Democrats Push Ammo Sales Ban while Courts Question Similar State Restrictions

Democrats Push Ammunition Sales Ban While Federal Courts Question Similar State Restrictions. img Duncan Johnson

Congressional Democrats have revived legislation that would effectively eliminate online ammunition sales nationwide, introducing the measure just weeks before federal courts prepare to reconsider constitutional challenges to similar state restrictions already facing judicial scrutiny.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) unveiled the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act on January 20, 2026, alongside Rep. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD). Filed as H.R. 7166, the legislation would mandate that federally licensed ammunition dealers verify photo identification in person for every internet purchase. The proposal, which resurrects earlier Everytown-backed measures from Watson Coleman, includes an additional surveillance component requiring vendors to report any sales exceeding 1,000 rounds within five consecutive days directly to the U.S. Attorney General.

“Public safety must come before convenience for an unregulated market,” Watson Coleman declared in her statement.“Americans send us to Washington because it is our job to protect them, not mourn them.”

The legislation arrives as federal courts wrestle with precisely these questions in Rhode v. Bonta, a nearly decade-long constitutional challenge to California’s ammunition background check system. The case, supported by the National Rifle Association and California Rifle & Pistol Association, attacks the Golden State’s first in the nation point-of-sale background check regime that voters approved through Proposition 63 in 2016.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CCI Blazer Brass 9mm 115 Gr FMJ 1000 Rounds (Loose Packed in a Box)	Ammunition Depot	$ 307.49 $ 235.00
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - JHP - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 487.44
	CCI Blazer 9mm 115gr FMJ Aluminum Case Ammunition, 50 Round Box - 3509	Palmetto State Armory	$ 14.99 $ 12.99
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - FMJ - Bulk Pack - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 324.29

California’s framework, which took effect July 1, 2019, requires ammunition purchasers to complete background checks through one of four avenues, each involving fees ranging from $5 to $31 and unpredictable delays spanning minutes to days.

Constitutional challenges to this measure achieved significant success through two levels of federal courts. U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez permanently enjoined enforcement of California’s ammunition background check requirements on January 30, 2024, concluding they “have no historical pedigree” and “violate the Second Amendment right of citizens to keep and bear arms.” The decision found that tens of thousands of law-abiding gun owners faced annual rejections based on technical errors in California’s background check system.

A three judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed this ruling on July 24, 2025, in a 2 to 1 decision. Applying the framework established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the panel concluded that California’s ammunition background check regime “meaningfully constrains the right to keep operable arms” and therefore implicates the Second Amendment’s plain text. The panel determined that California failed to demonstrate the regulation’s consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

However, California successfully petitioned for en banc review, which the Ninth Circuit granted on December 1, 2025. This order vacated the three judge panel’s ruling and scheduled oral arguments for the week of March 23, 2026. The en banc review means the entire appeals court will reconsider the case, creating uncertainty about whether the constitutional protections recognized by the panel will survive.

In a striking development, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an amicus brief on January 5, 2026, supporting the plaintiffs’ challenge to California’s ammunition regime.

The brief’s language is remarkable in its directness, stating that California’s laws “do not pass even the ‘laugh test'” and the system “evoke[s] a convoluted board game, not a serious attempt to further a legitimate purpose.” The DOJ argues that the regulation is “designed to burden the exercise of the right to bear arms” and that “a firearms regulation that seeks to frustrate the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms is a per se violation of the Second Amendment.”

Additionally, a coalition of 26 states filed an amicus brief supporting the challenge, contending that both the background check and anti-importation requirements “burden the fundamental right to armed self defense by interfering with ammunition purchases” and are “unprecedented in our Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

This creates a remarkable situation where Democratic legislators propose federal adoption of a state system that the federal executive branch actively opposes in litigation. The Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act would nationalize precisely the type of regulatory scheme that federal courts have concluded violates the Second Amendment.

Currently, six states maintain ammunition background check or dealer transfer requirements for direct-to-consumer sales. California and New York operate point of sale systems, while Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, and New Jersey require background checks.

The constitutional vulnerability of ammunition background check requirements under the Bruen framework presents formidable obstacles to both California’s existing regime and proposed federal legislation. The Supreme Court’s emphasis on historical tradition and its rejection of interest balancing tests have fundamentally altered Second Amendment jurisprudence, making novel restrictions like point of sale ammunition checks difficult to defend.

Despite its sponsors’ stated concerns about public safety, H.R. 7166 faces insurmountable political obstacles in the current Congress. The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee, chaired by Representative Jim Jordan from Ohio, who has consistently prioritized Second Amendment protections. Republicans hold a narrow 218 to 213 majority in the House.

For gun rights advocates, the simultaneous introduction of H.R. 7166 and the pending Rhode v. Bonta decision represents a defining moment in Second Amendment jurisprudence. If federal courts continue recognizing that ammunition access is inseparable from the constitutional right to bear arms, legislative attempts to impose burdensome restrictions on lawful purchasers may finally face the constitutional scrutiny they have long evaded.

Alex Pretti Shooting Proved the Left Is Lawless — and the Right Is Getting Weak on the Second Amendment

Gun Grabber Propaganda Makes Americans Less Safe (Again)

---

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/Mh37wWx
via IFTTT

Recollections of Decades-Old Crime Omit Key Details about Assailant

Left unexplored is how the attacker and the victim both favor citizen disarmament.

Mary Jo Buttafuoco is in the news again. Almost 34 years after being shot in the face with an illegally possessed and carried .25 caliber handgun by “Long Island Lolita” Amy Fisher, a teenage mistress of her cheating husband, the story has been resurrected, and no doubt brought to the attention of a new audience, with the January release of a biopic on Lifetime.

The point here is not to repeat a story we can find elsewhere, nor to heap judgment on Fisher, who went on after her prison sentence to exploit her notoriety in the “adult” film industry. Still, her mindset is relevant to understanding the anti-gun political advocacy she went on to promote.

“What I’ve learned over the years is that Amy Fisher is a narcissist — and narcissists don’t change,” Buttafuoco told Fox News Digital. “It’s always been about her. She doesn’t care one iota about what she’s done. It’s also inexcusable for any adult man to take advantage of a teenager. In that sense, she was a victim, but it doesn’t excuse what she did afterward.”

“People are angry at me because I’m a millionaire,” Fisher, who had described Buttafuoco as “a nonentity” and claimed “no sympathy” for her victim, told Steppin’ Out magazine. “But guess what? So is Mary Jo! She made more millions off of what I did than what I made.”

With that as a backdrop, in between capitalizing on her notoriety through selling her story and her sex tapes, Fisher served a brief stint as an opinion columnist, where she advocated for the government disarming those of us who haven’t shot innocent people in the face.

From my Aug. 2005 GUNS Magazine column “Look Who’s Demanding Gun Control”, also featuring anti-gun statements by the suppliers of guns and ammunition to the Columbine killers, and profiles of a Million Morn March Washington DC rally sponsor who paralyzed an innocent man with an “illegal” handgun, and a Million Mom March chapter president found in possession of illegal drugs and a handgun with its serial number filed off by police investigating a series of drive-by shootings:

“Assault weapons were designed for military use,” [Fisher] declared in support of extending the federal ban, even though none of the weapons affected have select-fire capabilities. “If a law-abiding citizen has such a yearning to possess one of these weapons, then let that person join the Marines.”

That column in question has disappeared from the internet, so you’ll just have to take my word for it and the fact that my column claims have remained unchallenged for over 20 years. But here’s a corroborating report that substantiated her views on guns at the time:

“Amy Fisher to Begin Anti-Gun Campaign,” The Associated Press reported in 2003. “Amy Fisher, who set off a frenzy of tabloid headlines a decade ago when she shot her lover’s wife, celebrated the end of her parole by announcing her intention to work for causes aimed at keeping handguns away from minors.”

Making something that’s already illegal more illegal has been the siren call of “commonsense gun safety laws” that has thus far failed to provide a solution that actually works. All it ever does is create more infringements against peaceable citizens.

And proving that she’s not that deep a thinker herself, Fisher’s victim apparently shares her affinity for citizen disarmament.

“I think assault rifles should not exist,” Mary Jo Buttafuoco told Oxygen in 2018. “These are weapons of war. This is to inflict as much damage and pain and suffering in the shortest period of time. We don’t need them. At all.”

Whatever.

By all indications, Fisher tries to live a quiet life today under a different name. That’s fine, the purpose is not to pursue her or to make what has been a difficult life even more so, or to hold past actions and statements against her. Rather, with her story recalled by recent related publicity, the purpose here is to remind readers that, then and now, aberrant people aren’t constrained by the laws most of us strive to observe.

More laws against us have no effect on choices made by them.

The timeless truism is that the people most insistent on controlling us continually prove to be incapable or unwilling to control themselves.

Gun Grabber Propaganda Makes Americans Less Safe (Again)

The Federalist Raises the Supreme Court Conundrum

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

from https://ift.tt/zqQKi6d
via IFTTT

New Mexico Legislature Debates Ban on Semi-Automatics and Magazines Over 10 Rounds

New Mexico Legislature Debates Ban on Semi-Automatics and Magazines Over 10 Rounds. img Jim Grant

The New Mexico legislature is considering what appears to be an unconstitutional bill, SB17. The bill creates considerable red tape and record-keeping requirements for gun dealers. It also bans the sale of numerous common firearms by simply requiring that dealers be forbidden to process background checks for those firearms. New Mexico requires dealers to run background checks for nearly all firearm sales.

Excerpts of the bill from nmlegis.gov:

A. Beginning on July 1, 2026, a dealer shall not sell or transfer any of the following firearms, ammunition or devices to a person who is not licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 923, nor shall a dealer process a background check pursuant to Section 30-7-7.1 NMSA 1978 for the transfer of any of the following firearms, ammunition and devices between parties that are not licensed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 923;

(1) a detachable magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition;… 

(4) a gas-operated semiautomatic firearm that can accept a detachable magazine;

(5) a gas-operated semiautomatic firearm with a fixed magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition;

SB17 has seven sponsors as of this writing. There are six women and one man. Senators Micaelita Debbie O’Malley, Andrea Romero, Heather Berghmans, Charlotte Little, Patricia Roybal Caballero, and Peter Wirth. They are all members of the Democratic Party. Senator Peter Wirth is the Majority Floor Leader. Republicans in the New Mexico House are asking the federal Department of Justice for help.

From Sourcenm.com:

New Mexico House Republicans on Wednesday in a letter to the U.S. Department of Justice asked Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon to carefully review SB17 and offer guidance on its constitutionality. 

“Among other provisions, SB17 would prohibit the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms in common use, ban magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, and outlaw entire classes of firearms based on operating mechanisms rather than criminal misuse,” the letter, signed by 26 New Mexico House Republicans, says. “At a time when New Mexico faces one of the highest crime rates in the nation, SB17 does nothing to target violent offenders. Instead, it imposes sweeping bans on law-abiding citizens, firearm dealers and sportsmen.”

Both the Attorney General of New Mexico and the Administrative Office of the District Attorneys of New Mexico recognize that there will be legal challenges to the portions of the bill that ban the sale of firearms and magazines with more than 10 rounds.

The Department of Public Safety (DPS) claims the odds are that the bans would be upheld in the courts. DPS estimates a one-time cost of about $874,000 to build systems and recurring costs of about $1.6 million annually to enforce the provisions of the SB17. This correspondent did not find an estimate of the costs of defending the constitutionality of the bill in the courts.

The bill may face challenges based on the New Mexico state constitution.  From NM Const art II § 6:

No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. (As amended November 2, 1971 and November 2, 1986.) 

SB17 has not been voted on at present. The New Mexico Senate has 26 Democratic members and 16 Republican members. The House of Representatives has 44 Democratic members and 26 Republican members.

Gun control has not been a highly popular issue in the state. SB17 may be amended in committee.

---

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/Lcebf7k
via IFTTT

NW Anti-Gun Lawmakers Target Gun Owners’ Wallets

Democrats in Oregon and Washington want to dig deeper into the wallets of gun owners.

Anti-gun-rights Democrats in Oregon and Washington have a new strategy to strangle the right to bear arms on both sides of the Columbia River, and it is squarely aimed at their wallets.

In Washington, Democrats in Olympia are looking at adding $100 to the nonrefundable fee for a concealed pistol license, jacking the cost up from $36 to $136, with the money ostensibly earmarked to fund a “juvenile firearm early intervention alternative account.” The measure, House Bill 2456, was already heard by the House Committee on Early Learning & Human Services, while alarmed critics say the legislation should be before the House Civil Rights & Judiciary Committee.

Under the bill’s language, “The nonrefundable fee, paid upon application, for the original five-year license shall be one hundred thirty-six dollars plus additional charges imposed by the federal bureau of 4 investigation that are passed on to the applicant. No other state or local branch or unit of government may impose any additional charges on the applicant for the issuance of the license.”

In neighboring Oregon, there’s a move on via House Bill 4145 which would raise the cost of a permit-to-purchase from the $65 maximum to $150. In an alert to its members, the Oregon Firearms Federation warned, “This bill doubles the time you must wait to receive a “permit” to attempt to purchase a firearm and jacks up all fees. This dramatic increase in fees is no doubt another example of Oregon’s Democrats’ compassion for low‑income Oregonians—people most likely to live in high‑crime areas.”

OFF is also unhappy by what it calls a “carve-out” for law enforcement and retired law enforcement.

Oregon’s legislation is an effort to get around problems with controversial Measure 114, which is now before the state Supreme Court, which may issue a decision at any moment whether the citizen initiative—passed narrowly by voters in 2022—is constitutional. Democrats do not care to wait. They want to pass restrictive gun control laws now.

Democrats have a virtual stranglehold on the respective capitols in Olympia and Salem, and they are also considering other measures, but hitting gun owners in their pocketbooks is definitely high on their list of “To Dos.”

In the Evergreen State, the number of active concealed pistol licenses is continuing its four-month decline. The state Department of Licensing advised Ammoland News this week that the number of CPLs has dropped to 701,456, which is down more than 11,500 from the count at the end of September 2025. There are likely many reasons for the decline—this seems to happen regularly, only to rebound later in the year—but there is also a lot of movement by gun owners out of the state. High taxes, and the related high cost of living, along with a slew of increasingly restrictive gun laws, has had an effect. Gun owners who have left the state for friendlier environs (Texas, Idaho, Montana, Florida, for example) frequently post messages on social media declaring, “I’m sure glad I left.”

Both Oregon and Washington have anti-gun governors and attorneys general, and the state supreme courts on both sides of the Columbia are very liberal, although three justices on Washington’s high court are calling it quits this year, opening the way for moderate or conservative candidates to run.

Meanwhile, Washington lawmakers are also looking at a so-called “safe storage” law. House Bill 1152 mandates “secure storage” in vehicles and residences. Republican State Rep. John Ley (18^th District) posted this message on the Washington Legislative Action Group’s Facebook Page:

“I am writing to provide an update on House Bill 1152, regarding secure storage requirements for firearms, which is rumored to be scheduled for a floor vote in the House next week.

“I know many of you have expressed strong opposition to this bill, arguing that it places excessive, unconstitutional burdens on law-abiding gun owners rather than focusing on criminals. I hear your concerns regarding the implications of mandatory, in-home, and vehicle storage requirements, particularly how they may impact personal self-defense capabilities.

“While proponents argue this bill will reduce gun thefts and increase public safety, I understand the viewpoint that it criminalizes victims of theft and infringes upon Second Amendment rights.

“As this bill moves to the House floor for a vote, I want to ensure your voices are heard.

“How You Can Take Action:

“Submit a Comment: Please go to the Washington State Legislature website today and select “Oppose” for HB 1152. This is the most effective way to ensure all legislators see your stance…Call or email representatives immediately to voice your opposition before the floor vote.

“I am monitoring this legislation closely and will continue to advocate for the rights of responsible firearm owners.”

In the Pacific Northwest, embattled gun owners on both sides of the Columbia River could use a bunch of people like Rep. Ley.

Anti-gun Group 97Percent is Back, Now Led by Anti-gun Ex-cop

Trump DOJ Submits Brief in Massachusetts Handgun Roster Case

---

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/eE41ulX
via IFTTT

Anti-gun Group 97Percent is Back, Now Led by Anti-gun Ex-cop

Anti-gun Group 97Percent is Back, Now Led by Anti-gun Ex-cop, iStock-945999932

It appears the anti-gun nonprofit 97Percent has returned, although there have been massive internal changes and it is much less now than it used to be.

We haven’t heard much from them since they plagiarized photos of top female shooters to gaslight the public into believing they were not an anti-gun group.

97Percent’s one-time executive director, Elizabeth Troye—once a senior advisor to Vice President Mike Pence—has been scrubbed from the group’s website.

In her place is Christopher Carita, an ex-cop who just last year was denied a disability pension by Fort Lauderdale’s Police and Firefighter Pension Board by a 4-3 vote. Apparently, a majority of the board members didn’t believe Carita was suffering from PTSD, because his application did not meet the criteria for being “service connected, permanent and total.”

Carita’s takeover appears to be solely to increase support for his current work, which is holding classes on “red flag” laws, which he calls Extreme Risk Protection Orders, or ERPOs.

Carita, it should be pointed out, is a huge ERPO proponent, even though they are only law in 21 states.

Other than advocating for Carita’s classes and workshops, 97Percent’s website has, for now, remained mostly the same.

97Percent took its name from a long-debunked Quinnipiac poll that falsely claimed 97% of Americans supported mandatory background checks. The group calls the remaining 3-percent “loud voices who have crowded out conversation and prevented collaboration between gun owners and non-gun owners.”

97Percent has never addressed the problems associated with polling gun owners, including our unwillingness to tell strangers there are firearms in our homes—especially over the phone. Instead, the group claimed it focuses on policies that both gun owners and non-gun owners support. Both sides, the group says, share the common goal of keeping our communities safe.

But even despite its new executive director, research has shown that 97Percent is nothing more than a run-of-the-mill anti-gun organization, overseen by a board of hardcore anti-gun zealots.

Here are some of 97Percent’s activities:

1. 97Percent has supported an “assault weapon” ban.
2. 97Percent has supported a standard-capacity magazine ban.
3. 97Percent has supported a bump-stock ban.
4. 97Percent has supported expanded red-flag laws.
5. 97Percent has supported permits to carry firearms.
6. 97Percent has supported permits to purchase firearms.
7. 97Percent has supported permits to possess firearms.
8. 97Percent has supported the loss of Second Amendment rights upon conviction of a “violent misdemeanor.”
9. 97Percent has supported mandatory storage laws, which would lead to mandatory home inspections by police.
10. 97Percent has supported mandatory background checks, without acknowledging they would lead to mandatory firearm registration and the creation of a national gun registry.
11. 97Percent claims the Second Amendment is “overprotected.”
12. 97Percent claims “rapid fire guns” are not used for hunting or home defense but doesn’t define the term.
13. 97Percent claims popular semi-automatic firearms are “weapons of war.”
14. 97Percent claims constitutional carry results in increased homicide rates.
15. 97Percent’s advisory board is stocked with radical anti-gun extremists, including a former president of the Brady campaign.

Carita in charge

According to his group’s website, Carita claims he has “six years of experience in Threat Response and Extreme Risk Protection Order Implementation, and 10 years in Criminal Investigations in his 20-year law enforcement career.”

“Christopher earned his Master of Public Health with a focus on violence prevention as a BAHI Fellow at Johns Hopkins University and currently advises at the National ERPO Center on implementation. He is also a DHS Master Trainer for Behavioral Threat Assessment and Management,” the website states.

During one of his training videos, Carita claimed his group has a “strong focus on bringing gun owners into policy discussions.”

However, Carita did not respond to phone calls, texts or emails sent via his website, so there’s at least one gun owner he doesn’t want to bring into any policy discussion. Also, his website’s “contact us” and “media inquiries” buttons have both been disconnected.

“Most gun owners agree ERPOs are good,” he said in the video. “An ERPO is a valuable tool—a court order that prevents someone from possessing or purchasing firearms.”

Most gun owners view them as just another way for the government to unconstitutionally seize their firearms. I don’t know one gun owner who actually believes “ERPOs are good.”

Carita addressed how ERPOs can change law enforcement’s longstanding traditional role.

“An ERPO is a shift for law enforcement, from pure enforcement to prevention,” he said in the video.

One Florida lawmaker recently proposed a bill that would repeal the Parkland-era red-flag laws throughout the state.

Carita has already written several anti-gun stories, which the traditional media has picked up. Just last year, he wrote how Florida’s open-carry ruling “put Florida law enforcement in a tough spot.”

He created a Florida Risk Protection Order working group on LinkedIn. Currently, it has nine members, including Carita.

Anti-gun board of directors  

Anyone who believes 97Percent is not an anti-gun group need only look at their board of directors, which has not changed much.

Board member Richard Aborn served as president of the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence and as president of Handgun Control Inc., which became the Brady Campaign. According to Aborn’s bio, “He was a principal strategist behind the passing of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act as well as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban.”

Board members John Goodwin and Abra Belke were both federal lobbyists for the National Rifle Association, until they broke with the NRA. Goodwin has since become an anti-gun resource for the legacy media.

An official with the National Shooting Sports Foundation said board members Congressmen Steve Israel and Seth Moulton, “never stood to protect the Second Amendment rights. Just the opposite.”

Board member Ketch Secor, founder of the Old Crow Medicine Show band, published a guest essay in The New York Times titled: “Country Music Can Lead America Out of its Obsession with Guns.”

“It’s time for country music makers to use their platforms to speak candidly to their conservative audiences,” Secor wrote. “Our outrage needs to move from the green room to center stage.”

Board member Michael Wear served in the White House during President Barack Obama’s first term and was in charge of religious outreach for Obama’s re-election campaign. He is extremely anti-gun.

In 2021, after the Texas House passed a constitutional carry bill, board member Mark McKinnon took to Twitter.

“It’s not The Onion. The Texas House of Representatives just passed a legislation that allows people to carry guns WITHOUT a permit/license. So, they think it should be easier to carry a gun and harder to vote,” McKinnon posted.

In 2022, McKinnon coauthored a guest column that was published by The Hill, which actually claimed gun owners want more gun control.

Takeaways

As we said in a previous story, 97Percent leadership will never have a conversation with gun owners they claim they want as long as the group advocates for “assault weapon” bans, magazine bans, bump-stock bans, expanded red-flag laws, mandatory permits to purchase, carry and possess firearms, mandatory storage laws or expanded background checks.

As a result, 97Percent remains nothing but a second-rate anti-gun group, regardless of who’s in charge.

Larry Keane is the senior vice president and general counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the firearm industry’s trade association.

He and the NSSF are well aware of the group.

Said Keane: “This 97Percent group is nothing but a Trojan Horse pretending to be something other than what it is. It is a gun control group backed by gun control money, pretending to be something neutral, such as a gun owner group. But as we have pointed out in the past, they haven’t ever identified a single piece of gun-control legislation they feel should be appealed. They only want more gun control. This person is an ERPO champion, none of which have any due process. They are fooling nobody. It’s just an attempt to drive a wedge between gun owners and the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation, who truly represent the interests of gun owners.”

This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.

Despite Slick Marketing, LA-based Nonprofit 97Percent is 100-percent Anti-Gun

Trump’s Second Amendment support questioned after Minneapolis shooting

---

About Lee Williams

Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.

---

from https://ift.tt/6hTGB9M
via IFTTT

Trump DOJ Submits Brief in Massachusetts Handgun Roster Case

Despite promises to the contrary, extra gun control legislation in Massachusetts didn’t lower crime at all. iStock-Denise Hasse1136158583

On January 28, 2025, Harmeet K. Dhillon filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of the Trump administration, detailing why the Massachusetts handgun roster is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.  Harmeet K. Dhillon is Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. The lawsuit timeline began almost 5 years ago.

In 2021, a number of Massachusetts residents and the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed suit against then AG Maura Healey in Massachusetts, contending the Massachusetts handgun roster violated the rights protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

On May 19, 2022, the District Court granted a motion to dismiss the case, claiming the handgun roster regulations were allowed as “safety requirements”.  Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.  On April 7, 2023, the appeals court remanded the case back to the District Court, to be reconsidered under the Supreme Court Bruen Decision. On August 29, 2025, the District Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants (State of Massachusetts) for a second time. Plaintiffs appealed the ruling to the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for a second time on September 9, 2025.  The lawsuit is now Granata v Campbell, as Andrea Joy Campbell is the current AG of Massachusetts.

The amicus brief filed by the Trump administration’s Civil Rights Division makes several important arguments in the case. In particular, the brief shows the following:

• Supreme Court precedent: Arms that are in common use may not be banned.
• Regulations on the sale of arms may not be used to effect a ban
• Bans do not have to be complete to be unconstitutional
• The American people decide what arms are in common use, not judges.
• Some arms are clearly not in common use, such as ICBMs or nuclear weapons.
• Some arms may be at the margins of common use, but handguns are not at the margins.
• The right to keep and bear arms includes the ancillary right to acquire arms.

The United States has filed an amicus brief in Granata v. Campbell, a case challenging the Massachusetts handgun roster.

That roster is slightly less onerous than California’s version, which is being challenged in Renna v. Bonta and Boland v. Bonta (which are consolidated on… pic.twitter.com/9z53tQ20F3

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) January 29, 2026

The brief by the Civil Rights Division makes clear how courts are to determine whether a law infringes on the rights protected by the Second Amendment. The procedure is spelled out in the Bruen decision.  From the brief:

Bruen makes clear that whether a law “infringes” the right to bear arms is a legal conclusion, based on text and history. See Bruen, 597 U.S. at 79 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring) (“The Court employs and elaborates on the text, history, and tradition test that Heller and McDonald require for evaluating whether a government regulation infringes on the Second Amendment.”).

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated, all rights have limitations. The limitations of the rights protected by the Second Amendment are dependent on what the right to keep and bear arms meant at the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. As examples, the right to keep and bear arms did not mean a person had the right steal a weapon because they did not possess one. It did not mean a person with a weapon had the right to use the weapon to murder another person without consequence.

The Civil Rights Division brief shows there were no bans on the purchase of weapons that were in common use at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment. The Massachusetts handgun roster bans guns in common use from commercial sale in Massachusetts.  From the brief:

It is thus undeniable that the weapons banned by the Massachusetts scheme are “widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers” across the Nation. See Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 297 (2025). For this reason alone, the decision should be overturned.

The arguments put forward by the Civil Rights Division do not show if a weapon is not in common use, it may be banned. They show that weapons in common use cannot be banned, even if a state government uses circuitous or indirect means to effectuate a partial and incomplete ban.

The submission of an amicus brief by the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice shows the Trump administration is committed to aggressively preventing state governments from infringing on rights protected by the Second Amendment. No other federal administration has been willing to do so.

The earliest federal infringement on rights protected by the Second Amendment appears to be the ban on the mailing of handguns put into place in 1927.  The Office of Legal Counsel in the Trump Department of Justice has issued an opinion that the ban on the mailing of handguns violates rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Restoring rights protected by the Second Amendment is a process that must be built in the law and the courts, bit by bit, because the infringements were put in place little by little, over time.  Mark Smith, Constitutional Attorney, winner of two Gundie Awards for the Top Voices of the 2A, and AmmoLand contributor, explains the process in a video about the Civil Rights Division brief at his YouTube channel.

For the last hundred years, the federal government has been unwilling to enforce rights protected by the Second Amendment. The reasons are complicated and numerous. The people of the United States have been demanding the restoration of those rights, with momentum building since about 1968. The administration of President Trump is, in part, a political force put into place to effect the restoration of Second Amendment rights. The process is ongoing.

---

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/64dZvEf
via IFTTT

The Filibuster, Senate Power, and the Second Amendment

The Filibuster, Senate Power, and the Second Amendment, iStock-2246891240

The United States Constitution did not create the filibuster. The practice exists entirely because of Senate rules and precedents developed over time.

From early in the Senate’s history, the ability of Senators to speak for unlimited amounts of time was used as a tool to slow down legislation, as a bargaining chip to gain concessions on bills, or to block bills altogether. This extended use of “debate” became known as a filibuster.

For decades, there was talk about changing the Senate rules to limit debate, but nothing was done until 1917. During the administration of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted Rule XXII, creating a process known as “cloture.” Under the original rule, debate could be cut off by a two-thirds supermajority of senators present and voting. The cloture vote was used only 5 times over the next 40 years.

In 1975, the Senate changed the rule from requiring a 2/3 supermajority of senators voting to end debate to a 3/5 supermajority of all senators correctly chosen and sworn in. A cloture vote to limit debate has come to require 60 votes.

The use of the filibuster, limited by a cloture vote, has become increasingly common over time. It has become the primary legislative tool for the party in the Senate minority to stop controversial bills.

The Senate rules can be changed with a simple majority vote. When the Democratic Party controlled the Senate in 2013, Majority Leader Harry Reid orchestrated a rule change to exempt votes of all nominees except for the Supreme Court from the 60-vote requirement for cloture. When the Republicans took control of the Senate, they expanded the exemption to include all nominees.

Currently, a vote to stop debate in the Senate requires 60 votes for legislation. An exemption exists for budget reconciliation, as required in the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1974. Limits on the time for debate are included in the act, which prevents a filibuster.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	CCI Blazer Brass 9mm 115 Gr FMJ 1000 Rounds (Loose Packed in a Box)	Ammunition Depot	$ 307.49 $ 235.00
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - JHP - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 487.44
	CCI Blazer 9mm 115gr FMJ Aluminum Case Ammunition, 50 Round Box - 3509	Palmetto State Armory	$ 14.99 $ 12.99
	CCI - Blazer - 9mm - 115 Grain - FMJ - Bulk Pack - 1000	True Shot Ammo	$ 324.29

The Filibuster and Gun Legislation

The filibuster has been used to stop and slow down gun control legislation and to stop and slow down legislation to restore Second Amendment rights. Notably, the filibuster does not appear to have been used in attempts to block the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

However, the Brady Act of 1993 was slowed by the use of the filibuster, but was not stopped. The Universal Background Check gun control bill promoted by President Barack Obama in 2013 failed to overcome a filibuster by Republicans. The vote was 54-46.

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 had to overcome a filibuster. Cloture passed with 65 votes. It was a relatively weak bill.

More recently, in 2025, the removal of short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and Any Other Weapons (AOW) was stymied because of the inability of Second Amendment supporters to overcome a Democratic Party filibuster.

Internal Senate Debate Over the Filibuster

The filibuster is a powerful tool to slow legislation, facilitate compromise, and limit governmental action.  Support for the filibuster by Senators Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona and Joe Manchin of West Virginia has been credited with preventing draconian measures proposed by far-left Democratic politicians in 2021. Both Sinema and Manchin were ousted from the Democratic Party, in part for their support of the filibuster.

President Trump has previously called for Republican Senators to eliminate the filibuster. His logic is clear: the next time Democratic politicians control the Senate, they will eliminate the filibuster. Republicans should pre-emptively do so in order to pass legislation to cement the Trumpian counter-revolution against radical leftism.

Last year, President Trump wanted to eliminate the filibuster to end the government shutdown. Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin explains this.  From newsmax.com:

“The Democrats purged the last two senators who held out and supported the filibuster,” he said. “We know they have no respect for it. So we need to strike first.”

Johnson said if Republicans move first, it should be “for the benefit of the American people.”

“When the Democrats eliminate the filibuster, it’ll all be about their maintenance of power,” he said.

“If we’re to do it, it will be to further secure our border, to secure our elections, and to pass good pieces of legislation,” Johnson added. 

He also warned Democrats would “pack the Supreme Court” and push for statehood for Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico if they regain control of the Senate.

Senate Structure and Long-Term Considerations

The Senate has two senators for each state. For decades, far more Democratic Senators than seemed warranted came from what were expected to be “conservative” states such as Montana and North Dakota. In the last 20 years, states have tended to sort themselves out more consistently. This is likely because the left no longer has unquestioned dominance in the media. Conservative dominance in the Senate seems probable in the future.

The Republicans have both senators in the 25 states that voted for Donald Trump in all three of his presidential elections.  This makes it very difficult for the Democratic Party to control Congress. The Senate was designed to protect small states from being made politically irrelevant by large-population states. Control of the Senate by the Democratic Party could potentially be diminished for at least a few years.

Legislation is important, but court decisions tend to be more durable. It is harder to overcome Supreme Court decisions than to pass legislation. The protection of the filibuster is less important if the Supreme Court has an originalist majority, such as currently exists.

Packing of the Supreme Court has been supported by the Democratic Party to overcome the originalist majority.  To do this, they need control of Congress. They need to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. They can eliminate the filibuster anytime they have a majority in the Senate, so continuing the filibuster is not much of a protection against radical leftists.  As Sinema and Manchin demonstrated, it has some value.

A Difficult Tradeoff 

If the Senate Republicans eliminate the filibuster, they open the door to passing more of President Trump’s agenda. The potential for pro-Second Amendment legislation to pass increases somewhat.

Is that potential worth the loss of the protections of a filibuster?

This correspondent tends to approve of limitations on government power. Limitations that are only applied to Republicans are worse than no limitations.  It is a close call. This correspondent would keep the filibuster in hopes the radical left Democratic party is rejected by voters, at least in the Senate.

---

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/SdaQfG7
via IFTTT