Ninth Circuit Flips Bruen’s Burden to Uphold Hawaii Gun-Purchase Restrictions

The en banc Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s 30-day handgun-permit deadline and police-inspection requirement in Yukutake v. Lopez. iStock-1312189737

A divided Ninth Circuit has reversed another Second Amendment victory, allowing Hawaii to defend two unusual firearm-acquisition restrictions without showing that either one is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.

In a 6–5 en banc decision in Yukutake v. Lopez, the court reversed a permanent injunction against Hawaii’s 30-day handgun-permit deadline and its requirement that certain newly acquired firearms be physically presented to police for inspection.

The ruling reaches beyond Hawaii. Instead of applying the text-and-history test required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the majority treated the provisions as presumptively constitutional because Hawaii placed them inside a “shall-issue” system. The court then required the gun owners—not the government—to prove the restrictions were being used toward “abusive ends.”

That turns Bruen’s burden on its head.

Hawaii’s Permit Deadline and Police Inspection Rule

Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa challenged two provisions of Hawaii law. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e) provides that a permit to acquire a pistol or revolver becomes void unless it is used within 30 days. If the permit expires before the buyer obtains the handgun, the applicant must restart Hawaii’s permitting process.

Section 134-3 requires certain firearms to be registered and brought to police for inspection within five days. It applies to private transfers, specified self-manufactured or 3D-printed firearms, and firearms brought into Hawaii.

Both laws were more burdensome when the lawsuit began. The handgun permit originally expired after ten days, while virtually all firearms acquired under the permitting system had to be brought to police. Hawaii extended the deadline to 30 days and narrowed the inspection mandate while the litigation was pending.

A federal district court struck down the provisions in 2021. A divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in March 2025, holding that acquiring firearms is protected by the Second Amendment and that Hawaii had failed to justify its restrictions. The Ninth Circuit then vacated that opinion and reheard the case en banc.

Majority Creates a Shall-Issue Safe Harbor

Writing for the majority, Judge John Owens relied heavily on footnote nine of Bruen. That footnote explained that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down New York’s discretionary “may-issue” carry law should not be understood as invalidating objective “shall-issue” public-carry systems.

The Ninth Circuit stretched that limited discussion of carry permits into a broader presumption covering Hawaii’s firearm-purchase system.

The majority did not decide whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct or require Hawaii to produce historical analogues. Instead, it asked whether Yukutake and Kikukawa had shown that the requirements effectively denied ordinary citizens their rights.

The majority called the 30-day expiration period a “reasonable deadline” and described taking a firearm to police as a “brief administrative visit.” It concluded that both were merely “modest, procedural burdens” that did not materially prevent the plaintiffs from acquiring firearms.

The court acknowledged that delays, exorbitant fees or other requirements could become unconstitutional, but did not explain where that line lies.

That leaves anti-gun states with an obvious strategy: place new acquisition obstacles inside an ostensibly objective licensing system and force gun owners to prove that the accumulated burdens practically deny the right.

Five Judges Say the Majority Misread Bruen

Judge Ryan Nelson wrote the principal dissent, joined fully by Judges Daniel Bress and Lawrence VanDyke and mostly by Judges Bridget Bade and Danielle Forrest.

Nelson explained that footnote nine addressed public-carry permits—not every rule attached to buying, possessing or registering a gun. Hawaii’s provisions operate after the state has investigated and approved the purchaser; they are not eligibility requirements.

“Never has a single footnote in a Supreme Court opinion been so misread by so many lower courts to deny so many Americans their constitutional rights,” Nelson wrote.

The dissent concluded that acquisition is protected because citizens ordinarily cannot “keep” arms without first obtaining them. Bruen therefore requires Hawaii to demonstrate a historical tradition supporting its restrictions.

Hawaii did not do so. No historical analogue automatically voided an approved citizen’s permit after 30 days. Colonial militia inspections ensured militiamen possessed serviceable arms for public duty; they did not force citizens to bring privately acquired guns to police for tracking.

Judge Forrest agreed that the laws violate the Second Amendment but would have narrowed the district court’s statewide injunction under Trump v. CASA so it protected only Yukutake and Kikukawa.

VanDyke: Bruen Has Made Things Worse in the Ninth Circuit

Judge VanDyke issued a separate dissent condemning the Ninth Circuit’s resistance to Supreme Court precedent. He noted that the district court struck down Hawaii’s restrictions under the weaker, pre-Bruen intermediate-scrutiny standard. The en banc majority then used Bruen—which rejected interest balancing—to reverse that victory.

“If our court’s takeaway from Bruen is that Bruen changed the law to make it harder to mount a successful Second Amendment challenge, then somebody has seriously lost the plot,” VanDyke wrote.

VanDyke proposed bright-line protections for arms in common use and against modern restrictions adopted by only a few jurisdictions. He predicted that Yukutake will eventually join other Ninth Circuit Second Amendment decisions reversed by the Supreme Court.

Another Ninth Circuit Reversal of a Gun-Rights Win

Second Amendment Foundation attorney Kostas Moros, who represented SAF, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Law Center as amici, criticized the decision for reversing Bruen’s burden and reviving interest balancing under the undefined label of “abusiveness.”

Thread on Yukutake, the Ninth Circuit’s latest en banc reversal of a 2A panel win.

The laws at issue are Hawaii rules requiring (1) a narrow window of time to buy a gun after getting a purchase permit; and (2) a post-purchase inspection of that purchased gun at a police… https://t.co/45c2ZGEgqv pic.twitter.com/reaqUA4PNo

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) September 22, 2026

The majority itself admitted that lower courts disagree over how Bruen’s footnote nine fits with the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test. It concluded by expressing hope that the Supreme Court will eventually clarify which interpretation is correct.

The justices should take that invitation. A state cannot evade Bruen by fastening novel purchase and registration burdens onto a licensing system, declaring that system “shall-issue,” and demanding that citizens prove the resulting obstacles are abusive. The Second Amendment commands the government to justify its restrictions—not the people to beg a court to recognize when enough infringement is finally enough.

---

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/GbpQYx5
via IFTTT

NSSF, Shadow Systems Sue to Stop Connecticut Handgun Ban Before Oct. 1

NSSF, Shadow Systems and Blue Trail Range are asking a federal court to stop Connecticut’s “convertible pistol” sales ban before it takes effect October 1. Shadow Systems XR920 pistol. IMG courtesy of Shadow Systems.

Connecticut is now facing a second federal challenge to its new “convertible pistol” ban—and this lawsuit goes directly after the premise that the state may prohibit common handguns because criminals can illegally modify them.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Shadow Systems, and Connecticut retailer Blue Trail Range filed National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01528, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on September 21. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the challenged portions of House Bill 5043 before they take effect October 1.

The case follows GLOCK’s lawsuit challenging the same Connecticut law, but the two cases approach the ban from different directions. GLOCK argues first that its redesigned Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 pistols do not fall within Connecticut’s definition. NSSF and Shadow Systems make the more fundamental argument: Connecticut cannot ban the future sale of common, unmodified handguns merely because a criminal could attach an already-illegal machinegun conversion device.

Connecticut is punishing the handgun and the law-abiding gun owner instead of the criminal who illegally converts it.

Connecticut Targets the Gun, Not the Illegal Switch

Gov. Ned Lamont signed HB 5043, now Public Act 26-41, in May after it cleared the legislature. AmmoLand warned while the bill was moving through Hartford that its so-called “convertible pistol” language was aimed at GLOCK-pattern handguns and other pistols using a cruciform trigger bar.

Effective October 1, the law makes it a Class D felony to knowingly import, advertise, sell, offer, or expose for sale a covered “convertible pistol” manufactured on or after that date. A conviction can carry up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.

Connecticut defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be altered by hand or with a common household tool so it can be converted into a machine gun through installation of a pistol converter. The law provides an escape clause for a pistol with a non-removable piece molded into the frame that shields the trigger bar.

This is not a general possession ban, and the lawsuit does not challenge Connecticut’s authority to prohibit an illegally converted pistol. It challenges the state’s attempt to close the lawful market to unmodified semiautomatic handguns.

Machinegun conversion devices, often called switches, are already illegal under federal and Connecticut law. Federal law treats the device itself as a machine gun even when it is not installed. Connecticut can prosecute those who possess or install them. It cannot use those crimes as an excuse to deny peaceable citizens access to common defensive arms.

Shadow Systems Gives the Challenge Real-World Stakes

Shadow Systems manufactures American-made GLOCK-pattern pistols built around the cruciform-trigger design. According to the verified complaint, the company shipped more than $204 million in products to retailers nationwide from 2021 through August 2026, overwhelmingly cruciform-trigger handguns. During the same period, it sold more than $530,000 in those handguns into Connecticut.

The company says none of its current popular cruciform-trigger models contains the molded shielding feature Connecticut demands. Complying would require substantial time and money to redesign pistols lawful buyers already choose for their safety, reliability, and familiarity, with no guarantee that Connecticut would not move the goalposts again.

Shadow Systems has already seen what a state-level ban can do. The complaint alleges that California’s similar law forced the company out of that market, costing it nearly $3.8 million in annual revenue, or approximately 11 percent of its business.

Blue Trail Range supplies the retailer side of the case. The Wallingford range and gun store says cruciform-trigger handguns and accessories represent a substantial part of its business. When the pistol a customer trusts disappears from the shelf, some buyers simply walk away.

Those injuries are not theoretical. Unless the court intervenes, Connecticut dealers must begin navigating felony exposure on October 1.

Connecticut’s Ban Has No Limiting Principle

The complaint alleges that more than 500,000 cruciform-trigger handguns are manufactured for the American market annually. NSSF members producing these pistols include GLOCK, Shadow Systems, Ruger, Palmetto State Armory, Derya, and Beretta through Stoeger.

These are ordinary semiautomatic handguns used for self-defense, training, competition, and recreation. Exactly the class of arms the Supreme Court described in District of Columbia v. Heller as the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”

NSSF’s historical argument is straightforward. Americans have long prohibited dangerous modifications without banning the underlying firearm. A criminal can use a hacksaw to create an illegal short-barreled shotgun, but that does not give government authority to ban ordinary shotguns. The historical response to trap guns was likewise to punish the unlawful act, not outlaw the firearm.

The same principle applies here. The existence of an illegal aftermarket switch does not transform an unmodified semiautomatic pistol into a machine gun.

If Connecticut may ban a common handgun because someone can illegally convert it, there is no meaningful limit. As the Supreme Court recognized in Staples v. United States, virtually any semiautomatic firearm can be converted through internal modification. Connecticut’s logic could become the excuse for banning virtually every semiautomatic firearm in America.

Even the Second Circuit Used the GLOCK 17 as the Counterexample

The lawsuit also turns Connecticut’s own appellate precedent against the state.

In National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, the Second Circuit upheld Connecticut’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles. But it contrasted those firearms with popular semiautomatic handguns “like the Glock 17,” emphasizing that Connecticut residents could still possess them.

HB 5043 now attacks precisely the type of handgun the Second Circuit used as its example of an ordinary protected arm. The state cannot rely on the continued availability of GLOCK pistols to defend one gun ban and then turn around and prohibit future sales of those pistols under another.

The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking a preliminary injunction or, alternatively, a temporary restraining order. They want the court to declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and stop Connecticut’s prosecutors from enforcing them while the case proceeds. NSSF announced the emergency challenge on September 21.

Connecticut already has the authority to prosecute illegal machinegun conversion. What the Second Amendment does not permit is collective punishment of every lawful manufacturer, dealer, and gun owner because criminals refuse to obey laws that were already on the books.

The switch is illegal. The criminal conversion is illegal. The common semiautomatic handgun is not, and Connecticut has no constitutional authority to pretend otherwise.

---

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/mBRSGaZ
via IFTTT

ATF’s “61 Alerts” Claim Hides Broader FBI Gun-Buyer Surveillance

An approved firearm transaction becomes a federal surveillance trigger under the FBI’s NICS Monitoring program. Original illustration created for AmmoLand News with OpenAI.

Gun Owners of America is challenging the Trump administration’s defense of NICS Monitoring, arguing that ATF Director Robert Cekada’s description of the program leaves out its most dangerous feature: The FBI built a system capable of notifying federal agencies when legally eligible Americans attempt to buy firearms.

Cekada disclosed that only 61 ATF NICS alerts remained active as of September 17. That number sounds small when compared with the millions of firearm background checks conducted each year. It also counts only ATF alerts—not the full reach of the FBI system.

In a detailed response posted on X, GOA accused Cekada of making two false statements and three misleading statements about the program. The organization says federal records uncovered thousands of past NICS Monitoring alerts established by agencies including the U.S. Marshals Service, Secret Service, and Army.

Unfortunately, there are 2 false statements & 3 misleading statements in @ATFDirectorRC‘s post about the FBI’s warrantless “NICS Monitoring” program

1⃣ “[NICS Alerts] are NOT used to monitor lawful gun purchasers.” FALSE.

Think about what this means: If a person passes… https://t.co/N6qABbO0H6

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 18, 2026

GOA did not claim that thousands of those alerts remain active today. The more important point is that neither Cekada nor FBI Director Kash Patel has disclosed the current number of alerts across every agency using the system.

Passing NICS Does Not Make a Buyer a Criminal

Cekada claimed NICS alerts are not used to monitor lawful firearm purchasers. That assertion collapses under the program’s basic operation.

When a person passes NICS and the dealer is authorized to proceed, the government has determined that the buyer is not prohibited from receiving the firearm. If the FBI then sends investigators a real-time notification about that approved transaction, the government is monitoring a lawful gun buyer.

Suspicion does not change the buyer’s legal status. An investigation is not a conviction, a prohibition, or a warrant. The Second Amendment does not become optional because an agent opens a file and wants to know whether an American buys another gun.

As AmmoLand News reported, the Brady Act authorized NICS to determine whether a proposed firearm transfer would violate the law. Congress simultaneously prohibited federal officials from using that system to create a registry of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions involving people who are not prohibited.

NICS Monitoring turns that supposedly limited eligibility check into a federal tripwire. Investigators select a person first. The FBI then watches for future background checks and alerts the requesting agency when the person attempts another firearm transaction—even if the transaction is approved.

That is surveillance of lawful conduct, no matter what label the government puts on it.

“61 Alerts” Number Is Not the Whole Program

Cekada’s disclosure provides useful information about ATF’s present use of NICS alerts. It does not establish the size of the broader FBI program.

GOA says ATF is only one of several agencies that have used NICS Monitoring. Its response identifies the Marshals Service, Secret Service, and Army among the federal entities that established alerts in the past. Until the FBI discloses a systemwide accounting, Americans do not know how many people are currently being monitored, which agencies requested the alerts, or how long the resulting purchase information is retained.

ATF has narrowed its own policy since the program was exposed. That is not the same thing as abolishing the system. A future anti-gun administration would inherit the machinery needed to watch the firearm purchases of disfavored Americans in real time.

Gun owners have already seen where that road leads. GOA says the Biden administration used NICS Monitoring against people because they spent what agents considered too much money on firearms, bought the same models as their roommates, were connected to January 6, or were suspected of violating California’s ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.

The Trump administration should not defend a surveillance power simply because its current officials promise to exercise more restraint than Biden’s appointees did.

The Program Became Public Only After AmmoLand Exposed It

Cekada also claimed NICS Monitoring was not secret because ATF published a policy governing its use in 2025. That formulation rewrites the timeline.

AmmoLand first exposed NICS Monitoring in April 2021 after receiving a leaked internal ATF document. AmmoLand provided the document to GOA, which then pursued the paper trail through Freedom of Information Act requests and litigation.

GOA says federal agencies delayed or ignored records requests, and ATF later obtained a protective order restricting the organization from releasing certain documents that the agency had inadvertently produced without its intended redactions. GOA is appealing that order.

A government program does not become retroactively public because officials acknowledged and narrowed it after a whistleblower, a news organization, a gun-rights group, and members of Congress dragged it into the light.

End NICS Monitoring

GOA’s rebuttal leaves the administration with questions that cannot be answered by comparing 61 ATF alerts with millions of annual background checks.

What statute authorizes the FBI to monitor the approved firearm transactions of non-prohibited Americans? What judicial authorization is required before the government watches someone exercise an enumerated right? How many alerts remain active across every participating agency?

The administration should answer those questions, preserve the records for congressional investigation, notify the Americans who were monitored, and shut the program down.

NICS was sold as a point-of-sale eligibility check. It should never have existed as a federal permission slip for exercising the Second Amendment, but even the Brady Act did not authorize the FBI to convert it into a prospective gun-buyer surveillance network.

Narrowing an unconstitutional abuse does not cure it. NICS Monitoring must be abolished.

---

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/YkZldQ6
via IFTTT

Lawsuit Challenges New Jersey Ban on Carrying Knives for Self-Defense

ANJRPC and Knife Rights are challenging New Jersey laws that allegedly criminalize carrying common non-firearm arms for self-defense. iStock-1601794574

ANJRPC and Knife Rights are challenging New Jersey laws that criminalize carrying common non-firearm arms in preparation for self-defense.

New Jersey was forced by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen to recognize the right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns in public for self-defense. Yet the state still threatens those same citizens with prosecution if they carry a baton, defensive knife, larger pepper-spray canister, or another non-firearm arm because they anticipate needing to protect themselves.

That upside-down regime is the target of a new federal lawsuit filed by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Knife Rights, and four individual New Jersey residents.

The complaint, filed September 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, names Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and Acting State Police Superintendent Jeanne Hengemuhle as defendants in their official capacities. The case is Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 1:26-cv-12401.

New Jersey Criminalizes Preparing for Self-Defense

The lawsuit challenges N.J.S. 2C:39-5(d), which makes it a fourth-degree crime to possess an “other weapon” under circumstances “not manifestly appropriate” for its lawful uses. New Jersey defines “weapon” broadly enough to include purpose-built arms and ordinary objects capable of inflicting serious injury.

The state does not categorically outlaw every baseball bat, hammer, or screwdriver. The problem is what happens when someone carries an otherwise ordinary object in anticipation of using it for lawful self-defense.

The complaint points to State v. Kelly, a 1990 New Jersey Supreme Court decision involving a mother who carried a carpet cutter because she feared encountering a former boyfriend who had repeatedly beaten her. He attacked her as she anticipated, and she used the cutter to stop the assault.

Although the court recognized that spontaneously grabbing a weapon during an immediate attack could be lawful, it held that Kelly’s “anticipatory self-defense” did not excuse possessing the cutter beforehand. In other words, New Jersey punished her for preparing to survive an attack she had good reason to expect.

The Second Amendment Protects Arms, Not Just Guns

The plaintiffs argue that this rule cannot survive New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which confirmed that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry arms in public for self-defense.

The constitutional text says “Arms,” not “firearms.” Knives, impact weapons, stun guns, Tasers, defensive sprays, and other bearable weapons therefore cannot be pushed outside the Second Amendment merely because they do not fire a cartridge.

The complaint also challenges New Jersey’s restrictions on specifically named arms, including switchblades, gravity knives, daggers, billies, blackjacks, metal knuckles, and slingshots. It alleges that these weapons are commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes and are neither “dangerous and unusual.” Under Heller and Bruen, the state bears the burden of justifying its restrictions through the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation.

The four individual plaintiffs show the irrationality of New Jersey’s approach. Three already hold New Jersey handgun carry permits but say they risk arrest if they carry lower-force alternatives such as collapsible batons or defensive knives. The fourth, Wendy Copenhaver, says she could qualify for a carry permit but presently prefers pepper spray in public. State law limits her to one pocket-sized unit containing no more than 0.75 ounces.

“New Jersey treats the means of self-defense as the crime itself,” ANJRPC President Kathy Chatterton said. “This is a law that enables criminals and disables victims.”

Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter said the state’s restrictions “cannot stand in the post-Bruen era.”

The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the challenged provisions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, along with temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions against their enforcement. No court has yet ruled on those requests.

The right to bear arms belongs to the people, not to a government that decides which defensive tool a peaceful citizen must use. New Jersey cannot concede the right to carry a handgun while criminalizing less-effective alternatives chosen for the same constitutionally protected purpose.

---

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/ZITX8p9
via IFTTT

GLOCK Sues Connecticut Over Vague ‘Convertible Pistol’ Ban

GLOCK is asking a federal court to rule that its Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 pistols fall outside Connecticut’s new “convertible pistol” ban. IMG Duncan Johnson

Connecticut cannot tell gun dealers whether GLOCK pistols specifically redesigned to resist illegal machinegun conversion devices will become illegal to sell on October 1. Now GLOCK is asking a federal court to answer the question before dealers risk felony prosecution.

GLOCK filed its 31-page complaint Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Glock, Inc. v. Griffin challenges House Bill 5043, enacted as Public Act 26-41, and names the officials responsible for enforcing it.

The company also filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the law takes effect.

GLOCK Says Its Current Pistols Are Not Covered

GLOCK first asks the court to declare that its Slimline, V Series, and Gen 6 pistols do not fall within the statutory definition and may continue to be imported, advertised, and sold.

Connecticut defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic handgun with a cruciform trigger bar that can be “readily altered” and “readily converted” into a machine gun through installation of a pistol converter. The law does not define “readily altered,” “readily converted,” or “readily removed.”

According to the complaint, GLOCK’s Models 42, 43, 43X, and 48 are too narrow to accept known machinegun conversion devices. Its V Series and Gen6 pistols use a “triple block” consisting of reinforced rear frame rails, steel domes in the slide, and a modified slide-cover plate.

GLOCK says a July 8, 2025, ATF report found that the system prevented the installation and operation of every conversion device tested on a Gen6 G19. ATF reportedly determined that the hardened steel bracket molded into the frame was not easily altered.

Since December 1, 2025, GLOCK says it has stopped manufacturing, importing, and selling new Gen5 and earlier standard-width pistols for the American civilian market, replacing them with V Series and Gen6 models. Slimline pistols remain in production.

In other words, Connecticut’s law may block the sale of pistols already redesigned to defeat the devices lawmakers claimed to be targeting.

State Police Allegedly Admitted They Did Not Know

GLOCK says company representatives met with seven members of the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office and two State Police firearms-unit representatives on August 27. Using sample pistols, GLOCK explained why its current commercial models should fall outside the ban.

During that meeting, the State Police representatives allegedly acknowledged that dealers were asking whether new GLOCK pistols would be banned—and that the unit did not know the answer.

GLOCK then asked the chief state’s attorney and the other enforcement officials for a position. None provided one before the lawsuit was filed.

That uncertainty leaves Connecticut’s 659 FFLs, including 35 GLOCK Stocking Dealers, facing a Class D felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

The complaint also notes that approximately 85 percent of Connecticut law-enforcement agencies issue GLOCK pistols. Public Act 26-41 contains no exception allowing covered pistols manufactured after October 1 to be imported or sold to police agencies, potentially interfering with approved-model purchases and warranty replacements.

GLOCK Raises Second and First Amendment Claims

If the court will not declare the current models outside the law, GLOCK asks it to strike down the ban as unconstitutionally vague and contrary to the Second Amendment. The company argues there is no historical tradition of banning commonly owned semiautomatic handguns because criminals can illegally modify them using devices already prohibited under state and federal law.

GLOCK also raises a First Amendment claim because the statute criminalizes “advertising” without defining the term. Truthful website listings, manuals, buyer’s guides, or dealer-counter materials could therefore be swept into a felony prohibition.

Connecticut wrote a criminal law broad enough that even the police unit overseeing firearm dealers allegedly cannot explain what it bans. The Constitution does not permit the state to leave citizens and businesses guessing where lawful commerce ends and a felony begins.

---

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/nivgxet
via IFTTT

Fifth Circuit Strikes Down Federal Ban on Interstate Handgun Purchases

The Fifth Circuit held that the federal ban on direct interstate handgun purchases violates the Second Amendment. iStock-1220273996

One of the Gun Control Act of 1968’s core restrictions just fell in federal court: the federal ban on Americans directly buying handguns across state lines.

In a 2–1 decision issued September 18, the Fifth Circuit held that the combined operation of three provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922 violates the Second Amendment. It reversed the dismissal of Elite Precision Customs v. ATF and rendered judgment for Firearms Policy Coalition, Texas gun dealer Elite Precision Customs, and individual plaintiffs Tim Herron and Freddie Blish.

The conclusion of the 17-page opinion could hardly be clearer: “The Ban sullies the plain text of the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”

This is a direct rejection of the federal government’s attempt to treat the lawful acquisition of a handgun as something outside the Second Amendment.

How the Federal Interstate Handgun Ban Works

The case challenged 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), and 922(b)(3), along with an ATF regulation that tracks those restrictions.

Together, the provisions prohibit an FFL from directly transferring a handgun to a resident of another state and restrict unlicensed interstate transfers. Congress created an exception for qualifying rifle and shotgun sales, but no comparable exception for handguns.

A lawful buyer can purchase a handgun from an out-of-state dealer only by having it shipped to another FFL in the buyer’s home state. That second dealer must agree to participate, normally charges a transfer fee, and adds another delay before the buyer can take possession.

Elite Precision Customs said it would sell handguns directly to nonresidents if federal law allowed it. Blish, an Arizona resident, and Herron, a New Mexico resident, would buy from the Texas dealer. Herron said intermediary dealers typically charge him $30 to $40 and delay the transfer.

The Fifth Circuit recognized that system for what it is: a government-mandated workaround for a transaction the government has categorically forbidden.

The Right to Keep Arms Includes the Right to Buy Them

The majority opinion, written by Judge Jerry E. Smith and joined by Judge Kurt Engelhardt, relied on the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision in Reese v. ATF. That case held that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to purchase them.

That principle controls here. A person cannot keep a handgun the government forbids him from acquiring. Congress cannot evade the Second Amendment by criminalizing the seller or inserting a government-licensed intermediary.

The restriction does not escape constitutional scrutiny merely because the government leaves another, more expensive route open. It eliminates an entire class of otherwise lawful handgun purchases. It is a purchase ban—not an ordinary condition on commercial sales.

The holding reinforces AmmoLand’s recent coverage of the Justice Department’s conclusion that the federal under-21 handgun ban is unconstitutional. It also answers the dangerous reasoning adopted by the First Circuit in Beckwith v. Frey, which placed acquisition outside the Second Amendment.

Excluding acquisition from the Second Amendment turns the right into an empty promise.

Another Government History Lesson Falls Apart

Once the court determined that the Second Amendment covers handgun purchases, the burden shifted to the government to establish a representative historical tradition supporting its ban. It failed.

The government offered 18 colonial and early American laws. The majority sorted them into wartime measures, restrictions on trade with foreign sovereigns or Indian tribes, and early consumer-protection laws covering matters such as defective firearms and gunpowder quality.

None established a Founding-era tradition of prohibiting peaceable Americans from buying handguns across state lines within the same country.

The court also rejected reliance on a 1652 law from Dutch-controlled New Amsterdam. Its full text has been lost, its enforcement is unknown, and it arose outside the English legal tradition that produced the Bill of Rights.

The same problem confronts modern handgun-rationing schemes. As AmmoLand reported in the challenge to New Jersey’s one-handgun-a-month law, governments keep assembling unrelated gunpowder, licensing, and Native American trade laws and calling the pile a historical tradition.

The Government Cannot Charge a Toll for a Right

The opinion also questions the added fee imposed by the mandatory FFL-to-FFL process, comparing such costs with unconstitutional burdens imposed on voting, marriage, and the press.

That concern fits directly with AmmoLand’s recent coverage of taxes designed to make firearms and ammunition more expensive. The problem does not disappear because the government calls the burden a transfer fee, tax, or administrative charge. A government that cannot ban a right should not be allowed to place a tollbooth in front of it.

Fifth Circuit Rejects the Second Circuit

The decision creates a direct circuit split. In United States v. Vereen, the Second Circuit upheld the same federal ban by relying on historical restrictions involving the movement of firearms across colonial borders.

The Fifth Circuit said that approach stretched the historical record beyond what it could support. Colonial borders and trade with separate sovereigns are not interchangeable with commerce between American citizens.

Judge Catharina Haynes dissented in a single paragraph, saying she agreed with the district court that the challenged provisions were constitutional.

What the Decision Means for Gun Buyers

The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, but the opinion does not provide immediate operating instructions for gun dealers. It should not be read as an invitation to walk into any gun store in another state and demand an over-the-counter handgun transfer while federal procedures remain unsettled.

The government may seek rehearing or Supreme Court review, and dealers will need clear guidance on how the judgment affects enforcement and their licensing obligations.

The constitutional holding, however, is unmistakable. State lines do not erase the right to keep and bear arms. The federal government cannot convert an unconstitutional handgun-purchase ban into a permissible regulation merely by forcing Americans to find another dealer, pay another fee, and wait longer to exercise a right the Constitution commands shall not be infringed.

---

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/JdL3bjG
via IFTTT

DOJ Sues San Jose Over $1,591 Fee to Exercise the Right to Carry

The Justice Department alleges San Jose’s $1,591 municipal carry-permit fee and additional psychological-testing requirement violate the Second Amendment. iStock-901657484

The Justice Department sued San Jose and its police department on September 16, alleging that the city has put a $1,591 price tag on the constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense.

That figure is only San Jose’s municipal application fee. It does not include state charges, fingerprinting, mandatory training, or the applicant-funded psychological evaluation imposed by the San Jose Police Department.

Under the city’s system, a first-time applicant pays $318 up front and another $1,273 when the license is issued. The federal complaint argues that the charge is not a legitimate administrative fee but an abusive financial barrier designed to make lawful carry impractical for middle-class residents and impossible for many lower-income citizens.

The Second Amendment does not protect only those with enough disposable income to satisfy anti-gun officials. The right to bear arms belongs to “the people,” not merely the people who can afford San Jose’s toll.

San Jose Made Carry a Rich Man’s Right

California law permits local licensing authorities to recover the reasonable cost of processing concealed-carry applications. According to DOJ, however, the San Jose resolution establishing the $1,591 charge does not attempt to justify that amount.

The complaint compares San Jose with jurisdictions that are hardly known for respecting gun rights. San Francisco charges $144. Washington, D.C. charges $75, Boston charges $100, Chicago charges $150, and Philadelphia charges $20. Even New York City’s three-year license costs $340.

DOJ does not concede that every one of those fees is constitutional. The comparisons show just how far outside the norm San Jose has gone.

The Supreme Court expressly warned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that a nominally “shall-issue” licensing system can still violate the Second Amendment when “exorbitant fees” deny ordinary citizens their right to carry. A city cannot replace the discretionary “proper cause” test struck down in Bruen with an equally effective wealth test.

Psychological Testing Adds Another Infringement

The financial barrier is not San Jose’s only attack on the right to bear arms. SJPD also forces applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation and pay the evaluator before receiving a permit. According to DOJ, California law does not require that examination, and San Jose’s municipal code does not authorize it. The police department imposed it through its own policy.

That turns a pre-existing constitutional right into a privilege granted only after a government-approved psychologist decides an applicant is “worthy” to exercise it. The Second Amendment contains no psychological-test exception, and it gives police departments no authority to demand a mental-health permission slip from peaceable citizens before allowing them to bear arms.

The policy compounds that constitutional abuse by leaving applicants responsible for an unspecified fee charged by an “authorized psychologist.” DOJ alleges that applicants receive no advance notice of the cost or assurance that it reflects only the licensing authority’s reasonable expense. After Bruen stripped anti-gun officials of their discretionary “proper cause” test, San Jose appears to have rebuilt the same gatekeeping system through wealth and psychological screening. The label changed; the unconstitutional presumption did not. San Jose still treats citizens as disqualified from exercising the right to bear arms until they pay the government’s price and prove otherwise.

DOJ Expands Its Second Amendment Civil-Rights Campaign

The legal vehicle is as important as the dollar amount. DOJ sued under 34 U.S.C. §12601, which authorizes federal action against a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of constitutional rights. Because SJPD administers and enforces the licensing system, DOJ argues that collecting the fee constitutes unlawful police misconduct.

This is not an isolated theory. AmmoLand has documented DOJ’s growing use of federal civil-rights authority against government gun-control schemes. The department challenged years-long carry-permit delays in Los Angeles, sued Montgomery County over its sprawling 100-yard carry ban, and targeted California’s Glock ban and handgun roster. DOJ has advanced the same civil-rights theory against Washington, D.C.’s bans on AR-15s and suppressors.

That is the correct principle: gun rights are civil rights. Officials enforcing unconstitutional gun laws are not merely making questionable policy choices; they are depriving Americans of a right secured by the Constitution.

DOJ seeks declaratory relief and a permanent injunction barring San Jose from charging abusive licensing fees and requiring corrective policies. The case is United States v. City of San Jose, California, et al., No. 5:26-cv-10508, in the Northern District of California.

For now, this remains a complaint, not a judgment or injunction. San Jose’s requirements remain in effect unless the city changes course or the court intervenes. But the message from DOJ is unmistakable: a government cannot claim to respect Bruen while pricing ordinary citizens out of the right it protects.

---

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/jTINsOK
via IFTTT