New Jersey Glock Subpoenas Are Part of Nationwide Push Against America’s Most Popular Pistol

New Jersey’s demand for Glock sales records has gun rights groups warning that lawful gun owners’ private information could be exposed through anti-gun litigation. IMG Duncan Johnson, AmmoLand

New Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport recently sent subpoenas to firearms dealers across the state demanding customer records for lawful Glock pistol sales to New Jersey residents over the past ten years. Gun rights groups are calling the move an unconstitutional attack on privacy that has nothing to do with the state’s legal theory and everything to do with exposing gun owners to public harassment.

The subpoenas appear to stem from the state Attorney General’s Office’s 2024 public nuisance lawsuit against Glock, Inc., but the demand for individual customer records goes well beyond what that lawsuit’s legal theory would seem to require. The state claims that Glock’s design, which has remained largely unchanged for over 40 years, is too easy to illegally convert into a machine gun using aftermarket switches. Other states have filed similar lawsuits, and some, like California, have now banned the sale of Glocks entirely.

The National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action argues that the records are completely unconnected to the state’s case theory. The NRA-ILA points out that since New Jersey’s pistol permitting system already operates as a de facto handgun registry, the Attorney General can produce those records from the office’s own database without subpoenaing FFLs.

The critical distinction involves how subpoenaed records are treated under New Jersey law. Unlike registry records, which are exempt from public disclosure, subpoenaed documents become a matter of public record. The NRA-ILA argues this “is being done solely for the purpose of harassing and doxxing residents who purchased the most popular pistol in America.”

John Commerford, NRA-ILA Executive Director, did not mince words in a legislative alert. “Subpoenaing law-abiding firearm dealers to help build a state gun registry is unconstitutional and utterly outrageous,” Commerford said. “If New Jersey believes it can trample the Second Amendment and federal law with impunity, they are gravely mistaken. The NRA will not stand idly by while progressive politicians attempt to implement this dangerous, Orwellian scheme to dox, track, and harass honest, law-abiding Americans, and we are prepared to take any action necessary to protect the rights of New Jersey gun owners.”

The Second Amendment Foundation reached the same conclusion through a different analytical path. Kostas Moros, SAF Director of Legal Research and Education, suggested in a detailed thread on X that the only explanation for the subpoenas, given the state’s existing registry infrastructure, is that the AG’s office wants to make gun owner records publicly accessible.

“It is not immediately clear why New Jersey needs these records, given the state already maintains a de facto registry for handguns through its pistol permitting system,” Moros wrote. “It could be that the Attorney General wants to make these records public, as under New Jersey law and in a small nod towards respecting privacy, firearm registration records are exempt from public disclosure under the state’s laws.”

Moros argued that regardless of the AG’s actual motive, the subpoenas constitute an “unconstitutional attack” on gun owner privacy and one that runs counter to the historical tradition the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision requires gun regulations to fit within.

“For many people who choose to exercise their Second Amendment rights, their status as a gun owner remains an intensely private matter,” Moros wrote. “Americans have a variety of reasons for wanting to keep their gun ownership to themselves… Whatever their reasons for secrecy, our historical tradition supports the idea that Americans have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their status as gun owners.”

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 17rd Pistol, 4.49" GMB Barrel	Bereli	$ 620.00
	Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 17 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.49" Barrel 17+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 45 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 17+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00

The New Jersey subpoenas fit into a broader pattern of state attorneys general in restrictive gun law states using litigation against firearm manufacturers as a vehicle to access information about individual gun owners. The mechanism varies from subpoenas to public nuisance suits to civil discovery, but the result tends to be the same. Lawful gun ownership becomes a matter of state interest beyond what existing registration regimes already capture.

This coordinated approach extends beyond litigation. Maryland recently passed SB 334, a bill banning the sale or transfer of “machine gun convertible pistols” that can be converted with illegal switches. Governor Wes Moore signed the legislation on May 26, 2026, with the Act taking effect October 1, 2026 and the ban on commercial activity beginning January 1, 2027. New York had already enacted a similar Glock ban through its 2026-27 state budget, and Connecticut enacted parallel legislation the same day as Maryland, with Governor Ned Lamont signing Substitute House Bill 5043 on May 26. The NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation have since filed a federal lawsuit challenging Maryland’s law, arguing it effectively bans nearly every Glock and Glock-style handgun on the market.

For New Jersey gun owners who purchased a Glock at any point in the last decade, the practical exposure is real. Records identifying individuals as Glock owners, made public under New Jersey’s open records law, would be searchable, indexable, and effectively permanent. Whether the AG’s office actually intends to make the records public or whether the subpoena is a procedural step that will not result in disclosure remains the central unanswered question.

However, after public pressure from gun-rights groups and media coverage, the Attorney General’s Office reportedly narrowed or clarified the demand, stating through counsel that it was not seeking customer-identifying information and would accept aggregate sales data.

The NRA-ILA, SAF, and other gun rights organizations are signaling they will challenge the subpoenas before any disclosure happens. Whether affected FFLs comply, resist, or seek protective orders will shape what comes next in what has become a multi-front battle over America’s most popular handgun.

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

---

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/Ip3VT5t
via IFTTT

Armed Citizens Stop Alleged Florida Church Kidnapping

On May 31, 2026, before 11 a.m., a woman who had obtained a domestic violence injunction escaped kidnapping in a church parking lot. Two armed Samaritans intervened and prevented an armed man from dragging the woman away. In a news conference, Police Chief Leo Niemczyk identified the suspect as Jose Tsu Zamora, 64, who had been in a long-term prior relationship with the victim.

Zamora is a convicted felon who is reported to have said to the victim something to the effect of: If I can’t have you, nobody can. The suspect is reported as knowing the victim attended the church in Port St. Lucie and intercepted the victim as she exited a vehicle.

From cbs12.com:

Two male bystanders, who told police they were armed, intervened and confronted Zamora. Chief Leo Niemczyk with PSLPD credited the two bystanders for saving the woman’s life.

Several people are reported as seeing the attempted kidnapping. One man is seen confronting the suspect, seconds later, another runs into the scene. The video appears to show what may be a holster on the second armed Samaritan.

Before 1987, it would have been unlikely that two people in a church parking lot in Florida would have been armed and able to respond to a kidnapping by an armed man. The suspect was reported to have held a handgun against the victim’s side as the kidnapping was attempted.

In 1987, Florida passed a shall-issue concealed carry permit bill, which is credited with being the start of the shall-issue revolution in the United States. Another change since 1987 is the increase in the number of church security teams. News coverage has not mentioned whether the armed Samaritans were part of a church security team.

As of 2025, over 20 million concealed carry permits were active in the United States. In 29 states, no permit is needed for people to carry loaded handguns, either openly or concealed, in most public spaces.

John Lott and others have published peer-reviewed papers that show an increase in concealed carry permits is correlated with a drop in violent crime. Other academics dispute this finding. Papers sometimes claim to show a limited increase in very specific types of crime in particular states.

Most of the literature shows either a decrease in violent crime or no measurable change.

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

---

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/Bt8SXgN
via IFTTT

AG Uthmeier Forces Tradition HOA to Rescind Unlawful Gun Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About John Crump

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

---

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

Virginia Judge Blocks State Police From Enforcing Universal Background Checks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About John Crump

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The 35-page amended complaint demands a jury trial.

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

---

About Dave Workman

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About John Crump

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

About Dean Weingarten:

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

---

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