that lawmakers may need to reconsider other categorical prohibitions contained in 18 U.S.C. §922(g).

That makes this much bigger than a marijuana case. At its core, Hemani is about whether the government can erase a constitutional right by attaching a disfavored label to someone without proving that person is dangerous or providing any process before disarmament.

Supreme Court Rejects Automatic Disarmament

Federal law prohibits anyone considered an “unlawful user of or addicted to” a controlled substance from possessing firearms or ammunition. Violating §922(g)(3) can bring up to 15 years in federal prison. A conviction can also turn the defendant into a prohibited person for life.

Ali Danial Hemani admitted using marijuana about every other day and possessed a firearm in his home. The government did not allege that he was intoxicated while handling the gun, had threatened anyone, had misused the firearm, or that his marijuana use made him dangerous. It nevertheless argued that his regular marijuana use automatically placed him outside the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court rejected that theory. Although all nine justices agreed with the judgment, seven joined Justice Neil Gorsuch’s majority opinion. Justices Samuel Alito and Elena Kagan concurred only in the judgment.

The government’s historical case rested largely on laws involving so-called habitual drunkards. But those laws generally targeted people whose drinking had left them incapacitated and unable to manage their affairs. They also served different purposes and ordinarily involved some legal proceeding before a person’s liberty was taken away.

Section 922(g)(3), by contrast, automatically disarmed Hemani without any individualized finding of incapacity or dangerousness and without any pre-deprivation process. The government’s historical analogy failed on whom the laws targeted, why they existed, and how they operated.

The Congressional Research Service report notes that the Court “explicitly recognized room for legislative action.”

Congress Can Respect the Ruling or Try to Rebuild the Ban

The Supreme Court did not facially invalidate the entirety of §922(g)(3). It decided that the statute could not constitutionally be applied to Hemani based solely on his regular marijuana use and without evidence connecting that use to dangerousness.

CRS says Congress could amend the law to “more narrowly capture only those individuals” whose substance use or choice of drug presents a danger to themselves or others.

That would be a substantial retreat from the government’s position in Hemani. Under Washington’s theory, the drug, dosage, effects, reason for possessing the gun, and the person’s actual behavior did not matter. Regular use of any controlled substance was enough to expose someone to a 15-year felony.

Nobody needs to be told that handling firearms while impaired is irresponsible. Laws addressing actual intoxication, threats, or dangerous conduct are fundamentally different from stripping a sober person of the right to keep a firearm at home because he used a politically disfavored substance days earlier.

The government does not permanently disarm everyone who drinks alcohol. Marijuana use should not become an excuse for treating millions of otherwise peaceable Americans as violent criminals without evidence.

The Bigger Threat to Washington’s Prohibited-Person Regime

The sleeper issue in the CRS report has little to do with marijuana. Congressional researchers say lawmakers may want to consider “modifying other categorical prohibitions in § 922(g).”

Section 922(g) contains nine prohibited-person categories covering everyone from fugitives and felons to people subject to certain restraining orders, those committed to mental institutions, unlawful drug users, and people convicted of misdemeanor domestic-violence offenses.

The Supreme Court did not declare those provisions unconstitutional in Hemani. The opinion does, however, reinforce several principles that will matter in future challenges. Once the Second Amendment’s text covers the conduct, the burden belongs to the government. Modern restrictions must resemble the nation’s historical tradition in both purpose and operation. A broad assertion that an entire class of people is dangerous is not a substitute for historical evidence, individualized findings, or due process.

That contrasts sharply with United States v. Rahimi, where the Supreme Court upheld temporary disarmament after a court found that an individual posed a credible threat to another person. Hemani received no comparable hearing or finding. His marijuana use itself triggered the prohibition.

Justice Clarence Thomas also wrote separately to question whether §922(g)(3) exceeds Congress’s Commerce Clause authority. The federal government claimed jurisdiction because the firearm had previously traveled in interstate commerce. Thomas argued that mere possession is not economic activity and that an item’s past movement across state lines should not give Congress unlimited power over its later possession.

A Narrow Ruling With a Broad Warning

Gun owners should not misread Hemani as completely erasing §922(g)(3) or automatically making every marijuana user’s firearm possession lawful nationwide. The Court expressly left several questions unanswered, including laws addressing current intoxication, the statute’s separate “addicted to” language, individualized proof of dangerousness, and evidence that a particular drug creates an exceptional risk of firearm misuse.

But describing the decision as narrow should not obscure what Washington lost. The federal government claimed it could take away a fundamental right, threaten a man with 15 years in prison, and leave him disarmed for life without proving he was dangerous, impaired, or irresponsible with a firearm. The Supreme Court unanimously rejected that result.

Congress should not treat the ruling as an invitation to replace one unconstitutional status-based ban with another. The proper response is to punish actual dangerous conduct rather than criminalize the peaceful exercise of a constitutional right.

Hemani did not establish a right to misuse firearms while intoxicated. It established that the government must show more than marijuana use before it can turn gun ownership into a federal felony. CRS clearly understands the distinction. The question now is whether Congress will respect it—or go searching for another way around the Second Amendment.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

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

James Talarico’s Gun-Control Past Resurfaces in Texas Senate Race

The Texas Democrat calls himself a Second Amendment supporter, but his former aide’s activism—and the gun-control bills he filed—tell a different story.

Democratic U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico employed former “C*cks Not Glocks” leader Ana Lucia Lopez as a legislative aide during his first Texas House session. IMG Jim Grant

James Talarico is the Democrats’ candidate to replace Texas Senator John Cornyn. During his four terms as a representative in the Texas House, 2A issues have never been a particular issue for Talarico, so his choice of a new legislative aide is either a bold move, staking a new claim on the issue, or a real head-scratcher.

Ana Lucia Lopez is a dedicated, dyed-in-the-wool gun control zealot.

When she was a student at the University of Texas at Austin, she inherited the leadership of “C*cks Not Glocks,” a student group that protested Senate Bill 11, the campus carry bill signed into law in June 2015.

The new law allowed students with Texas concealed handgun licenses to carry their guns on community college and state university campuses. There were numerous restrictions but there was still an outcry from faculty and students.

C*cks Not Glocks grew out of a social media post by Jessica Jin, another UT student. According to the Houston Chronicle, Jin said she wanted to “put a dildo in the hands of every pissed off college student who hasn’t been heard in this safety conversation.” She also said, “Strap it on, feel the discomfort, feel the weird looks. Wear it loud, wear it proud, and don’t take them off until people take their guns home.”

Supported by donations, the group claimed it distributed about 4,500 of Jin’s preferred sex toy to protestors.

The law went into effect on August 1, 2016. A rally was staged about three weeks later on August 24, 2016. It was highlighted by students wearing T-shirts featuring slogans and male genitalia.

The year after the UT rally, a sister group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison held its own rally. Forbes called it one of the seven most ridiculous college protests of 2017.

Jin graduated and moved to California. Lopez took the reins and carried on, organizing Students Against Campus Carry.

From ‘C*cks Not Glocks’ to the Texas Capitol

When Talarico was a freshman representative in the 86th Texas Legislature, Lopez drafted or helped draft three bills. House Bill 3506 would have added restrictions to reciprocity; House Bill 3507 would have required dealers and shooting range operators to run a NICS background check on people renting a firearm for use at the range; and House Bill 3508 would have changed Texas from a shall-issue state to a may-issue state.

All three bills were filed on March 6, 2019. They were read for the first time and referred to the Homeland Security and Public Safety on March 18 and died when the 86th Legislature adjourned sine die in May.

They didn’t attract any sponsors or co-sponsors; there were no public hearings; and none appeared on the committee calendar.

Three Gun-Control Bills–All Dead on Arrival

About a month later, Lopez, who was in a four-year, liberal arts, undergraduate honors program, submitted her senior’s thesis. Entitled “Oh, Shoot: A Sociological Analysis of Gun Culture in the Age of Campus Carry,” it was exactly what one would expect from a dyed-in-the-wool gun control zealot. Talking points faithfully parroted with little discernible analysis.*

She proudly mentioned her authorship of the bills. Since the paper was submitted a month before the 86th legislative session ended, she was spared the need to share their fates.

Lopez also touched on House Bill 357, former Rep. Jonathan Stickland’s constitutional carry bill, which did have a number of sponsors. It was torpedoed by the Republican Speaker of the House and a Democrat committee chairman later arrested for cocaine possession. Texans had to wait two more years for permitless handgun carry.**

Texas Chose Constitutional Carry Instead

I didn’t do an exhaustive search of the legislative filings during Talarico’s three subsequent legislative sessions but I found only one other 2A-related bill authored by Talarico. That was House Bill 5025, a prohibition on carrying in a library he filed in the most recent session. Like his three previous bills, it attracted no co-sponsors and died in committee.

He was a co-sponsor on five other bills but, considering how many gun control bills were filed in the 87th, 88th, and 89th sessions, his involvement took a back seat to his other priorities.

In her new role, Lopez will again be drafting legislation. As an ardent gun-grabber, there’s no reason to believe she will be affected by the changes in the landscape, including multiple significant setbacks in the courts or the fact Texas and 12 other states adopted constitutional carry since she drafted those three bills in 2019.

And campus carry is still legal in Texas.

Talarico’s Anti-Gun Legislative Record

Legislative aides typically aren’t fodder for the media and opposition. The C*cks Not Glocks episode has largely been forgotten by the public. So it’s hard to understand Talarico’s choice of Ana Lopez.

The media reports of Talarico’s selection have made Lopez’s past sensational. The mixture of immaturity, obscenity, and sex toys is red meat for opponents and perhaps a bit embarrassing for supporters. Especially when reminded the movement failed to change anything.

James Talarico is already vulnerable on 2A issues; he doesn’t have a track record, and I am not sure he even understands why John Cornyn lost in the primaries.

However, he has provided a rallying point for Republicans in a mid-term election.

*Lopez’s paper did include a reference to a 2016 Ammoland article by Dr. Marshall St. John, “Fifteen Reasons You Should Own A Gun.”

**[Full disclosure: I was involved in the effort to advance House Bill 357.]

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

from https://ift.tt/kd1X6Am
via IFTTT

RCMP ‘Crime Gun’ Story Has a Major Numbers Problem

Canada Finger Gun iStock-1169526109

RCMP tracing records do not represent every gun used in Canadian crime—and the most important percentage in the report lacks a clearly identified denominator.

CTV News recently published an article about “crime guns” traced by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP). Careful analysis of the information provided shows the article is as much about spin as enlightenment.

Statistics Canada previously reported in 2023 that, where newly collected data were available, 92% of firearm-related violent-crime incidents did not involve the recovery of a firearm. That finding, however, was based on data reported for only 9.2% of firearm-related violent-crime incidents, from police services covering approximately 24% of Canada’s population.

Separately, Canada’s federal briefing notes, using primarily 2020 data, estimated that about 20% of firearms seized by police were submitted for tracing. Because the two figures come from different datasets and distinguish between firearms “recovered” and “seized,” they cannot be combined into a precise national tracing funnel. They nevertheless demonstrate that traced guns are a selected subset of firearms encountered by police.

Of the ones sent in for tracing, the sample in the CTV News article excluded most of the traces done in Ontario and Quebec. Of those, the definition of a “crime gun” is broad and includes many non-violent crimes.

Ontario and Quebec Create a Major Data Gap

Ontario and Quebec have their own firearm tracing systems. Information from those systems was not included in the article.  Information from the most populated parts of Canada was not included. The sample for the CTV News article was not representative of all Canadian firearm traces.

The way the numbers are used is confusing. For example, the article says the RCMP completed 6,951 firearm traces. Then it says 4,197 of those were identified as “crime guns”. Of the 4,197 “crime guns,” it says 2,814 had a known source. The implication is that of the 4197 “crime guns,” 1,384 did not have a known source. If the 1,384 did not have a known source, how could a trace have been completed? Perhaps the author meant to write the RCMP attempted to trace 6,951 firearms, but was only successful in tracing 67% of those.

The most confusing part of the article then states 71% of the firearms traced in 2024 (by the RCMP) were domestic long guns. Long guns are the vast majority of firearms in Canada (89%). We know 2,654 of the 6,951 guns “traced” were not crime guns.  Those would be 39% of the firearms traced. If the vast majority of those were long guns, as would be expected, over half of the 71% of long guns traced were not “crime guns”.

What Counts as a ‘Crime Gun’?

The definition of “crime guns” is broad and worth considering. From the article:

The RCMP centre defines crime guns as firearms that were used or suspected to have been used in criminal offences, guns whose serial numbers have been obliterated or altered, firearms that were found but not reported lost or stolen, and replicas, toys, 3D-printed guns, pellet or air guns that have been used in criminal offences.

The article does not break out the numbers of toys, replicas, pellet and air guns from the total. The article lists 67 home-manufactured guns or “ghost guns”.  Those can be made in a number of different ways than 3D printing.  3D printing can be used to make replicas or toy guns.

Of the guns which were traced, or perhaps attempted to be traced, 17% were identified as smuggled handguns, or 1,165. Presumably, these were all classified as “crime guns”, because they were smuggled. Handguns in Canada are required to be registered. 9% (616) were domestically sourced handguns. This probably means they were registered in Canada at some point. Handguns do not appear to have been commercially manufactured in Canada since Para-Ordinace moved to the USA in 2009.   From the above numbers, about 65% of the handguns were smuggled handguns. 9+16 = 26, so only 26% of the total firearms mentioned in the RCMP traces were handguns. Only two percent (137) were smuggled long guns.  Almost 1% (67) were privately manufactured firearms, sometimes called “ghost guns”.

Of the 2,814 “crime guns” where the source could be identified, 86% were found to have come from within Canada. Only 14% were smuggled. The number may be biased because Canadian guns are more likely to be successfully traced.  The vast majority of traces for the largest Canadian urban centers were not included. This could explain the relatively low handgun figures.

Violent-Crime Data Tell a Different Story

In an official Canadian government report published in 2025, 49% of violent firearms crimes in Canada were committed with handguns.  It is obvious “crime guns” includes a great many non-violent crimes. When firearms are involved in violent crime, very few are recovered. From the article referenced above:

 Where these data were available, more than nine in ten (92%) incidents of firearm related violent crime did not involve the recovery of a firearm, eight in ten (81%) did not involve the seizure of a firearm and nearly all (99%) did not involve a firearm being reported as stolen.

In a separate Parliamentary report using data from 2020, 58% of firearms traced in Canada were reportedly from Canada, and half of those were handguns.  This means 29% of the firearms that were traced were handguns from Canada. The same report states 28% of handguns traced were domestically sourced.  If 29% of all firearms traced are handguns from Canada, and 28% of handguns traced are from Canada, then 29% of firearms traced cannot be long guns from Canada. The use of percentages instead of raw numbers allows many statistical games to be played.

The percent of successful traces done by the RCMP in 2024 matches precisely with the report for all of Canada for 2023. 67% of traces were successful.

The raw numbers show there were only 277 firearm homicides committed in all of Canada in 2020. Less than half of those, only 135, were committed with handguns. 135 deaths, or even 277 deaths of the 300,000 annual deaths in Canada, is a very small percentage. Homicides are shocking events, but less than .1 percent of deaths is a very small number. For handguns alone, it is .044%. Nearly three times as many people die in drowning accidents each year in Canada.

One of the ways to lie with statistics is to pick a sample that delivers the result you want. When the Canadian government wants to ban handguns, the reports emphasize the percentage of homicides committed with handguns. When the Canadian government wishes to ban large numbers of long guns, the article attempts to frame firearms crime in Canada as mostly involving long guns. Firearms in Canada are not a serious problem. 

In Canada, 80% of firearm-related deaths are suicides, about 19.8% are homicides, and .8% are accidents. The number of Canadian suicides by firearms was listed  at 80% without precise numbers. Rounding results in slightly over 100% total.

Draconian firearm restrictions may reduce the number of suicides committed with firearms. They do not reduce the total number of suicides. Draconian firearm restrictions may reduce the number of homicides committed with firearms. They do not reduce the total number of homicides.  The per capita rate of firearms ownership in the United States is unrelated to the homicide rate.

Playing games with the number of firearm traces reduces the credibility of the source.

---

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/72VLo4Q
via IFTTT

DOJ Folds on Post Office Gun Ban Appeal, Leaving SAF/FPC Victory Intact

The Justice Department has moved to abandon its appeal defending the federal post office gun ban, leaving protections in place for SAF and FPC members. iStock-901659046

For nearly two centuries, Americans managed to conduct business at post offices without Washington declaring every postal counter and parking lot a Second Amendment-free zone. The federal government has finally stopped trying to defend that historically bankrupt restriction.

On July 16, the Department of Justice filed an unopposed motion to voluntarily dismiss its appeal in Firearms Policy Coalition v. Blanche, formerly known as FPC v. Bondi and FPC v. Garland.

The 41-word motion offers no explanation. DOJ simply asked the Fifth Circuit to dismiss the appeal, with each side bearing its own costs. The court must still formally grant the request, but because the motion is unopposed, the government has effectively waved the white flag.

“This is huge news for SAF members,” SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said in the organization’s announcement. “We now have finality and clarity that the hard-fought injunction we secured on behalf of our members, striking down the post office carry ban is the permanent outcome of the case. The government appears to now agree, especially in light of the recent Wolford decision, that the ban on the lawful carry of firearms in post offices fails constitutional muster.”

It is also another warning to government attorneys still trying to stretch the “sensitive place” doctrine until it swallows the right to carry a firearm.

SAF and FPC Challenged the Postal Gun Ban

The Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, Gavin Pate, and George Mandry filed the lawsuit in June 2024.

The plaintiffs challenged two federal restrictions. The first, 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), generally prohibits possessing a firearm inside a federal facility. The second, 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l), prohibits carrying or storing firearms on postal property except for “official purposes.”

Together, the provisions effectively disarmed lawful gun owners not only inside post offices but also on surrounding postal property, including parking lots. That meant someone legally carrying a handgun could not simply leave it secured inside a vehicle before entering the building.

On September 30, 2025, Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor granted summary judgment to the gun rights plaintiffs and entered a permanent injunction against enforcement of the restrictions as applied to the plaintiffs and their members at ordinary post offices.

The court rejected the government’s claim that every building it owns should receive a nearly automatic “sensitive place” designation. As O’Connor explained in his 17-page opinion, the government “as a property owner must abide by Bruen’s Second Amendment analysis.”

Owning the deed does not give Washington permission to suspend the Bill of Rights.

The Government Had No Historical Case

Post offices are not some modern government invention. The American postal system existed before the country declared independence, and the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to establish post offices and post roads.

The Founders were also familiar with robbery, violence, and threats directed at mail carriers. Early federal laws punished people who robbed the mail or attacked postal employees with weapons. They did not respond by disarming every peaceable citizen who entered a post office.

That distinction proved fatal to the government’s argument.

The first general federal restriction on guns inside government buildings did not appear until 1964. The Postal Service did not adopt its specific postal-property ban until 1972, nearly 200 years after the Second Amendment was ratified.

The historical record was not merely silent about post office gun bans. At times, the government actively armed postal workers. During the wave of mail-train robberies in the 1920s, the postmaster general issued pistols to railway mail clerks.

The traditional American response was to arm the good guys and punish the criminals. The modern response was to disarm everyone and hope a sign would stop someone intent on committing a violent crime.

Judge O’Connor found no historical tradition supporting that modern approach. In granting the permanent injunction, he also observed that “there is no public interest in unlawful government action.”

DOJ Tried to Limit Who Was Protected

After losing, the government attempted to restrict the injunction to Pate, Mandry, and people who were SAF or FPC members when the lawsuit was filed in June 2024. DOJ also wanted protected members identified and verified for the government.

Judge O’Connor rejected that effort. In March, the court clarified its injunction, holding that it applies to the named plaintiffs and all present and future members of SAF and FPC.

That gives the injunction nationwide practical reach, but it is important to understand its limits. This is not a universal ruling allowing every American to carry in every post office.

The protection applies to SAF and FPC members at “ordinary” post offices. It does not cover post offices located on military bases, inside similarly restricted areas, or within federal buildings that house additional government functions where firearms would otherwise be prohibited. Gun owners must also comply with other applicable state and federal laws.

Because DOJ is abandoning the appeal, there will be no Fifth Circuit decision establishing binding appellate precedent. The district court’s judgment and membership-based injunction will remain intact, but the federal restrictions have not been erased from the books for everyone.

Wolford’s Shadow Hangs Over the Government’s Retreat

The timing of DOJ’s surrender is difficult to ignore.

In January, the government asked the Fifth Circuit to place the appeal on hold while the Supreme Court considered Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani. DOJ specifically acknowledged that Wolford could provide additional guidance concerning laws that restrict where Americans may carry firearms.

The Fifth Circuit denied that request. The Supreme Court then decided Wolford on June 25, reiterating that laws restricting armed carry fall within the Second Amendment’s plain text and must survive the historical analysis required by Bruen.

Three weeks later, DOJ moved to dismiss its post office appeal.

The dismissal motion does not mention Wolford or formally concede that the postal ban is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the sequence strongly suggests that the government recognized its “sensitive place” theory was unlikely to survive.

The current Justice Department deserves limited credit for finally walking away. It does not deserve a parade. DOJ continued defending the restriction, attempted to gut the injunction, and pursued an appeal before finally acknowledging that the fight was no longer worth having.

The real credit belongs to SAF, FPC, the individual plaintiffs, and the attorneys who forced the government to defend a 50-year-old gun ban against more than two centuries of American history.

An ordinary post office is not a prison, military base, courthouse, or secure government installation. It is a place Americans visit to mail packages, buy stamps, collect mail, and apply for passports.

The federal government cannot turn those routine errands into grounds for stripping citizens of their right to armed self-defense.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/Wk9yBEU
via IFTTT

Major 2A Victory: Third Circuit Strikes Down New Jersey’s AR-15 & Magazine Bans

The en banc Third Circuit ruled that New Jersey’s ban on covered semiautomatic rifles and magazines holding more than ten rounds violates the Second Amendment. IMG Duncan Johnson

New Jersey’s AR-15 ban and 10-round magazine limit have suffered a major federal appellate defeat.

Sitting en banc, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit ruled July 17 that New Jersey’s so-called “assault firearm” ban violates the Second Amendment as applied to every semiautomatic rifle covered by the law. The court also struck down the state’s prohibition on magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

Ten of the court’s 15 judges joined the judgment invalidating the rifle and magazine provisions in the consolidated challenges brought by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, individual gun owners, and the Firearms Policy Coalition. Judge Arianna Freeman wrote the opinion of the court.

The decision goes substantially further than the lower court’s 2024 ruling. U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan had limited his decision against the rifle ban to Colt-manufactured AR-15s while upholding New Jersey’s magazine restriction. The Third Circuit expanded that judgment to all semiautomatic rifles regulated by the challenged provisions and reversed the ruling on magazines.

John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, released the following statement celebrating the win:

“Today marks a historic victory for the NRA, the Second Amendment, and law-abiding Americans. The Third Circuit has struck down these unconstitutional so-called assault weapons bans and magazine bans in New Jersey, affirming what we’ve always known: the right to keep and bear arms, including commonly-owned rifles and standard-capacity magazines, is fundamental and cannot be infringed by politicians who prioritize control over constitutional freedoms. This ruling protects the rights of millions of responsible gun owners in the Garden State and serves as another benchmark in our efforts to dismantle gun control across the country.”

Semiautomatic Rifles Are Protected “Arms”

The majority began with a point that should not be controversial: A semiautomatic rifle is a firearm, and a firearm is an “Arm” protected by the Second Amendment.

“Because semi-automatic rifles are firearms, they are ‘Arms’ within the meaning of the Second Amendment,” the court held. “The Constitution thus ‘presumptively protects’ individuals’ right to keep and bear semi-automatic rifles.”

That conclusion forced New Jersey to prove its prohibition was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The state failed to do so.

The record showed that approximately 24 million AR-15s and similar rifles are in circulation. Americans possess them for self-defense, hunting, target shooting, and pest control. Their accuracy, light recoil, and ergonomics also make them practical defensive firearms.

New Jersey attempted to get around those numbers by arguing that semiautomatic rifles are rarely fired during documented defensive gun uses. The court rejected that sleight of hand. The Second Amendment protects the right to “keep” arms, meaning the right to possess them. A gun owner does not need to shoot an attacker before his choice of defensive firearm receives constitutional protection.

The majority also made clear that self-defense is not the only lawful purpose protected by the Second Amendment. Hunting and other lawful uses count as well.

“Regardless of where those lines may be drawn, the many millions of semi-automatic rifles in circulation for lawful purposes are plainly in common use,” the court wrote.

That is a direct rejection of the argument anti-gun states have increasingly pushed: that an arm can be banned unless gun owners prove it is frequently fired in self-defense. The Constitution protects keeping and bearing arms, not merely pulling the trigger during a crime recorded in a government database.

New Jersey Could Not Produce a Historical Rifle Ban

Once the court determined that New Jersey had imposed a de facto ban on a class of commonly possessed arms, the historical question became straightforward.

The state offered gunpowder-storage laws, trap-gun restrictions, Bowie-knife laws, and later regulations of pistols and clubs. None supported what New Jersey enacted.

Founding-era gunpowder laws were fire-safety measures governing how large quantities of powder could be stored in crowded buildings. They were not bans on possessing commonly owned weapons. Most Bowie-knife laws arrived decades after the Founding and regulated concealed carry rather than possession. Georgia’s lone outright possession ban was later held unconstitutional except insofar as it regulated concealed carry.

The majority also refused to let New Jersey invoke “unprecedented societal concerns” as a shortcut around the historical test. Criminals misusing weapons to harm innocent people is not a new problem. The Founders addressed dangerous individuals through laws directed at threatening or criminal conduct, not by disarming millions of peaceable citizens.

“Together, Heller and Bruen teach that bans or broad prohibitions on possessing or carrying of a class of weapons in common use for lawful purposes fail to find support in our Nation’s tradition of firearm regulation,” the court explained. “That is so even when the regulations are passed with the intention of reducing gun violence.”

The majority ultimately held that “New Jersey’s complete prohibition on the possession of semi-automatic rifles runs afoul of the Second Amendment’s protections.”

Ten Rounds Is a Political Line, Not a Constitutional One

The Third Circuit delivered an equally strong rejection of New Jersey’s magazine ban.

The state argued that magazines holding more than ten rounds were either unprotected accessories or a separate category of “large capacity” arms. The majority rejected both claims. Magazines feed ammunition into firearms and are required for many modern guns to function as designed. They are therefore protected “Arms.”

The court also recognized that “large capacity magazine” is a political label whose definition changes whenever lawmakers choose a new number. New Jersey originally allowed magazines holding up to 15 rounds before lowering the limit to ten in 2018.

“It would defy reason for a label devised by New Jersey’s legislature to govern the reach of the Second Amendment’s text,” the majority wrote.

The court then went directly at the state’s arbitrary cutoff:

“It cannot be that a magazine that can hold ten rounds is an ‘Arm’ covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment but a magazine that can hold eleven rounds is not.”

The record contained evidence of more than 100 million 30-round AR-15 magazines in circulation. AR-15-style rifles commonly ship with 20- or 30-round magazines, making them standard equipment for one of America’s most popular rifles.

Quoting an earlier decision and expressly agreeing with it, the majority observed: “There may well be some capacity above which magazines are not in common use but, if so, the record is devoid of evidence as to what that capacity is; in any event, that capacity surely is not ten.”

The court concluded that New Jersey’s magazine provisions violate the Second Amendment.

Judge Matey Blasts New Jersey’s Word Games

Judge Paul Matey, joined by Judge Jennifer Mascott, wrote separately to argue that New Jersey has already received more than enough time to defend its restrictions.

Matey described the state’s law as “blunderbuss legislation” and accused New Jersey’s attorneys of “prioritizing histrionics over history.” He also rejected the terminology lawmakers use to make ordinary rifles and magazines sound sinister.

“Sixteen rounds was large yesterday, eleven rounds is large today,” Matey wrote. “Nor does any limiting principle guide the State’s definition of ‘assault weapons.’”

Although the state may market its gun-control agenda using politically effective slogans, he added, “the rights of our Republic are built on sturdier stuff.”

Matey and Mascott would move quickly on the remaining portions of the case rather than give New Jersey another lengthy round of litigation.

Third Circuit Creates the Circuit Split SCOTUS Needed

The national importance of this ruling is difficult to overstate. Other federal appellate courts have upheld semiautomatic-rifle or magazine bans by treating commonly owned rifles as military weapons, minimizing lawful possession, or stretching late historical regulations beyond recognition.

Judge Cheryl Ann Krause’s dissent acknowledged exactly what the majority accomplished. She complained that the ruling makes the Third Circuit “the only Court of Appeals in the Nation to afford constitutional protection to AR-15s and LCMs.”

That admission identifies the real story. There is now a clean federal appellate split over whether the government may ban AR-15-style rifles and commonly owned magazines.

The Supreme Court has already agreed to hear the consolidated Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins cases, which ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles. The Third Circuit has now given the justices a detailed roadmap grounded in Heller, Bruen, Rahimi, Hemani, and Wolford.

What the Decision Does—and Does Not—Resolve

The ruling invalidates New Jersey’s “Assault Firearm Provisions” as applied to the semiautomatic rifles covered by the law. It also holds that the state’s restrictions on magazines holding more than ten rounds violate the Second Amendment.

The Third Circuit remanded the challenges involving semiautomatic pistols, semiautomatic shotguns, and other weapons covered by New Jersey’s definition because the record was less developed regarding those firearms. Bump stocks were not part of the challenge. The court also did not decide the separate Takings Clause claim because the Second Amendment ruling resolved the magazine dispute.

New Jersey gun owners should not treat the publication of the opinion as an immediate green light to disregard existing statutes. The appellate mandate, further district-court proceedings, and any request by the state for a stay must still be watched closely.

But the constitutional result is unmistakable: New Jersey cannot erase the Second Amendment by attaching an inflammatory label to a common rifle or by declaring that the eleventh round in an ordinary magazine suddenly transforms protected property into contraband.

For the first time, an en banc federal appellate court has squarely rejected both games.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/gBuZ4cM
via IFTTT

House Votes to Block Credit Card Gun Tracking as Senate Fight Looms

The House passed H.R. 1181 by 221–201 to prohibit firearm-specific merchant category codes such as MCC 5723. IMG Jim Grant

Buying a rifle, ammunition, or gun safe should not place an American under special financial surveillance. Yet that is the premise behind the firearm-retailer merchant code that banks and gun-control activists have spent years trying to impose on lawful gun owners.

On July 14, the House passed H.R. 1181, the Protecting Privacy in Purchases Act, by a 221–201 vote. Five Democrats and one independent joined 215 Republicans in supporting the measure, while 200 Democrats and Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick voted against it. NRA-ILA supported the legislation, which now moves to the Senate.

Rep. Riley Moore (R-W.Va.) sponsored the bill.

A Financial Label Created Specifically for Gun Stores

Merchant category codes are four-digit identifiers used to classify businesses. Gun stores were historically categorized alongside sporting-goods or general-merchandise retailers.

That changed in 2022 after banks and gun-control activists pushed the International Organization for Standardization to approve a separate code for firearm and ammunition retailers. The result was MCC 5723, a financial label for businesses whose primary sales involve firearms, ammunition, or related products.

The code does not reveal what a customer purchased. It generally identifies the merchant category and transaction amount. That limitation does not make the system harmless. It makes it indiscriminate.

A $2,000 gun-store charge could represent a rifle. It could also cover a safe, optic, training class, range membership, hunting equipment, or ammunition. MCC 5723 cannot tell the difference. It simply places every qualifying transaction into a gun-related category that can be searched, analyzed, and flagged.

“The implementation of Merchant Category Codes to surveil lawful purchases is nothing more than an ill-conceived attempt to create a de facto national firearms registry,” NRA-ILA Executive Director John Commerford warned.

What H.R. 1181 Would Do

The House-passed bill goes beyond credit cards. Its definitions cover entities involved in processing credit, debit, and prepaid-card transactions.

Payment networks could not require gun retailers to use a code that identifies them as sellers of firearms, ammunition, firearm accessories, or components. Banks and other covered entities would likewise be barred from assigning such a code.

The bill would also preempt state and local laws regulating firearm-retailer MCCs. That provision would override mandates imposed by California, Colorado and New York while replacing the current patchwork of state requirements with a nationwide prohibition.

Importantly, H.R. 1181 does not prevent financial institutions from complying with laws concerning fraud, genuinely suspicious or illegal activity, data breaches, or transaction security. Banks could continue investigating evidence of actual crime. They could not begin with the assumption that patronizing a gun store is inherently suspicious.

Enforcement Comes With Limitations

The attorney general would have 90 days after enactment to establish a complaint process for individuals and firearm retailers. DOJ would be required to investigate submitted complaints.

If DOJ determines that a payment network or processor violated the law, the company would receive notice and 30 days to correct the violation. If it refused, the attorney general could seek a federal injunction.

The bill creates no private right of action and specifies no civil fine. A gun dealer improperly tagged with the code could file a complaint but could not sue under H.R. 1181 for damages.

That is a weakness, particularly if a future anti-gun attorney general controls enforcement. Nevertheless, the legislation establishes a clear federal prohibition and requires annual reports to Congress detailing investigations and outcomes.

Most House Democrats Voted to Preserve the Tracking Tool

Opponents claim the code could help banks identify gun trafficking or prevent mass shootings. That argument exposes the fundamental problem.

Because MCC 5723 does not disclose what was purchased, any determination of “suspicious” behavior would rest largely on where someone shopped and how much was spent, not evidence that a crime occurred.

That is financial profiling directed at the exercise of a constitutional right.

Law enforcement already has subpoenas, warrants, suspicious-activity reports and other investigative tools for cases supported by evidence. It does not need a dragnet treating lawful gun-store customers as potential criminals. The Second Amendment is not probable cause.

The official House vote shows opposition to this surveillance crossed party lines, but only narrowly. Five Democrats broke with their party to protect gun-owner privacy. Two hundred voted to leave the tracking mechanism available.

The Senate Is the Next Test

House passage is an important victory, but H.R. 1181 is not law. The Senate companion, S. 1715, remains before the Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee.

Should a lawful purchase from a constitutionally protected industry place an American into a specially marked financial category?

The answer should be no. Buying guns and ammunition is lawful commerce, not grounds for a bank-generated watchlist. H.R. 1181 would finally tell financial institutions and anti-gun states that gun owners are citizens, not suspects.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/JW6vzLK
via IFTTT