A Tulsa County homeowner reportedly fought an alleged robber with a baseball bat before firing one shot when the man charged again. iStock.com/[Oliver Peric]A Tulsa County homeowner reportedly faced the nightmare gun owners prepare for: a man on his property threatening to kill him, following him into his home, fighting him at close range, and then charging him again.
The homeowner tried going inside. He fought back with a baseball bat. When neither ended the danger, he used the most effective defensive tool available to an ordinary citizen—a firearm.
According to the Tulsa County Sheriff’s Office, deputies responded Wednesday night, July 15, to a shooting in the 5900 block of South 59th West Avenue.
The homeowner told investigators that 37-year-old Joshua Arenas came onto his property, “threatened to steal his truck, and told him he would kill him if he resisted.”
This was not a homeowner shooting somebody over a pickup truck. The reported death threat, pursuit into the residence, physical struggle, and renewed charge are what turned the encounter into a fight for survival.
Going Inside Did Not End the Threat
The homeowner turned toward his residence instead of pursuing Arenas. Arenas allegedly followed him inside.
Once inside, the homeowner grabbed a baseball bat and struck Arenas. The fight continued and eventually moved back outdoors. Even after being hit with the bat, Arenas allegedly remained aggressive.
“The struggle continued outside, where the homeowner said Arenas turned and charged at him again,” the sheriff’s office reported.
The homeowner fired one shot, striking Arenas in the thigh and ending the reported attack.
Arenas was transported to a hospital for treatment before being booked into the Tulsa County Jail on complaints of attempted robbery by force in the first degree, first-degree burglary, and assault and battery. “This is an arrest, not a conviction,” the sheriff’s office noted.
The Firearm Was Not the First Option—It Was the One That Worked
The sequence destroys the usual anti-gun narrative about armed homeowners looking for an excuse to shoot. The homeowner did not chase a fleeing thief or go looking for a fight. He did not open fire when Arenas first entered the property and started threatening to steal his property. He went inside his own home, and then attempted to defend himself with a less-lethal (less effective) improvised weapon, and fired only after Arenas allegedly charged again.
The gun was not his first response. It was his last effective option. One shot stopped a man whom retreat and a baseball bat had failed to stop.
Oklahoma Citizens Have No Duty to Run
Oklahoma law recognizes a citizen’s “right to expect absolute safety within their own homes.” Under 21 O.S. §1289.25, a person lawfully present has no duty to retreat and may use deadly force when reasonably necessary to prevent death, great bodily harm, or a forcible felony.
Because the shot occurred outside, authorities will consider more than the Castle Doctrine. The alleged death threat, entry into the residence, physical attack, and renewed charge will all matter. No public report says the homeowner was arrested, although prosecutors have not announced a final self-defense determination.
There is no guarantee that police will arrive before an attacker crosses the threshold. The Second Amendment guarantees something more practical: the citizen’s right to possess the means to fight back.
In Tulsa County, the homeowner reportedly used that right to survive.
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.
Despite pro-2A rulings by the federal courts and the Supreme Court, anti-gunners are stubbornly refusing to behave, and media bias is still creeping in. iStock.com/[Ahlapot]A not-so-funny thing is happening in the aftermath of two significant Second Amendment rulings—one by the U.S. Supreme Court and the other by an en banc panel of the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals—which essentially lays bare the stubborn resistance of the anti-gun-rights movement and its media allies.
In Hawaii, following the Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling striking down the state’s burdensome “vampire” restriction in Wolford v. Lopez, KITV News is reporting that a Honolulu law firm—Davis Levin Livingston—and the Hawaii chapter of Brady United Against Gun Violence are distributing free signs to local businesses which read “Guns Not Allowed.” The Wolford ruling said Hawaii’s requirement that licensed law-abiding armed citizens needed to get express permission to be armed on private property which is open to the public is unconstitutional.
The KITV report quoted one businessman stating this is “unfair to the business owners.” Brady and the law firm are essentially making businesses take sides in a fight that has already been settled. The story might have been fine except for the last line, which advises viewers: “If you are interested in obtaining one of the signs, email gunsafety@davislevin.com.”
Anti-gunners lost in Hawaii, but they’re definitely not giving up in their stubborn efforts to discourage legally-armed citizens from entering business establishments.
A Biden Appointee Delivers a Landmark 2A Victory
Back on the mainland, in the wake of the Third Circuit Court’s 10-5 ruling in Cheeseman striking down New Jersey’s longtime ban on so-called “assault weapons” and “large-capacity magazines,” a subtle but significant bit of press bias seems to be surfacing.
In only a very few reports has the author of the majority opinion, Circuit Judge Arianna Julia Freeman, been identified, especially as a Joe Biden appointee. In one report, she was identified only by her last name. Other reports, notably at NJ.com and Politico, the attention was paid to the concurring opinion authored by Judge Paul Matey, whom both news agencies made a point of identifying as a Donald Trump appointee.
To its credit, The Hill identified Judge Freeman as a Biden appointee, and so did TheGunMag.com in its breaking news report last Friday.
Why is this important?
Federal judicial appointments almost always reflect the political philosophies of the president making those nominations. For a Biden appointee to author such a pro-Second Amendment opinion is unusual and extremely significant, while it cannot be surprising for a Trump-appointed judge to weigh in on the correct side of the 2A argument.
The Third Circuit ruling reinforces the notion that the Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen ruling is having a major impact on the way lower courts are having to decide Second Amendment cases.
As noted in his YouTube video detailing the New Jersey decision, attorney William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, put it bluntly: “This case is absolutely littered with good rules of law that systematically picks apart all of the arguments that the civilian disarmament regimes have been arguing for years now which have been working in some courts to uphold these otherwise unconstitutional bans.”
In his concurring opinion, Judge Matey was also blunt, observing that the majority opinion should derail the Garden State’s “repeated and relentless assault on the Second Amendment.”
New Jersey Refuses to Accept the Court’s Message
Resistance to pro-2A rulings isn’t confined to Hawaii, as amplified by New Jersey state Attorney General Jennifer Davenport, who declared the Third Circuit opinion “invalidating New Jersey’s careful laws restricting the AR-15 and large capacity magazines is as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect.” She doesn’t elaborate on why or how the court majority is wrong and she is right. However, as noted by NJ.com, she did say this:
“Every other federal circuit court to consider the issue has come out the other way. Assault weapons and large capacity magazines play a dangerous role in the modern epidemic of mass shootings, and New Jersey acted reasonably and lawfully in restricting them.”
Supreme Court Rifle-Ban Showdown Looms
Whether the Third Circuit ruling is right or wrong will likely be settled by this time next year, after the Supreme Court hands down a decision on the two semi-auto ban cases it will be hearing in the fall term, challenging bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois.
However, the reports from Hawaii and New Jersey underscore what could be described as the bitter resentment and resistance from gun control proponents when they lose, which has happened consistently at the Supreme Court since 2008. It signals the battle to fully restore the Second Amendment’s protection of a right that “shall not be infringed” will not end even when the high court hammers down on gun and magazine bans.
There will be other issues to address, including—but not limited to—such impairments as:
Permits to Purchase
Waiting Periods
Training Mandates
Constitutional (Permitless) Carry
National Reciprocity
The legal roller coaster ride is definitely far from over.
RELATED:
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.
“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.
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.
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.
**[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.
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.
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.
![iStock.com/[Oliver Peric]](https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/Defensive-Gun-Use-Self-Defense-9mm-iStock-2265679515-1-600x400.jpg)
