Suppressors Are Protected Arms, Fifth Circuit Rules in Major 2A Case

The Fifth Circuit ruled that suppressors are Second Amendment “Arms,” even as it upheld Brennan Comeaux’s NFA conviction. IMG Jim Grant

The Fifth Circuit just gave gun owners a major Second Amendment win on suppressors, even though the man who brought the case still lost.

In United States v. Brennan James Comeaux, the court affirmed Comeaux’s conviction for possessing an unregistered silencer under the National Firearms Act. That part is not the victory. The victory is what the court said on the way there: suppressors are “Arms” protected by the Second Amendment.

Comeaux was charged after deputies searched his home and found firearms and suspected silencers. ATF determined the devices were suppressors, and Comeaux admitted he had manufactured and possessed them. He challenged the NFA’s registration requirement, arguing that the law violated the Second Amendment both on its face and as applied to him.

The district court rejected his argument, treating suppressors as “dangerous and unusual weapons” outside the Second Amendment. The Fifth Circuit rejected that theory. “Silencers are ‘Arms,’” the panel held.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Huxwrx Flow 45 M Multi-Caliber Suppressor W/ Booster Assembly	Bereli	$ 708.00
	Huxwrx Flow 762 Ti Rifle Suppressor - FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 1185.00
	HUXWRX Flow 7.62 TI Suppressor with Muzzle Device - Black.	Primary Arms	$ 1299.00
	Huxwrx Flow 556k Suppressor W/ Flash Hider, 5.56/17hmr/5.7, Black (BLEM)	Bereli	$ 979.00

The court explained that suppressors reduce loudness, lower the risk of hearing damage, reduce recoil, eliminate muzzle blast, increase accuracy, and allow faster follow-up shots. Suppressors make firearms safer, more controllable, and more effective for lawful self-defense. That is exactly why millions of gun owners want them.

The government argued that suppressors are not protected because a firearm can technically function without one and because suppressors were not historically tied to founding-era militia service. The Fifth Circuit said that is not the test. Under Bruen, an arm does not have to be “necessary” to make a gun fire. It must facilitate armed self-defense.

That is a massive rejection of the anti-suppressor narrative. Suppressors are not Hollywood assassin tools, used by criminals. They are safety devices. They protect hearing, reduce blast, improve control, and make shooting less abusive to the shooter and everyone nearby. In much of the world, suppressors are treated as normal safety equipment. In America, the government shoved them into the NFA and spent decades pretending they were too dangerous for ordinary citizens.

BREAKING: 5th Circuit rules that suppressors ARE protected arms!

That means no state in the fifth circuit can ban suppressors, and we’re one step closer to the Supreme Court holding the same! https://t.co/wCm6GBhDr5 pic.twitter.com/mAcvoo8c9D

— American Suppressor Association (@AmSuppressor) June 18, 2026

Comeaux changes the legal battlefield. The ruling also creates a direct split with the Ninth Circuit.

Just weeks ago, in United States v. DeBorba, the Ninth Circuit held that suppressors are not protected “arms” because they are optional accessories and not necessary to the ordinary operation of a firearm. The Fifth Circuit has now said the opposite. Suppressors are protected because they help a firearm serve its core lawful purpose.

In the Ninth Circuit, gun control lawyers will point to DeBorba and say suppressors are outside the Second Amendment altogether. In the Fifth Circuit, gun owners can now point to Comeaux and say the Constitution covers them. That kind of direct disagreement is exactly the sort of issue that eventually draws Supreme Court attention.

Gun owners should not overread the decision. Comeaux does not legalize unregistered suppressors. It does not strike down the NFA. It does not mean the ATF registry disappeared overnight.

Comeaux still lost because the panel said it was bound by United States v. Peterson, another Fifth Circuit suppressor case.

Peterson treated the NFA’s suppressor registration system as a presumptively lawful “shall-issue” regime unless the challenger shows abuse, such as exorbitant fees, long delays, arbitrary denials, or some other evidence that the system is being used to burden the right. Comeaux did not build that record, so his conviction was affirmed.

That also explains how Comeaux changes Peterson. If Peterson were decided today, the Fifth Circuit could no longer dodge the threshold question by assuming suppressors might be protected. Comeaux answers that question. Suppressors are arms. But Peterson’s result likely would not change unless the challenger made a stronger record showing that the NFA process itself burdens the right.

Judge Edith Brown Clement, joined by Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan, made the next fight crystal clear. She agreed that suppressors are protected arms but warned that Peterson wrongly turned Bruen’s footnote about shall-issue carry permits into a new hurdle for gun owners. Clement did not mince words: “Peterson ought to be revisited.” In her view, courts should be applying text, history, and tradition, not inventing a half-step that lets the government escape real constitutional scrutiny. That is where this fight is headed.

The NFA survived today, but the government’s favorite anti-suppressor argument did not. The Fifth Circuit said suppressors are not outside the Second Amendment just because politicians and bureaucrats say so.

---

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/npkO9Ef
via IFTTT

3D Printed Guns Are Going Mainstream, and Gun Control Can’t Keep Up

3D printed guns are moving from online subculture to mainstream firearms debate as DIY builders continue to outpace gun control efforts. iStock-2191244801

In the rolling hills of Appalachia, a man named Yeezy, online handle YZY_PRINTS, sits in his workshop surrounded by plastic and metal. Sheriffs show up at his door one day, not with cuffs but paperwork. He’s got an AR-15 leaning nearby, just in case. No raid. No drama. Just the everyday tension of a guy who prints his own guns and isn’t shy about saying why.

That scene comes straight from a recent Rolling Stone profile that dropped this week. The piece paints a vivid picture of the “plastic revolution” in firearms. What was once the domain of tinkerers and underground forums has exploded into something bigger. Thousands now participate worldwide. Hundreds in the U.S. alone design, test, and share new models at breakneck speed. And it’s not just fringe anymore. It’s going mainstream.

A decade ago, building a functional firearm at home meant serious machining skills, a full shop, and deep pockets. Today? A decent 3D printer, some filament, and freely available CAD files can get you started. The lower receiver, the serialized heart of many guns, emerges from layers of plastic. Bolt on real parts, and you’ve got something that shoots. Reliable enough for range days. Untraceable by design. Legal for personal use in most states.

The Rolling Stone story highlights how far this has come. Yeezy’s “Glong”, a pistol frame that doubles as a bong, might sound like a meme. But it shows the creativity bubbling up. Designers iterate fast. Online repositories host thousands of files. Communities stress-test them, fix flaws, and release updates. New printers handle tougher materials. Print times drop. Durability climbs. What started with the single-shot Liberator pistol has evolved into working MP5 clones, suppressors, and more.

Critics freak out, of course. They call them “ghost guns” and warn of criminals, kids, and extremists arming up without background checks. Law enforcement in places like New York and California pours resources into specialized units. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s team displays seized printed guns like trophies. They push new laws, sue repositories, and pressure printer companies. Some stats show 3D-printed pieces turning up at crime scenes, though numbers vary and context matters. A 2024 NYPD figure cited in the article put 3D-printed guns at a fraction of the number of “ghost gun” recoveries.

But here’s the thing the hand-wringers miss. Most of this activity stays legal. Hobbyists aren’t flooding streets with crime guns en masse. The drivers? Ideology and access. People across the spectrum, left, right, libertarian, share a core belief: the right to bear arms shouldn’t depend on government permission slips.

Yeezy himself mixes far-left memes with hardcore 2A advocacy. He sees printing as empowerment. If authorities target certain groups, plastic levels the field.

That democratizing effect is hard to overstate. Traditional gunsmithing demanded apprenticeship and expensive tools. Now, a working-class kid with a $300 printer can experiment. Veterans, preppers, and enthusiasts in restrictive states; they all tap the same open-source ecosystem. Forums buzz with troubleshooting threads. Designers compete for robust, easy-to-print models. It’s innovation at the speed of the internet, not bureaucratic rule-making.

Of course, risks exist. Bad actors can misuse anything. But the same goes for cars, knives, or fertilizer. Banning files or printers won’t stop determined people. It just drives the community further underground or offshore. Early Liberator designs circulated despite takedowns. Today’s repositories prove resilient. As one prosecutor admitted in the Rolling Stone piece, creators keep outsmarting regulations.

Recent court fights underscore the tension. The Supreme Court has weighed in on ghost gun kits, affirming some regulatory power. Yet core principles hold: individuals can make their own firearms for personal use without serialization in most of the country. Only a handful of states ban 3D-printed guns outright. Enforcement remains patchy. Printed frames often blend with factory parts, complicating detection. Metal detectors? Not always reliable for polymer-heavy builds.

This shift echoes broader tech disruptions. Remember when home computing seemed exotic? Or when file-sharing upended music? Guns follow suit. The cat’s out of the bag. Printers get cheaper and better every year. Materials improve. Knowledge spreads freely. You don’t need a machine shop anymore; just curiosity and patience.

For Second Amendment supporters, that’s the point. The Founders never intended self-defense to require a federal license or corporate middleman. In an era of eroding trust, pandemic lockdowns, surveillance, and politicized enforcement, DIY capability feels like insurance. Yeezy’s backyard range tests capture that raw appeal. Bang after bang from a gun the government doesn’t officially know exists. Empowering. Liberating.

Skeptics point to tragedies. High-profile cases grab headlines, like the one involving a printed suppressor. But data doesn’t support claims of an epidemic overwhelming law enforcement. Many “ghost guns” come from kits or milling, not pure printing. Hobbyists dominate the scene, not street gangs. Police units admit most printed guns they encounter aren’t tied to violence. The real threat, some argue, gets exaggerated to justify broader controls.

Meanwhile, the community grows. Social media amplifies it. YouTube tutorials (before they get yanked) teach basics. Merch like Yeezy’s “It Was Never About Hunting” shirts signals the cultural moment. Even in blue cities, interest persists underground. In red states, it flourishes openly. Cross-political alliances form around shared principles of autonomy.

Looking ahead, expect more evolution. Hybrid builds combining printed and machined parts. Better alloys for high-stress components. AI-assisted design tools are speeding iteration. Regulators will scramble with new rules, lawsuits, and international pressure on file hosts. But technology outpaces policy. Printers will enter more homes. Files will mirror across decentralized networks. The genie won’t go back in the bottle.

The Rolling Stone article captures the human side through Yeezy’s story. A guy from tough roots who found power in creation. His politics might differ from yours, or mine, but the underlying drive resonates with millions who value self-reliance. In Trump’s America—or any administration’s—the idea that citizens can arm themselves without permission strikes a chord.

3D gun making isn’t a fad. It’s mainstreaming because it solves real barriers: cost, availability, bureaucracy. It puts capability back in individual hands. For better or worse, that’s the future. Debates will rage in courts and Congress. But in garages and workshops across the country, printers keep humming. Frames take shape. Freedom, one layer at a time.

Ghost Gun Crackdowns Expose the Dirty Secret of Gun Control

CTRLPEW Expands Federal Lawsuit, Accuses California Of Policing 3D Gun Speech In Florida

---

About John Crump

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

---

from https://ift.tt/wg8TdfN
via IFTTT

The Survey Says: Dems Largely Dismissive of 2A Threat

A new AP/NORC survey reinforces the notion that Democrats treat the Second Amendment as a regulated privilege, rather than protective of a fundamental right. IMG Jim Grant

A new poll by the Associated Press and NORC Center for Public Affairs Research on personal freedoms and whether they are under threat reveals once again that Democrats are largely dismissive of any peril facing the Second Amendment, at the same time party leaders have been leading the charge to erode the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA).

According to The Independent, the survey revealed, “Democrats were more inclined to see a greater threat to freedom of speech, with about six in 10 believing it faces a “major threat,” compared to four in 10 independents and roughly one-third of Republicans.”

“Conversely,” The Independent added, “Republicans expressed greater concern about the right to keep and bear arms; while most Americans consider this right important, about 8 in 10 Republicans agreed, compared with 4 in 10 Democrats and 50% of independents.”

Coincidentally, Democrats and their media allies have lately been reacting positively to Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger’s signing of several gun control measures, almost uniformly described as “gun violence prevention legislation” (WDBJ) or “gun safety laws” (WSLS) while critics insist they won’t actually prevent violent crime or make anyone safer.

Naturally, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for Gun Violence Solutions declared in its headline, “Virginia Governor Spanberger Signs Historic Gun Violence Prevention Bills into Law.”

Only the Richmond Times-Dispatch accurately described what Spanberger signed as “gun control” legislation.

But it is exactly the kind of legislative erosion of rights protected by the Second Amendment which the recent AP/NORC poll says are raising more alarms among conservatives and independents.

According to the poll, only 21 percent of Democrats think gun rights are under a major threat, while 36 percent think the Second Amendment is under a “minor” threat, and 42 percent don’t believe any threat exists.

Conversely—and this is what gun voters should keep in mind as November approaches—40 percent of Republicans say the Second Amendment is under a “major threat,” and 41 percent believe it is under a “minor threat.” Only 19 percent of Republican poll respondents think gun rights are under no threat at all.

Among Independents, 34 percent say RKBA faces a major threat, 35 percent believe it is under a “minor threat” while 28 percent do not perceive any threat, according to the AP/NORC poll.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Winchester 5.56 Ammo 55 Gr FMJ 150rds - WM193150	Palmetto State Armory	$ 102.99 $ 91.99
	Winchester - 5.56 Nato - 5.56x45mm - 62 Grain - FMJ	True Shot Ammo	$ 110.00
	Winchester 5.56 MM M855 62 FMJ Lake City 420RDs STRIPPER CLIP (GREEN TIP)	Bereli	$ 569.00
	Winchester 5.56 NATO 55 Gr FMJ BT 500 Projectiles	Ammunition Depot	$ 68.99

Translation: Democrats blithely disregard the importance of Second Amendment rights to tens of millions of their fellow citizens, and as illustrated by the actions of Democrat-controlled legislatures, the right to keep and bear arms is treated more like a government-regulated privilege.

For example, among the bills Spanberger signed, according to WDBJ, are:

• HB969 (Delegate Marcia Price), which “establishes the Virginia Gun Violence Prevention Center Workgroup to create the infrastructure to make Virginia a national leader in gun violence prevention.”
• HB217 (Delegate Dan Helmer), SB749 (Senator Saddam Salim), which “Protect Virginia families, law enforcement, and communities by prohibiting the future sale of assault-style weapons.”
• HB871 (Delegate Mark Downey), SB348 (Senator Jennifer Boysko), which “Requires safe storage of firearms to protect children and prevent theft.”

Historically, there is nothing to suggest that criminals will abide by these or any other gun control bills Spanberger signed. But it made good headline fodder for the Virginia media.

Overall, 35 percent of AP/NORC poll respondents say the right to keep and bear arms is extremely important, and 22 percent believe it is “very important.” Another 24 percent believe the RKBA is “somewhat important” while 11 percent say the Second Amendment is “not very important” and only 7 percent believe it is “not important at all.”

As noted by The Independent, “only about one-third of respondents or fewer felt these rights were secure from potential threats.”

Polling on gun rights has always been interesting. A few years ago, Gallup polled America to learn that 56 percent of U.S. adults said gun laws should be stricter, while 31 percent believed they should stay the same and 12 percent favored less strict gun laws.

Last December, Legal Reader published the results of a poll showing only 28 percent of Republicans/conservatives supported stricter laws, while 86 percent of “Democrat-leaning” people want tougher laws, further reinforcing the notion that Democrats are the party of gun control.

What all of these surveys fail to clarify is that constitutional rights are not subject to public opinion polls. Rights specifically mentioned and protected by the Constitution would only be up for grabs if the country were to hold a Constitutional Convention. The entire Bill of Rights would be on the table, like it or not.

The true value of such surveys is that they repeatedly and consistently reveal which political party is stronger on individual rights, including the Second Amendment, and which party fails that test.

Maryland Court Finds Gun Possession Alone Not Enough For Police Stop

Why the Third Circuit Is Sitting on the Cheeseman and Koons Cases — They’re Waiting for SCOTUS

---

About Dave Workman

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

---

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

Washington Supreme Court Upholds DUI Gun Ban in McLellan v. Brown

Two DUIs, no gun rights: Washington’s high court upheld a law disarming citizens over repeat nonviolent offenses, despite a sharp Second Amendment dissent. iStock-1127873736

The Washington Supreme Court ruled on June 11, 2026 that the state can strip gun rights from anyone convicted of two DUIs within seven years. The 5-to-4 decision upheld House Bill 1562, a 2023 law that dramatically expanded the categories of offenses triggering firearm prohibition. Four dissenting justices issued a blistering rebuke, accusing the majority of authorizing preemptive disarmament based on speculation rather than actual violent conduct.

The case of McLellan v. Brown began when two Washington residents had their concealed carry permit applications denied after multiple DUI convictions. A Spokane County Superior Court judge initially found merit in their constitutional challenge, but the state’s highest court reversed that decision and upheld the ban.

House Bill 1562 went into effect on July 23, 2023, after passing the legislature almost entirely along party lines. Representative My-Linh Thai sponsored the bill in the House with support from Representative Beth Doglio and over a dozen co-sponsors. The measure passed the House 51 to 45 and the Senate 28 to 21 before then-Governor Jay Inslee signed it into law.

The law marked a dramatic departure from Washington’s previous firearm prohibition framework, which had been limited primarily to felony convictions. For the first time, repeat misdemeanor DUI offenses became grounds for stripping Second Amendment rights. The statute even counts DUIs that were pleaded down to lesser charges like reckless or negligent driving, as well as offenses committed as a minor or in other states.

Justice G. Helen Whitener authored the dissent, joined by Justices Charles Johnson, Sheryl Gordon McCloud, and Salvador Mungia. Whitener focused on a key distinction that gun rights advocates view as decisive: a DUI conviction involves no intent to inflict physical harm. It is not a violent crime.

“The State is depriving individuals of their Second Amendment constitutional right to bear arms before they commit a violent crime on the assumption that one day they might,” Whitener wrote. She called the 2023 law an unconstitutional “outlier” that “violates the respondents’ constitutional rights under the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.” Writing for the 5-to-4 majority, Justice Steven González held that the state met its historical burden under Bruen by pointing to three enduring principles: the tradition of disarming groups deemed dangerous by legislatures, restricting firearm possession for serious crimes, and founding-era regulations restricting firearm use by presently intoxicated individuals.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CCI 9mm Shotshell Ammunition 10rds- - -3790	Palmetto State Armory	$ 19.99
	Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Reflex Sight - Enclosed and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 603.53
	Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Reflex Sight and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 589.22
	Bundle Deal: Sig Sauer - Romeo-X Miniature Reflex Sight and 300 Rounds of Ammo - CCI 9mm 115 Grain	True Shot Ammo	$ 437.58

The dissent invoked the analytical framework established by the U.S. Supreme Court in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022 and United States v. Rahimi in 2024. Those decisions require any gun regulation to align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation at the time of the Founding. Rahimi specifically held that disarming someone requires proof they pose a genuine current danger.

Gun rights organizations have been building legal arguments against exactly this type of categorical disarmament. The Second Amendment Foundation filed an amicus brief in a related Third Circuit case in December 2025, challenging a lifetime federal gun ban over a decades-old misdemeanor DUI. SAF’s Director of Legal Research and Education, Kostas Moros, argued that “the government’s position defies Bruen and Rahimi,” stating that “History shows that Founding-era laws addressed the risks of intoxication and firearms through temporary restrictions on those currently impaired, never by stripping gun rights forever from someone who once drank irresponsibly but has since reformed.”

SAF has also advanced the broader historical argument that Founding-era laws only addressed the danger of mixing intoxicants and firearms by temporarily disarming the actively impaired, never by permanently stripping gun rights from people who used a substance in the past but posed no current threat.

The Firearms Policy Coalition has pursued parallel litigation. In a Supreme Court brief filed in Holloway v. Attorney General Garland, a case involving a Pennsylvania man stripped of gun rights after a misdemeanor DUI, FPC argued that “Mr. Holloway would not have forfeited his Second Amendment rights for driving under the influence in the vast majority of states,” making his permanent disarmament a function of geography rather than constitutional principle.

William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law and a prominent Second Amendment attorney, has argued that the historical tradition around substances like alcohol only supports restricting firearm possession while actively intoxicated, not categorical status-based disarmament after the fact.

The Cato Institute has taken a similar position, stating in an amicus brief that “while driving under the influence is not admirable conduct, it is not usually the type of offense that means a person should be permanently unable to possess a gun” and that “looking at the maximum punishment of an offense is the sort of broadly prohibitory approach that the Supreme Court said is impermissible.”

Even before the bill became law, the Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers opposed it, calling its list of new prohibiting crimes “too expansive.”

Gun rights advocates are widely expected to pursue a federal appeal. The Washington ruling stands as a test case for how far states can push categorical disarmament under the post-Bruen legal landscape. For Second Amendment supporters, the answer is clear. The Constitution does not permit the government to strip fundamental rights from citizens who have harmed no one, based solely on the statistical possibility that they might one day pose a danger.

Wolford and Hemani: Supreme Court Decisions in Second Amendment Cases Expected Soon

Hemani at SCOTUS: Will Marijuana Users Stay Banned From Gun Ownership?

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/278GHjm
via IFTTT

Florida AG Won’t Appeal Ruling Striking Carry Ban for Adults Under 21

Florida AG James Uthmeier announced the state will not seek further review after the 4th DCA ruled Florida’s under-21 concealed-carry ban unconstitutional. IMG Jim Grant

Florida’s Fourth District Court of Appeals handed gun owners a major Second Amendment win, but Attorney General James Uthmeier made the ruling even more important with one sentence on X: the state will not seek further review.

That means Florida is not planning to keep fighting to preserve its ban on otherwise eligible adults under 21 carrying a concealed firearm. Instead, Uthmeier said his office will work with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to implement the court’s order.

“In another win for the unalienable rights of Floridians, the 4th DCA agreed with our position that Florida’s law banning adults under 21 from conceal carrying a firearm is unconstitutional,” Uthmeier wrote. “We will not seek further review and will work with @FDACS to implement the court’s order.”

In another win for the unalienable rights of Floridians, the 4th DCA agreed with our position that Florida’s law banning adults under 21 from conceal carrying a firearm is unconstitutional.

We will not seek further review and will work with @FDACS to implement the court’s order.

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) June 17, 2026

That statement turns Jaylen Tyrus Eubanks v. State of Florida from an important appellate ruling into something much more important for Florida gun owners.

The opinion itself says it is “not final until disposition of timely-filed motion for rehearing,” which is standard appellate language. But the Attorney General’s public decision not to seek further review removes the biggest question hanging over the case.

The state is not appealing. It is moving toward implementation.

The Fourth DCA ruled that Florida’s concealed-carry age restriction is unconstitutional as applied to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20. The case targets section 790.06(2)(b), Florida Statutes, which requires a person to be 21 or older to qualify for a concealed weapon or firearm license.

That age requirement mattered even after Florida adopted permitless carry. Florida’s permitless carry law still requires an unlicensed person to satisfy the criteria for receiving and maintaining a concealed carry license. One of those criteria was being 21. So the state created a legal trap: adults under 21 were old enough to be treated as adults, but not old enough to satisfy the state’s carry rules. The Fourth DCA rejected that scheme.

“Can law-abiding adults, aged 18 to 20, be prohibited from exercising their Second Amendment rights to self-defense available to other law-abiding adults?” Judge Spencer D. Levine wrote for the court. “The plain text of the Constitution and our country’s history and traditions say no.”

Florida allows 18-year-olds to vote. Florida allows 18-year-olds to join the military, shoulder adult responsibilities, and face adult consequences. Yet when the right at issue was armed self-defense, the state treated those same adults like constitutional children.

Eubanks was 18 when he was arrested in Broward County after police responded to a report involving a handgun. Officers found an unholstered handgun on his waist. He was charged with carrying a concealed firearm and improper exhibition of a firearm. He challenged the concealed-carry charge, arguing that Florida’s categorical ban on 18-to-20-year-old adults carrying concealed firearms violated the Second Amendment. The trial court rejected his argument. The Fourth DCA reversed.

The court applied the Supreme Court’s post-Bruen framework. First, it asked whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct. The answer was yes. Adults ages 18 to 20 are part of “the people,” and public carry falls within the right to “bear arms.”

Then the burden shifted to the government to prove that Florida’s restriction was consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. The state could not do it.

The opinion leaned on recent federal appellate decisions, including Worth v. Jacobson from the Eighth Circuit and Lara v. Commissioner Pennsylvania State Police from the Third Circuit, both of which recognized that 18-to-20-year-old adults are protected by the Second Amendment. The court also noted that Founding-era militia laws required young adults to arm themselves, not wait until their 21st birthday before exercising a constitutional right.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA Dagger Micro C-1 9mm Pistol - Shield Cut, W/Holosun 407k, FDE Slide, 2-Tone	Palmetto State Armory	$ 559.99
	PSA Dagger Micro C-1 9mm Pistol - Shield Cut, W/Holosun 407k, Sniper Green Slide, 2-Tone	Palmetto State Armory	$ 559.99
	PSA Dagger Micro 9mm Pistol - Shield Cut W/Holosun 407k, FDE Slide, 2-Tone	Palmetto State Armory	$ 539.99
	PSA Dagger Micro 9mm Pistol - Shield Cut W/ Holosun 407K, Sniper Green Slide, 2-Tone	Palmetto State Armory	$ 539.99

That history is devastating to modern gun-control arguments. The same age group that anti-gun politicians now claim is too young to carry was historically expected to appear armed for militia service. America’s tradition was not disarmament of young adults. It was responsibility, arms, and duty.

The State Attorney’s Office tried to defend the restriction by arguing that 18-to-20-year-olds were considered minors at the Founding and that young adults disproportionately misuse firearms. The court rejected that public-safety shortcut. Under Bruen, the government does not get to save a gun law by waving around statistics and saying, “Trust us.” It must show a historical tradition that justifies the restriction.

The Fourth DCA also relied on Rahimi for an important point: the government may disarm people who are found to pose a credible threat, but it cannot simply declare an entire class of adult citizens “irresponsible” and strip them of a right. That is exactly what Florida’s law did.

The court concluded that section 790.06(2)(b) is facially unconstitutional as applied to 18-to-20-year-olds and vacated Eubanks’ concealed-carry conviction.

Uthmeier’s announcement is the part Florida gun owners should watch now. The Attorney General is saying the state will not keep this case alive through further appellate review and will instead work with FDACS, the agency that handles Florida concealed weapon/firearm licensing, to implement the order.

That does not mean every 18-year-old can walk into a gun shop and buy a handgun from a federally licensed dealer. Federal handgun sales restrictions still exist. This case is about Florida’s carry scheme and whether the state can deny otherwise eligible adults under 21 the same public-carry rights available to other adults. The answer from the Fourth DCA is no.

With the Attorney General declining to appeal, the answer from the state appears to be: Florida will comply.

Young adults can defend the country. They can vote for the politicians who write the laws. They can be prosecuted as adults. Florida can no longer treat them as adults for every burden of citizenship while treating them like children when they want to exercise the Second Amendment.

AG Uthmeier Forces Tradition HOA to Rescind Unlawful Gun Ban

Florida Open Carry Ban Nears its End; AG will NOT Defend Ban!

---

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/qK8gASG
via IFTTT

James Harden Arrest Shows Even Texas Gun Owners Face Legal Traps

James Harden’s Texas gun arrest raises a question every gun owner should care about: why is the government micromanaging how someone travels with a legally owned firearm in a constitutional carry state? iStock-1899042226

James Harden probably did not expect to become a Second Amendment cautionary tale, but that is exactly what happened after his arrest in Houston.

The Cleveland Cavaliers guard was arrested June 13 on a misdemeanor charge of unlawful carrying of a weapon after police reportedly found a handgun inside a vehicle he owned or controlled. According to reports citing Harris County court records, Harden was stopped by Houston police around 3:41 a.m., booked just before 5 a.m., and later released on a $100 bond. He is scheduled to return to court June 22.

The reported issue: police allegedly saw a handgun in plain view inside the vehicle, and the gun was not in a holster.

Texas is a constitutional carry state. Texans generally do not need a government permission slip to carry a handgun if they are legally eligible to possess one. Open carry is lawful. Vehicle carry is lawful. Yet Texas still has a technical trap in its law: a handgun that is in plain view in a motor vehicle must be carried in a holster. The state does not even appear to define what kind of holster is required.

So, in a state where lawful carry is supposed to be normal, a man can still be arrested because the gun was allegedly visible and sitting loose.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said Harden’s arrest raises serious questions about why this charge was brought at all.

Andrew Gottlieb, CCRKBA’s executive director, noted that, “Harden had a gun, in Texas, which is a ‘Constitutional carry’ state where no carry license is required, open carry is legal and it was not in a holster. It was in his vehicle, allegedly in ‘plain view’ even though it probably wasn’t visible to any other motorist, but only to a police officer who approached the vehicle after it was stopped. We could argue all day long about the holster issue, but this seems like government trying to micromanage how someone travels from Point A to Point B with a legally-owned firearm in a state where gun ownership is as common as cowboy boots and sirloin steaks.”

Texas is a constitutional carry state where no carry license is required and where open carry is legal. If the gun was lawfully possessed, and if there are no hidden facts the public has not yet seen, why is the government treating a holster issue like a criminal matter?

That does not mean gun owners should ignore holsters. Quite the opposite. A good holster protects the trigger, secures the firearm, and keeps the gun under control. Responsible carry includes responsible gear. Harden, assuming the reports are accurate, would have been far better off with the handgun secured properly. But there is a difference between telling someone, “Buy a holster,” and putting him in handcuffs for not having one.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Safariland INCOG-X Right-Hand IWB Holster for Smith & Wesson M&P 9 2.0 with Weapon Lights	GunMag Warehouse	$ 102.99
	Safariland Incog-X Glock G43X/G48 IWB Holster RH Thermoplastic Gray - Sleek, Durable for Concealed Carry and Comfortable - INCOG-0-895-A-7S-CX1-61-MC	Palmetto State Armory	$ 134.00
	Safariland Incog X Multicam Holster GX4 Micro	Ammunition Depot	$ 40.99
	Safariland INCOG IWB Holster Right Hand Glock 43X, 48 with Weapon Light Polymer Gray	MidwayUSA	$ 134.00

Even in a supposedly pro-gun state like Texas, there are still plenty of hooks in the water to catch unaware gun owners.

The “plain view” issue also deserves scrutiny. Plain view to whom? Another driver? A passenger? An officer standing next to the vehicle during a traffic stop? CCRKBA pointed out that a firearm not visible to passing motorists might only become “plain view” after an officer approaches the stopped vehicle and looks inside.

Harden is famous, rich, and able to hire good lawyers. Most gun owners are not. For the average Texan, a similar arrest could mean missed work, attorney fees, court dates, and the possibility of losing firearm rights while the case crawls through the system.

Texas lawmakers should look hard at whether this law is serving public safety or simply creating another process crime for otherwise lawful gun owners. If the only allegation is an unholstered handgun in a vehicle, the sane answer is education, not prosecution.

Constitutional carry was supposed to mean the right to bear arms is not treated like a government-granted privilege. Harden’s arrest is a reminder that even in Texas, gun owners still have to watch the fine print.

Federal Judge Upholds Texas Carry Bans at Bars, Sporting Events & Racetracks

FPC, SAF, and Texas Gun Owner Sue Over Carry Ban in National Park Facilities

---

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/B2x5yWs
via IFTTT