Rifle Murders Declined After Federal ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban Expired, New FBI Data Analysis Finds

A Crime Prevention Research Center analysis of FBI data reports a 27% relative decline in rifles’ share of firearm murders after the federal assault weapons ban expired. IMG Duncan Johnson

As the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether states can ban AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, a new analysis of FBI crime data is challenging one of the gun-control lobby’s central arguments. Despite decades of warnings about the supposed dangers of these firearms, rifles account for a smaller share of firearm murders today than they did when the federal government’s so-called “assault weapons” ban was in effect.

According to a November 4 analysis published by the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), rifles accounted for an average of 4.9% of firearm murders during the federal ban from 1995 through 2004. After the ban expired, that figure fell to just 3.6%, even as the estimated number of AR-15s and AK-47s in civilian circulation increased dramatically.

The findings arrive ahead of December 2, 2026, when the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, two consolidated cases challenging bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. The cases could determine whether politicians can continue prohibiting America’s most popular rifle platform despite its widespread lawful ownership and the constitutional protections recognized in District of Columbia v. Heller.

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban Did Not Reduce Rifles’ Share of Firearm Murders

The CPRC analysis, published by economist John Lott’s research organization, examined FBI Uniform Crime Reporting data covering the years before, during, and after the federal assault weapons ban, which took effect in September 1994 and expired in September 2004.

The numbers tell a story that supporters of renewed rifle bans would rather ignore.

Before the federal ban, rifles accounted for an average of 4.8% of firearm murders. During the ban, from 1995 through 2004, that percentage was 4.9%. Following the ban’s expiration, the average declined to 3.6%. Even when CPRC limited its post-ban comparison to the first ten years following expiration, rifles accounted for only 3.86% of firearm murders.

In other words, the percentage of firearm murders involving rifles was slightly higher during the federal ban than before it, and considerably lower after the restrictions expired.

CPRC also conducted statistical comparisons of the different periods. The organization reported no statistically significant difference between the pre-ban and ban-era percentages. However, the decline between the ban-era and post-ban averages was statistically significant under its reported two-tailed t-test.

The difference between 4.9% and 3.6% represents approximately a 27% relative decline in rifles’ share of firearm murders.

These figures do not establish that allowing the federal ban to expire caused the decline. They do, however, undermine the argument that prohibiting certain semiautomatic rifles was necessary to reduce the proportion of firearm murders involving rifles.

It is also important to understand what the FBI data measure. The rifle category includes all types of rifles, not exclusively AR-15s, AK-47s, or firearms covered by assault weapons legislation. The numbers therefore describe the broader category of rifles, rather than establishing a separate murder rate for any particular semiautomatic platform.

That distinction makes the findings especially relevant. Even when every category of rifle is included, rifles account for only a small fraction of firearm murders.

AR-15 Ownership Surged While the Rifle Murder Share Declined

Perhaps the most revealing finding is what happened to rifle ownership during the same period.

According to CPRC, the estimated number of AR-15s and AK-47s per 100 Americans increased from approximately one in 2004, when the federal ban expired, to 10.2 in 2025. That represents roughly a tenfold increase in the estimated prevalence of these firearms relative to the population.

During those years, AR-15-style rifles became increasingly common among American gun owners. They are used for home defense, recreational shooting, competition, hunting, and a variety of other lawful purposes. The platform’s modular design, manageable recoil, familiar controls, and extensive availability of parts and accessories have helped make it one of the most recognizable firearms in the country.

Yet the tremendous expansion in estimated ownership did not produce the corresponding increase in rifles’ share of firearm murders that opponents of these firearms have repeatedly warned about.

The ownership estimates come from CPRC’s analysis, rather than the FBI’s crime reporting system. Nevertheless, the contrast between the organization’s estimated growth in AR-15 and AK-47 prevalence and its reported decline in rifles’ share of firearm murders deserves attention.

If the proliferation of these rifles were the public-safety catastrophe gun-control organizations portray it to be, the historical trend presents an obvious question: Why did rifles account for a smaller share of firearm murders after the federal ban expired?

The research does not establish a causal relationship between rifle ownership and changes in murder statistics. But it does challenge the simplistic assumption that more civilian-owned semiautomatic rifles necessarily translate into a larger proportion of murders committed with rifles.

The Supreme Court Is About to Decide the Future of AR-15 Bans

The timing of CPRC’s analysis could hardly be more relevant.

On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238, and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566. The consolidated cases challenge restrictions imposed by Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut on AR-15s and other commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

As AmmoLand previously reported, Cook County and Connecticut are defending their prohibitions by arguing that widespread lawful ownership does not necessarily prevent governments from banning firearms they characterize as unusually dangerous.

Cook County’s October 21 Supreme Court brief goes so far as to argue that the common use of AR-15s is not determinative of constitutional protection. Its position would allow governments to acknowledge that millions of law-abiding Americans own these rifles while still claiming the authority to prohibit them.

The gun-control lobby has taken similarly aggressive positions.

In amicus briefs supporting the bans, Giffords Law Center argued that the Supreme Court should overturn its landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen if that ruling requires striking down the restrictions. Virginia’s attorney general, meanwhile, argued that AR-15s are not protected arms under the Second Amendment.

These arguments seek to give governments broad authority to prohibit firearms based on their alleged dangerousness, even when those arms are commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans.

The CPRC findings raise serious questions about the public-safety narrative surrounding those efforts. Rifles account for a small percentage of firearm murders, and their share declined after the expiration of a federal ban targeting certain semiautomatic firearms.

But there is an even more fundamental constitutional problem with the government’s position.

The Second Amendment Does Not Depend on Crime Statistics

The right to keep and bear arms is not a privilege that government officials may revoke because they believe a particular firearm is unnecessary, politically unpopular, or too effective for civilian ownership.

In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms and specifically emphasized arms in common use for lawful purposes. In Bruen, the Court rejected the use of open-ended judicial interest balancing to justify restrictions on that right, requiring governments to demonstrate consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The constitutional question before the justices is not whether politicians believe banning AR-15s would produce a desirable public-policy outcome. It is whether the government possesses the constitutional authority to prohibit Americans from owning arms that are commonly possessed for lawful purposes.

As 27 states argued in a Supreme Court brief supporting the gun owners, governments cannot simply declare that citizens have no need for commonly owned rifles and prohibit their possession.

Nor does the fact that criminals occasionally misuse a particular category of firearm eliminate the constitutional rights of millions of Americans who obey the law.

The same principle applies to handguns, which are involved in far more murders than rifles. The Supreme Court did not uphold the individual right to possess handguns in Heller because handguns were rarely misused. It recognized that the Constitution protects their lawful possession despite their involvement in crime.

The Second Amendment does not require Americans to prove that their chosen firearms have sufficiently favorable crime statistics before exercising their rights.

The Numbers Challenge the Justification for Rifle Bans

For decades, gun-control organizations have portrayed AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles as uniquely dangerous weapons that must be removed from civilian hands. That argument has been used to justify restrictions on firearms owned by millions of Americans who have committed no crime.

The latest CPRC analysis provides an important factual counterpoint. Rifles accounted for an average of 4.9% of firearm murders during the federal assault weapons ban, compared with 3.6% after its expiration. That decline occurred during a period in which the estimated prevalence of AR-15s and AK-47s increased substantially.

These findings do not settle every debate about firearms and violent crime, nor do they independently determine the constitutionality of any particular law. What they demonstrate is that the historical data do not support the simplistic narrative that allowing Americans to own more semiautomatic rifles inevitably produces a larger share of firearm murders involving rifles.

With the Supreme Court preparing to consider the constitutionality of AR-15 bans, those facts deserve far more attention than the emotional appeals and misleading descriptions of firearms routinely employed by gun-control advocates.

But even if the statistics were different, the constitutional principle would remain unchanged.

Americans do not possess the right to keep and bear arms because the government has determined that their firearms are statistically acceptable. They possess that right because the Constitution recognizes and protects it.

The Second Amendment is not a public-safety exemption granted at the discretion of politicians. It is an individual right, and the government has no authority to ban commonly owned arms simply because it disapproves of what Americans choose to own.

Related: Cook County Tries to Derail Supreme Court AR-15 Ban Case, but Its Own Brief Undermines the Argument

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

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

Arkansas Voters Overwhelmingly Approve Stronger Gun Rights Protections, 71% to 29%

Arkansas voters approved Issue 2 with approximately 71% support, strengthening the state constitution’s protection of the right to keep and bear arms. iStock-884221102

Arkansas had a strong win for Second Amendment supporters on election day of 2026. The state constitutional amendment was Issue NO. 2 on the ballot. It passed 70.80% to 29.20%. This is a strong showing, consistent with other state constitutional amendments supporting the right to keep and bear arms in other states.

Arkansas has two methods to amend the state constitution. One is for the legislature to put the measure on the ballot for approval. A majority of both houses is required to do so. The legislature is limited to put three measures on the ballot at a time. The legislature chose to put Issue NO. 2 on the ballot in 2026. The other measure is to obtain signatures of 10% of the people in a certain number of counties. That method was not used for Issue NO. 2.

The previous Constitutional protection for the right to keep and bear arms was a bit weak.  It was passed during reconstruction after the Civil War, or the War Between the States, if you prefer, in 1868 Here is the previous wording: Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).

 The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense.

The above might be interpreted to mean “only for their common defense”. Issue NO. 2  on the ballot in 2026 read this way:

 ISSUE NO. 2

Popular Name

A Constitutional Amendment to Amend Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, to Protect the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Ballot Title

AN AMENDMENT TO THE ARKANSAS CONSTITUTION TO PROVIDE THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF ARKANSAS SHALL HAVE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS FOR THEIR COMMON DEFENSE, FOR LAWFUL HUNTING AND RECREATIONAL USE, AND FOR ANY OTHER LAWFUL PURPOSE; PROVIDING THAT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS INCLUDES WITHOUT LIMITATION THE POSSESSION AND USE OF AMMUNITION, FIREARM ACCESSORIES, AND FIREARM COMPONENTS; AND PROVIDING THAT THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS IS A NATURAL, FUNDAMENTAL, AND INDIVIDUAL RIGHT THAT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

SECTION 2. Arkansas Constitution, Article 2, § 5, is amended to read as follows:

§ 5. Right to keep and bear arms.

(a) The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for:

(1) Their common defense;
(2) Lawful hunting and recreational use; and
(3) Any other lawful purpose.

(b) The right to keep and bear arms under subsection (a) of this section includes without limitation the possession and use of:

(1) Ammunition;
(2) Firearm accessories; and
(3) Firearm components.

(c) The right to keep and bear arms under subsection (a) of this section is a natural, fundamental, and individual right that shall not be infringed.

SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE. This amendment to the Arkansas Constitution is effective on and after January 1, 2027

The only organizational opposition which was noted at Ballotpedia was that of Arkansas Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America.

Issue NO. 2 improves the protection for Arkansas. 45 states have the right to keep and bear arms protected by a provision of the state constitution. Iowa was the last state to add such an amendment, in 2022. The five states which do not have such protection are: California, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states figure prominently in cases challenging infringements on the Second Amendment enacted into law in those states.  State constitutions can provide some measure of protection against infringements. They are not perfect. Massachusetts is an example. Hawaii is another. In Hawaii, the state supreme court went so far as to write:

 “The spirit of Aloha clashes with a federally-mandated lifestyle that lets citizens walk around with deadly weapons during day-to-day activities. The history of the Hawaiian Islands does not include a society where armed people move about the community to possibly combat the deadly aims of others,”

United States Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito mentioned the quote in writing the opinion for Wolford v. Lopez, which struck down the Hawaii law 6-3.

Related: DOJ Sues Glendale, California Over $2,000 Concealed Carry Permits, Cites Second Amendment Violations

---

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/WPMgzt2
via IFTTT

Four More Years of Gun Control: What Hochul’s Reelection Means for New York Gun Owners

Kathy Hochul’s reelection gives New York another four years under a governor who has defended sweeping restrictions on lawful gun ownership and concealed carry. iStock-1421061908

Election night didn’t deliver the result New York gun owners were hoping for. Kathy Hochul won a second full term on November 3, beating Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman by roughly 20 points. For the millions of law-abiding New Yorkers who own firearms, that means four more years under a governor who has never met a gun restriction she didn’t like.

We know exactly what to expect, because we’ve already lived it. In June 2022, the Supreme Court handed down its landmark decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, striking down New York’s “proper cause” requirement and affirming that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry a firearm outside the home. Most governors would have taken the hint. Hochul called the ruling “reprehensible” and hauled lawmakers back to Albany for a special session.

Within days she signed the so-called Concealed Carry Improvement Act. Instead of honoring Bruen, it swapped one infringement for dozens more. It created a vague “good moral character” standard, demands for applicants’ social media accounts, sixteen hours of classroom training plus two hours of live fire at the applicant’s expense, and a list of so-called “sensitive places” making it so a permit holder can barely walk a city block without risking a felony. It was the furthest thing from Supreme Court compliance. It was defiance with a signing ceremony.

Body Armor and Second-Class Adults

Hochul’s war on the Second Amendment didn’t stop with carry permits. After the 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting, she made New York the first state in the nation to ban ordinary citizens from buying body armor. Unless you worked in a profession the state approved, you were forbidden from purchasing a vest designed for one purpose: stopping bullets.

Think about that. The government told law-abiding New Yorkers they couldn’t buy equipment that keeps them from being shot.

On October 21, U.S. District Judge John Sinatra Jr. in Buffalo struck that ban down. He ruled that defensive body armor counts as an “arm” under the Second Amendment and that the state failed to show any historical tradition supporting the ban. It was a clean win in a case brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition. But the judge paused his order to give the state time to appeal, and nobody should expect Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James to let it go. Count on this fight heading to the Second Circuit.

Then there’s her stance on young adults. In September, the U.S. Department of Justice concluded that the federal ban on handgun sales to 18-to-20-year-olds is unconstitutional and said it would stop enforcing it. Hochul answered the next day on X by saying:

“Not in New York. No teenager should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a handgun. Our laws don’t allow it and that’s not changing.”

Not in New York. No teenager should be able to walk into a gun store and buy a handgun.

Our laws don’t allow it and that’s not changing.

— Governor Kathy Hochul (@GovKathyHochul) September 19, 2026

The state’s ban on the sale to 18-to-20-year-olds, isn’t going anywhere, she promised.

So in New York, an 18-year-old can vote, sign a contract, sit on a jury and be sent to war, but he can’t buy a handgun to defend his own life. This is a perfect example of a governor delusional with power.

Candidates Must Be Serious From Day One

Some will say gun owners simply lost an election. I think the lesson runs deeper than that. Bruce Blakeman probably would have been an improvement over Hochul. That’s not a high bar. But throughout this race, he never made clear where he actually stood on guns. Early on, I asked him directly to be specific about his position on the Second Amendment. I didn’t get a straight answer. During the Republican primary, critics within his own party called him soft on gun rights, pointing to his support for background checks and social media reviews for license applicants, the same kind of hoops Hochul built into the CCIA.

Then, about a week before Election Day, Blakeman suddenly came courting gun owners. He has said himself that a million New York gun owners sat out the last governor’s race. He’s right that our votes matter. But you don’t earn a voting bloc’s trust in the final week. You earn it on day one.

That’s the message for every candidate who wants our support. Gun owners are not a box to check in the closing days of a campaign. We pay attention, and we remember who answered our questions and who ducked them. Be specific. Be early. Be consistent. Anything less creates doubt.

Where We Go From Here?

The next four years won’t be easy. Expect appeals of every pro-gun ruling, new bills out of Albany, and more fees, delays and red tape for anyone trying to exercise a right the Constitution already guarantees.

That’s why this is the moment to stand behind the organizations doing the fighting. Nationally, groups like Gun Owners of America, the NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition are taking New York to court and winning. Here at home, the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, whose name is on the Bruen decision, and grassroots groups like SCOPE are on the front lines in Albany and in every county. They can only fight as hard as we let them. Join. Donate. Show up. Call your legislators.

And don’t lose hope. Bruen changed the legal landscape. Courts are now judging gun laws by the Constitution’s text and history, and the body armor ruling proves that even in New York, those rules have teeth. Every unconstitutional law Hochul signs is another case waiting to be won.

Our Founding Fathers didn’t write the Second Amendment for the convenience of politicians. They wrote it for free citizens who would never have to ask permission to defend themselves. Kathy Hochul may have won another term, but she doesn’t get the final word. That belongs to the Constitution, and to the people willing to stand up for it.

Related: Texas Democrats Waste No Time Going After Guns: 16 Bills Filed So Far

---

About Dan Wos, Author – Good Gun Bad Guy

Dan Wos is available for Press Commentary. For more information, contact PR HERE

Dan Wos is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment advocate, Host of The Loaded Mic, and Author of the “GOOD GUN BAD GUY” book series. He speaks at events, is a contributing writer for many publications, and can be found on radio stations across the country. Dan has been a guest on Newsmax, the Sean Hannity Show, Real America’s Voice, and several others. Speaking on behalf of gun-rights, Dan exposes the strategies of the anti-gun crowd and explains their mission to disarm law-abiding American gun-owners.

---

from https://ift.tt/PclT2Xx
via IFTTT

DOJ Sues Glendale, California Over $2,000 Concealed Carry Permits, Cites Second Amendment Violations

The Justice Department is suing Glendale, California, over concealed carry permit fees and screening requirements it alleges violate the Second Amendment. iStock-499330617

The Justice Department (DOJ) has made good on its threat against Glendale, California. On November 9, 2026, the United States filed a federal lawsuit against the city in the Central District of California, claiming Glendale’s concealed carry licensing process is so expensive and so invasive that it violates the Second Amendment rights of the people who live there.

The case is United States of America v. City of Glendale, California. The complaint doesn’t pull many punches. According to the DOJ, an applicant for a carry license in Glendale “must pay an outrageous $1,078.00 application fee,” and once the city’s other mandates are added in, “total fees and costs for an initial application can be as much as $2,000.”

This didn’t come out of nowhere. On October 28, then Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon posted on X that Glendale “cannot impose unconstitutional $2,000 costs to obtain a concealed carry permit for lawful firearms,” and that the Civil Rights Division “gave them one week to fix it.” According to Dhillon, the city had recently raised its application fee from $100 to $1,078. The week came and went. Dhillon resigned from the department on November 5, and four days later the lawsuit landed anyway.

That last part matters. The complaint went out under the names of Attorney General Todd Blanche and Acting Assistant Attorney General Jesus A. Osete, and it was signed by Barry K. Arrington, Chief of the Second Amendment Section. Anyone who wondered whether the Second Amendment Section would keep swinging after Dhillon walked out the door got an answer.

What Glendale Charges

According to the complaint, the Glendale Police Department admits on its own application page that getting a license is “a long, tedious, and meticulous process” and that “[t]here are corresponding costs per step as the application moves forward.”

Those steps include residency verification, Live Scan fingerprinting, three reference checks, an interview, a “[r]eview of publicly available information, including social media posts,” a psychological evaluation, 16 hours of training with range qualification, and a final payment if you’re approved.

The money breaks down like this, per the DOJ. New applicants pay $1,078 to the city, half up front and half after approval. Renewals run $826, split the same way. On top of that, the department lists fingerprinting at a “Standard $93.00 State DOJ Fee + Rolling Fees that Vary by Provider,” the training class and range qualification at roughly $300 to $435, and a psych evaluation at about $500. Renewal applicants also pay a separate $52 DOJ fee.

Add it up, and the DOJ puts the initial cost at about $2,000, before the fingerprint vendor takes its cut. A renewal runs about $1,300, and the complaint says renewed Glendale licenses are good for only two years, so that bill comes due “every two years indefinitely.” California’s AB 1948 allows three-year licenses starting January 1, 2027, but the complaint says the city hasn’t said whether it will follow suit.

The DOJ boiled it down to about $54.17 a month “to exercise a fundamental constitutional right.” Then it pulled out Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, the 1966 case where the Supreme Court struck down a $1.50 poll tax. Adjusted for inflation, the government puts that at about $15.65. “No matter if it is $1.30 per month or $54.17 per month to exercise fundamental rights, it is still equally unconstitutional,” the complaint says.

A right you have to buy back from the government every two years isn’t being treated like a right. Nobody pays the city $1,078 to go to church.

Footnote Nine Comes Home

The legal heart of the case is footnote 9 of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen. The Court said shall-issue permitting could survive, but warned that any scheme “can be put toward abusive ends,” and it named “exorbitant fees” as one way to get there. California law says the licensing authority “shall issue” a license once an applicant meets the state’s requirements. The DOJ says Glendale found a way around that, and the complaint claims the city “charges, by far, the highest fees in the nation.”

The government also goes after the discretion built into the process. It claims the three reference checks, the social media review and the psych exam “convert its shall-issue scheme into a may-issue one.” On social media, it points to Antonyuk v. James, where the Second Circuit blocked New York’s demand that carry applicants hand over their account names. It also calls residency requirements “blatantly unconstitutional,” citing cases from Hawaii, New York and California.

The psych exam gets its own section. Under state law, psychological testing on a renewal is supposed to happen “only if there is compelling evidence of a public safety concern.” The complaint says Glendale’s policy “appears to impose a blanket requirement” anyway. The DOJ argues that Heller’s nod to “longstanding prohibitions” on the mentally ill gives no cover for “preemptively screening everyone for some vague, undefined psychological condition.”

What the DOJ Wants

The single claim is brought under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, the pattern-or-practice law the Second Amendment Section also used against Washington, D.C. in May. Here, the alleged pattern is Glendale PD enforcing the city’s permit rules. The government wants a declaratory judgment and a permanent injunction against “the excessive fees, onerous investment of an applicant’s time, the psychiatric exam requirement, reference checks, social media posts, and residency requirement.”

The most interesting ask comes last. The DOJ wants Glendale to find every person it denied a carry license under the challenged provisions and send each of them a letter saying the city “may have denied the permit application on improper and unconstitutional grounds,” along with an invitation to reapply. The city would also have to offer back every psych exam and social media review it collected, and destroy any that don’t go back unless it has an independent, lawful law enforcement purpose.

These are allegations. No judge has ruled, and the city will get its chance to respond. But the Civil Rights Division has run this play before, against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which agreed to a settlement in August, and against San Jose over its fees and psych testing. Glendale got its week. Now it gets to explain to a federal judge why a carry permit in that city costs about two grand.

Related: Texas Democrats Waste No Time Going After Guns: 16 Bills Filed So Far

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/yxr3abD
via IFTTT

Ohio Lawmakers Pass Sweeping Suppressor, SBR and SBS Reform, Send SB 214 to Governor DeWine

Ohio SB 214 would remove suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns from the state’s dangerous-ordnance classification if signed into law. IMG Jim Grant

Ohio lawmakers have passed Senate Bill 214, legislation that would remove suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) from the state’s classification of “dangerous ordnance.” The expanded legislation now heads to Governor Mike DeWine, marking a major development for Ohio gun owners following the federal government’s retreat from National Firearms Act (NFA) registration enforcement.

On November 10, 2026, the Ohio Senate voted 21–9 to concur with amendments adopted by the House, according to Gun Owners of America (GOA). Earlier that day, the House Public Safety Committee approved amendments expanding the original suppressor-focused legislation to include SBRs and SBSs. The final concurrence vote completes the legislature’s work on a bill that began as a relatively narrow suppressor reform measure and developed into broader relief from Ohio’s NFA-dependent restrictions.

BREAKING

Ohio SB 214 Passes the Senate Concurrence vote 21-9!

It now heads to @GovMikeDeWine’s desk!

Huge thanks to the GOA team, our members, & the elected officials who supported the bill and GOA-backed amendment. Let’s get this signed! https://t.co/M3JxM0UqAK

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) November 10, 2026

Ohio SB 214 Expands Beyond Suppressors

Sponsored by Republican State Senator Kyle Koehler, SB 214 originally sought to remove firearm suppressors from Ohio Revised Code § 2923.11’s definition of dangerous ordnance. The Senate initially passed that version on March 25 by a 31–1 vote before sending it to the House for consideration.

The House amendments substantially strengthened the bill by adding short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns to the proposed changes. Both the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action and Gun Owners of America confirmed the expansion following the committee vote. GOA subsequently announced that the Senate had approved the amended legislation in its 21–9 concurrence vote.

Under existing Ohio law, suppressors and certain short-barreled firearms fall within the state’s dangerous-ordnance classification. Ohio Revised Code § 2923.17 generally prohibits knowingly acquiring, possessing, carrying, or using dangerous ordnance without a qualifying exemption, making a violation a fifth-degree felony.

One of the principal exemptions allows possession of dangerous ordnance registered in the federal National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. That provision has become particularly problematic following the federal government’s decision to stop enforcing major NFA registration requirements for these firearms and accessories.

As AmmoLand previously reported, Ohio’s reliance on federal registration creates a potential felony trap for gun owners. A suppressor or short-barreled firearm acquired without federal NFA registration under the government’s current nonenforcement policy would not automatically qualify for the state’s registration-based exemption.

SB 214 addresses that problem directly by removing all three categories from Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance classification rather than continuing to make lawful possession dependent on federal registration.

Federal NFA Victory Exposed Ohio’s Outdated Restrictions

The legislation has taken on greater significance following the federal government’s response to Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and the consolidated Jensen v. ATF litigation.

On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix issued an injunction blocking enforcement of challenged NFA registration and approval requirements for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and any other weapons (AOWs) against the plaintiffs and other covered parties. The Department of Justice subsequently declined to appeal the ruling.

On October 9, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives announced that it would stop enforcing specified NFA registration and advance-approval requirements nationwide for those categories.

The change allows eligible gun owners in states without conflicting restrictions to acquire suppressors through ordinary dealer transfers using ATF Form 4473, without separate NFA registration or advance Form 4 approval. Short-barreled firearms also received federal enforcement relief, although applicable Gun Control Act requirements remain in place.

The distinction is important: ATF’s nationwide policy does not repeal the underlying federal statutes, nor does it override state firearms laws.

For Ohio gun owners, that meant federal relief could remain out of reach because state law continued to classify the affected items as dangerous ordnance and relied on federal registration as a principal exception to its criminal prohibition.

AmmoLand reported in October that Firearms Policy Coalition had identified Ohio among 15 states whose laws reference federal NFA requirements, while the American Suppressor Association was also working to resolve state-level restrictions. Those laws differ considerably, but they share a fundamental problem: federal nonenforcement does not automatically eliminate independent state criminal penalties.

Ohio’s amended SB 214 represents a legislative response to that problem. Instead of requiring gun owners to depend on conflicting interpretations of state and federal law, the legislation would remove suppressors, SBRs, and SBSs from the dangerous-ordnance category altogether.

Governor DeWine Has the Final Decision

With the House amendments approved and the Senate’s reported 21–9 concurrence vote complete, SB 214 now heads to Governor Mike DeWine for consideration.

If signed, the legislation would remove Ohio’s dangerous-ordnance restrictions on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns. It would not repeal remaining federal firearms restrictions or eliminate requirements such as applicable background checks and interstate transportation approval for certain short-barreled firearms. It also does not extend the reported state-law changes to AOWs.

Nevertheless, eliminating Ohio’s independent dangerous-ordnance classification would address a significant obstacle that has remained in place despite the federal government’s NFA enforcement changes.

The broader implications extend beyond Ohio. Other states continue to maintain firearms restrictions dependent on federal registration or authorization, leaving gun owners navigating conflicting laws even after the federal government has stopped enforcing major portions of the NFA registration system.

Ohio’s legislation offers an example of how lawmakers can address those state-law barriers directly. What began as a bill focused exclusively on suppressors has expanded to cover short-barreled rifles and shotguns, bringing three categories of commonly owned firearms and accessories under the same proposed reform.

For Ohio gun owners, the November 10 concurrence vote marks the culmination of that legislative effort. The General Assembly has completed its work, and Governor DeWine now has the final decision on whether SB 214 becomes law.

Related: Cook County Tries to Derail Supreme Court AR-15 Ban Case, but Its Own Brief Undermines the Argument

---

About Duncan Johnson:

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

---

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

Jesus Osete Takes Over for Harmeet Dhillon, but a Federal Judgeship Could Make His Tenure Brief

Jesus A. Osete has taken over as acting head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division following Harmeet Dhillon’s resignation. Photo: iStock-1055139516

Jesus A. Osete is now running the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. The division’s homepage lists him as Acting Assistant Attorney General after Harmeet K. Dhillon resigned on November 5, 2026. For gun owners, that matters because Osete was already named as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General on the United States’ captions in the division’s affirmative Second Amendment cases. It also matters because he is a pending nominee to a Missouri federal judgeship whose seat does not open until May 2027. No firm date has been set for him to leave Civil Rights.

Attorney General Todd Blanche said he accepted Dhillon’s resignation on November 5. Fox News reported that Dhillon told White House chief of staff Susie Wiles weeks before Election Day that she planned to leave, and that Wiles asked her to wait until after the midterms. Dhillon said she was not pushed out. Osete had been her principal deputy since August 7, 2025, when Dhillon swore him into that job.

His Role in the Gun-Rights Cases

Osete’s name appears as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General on several of the division’s Second Amendment complaints. He served in a supervisory role on the United States’ legal team, giving him experience with the gun-rights litigation he now inherits as acting head.

The first of those filings came on September 30, 2025. The United States sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department over delays in issuing concealed-carry permits. DOJ called it the first affirmative lawsuit the department had ever filed in support of gun owners. Osete is listed on that complaint. He is also listed on the July 1, 2026 suits against Virginia and California, and on the December 2025 case against the District of Columbia over semi-automatic registration rules.

According to the Los Angeles complaint, the department received 3,982 new applications between January 2024 and March 2025 but approved only two. DOJ alleged that applicants faced delays that made the right to carry meaningless in practice. That case illustrates the division’s approach under Dhillon: challenge how a law-enforcement agency administers a permitting system, even when the obstacle is prolonged delay rather than an explicit refusal to issue permits. Osete was part of that effort before becoming acting head.

The Virginia case challenges SB 749, the 2026 law that bans importing, selling, manufacturing, purchasing, or transferring what the statute calls “assault firearms,” including AR-15-style rifles. The California case challenges Penal Code § 27595, which DOJ calls a ban on selling most Glock and Glock-style pistols, along with the Unsafe Handgun Act roster rules in Penal Code §§ 31910 and 32015.

Those filings rest on the theory the division’s Second Amendment Section still advertises: investigate law-enforcement pattern-or-practice violations of the right to keep and bear arms, and bring affirmative civil actions under 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Acting Chief Barry Arrington remains listed on the section’s page. What changed this week is who sits above him.

The Virginia complaint is a fair sample of the rhetoric Osete’s shop put in court. It says the term “assault weapon” (and derivatives of that term) “is a rhetorically charged political term developed by anti-gun publicists,” and that in the real world the rifles SB 749 calls “assault firearms” include “ordinary semiautomatic rifles lawfully possessed and used by millions of law-abiding Americans.” That language is the United States speaking in a pleading. Filing a case is not winning it. Several of those suits remain pending, which means the division’s Second Amendment work is still an active docket under the new acting head.

Missouri Background

According to Ballotpedia, which cites his Senate Judiciary questionnaire, Osete was born in Hermosillo, Mexico, in 1991, earned his undergraduate degree from the University of Arizona in 2013, and took his J.D. from Washington University in St. Louis in 2016. He clerked for Missouri Supreme Court Chief Justice Zel M. Fischer and Eighth Circuit Judge Bobby E. Shepherd. At the Missouri Attorney General’s Office, he served as a deputy attorney general.

On January 7, 2022, the Supreme Court docket shows he presented oral argument for the respondents in Biden v. Missouri,  the COVID-era healthcare worker vaccine-mandate application. He later worked as general counsel to Missouri Secretary of State John R. Ashcroft before returning to private practice and joining DOJ. His questionnaire listed Alexandria, Virginia, as his residence while he worked at Main Justice, which means the United States sued Virginia over a sales ban that applies where he lives, with his name on the supervisory line.

Pending Nomination, No Departure Date Set

Trump announced his intent to nominate Osete to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri on August 20, 2026. The White House sent the nomination to the Senate on September 14. According to the federal judiciary’s future vacancies list, updated November 9, 2026, Judge David Gregory Kays takes senior status on May 11, 2027, and Osete is the nominee for that seat.

The Senate Judiciary Committee held his hearing on September 30, 2026. Congress.gov and the committee’s nominations page still show the last action as “Hearings held.” As of November 9, there is no committee report and no floor confirmation. The nomination timing does not by itself guarantee a short tenure at Civil Rights. Even a confirmation would not open the Western District seat until May 11, 2027. DOJ has not published a date for Osete to leave the acting job, and the Civil Rights homepage does not say how long the acting designation is meant to last.

For gun owners, the immediate fact is simpler. Dhillon stood up the Second Amendment Section and used it to sue over permit delays, state rifle bans, and registration schemes. Osete was listed as her principal deputy on those captions and now serves as acting head of the division that houses the section. His nomination offers a reason to expect another leadership change if the Senate confirms him, but it does not establish when he will leave DOJ. As of November 9, the Senate tracker records a hearing, not confirmation, and Kays’ seat is scheduled to become vacant on May 11, 2027.

Related: Harmeet Dhillon Resigns From DOJ, Leaving Future of Second Amendment Section Uncertain

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/CRNH04c
via IFTTT

Texas Democrats Waste No Time Going After Guns: 16 Bills Filed So Far

Democrat lawmakers in Texas are providing an early and immediate example of what gun owners can expect from Democrats everywhere. Image generated with AI assistance for illustrative purposes.

Nothing can better demonstrate the intent of Democrats than what they are doing at the state level just a week after capturing the Texas state House of Representatives, and the governorship during last week’s elections. Republicans still control the Texas state Senate.

Democrats have filed (so far) a total of 16 bills related to gun control, and from all indications, it looks like they are just getting started.

Likewise, watch also for more gun control in Minnesota, where Governor-elect Amy Klobuchar is already talking about her gun control agenda, promising that a ban on so-called “assault weapons”—known among gun owners as modern semiautomatic rifles, according to KWLM Radio, which reported, “One of the DFL’s top priorities will be to pass a gun safety bill…”

Gun owners in Pennsylvania, Washington and other “blue” states can also prepare for fights over Second Amendment rights, all while the nation waits for the U.S. Supreme Court to hand down a ruling sometime in 2027 on whether semi-auto rifles and pistols are protected by the Second Amendment.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms is monitoring the rush by Democrats to introduce gun control legislation. In Texas, Democrat State Rep. Joe Moody has already prefiled five bills, according to CCRKBA Executive Director Andrew Gottlieb:

House Bill 173, which would make it a state jail felony to transfer a semiautomatic rifle that takes a detachable magazine and is larger than .22 caliber to anyone under 21, with exceptions for peace officers, current or honorably discharged military, and some temporary loans at a range or hunt;

House Bill 618, which would restrict transferring firearm magazines to people who are prohibited from possessing the type of firearm the magazine is made for, and would create a criminal offense.

House Bill 658, which would change the prosecution and punishment of making a firearm accessible to a child and would increase a criminal penalty;

House Bill 659, relating to requiring a licensed firearms dealer to report certain sales or transfers of multiple firearms or firearm magazines to law enforcement; creating a criminal offense.

House Bill 660, which would require certain people already prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm to dispose of firearms they own, possess, or control.

Likewise, Democrat state Rep. Suleman Lalani has filed six measures:

HB 576 would bar registered sex offenders from buying a firearm, but only for registration based on an offense committed on or after Sept. 1, 2027;

HB 606, relating to prohibiting the transfer of firearms to or the purchase or possession of firearms by persons younger than 21 years of age; creating a criminal offense;

HB 609, Relating to increasing the criminal penalty for the offense of making a firearm accessible to a child;

HB 610, Relating to prohibiting the transfer of firearms to certain recipients who are younger than 21 years of age;

HB 612, Relating to prohibiting a sex offender from possessing a firearm;

HB 613, Relating to requiring a national instant criminal background check in connection with private firearm transfers; creating a criminal offense.

State Rep. Rafael Anchia has filed a pair of bills, HB 857 and HB 859, while newcomer Rep. Pooja Sethi has also prefiled two bills, HB 771 and HB 776. Rep. Ron Reynolds has one bill so far, HB 806, and Rep. Erin Gamez has also prefiled a single measure, HB 712.

Over on the state Senate side, Sen. Judith Zaffirini has prefiled SB80, relating to prohibiting certain transfers, purchases, and possession of assault weapons; creating criminal offenses.

This certainly suggests that any entreaties—efforts to reach out to and perhaps somehow connect—toward Democrats just might be wasted efforts. The party has grabbed power and they fully intend to use it.

Gottlieb indicated to Ammoland News that CCRKBA will be keeping watch on gun control legislation.

When CCRKBA last week predicted a surge in gun sales as a result of the midterm sweep by Democrat politicians, it hit a nerve. News organizations across the country picked up on the story, and the Washington Times is reporting that John Commerford, executive director of the National Rifle Association ‘s Institute for Legislative Action, also said he would not be surprised by a spike in gun sales.

“When politicians and their well-funded allies signal they intend to restrict the right to keep and bear arms, law-abiding citizens act while they still can,” he told The Washington Times.

Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation, told Ammoland News about an exchange he had with one Washington state firearms retailer who reported that “Sales have surged, up 400% the past week.” His supplies were actually “drying up” including guns, suppressors and ammunition. Ditto reloading components for Evergreen State gun owners who reload their own.

And this is only a week after the elections. State legislatures don’t convene until January. Between now and then, the landscape could change dramatically, especially if anti-gunners overplay their hands, as they have repeatedly shown such a tendency in the past.

What else to watch for:

• Assaults on state preemption laws. Anti-gunners hate them.
• More efforts to pass permit-to-purchase firearms laws. Despite their questionable constitutionality, anti-gunners love them.
• Efforts to expand so-called “sensitive areas” even though the Supreme Court has pretty much nixed that strategy with its ruling this year in Wolford v. Lopez.

All this leaves gun rights activists to sarcastically remind one another, when was the last time the Constitution deterred gun prohibitionists from pushing the envelope?

Related: Republicans Lost Congress. What Does the 2026 Election Mean for America’s Gun Owners?

---

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/VdIG2F0
via IFTTT