On Thursday, December 19th, the North Dakota Supreme Court upheld a lower court decision to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the city of Fargo against the state legislature to block House Bill 1340, a bill passed in 2023 that strengthens statewide preemption.
This is a critical victory for residents of North Dakota, and you can read the court’s full opinion here.
The city of Fargo has had a ban on firearms sales in residential-zoned areas, even by licensed FFLs, for several years.
The city filed suit against HB 1340 shortly after the bill passed in 2023, arguing that the law violated their ability for local control. Fortunately, the Supreme Court ruled that infringing upon the Second Amendment does not fall under the purview of local control.
HB 1340 enhances North Dakota’s firearm preemption law, stating that the Legislature is the sole authority in the state allowed to regulate firearms. This prevents localities, like Fargo, from creating a confusing patchwork of gun laws in the state and ensures that citizens enjoy the same abilities to exercise their Second Amendment rights across the whole state.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Don’t wish, resolve. (Times Square, New York City/Facebook)
“It’s the time of year when Americans are inclined to make resolutions. Some will opt to try and lose weight. Others may want to quit smoking, cut back on drinking, start an exercise program, go back to school, or find more rewarding employment,” I posted back in 2016. “Those can all be worthy goals for gun owners to aspire to, but they neglect the preservation and restoration of the right to keep and bear arms, surely a concern of all who are not oblivious to the efforts of those working to undermine and eviscerate it.”
That was actually a follow-up to a series of articles I’d written years earlier for Examiner.com, and ended up profiling 20 different achievable goals for gun owners that would not only enhance their personal skill sets and development, but also help to advance Second Amendment interests. By presenting a variety of options, gun owners could pick one or more to fit in with their specific talents, capabilities, and interests.
Because that site is no longer active, rather than redirect individual links to slow-loading Internet Archive web crawl results (which you can still do if you want to), summarizing below what each article said will provide the gist of things.
I will attend an Appleseed: Drawing from “To Plant a Seed,” my August 2008 Guns Magazine “Rights Watch” column about the Appleseed Project, the article included a link to the website so readers could learn more and find out how to enroll.
I will know my representatives: Who are your state representatives? Who is your congressman and your senator? Do you know how to contact them on gun bills and more? If not, why not learn? And if you do, are they approachable or would your time be better spent trying to protect your rights another way? (As an update, do you know how to express your views to them via “social media”?)
I will write letters to the editor: Do you see something gun-related in the newspaper spreading misinformation? A well-crafted letter can help correct that. Find out who to address it to, keep things on topic, resist the urge to morph from wit into insults, and make sure to adhere to posted word limits to increase the chance yours will be published.
I will join a gun rights group: National, state or local, or national, state AND local, and if you don’t like one, find another… If there’s one thing Democrats know how to do it’s to organize. Gun owners can benefit from keeping apprised of bills, lawsuits, and politicians to oppose and support, and network/attend events with like-minded shooters and activists.
I will send a politician the gun rights questionnaire: I developed a questionnaire (that I update from time to time) designed to elicit unequivocal answers about specifics, so if a politician says, “I believe in the Second Amendment you can better nail him down to “How?” and then compare words to performance. Feel free to develop your own.
I will build a guns and liberty video collection: Educating yourself is necessary and fine, but why not become a force multiplier and share them with others? You could show them to friends who come over, or set aside time at gun club meetings, or even get a room at the library and do a special showing for the public.
I will take a new person shooting: With an emphasis on safety, it’s not only fun, but afterward, you should have a person who is receptive to learning more, including why guns are important for more than just sport.
I will read Second Amendment books: Don’t just read them, purchase some: The people who do the work to bring them to us deserve to eat, too. And see if your library carries them and inquire if they don’t.
I will shoot a machine gun: Why the hell not? Besides, knowing how to control one is not just fun, I’d argue it’s a duty.
I will support legal actions/court cases protecting the right to keep and bear arms: If you have email and/or belong to a gun group, you get the solicitations. Figure out which efforts are important to you and which group(s) you support and then help. They need all they can get.
I will spread the word: If you get value from an author or website talking about things the mainstream media will not, and think others may as well, share their links. If you’re on social media, “like” and especially “share” the link on Facebook or tweet/retweet it on Twitter/X. If you come across something you think helps advance your interests, spend one minute letting others know about it — because that’s the only way to escape the echo chamber. And if you want to go the extra minute, send column links to larger media outlets and urge them to check out the work.
I will attend a gun show: Here’s another fun one that shouldn’t be too difficult to make or to keep, and this one is important because it can help reinforce that we’re hardly alone, and the good fellowship is restorative. It’s always interesting to me to see Everyday Americans surrounded by awesome hardware, and then note how peaceably everyone is behaving. So much for Everytown Unamericans saying guns cause violence.
I will boycott an anti-gun company: The only effort required here is to find an alternative, and while it’s not practical for all products and services, the ones it is feasible to avoid are the ones that can feel it the most. Just supplement it with one thing: Let them know.
I will buy a gun: What kind? What would you like? What do you intend to use it for? Are you new to shooting? Ask your friends. Go to the range and rent a gun and see if you like it. Are you an experienced shooter? Then you’re probably thinking this to yourself: Only one?
I will spend time with and give attention to those I love: Don’t let all this prevent that. Don’t forget the reason we put forth all the effort: to secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
I will give my children a development-appropriate education about guns: It’s self-evident that perpetuating ignorance and avoidance throughout the formative years is no way to teach competence and safety. And teaching that is a fundamental parental responsibility.
I will verify emails about gun-related bills with a credible source: It’s tough enough getting gun owners to respond to real threats or opportunities without frivolously mobilizing and alarming them, wasting everybody’s time and energy on distortions and non-issues. Here’s a good rule of thumb if you get an email urging action, including that you SEND IT TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW!!! Does it have a link to a credible source? If not, you owe it to yourself–and to the people you would forward it to, to do a bit of research to determine its validity instead of just blindly passing it along.
I will get formal training: Whether it’s something new or an enhancement to something you’re schooled in, none of us “has arrived,” we are in a constant state of learning and should consider ourselves perpetual students. That, and nobody likes a know-it-all.
I will attend a public demonstration in support of the Second Amendment: Bearing in mind caveats about avoiding trouble and crowds, and J6-style set-ups, showing judicious public solidarity with freedom advocates at rallies and the like is essential.
I will do them all: They are all doable, and none of them will be all-consuming. In any case, there’s no reason why we can’t do more than one, and no real excuse for doing none.
That’s the list I’ve put forth in the past, and I can think of a few additions. “I will vote” is something I should have had from the start. Sometimes the obvious is the easiest to miss. And “I will make a gun with a 3D printer” also comes immediately to mind.
So does a resolution I’ve kept many times in the past, with the caution that I’m speaking only for myself, that I’m not qualified to give legal advice, and it you do this and get caught, psychopaths with political power and armed enforcers will use up to lethal force to bend you to their will and try to destroy you:
“I will defy an infringement.”
Just make sure you get away with it.
Feel free to suggest your own resolutions below.
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.
Effective on January 18, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Director Steve Dettelbach will resign his position just days ahead of the Trump Presidential Inauguration.
Mr. Dettelbach’s days were numbered as the head of the embattled agency. No one expected President Trump to keep him as the head of the organization regulating firearms in the United States. President Trump has already started a search for a new ATF Director. To avoid being fired, Dettelbach resigned.
Mr. Dettelbach was President Biden’s second choice after anti-gun zealot David Chipman failed to be confirmed. Many believe that the Chipman nomination was made to lay the groundwork for President Biden to nominate his real choice to head the ATF. The nomination of Chipman was almost guaranteed to fail due to Chipman’s extreme stance on guns and his work with multiple anti-gun organizations.
Mr. Dettelbach’s confirmation hearing was not smooth sailing. Multiple members of Congress challenged him on his stance on gun control. Although he was not as extreme as Chipman, he still was anti-gun. One thing that caught everyone by surprise during his hearing was his inability to define an “assault weapon” while advocating for their ban.
The ATF director has retired rather than the alternative of being fired when President Trump takes office.
During Dettelbach’s reign, the ATF went to war against Federal Firearms Licensees (FFL). The ATF instituted a “zero tolerance” policy against “rogue” gun dealers. FFL revocations skyrocketed by 500%. Things like clerical errors caused gun stores to be shut down. Many Americans lost their livelihood to an overbearing government agency. Almost every time one of these gun stores sued the ATF, the agency reversed its decision to revoke the FFL, thus mooting the case.
The ATF also tried to reclassify millions of pistols equipped with pistol stabilizing devices as short barreled rifles (SBR). This new rule also ended up in court, where it was knocked down on multiple occasions. The courts believed that the ATF tried to do a “bait and switch.” Enacting a rule that looked nothing like the proposed rule. This move violated the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) because the enacted rule was not a logical outgrowth of the proposed rule.
Under Dettelbach’s leadership, the ATF would also lose multiple times on frames and receivers in court. The ATF tried to reclassify pre-cursor gun parts as firearms. A Federal District Court judge would knock down the rule and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals would also agree with the District Court’s decision. The case is currently at SCOTUS.
Dettelbach also tried to change what it meant to be engaged in the business of dealing firearms. The new definition of a gun dealer was so broad that almost everyone could be considered a dealer. The goal was to get backdoor universal background checks. A Federal District Court has also blocked that rule.
Under Dettlebach, the ATF’s attempt to classify forced reset triggers (FRT) as machine guns has so far failed. The ATF tried to argue that these devices are nothing more than drop-in auto sears (DIAS). The courts have rejected the argument by ruling that these devices do not fit the statute definition of a machine gun. This case is also still being litigated.
Three Supreme Court cases were decided on Dettelbach’s watch. Two of these were outright defeats for the ATF. The most groundbreaking was Bruen. This case confirmed that Americans have the right to bear arms outside the home, thus making every state “shall issue.” More importantly, it killed interest balancing, meaning that only the text, tradition, and history of the Second Amendment could be used to determine if a gun law was constitutional.
The second defeat the ATF experienced at SCOTUS was Cargill. The ATF rule that redefined bump stocks to be machine guns was knocked down. The ATF tried to change the language of the law to shoehorn bump stocks into the definition of a machine gun. SCOTUS rejected the ATF’s attempt.
Rahimi was the final Supreme Court decision that negatively affected Dettelbach’s gun control scheme. Although SCOTUS did rule that “dangerous” people could be disarmed, it did rule that the disarming could only be temporary, meaning that millions of non-violent felons have a path back to gun ownership by challenging the ATF in court using the legal precedence set in the Rahimi case.
After reviewing years of ATF cases, we have concluded that Dettelbach will go down in history as the ATF Director with the most legal defeats.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
In an expansive legislative maneuver, Minnesota has passed a law that will outlaw binary triggers starting January 1, 2025.
This measure was included in a sweeping 1400+ page omnibus bill, House File 5247. Originally aimed at addressing tax issues, it expanded to incorporate a variety of regulations, including this controversial gun control provision.
What’s Changing?
The newly passed law redefines “Trigger Activator” under Minnesota Statutes to BAn Binary Triggers
The newly passed law redefines “Trigger Activator” under Minnesota Statutes to encompass binary triggers, effectively banning their possession statewide. A binary trigger enables a firearm to discharge one shot on the pull and another on the release of the trigger, without the need for a subsequent pull. From 2025, possessing such devices will be a criminal offense, attracting penalties as severe as 20 years in prison and fines up to $35,000. Notably, the law does not allow grandfathering for existing owners, nor does it offer any compensation for these now-illegally owned triggers.
Impact on Gun Owners
This regulation affects anyone who owns a binary trigger, installed or not. With no provision for those who currently possess these triggers legally, owners are left with few options: sell, relocate out of state, destroy, or turn them into law enforcement by the deadline to avoid hefty penalties.
Controversial Passage and Legal Challenges
Critics have raised concerns about the bill’s passage, pointing out potential violations of Minnesota’s single-subject clause, given the omnibus bill’s broad scope. Moreover, there are significant apprehensions regarding Second Amendment infringements and violations of the takings clause of the Constitution. Legal challenges are being considered, with advocacy groups actively seeking plaintiffs to contest the law’s constitutionality.
Republican Response and Community Reactions
Republican lawmakers have expressed strong opposition, denouncing the measure as “bad policy” and criticizing the lack of a buyback or compensation program for affected gun owners as the government steals their once legal private property. This stance highlights a deep divide in the state over gun control measures, with many seeing this as an ineffective approach to enhancing public safety.
Advice for Current Owners
With the law’s implementation on the horizon and potential legal battles pending, the advised course of action for binary trigger owners remains cautious. Selling or safely disposing of these triggers before the law takes effect could mitigate risks of severe legal repercussions. Join and support the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus for the latest news and updates on this fight.
As Minnesota joins roughly a dozen other states in banning binary triggers, the debate continues over the effectiveness of such bans and their impact on gun rights and public safety. The coming months may see significant legal developments as opponents of the ban push back against what they view as an overreach infringing upon Second Amendment rights.
As we ring in the new year, Colorado introduces a slew of new laws that take effect on January 1, 2025, sparking debate and concern among gun rights supporters. Among these, notable changes target how firearms are stored in vehicles and the procedures for obtaining concealed carry permits.
Mandatory Safe Storage in Vehicles
A key law starting in 2025 requires gun owners to store their firearms in a locked, hard-sided container that is not visible inside the vehicle. The intent is to prevent theft, but critics argue it could impede quick access for self-defense, making gun owners vulnerable to crime. Proponents call it a “common sense” measure, while opponents see it as an overreach that infringes on gun owners’ rights and potentially puts them at a disadvantage in emergencies.
The new year also brings stricter requirements for those seeking concealed carry permits. Effective July 1, applicants must undergo a minimum of eight hours of training and pass both a live-fire test and a written exam. Supporters say this ensures responsible gun ownership, while detractors worry it might unnecessarily burden law-abiding citizens, particularly those who rely on their firearms for personal safety.
Other Noteworthy Legislation
Other significant legislation includes the prohibition of firearms at several public places, including schools and polling stations, with limited exceptions for law enforcement and security personnel. Additionally, a new law will require individuals under temporary domestic violence restraining orders to surrender their firearms, a measure that has received bipartisan support for its potential to protect victims of domestic abuse.
The state also plans to introduce a 6.5% excise tax on firearms and ammunition sales starting April 1, with projected revenues aimed at supporting crime victims and mental health services. This move follows the federal model but is unique at the state level, comparable only to similar taxes in California.
Community and Legal Responses
These laws have already sparked a wave of legal challenges and community reactions. Gun rights groups have been particularly vocal, arguing that these measures violate the Second Amendment and could be counterproductive by disarming law-abiding citizens without effectively deterring crime.
As Colorado navigates these changes, the fight for your rights continues. The state claims to balance public safety and respect the constitutional rights of its citizens. Gun owners and Second Amendment advocates remain watchful and ready to challenge what they perceive as infringements on their rights, setting the stage for ongoing legal battles and discussions on gun control and rights in the state.
Washington legislators will kick off their next session Jan. 13 and will be considering a number of restrictive gun control measures, including House Bill 1132. (Dave Workman)
Underscoring their nature as grinches, Democrats in Washington state pre-filed House Bill 1132 on Christmas Eve, which establishes limits on purchasing guns and ammunition. One gun per month and limits on the number of rounds anyone can buy in a 30-day period.
One might guess the timing was deliberate, a sort of “Merry Christmas, You Undesirables” from the Party of Gun Prohibition.
If the bill passes, it is a safe bet that incoming anti-gun Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson will sign it.
Under the terms of this legislation, a retailer can sell no more than 100 rounds of .50-caliber ammunition, or 1,000 rounds of any other caliber of ammunition, “to a purchaser or transferee within a 30-day period.”
HB 1132 is sponsored by veteran House anti-gunners Darya Farivar (D-46th District) and Timm Ormsby (D-3rd District). Farivar’s sentiments are not surprising, since her district covers much of North Seattle, a liberal stronghold in western Washington.
But Ormsby’s district covers Spokane, which is smack in the middleof Evergreen State “gun country” and 20 minutes from the Idaho border, where gun ownership isn’t considered by liberals to be a social disease. The city has turned blue over the past several years, surrounded by a countryside which is pure red, where fluorescent orange, firearms, camouflage, and conservative politics have held sway for decades.
This is the part of Washington state where angry voters threw out of office Democrat House Speaker Tom Foley, who had served in Congress for a very long time. This was in 1994, the mid-term election which saw Foley’s party take a direct political nuclear strike because they voted for Bill Clinton’s crime bill, which included the ten-year ban on so-called “assault weapons.” At the time, the term “pissed off” just didn’t quite describe the fury of voters, in Foley’s district and across the country.
That was then. This is now. Democrats firmly have a stranglehold on the Washington Legislature, so they are pushing—as previously reported by Ammoland News—the restrictive gun control agenda of the billionaire-backed and Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility, the Northwest’s most powerful gun prohibition lobbying group.
HB 1132 spans 3 ½ pages, and it is definitely part of the Alliance gun control agenda, on the list right above establishing a tax on firearm and ammunition sales. That legislation would essentially turn the entire state into Seattle, where a gun and ammunition sales tax was adopted almost ten years ago.
But here’s a key issue of debate: Since Seattle adopted that gun control tax in 2015, the number of homicides in the city has tripled, from 20 murders in 2016 to 64 in 2023. So far this year, more than 50 murders have been logged in the city. The tax cannot be blamed for the violence, but it can legitimately be argued the tax has not prevented the body count from skyrocketing. The data comes from the Seattle Police Department.
However, the “X” site known as Seattle Homicide, which is not affiliated with the police department, says 2023 produced 74 homicides. So far this year, says the site, 59 people have been slain in the city.
One longtime Washington gun retailer told Ammoland via private message HB 1132 is “just another trainwreck.”
Noting how similar laws are currently being litigated, and struck down, in other jurisdictions, this legislation amounts to a war of attrition. “Literally,” he said, “anything they can think of, they’ll submit. It shows the abject stupidity of these lawmakers.”
“Stupidity” may apply in terms of whether they honestly believe such restrictions will reduce or prevent crime, but rights-hating Democrats know such measures infuriate and frustrate gun owners, which is exactly what they want to do. Were they in elementary school, one might argue, this would be called bullying, because they know they can get away with it.
Critics argue such legislation does not prevent crime, nor does it stop suicide. Criminals ignore the law already. But instead of ever admitting a gun control bill has failed, anti-gunners traditionally double down and push even more restrictions.
Gun rights activists have scheduled a Legislative Workshop on Monday, Jan. 6 at the Tacoma Sportsmen’s Club, 6-8:30 p.m. The legislative session kicks off Monday, Jan. 13 in Olympia, and it appears certain this and other gun control measures will bring a flood of calls to the state’s toll-free Legislative Hotline at 800-526-6000.
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.
Musk and Trump walking back voter expectations before Inauguration Day makes it fair to wonder just how sincere some campaign promises were. (Donald J. Trump/Truth Social)
“Billionaire businessman and recently appointed government cost-cutter Elon Musk called for increased immigration of high-skilled foreign workers to the U.S. in several social media posts combating immigration restrictionists,” Fox News reported Thursday.
“The number of people who are super talented engineers AND super motivated in the USA is far too low,” Musk asserted.
What he’s not accounting for is that, per Pew Research Center, “In 1970, the number of immigrants living in the U.S. was about a fifth of what it is today.” And the government has made a point of providing “pathways” not only to STEM employment, but to citizenship, both via “birthright” and naturalization laws.
Add to that President-elect Donald Trump endorsing that “pathway” for “Dreamers,” and the question neither are addressing is:
How will they vote?
The answer to that has historical precedent in California turning “blue” in a generation. And if we look at a key demographic important for Musk’s employment agenda, we find:
“A 2022 Asian American Voter Survey, AAPI Data found that 83% of Indian Americans believe the U.S. needs stricter gun laws. But the opinions held by the desi community and the country as a whole do not reflect the laws in the books, especially in many Republican states.”
That fits right in with Chuck Schumer’s goal of opening up a superhighway to citizenship for tens of millions of illegals and creating an unchallengeable supermajority to pass whatever gun prohibitions and appoint the judges to uphold them, along with a Supreme Court to reverse Bruen (while our “gun rights leaders” refuse to grade politicians for cheap labor votes that undermine what they do on the Second Amendment).
But there’s another question neither are addressing: Why do we need foreign tech workers when this country is feeding the Democrat-dominated education machine to turn out a workforce that in many cases has less than no value?
We hear the stories of dedicated, underpaid teachers who deprive themselves in order to buy their underprivileged inner city charges school supplies. No doubt such anecdotes exist, but the whole picture tells a different story, and for that, let’s cite two examples in light of the oft-repeated canard that not enough money is being spent on education.
Let’s start with my hometown, Hudson, OH, which prides itself on a good public education system with high reading and math proficiency levels:
“Hudson City spends $15,307 per student each year.”
“Baltimore City Schools, this year, has a $1.7 billion budget to educate 75,811 students. This means the school system is now spending $22,424 per student, which is one of the highest amounts in America for large school systems.”
All this so foreign kids, raised under real poverty, can come here and eat their lunch.
Democrat cities and Democrat schools are squandering hard-earned tax dollars to reward corrupt Democrat urban school officials who are up to their necks in bribery and kickbacks while the systems they’ve been entrusted with stewardship over whine about being “cash strapped.” And Randi Weingarten, head of the 1.7-million-member American Teachers Federation is a connected political insider and “is an active member of the Democratic National Committee.”
The agenda being pushed “promote[s] far left candidates and causes, all while education achievement plummets nationally,” and that includes on guns, on immigration, on child transgenderism, and more. Meanwhile, the effectively Democrat National Education Association (it’s never endorsed a Republican for president) is doing what it can to ensure “gun free school zones” remain predator empowerment hunting grounds, declaring “Arming Teachers Still a Terrible Idea” while deliberately ignoring the demonstrable deterrent provided by the Faculty/Administrator Safety Training & Emergency Response (FASTER) program.
We haven’t even left K-12 yet. We could do another article about just how useless woke “liberal arts” degrees taught by Marxist academics are at contributing anything more to tech development than an occasional token Dunning-Kruger affected DEI coordinator (who doesn’t really do much more than act as a totem against discrimination lawsuits and provide a “management team” virtue signaling photo that shows how smugly they think of themselves). And the part of society that doesn’t brew its own coffee can still use some baristas.
Voters did not support MAGA all in the name of cheap labor to ensure the rich get richer, American workers get undercut, aliens get to vote interests not grounded in the Constitution, Democrats get rewarded for their subversion and their failures, students get dumbed down further, and gun owners get screwed. The whole point of the last election was to turn all that around.
And incidentally, not all agree the shortage is as drastic as being portrayed, as opposed to just a bid for more cheap labor.
Before coming to us with big ideas for remodeling with even more add-ons, how about we see a comprehensive plan to repair the existing structure from the foundation up that starts by removing the damage and the rot? How about we make sure prospective newcomers appreciate America-recognized freedoms as much as they do American employment?
How about it, Mr. President? Mr. Musk?
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.
Gun control laws continued to fail their mission in 2024. IMG AdobeStock_95690334
If the past 12 months have taught us anything as a nation, it would have to be that gun control has actually failed in its purported mission of preventing criminals from getting guns, and that proponents of restrictive gun laws are both delusional and living in denial when they claim otherwise.
Remember, the gun prohibition lobby is typically silent when a legally armed private citizen intervenes in a crime to stop the criminal.
While the number of homicides decreased in 2023 by more than 11 percent, according to the most recently available data estimates from the FBI, the use of firearms in those killings remains high.
The Christmas Eve triple shooting in Oxford, Mich.—scene of the tragic high school shooting in November 2021 which resulted in several new gun restrictions—confirms what gun rights advocates such as Alan Gottlieb at the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms have been trying to explain for years, if not decades: Criminals do not obey gun control laws, and existing laws restricting adults do not prevent juveniles from getting and/or using guns illegally.
The Detroit Free Press, reporting about the Oxford shooting, which has turned into a homicide, said the incident happened “a short distance from Oxford High School.” The Oakland County Sheriff’s Office has a suspect in custody and a gun has been recovered.
The October slaughter of a family near Fall City, Washington, allegedly by a 15-year-old family member shocked the upscale Lake Alice neighborhood. The teen has been charged with five counts of homicide, and the case will continue into 2025.
Yet Washington state, over the past few years, has seen the adoption of several new gun control laws requiring “expanded” background checks, a 10-day waiting period and proof of firearm safety training, and other restrictions on adult gun buyers.
Back on Jan. 9, USA Today outlined gun control laws which took effect earlier this year in California, Michigan, Minnesota, Washington and other Democrat-controlled states. Have any of those laws prevented homicides in any of those states?
While the USA Today story noted Everytown for Gun Safety’s report on states with the strongest gun laws—California, New York, Illinois, Connecticut, and Hawaii—a triple homicide in Mahomet, Illinois, just before Christmas has left that community rattled. WCIA News is reporting the suspect, identified as John R. Lyons, was shot dead in a gunfight with police in nearby Berwyn, a Cook County suburb.
There is no small irony in the fact that WCIA identified Everytown as a “gun violence prevention advocacy group.”
According to the popular website Heyjackass.com, so far this year, Chicago has seen 606 homicides, of which 536 involved firearms. Another 2,414 people have been wounded by gunfire.
California’s strict gun laws, touted by Everytown in the USA Today report, haven’t stopped homicides in the Golden State. One look at Sacramento’s bloody past few months—just Google “Sacramento homicides”—tells the tale of the state’s capital city, and that’s just one city.
Despite a 14 percent decline in homicide last year, California still seems to rack up more slayings than any other state (1,929 in 2023), even Texas (1,845 in 2023), which is often cited by anti-gunners for its lax gun laws, or Florida (1,066 in 2023), infamously dubbed the “Gunshine State” by anti-gunners. The Sacramento Bee reported earlier this year how “guns are still overwhelmingly the most common weapon used to kill someone,” so it might be interesting to ask Gov. Gavin Newsom and his Everytown cheerleaders how all of those restrictive gun control laws are working.
The high-profile murder of insurance executive Brian Thompson on a downtown New York City sidewalk—on camera—certainly refutes arguments that tough gun control laws adopted in response to the 2022 Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling were necessary to keep the Big Apple streets safe.
In Boston, murders are still occurring, despite the restrictive gun control laws in Massachusetts. Do a search for stories dealing with murder in Boston. Again, one will see reports which, taken as a whole, demonstrate that restrictive Bay State gun laws really haven’t made the place safe.
According to Statista.com, the worst murder rate anywhere in the country is in Washington, D.C., where it is still difficult to legally own a firearm. The chart also shows, for example, Maryland with a higher murder rate (8.3 per 100,000)—and stricter gun laws—than neighboring Virginia (6 per 100,000). It could be argued these are “apples to oranges” comparisons, but wait.
Illinois has a murder rate higher than neighboring Indiana (6.6 to 5.6 per 100,000, respectively), and Montana—the state with the highest percentage of gun ownership in the country (66.3%), according to World Population Review, and a population of 1.13 million—has a far lower murder rate (2.8 per 100,000) than Delaware, which is much smaller but has a similar population at 1.03 million, and a murder rate of 4.5 per 100,000, according to Statista.com. Montana gun laws are far looser than in Delaware, where only 34.4 percent of the population are gun owners, including soon-to-be-former President Joe Biden, who owns at least one shotgun.
None of this will stop gun control proponents from demanding more laws, more regulations and more erosion of gun rights, and they will either ignore or simply argue the data above is anecdotal if not irrelevant, which is why gun owners—especially in Democrat-controlled states—can expect more of the same in 2025.
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.
In June of this year, Armed Wisconsin anglers can now breathe a sigh of relief and carry firearms while fishing without fear of fines.
In June of this year, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) repealed a decades-old rule that prohibited the possession of firearms on state waterways. This decision, effective immediately, marks a significant victory for gun rights advocates and fishing enthusiasts across the state.
The repeal stems from a lawsuit filed by the conservative law group, Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL), on behalf of Travis Kobs, a resident of Sheboygan Falls. The lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the rule, arguing that it infringed on the rights of Wisconsinites under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms.
Historically, the rule was intended to prevent the illegal shooting of fish—a practice that has long been outlawed. However, the rule had been in direct conflict with the state’s concealed carry law enacted in 2011. This conflict prompted a reevaluation of the rule’s relevance and legality.
The Republican-controlled Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules acted on the DNR’s request and temporarily nixed the rule on December 17, 2024, with plans for a permanent repeal. The committee voted 8-2 in favor of repealing the firearm ban for anglers, despite opposition from some who cited concerns over increasing gun presence in public spaces following recent violent incidents.
The committee’s decision reflects a broader shift in recognizing the rights of law-abiding citizens to carry firearms in traditional settings like the great outdoors, which historically have not been considered sensitive places where firearms might be restricted.
Skylar Croy, Associate Counsel for WILL, highlighted that the rule’s repeal honors a long tradition of firearm possession in outdoor activities and corrects an overreach that unnecessarily restricted the rights of citizens. “This rule was not just an infringement on our Second Amendment rights but also on our state constitution’s guarantee to fish and hunt,” Croy stated.
As a result of the legal pressure and subsequent repeal, Travis Kobs and other sportsmen can now legally carry firearms while engaging in fishing and other recreational activities on Wisconsin’s waterways. This change not only restores constitutional rights but also aligns state law with practical realities of outdoor sports and personal protection.
The success of this legal challenge underscores the importance of vigilant advocacy to ensure that regulations do not overstep constitutional boundaries. Wisconsin’s fishing and outdoor community, backed by legal advocacy, has set a precedent that could influence future discussions and policies regarding firearm rights in other states.
As the DNR works to officially remove the outdated regulation from the books, the fishing community celebrates a return to a more traditional understanding of fishing rights—one that recognizes the importance of self-defense and the responsible exercise of Second Amendment rights.
Last February, we reported on the judicial equivalent of a temper tantrum emanating from the Hawaii Supreme Court over the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence.
That outburst finally reached the ears of its intended targets, the nine justices of America’s highest court, as they considered earlier this month whether to review the case of State v. Wilson. Ultimately, the justices did what the Hawaii Supreme Court had not by calmly and dispassionately applying the law to find the Second Amendment issues in the case were not yet ripe for review. In doing so, however, the Supreme Court’s three staunchest Second Amendment stalwarts issued statements that served as warnings to the churlish state jurists that further proceedings in the case will be watched very carefully.
The fracas began when Christopher Wilson was charged with trespassing and unlawfully carrying a pistol and ammunition without a license in violation of state law. Wilson sought dismissal of the carry charges on the basis that the licenses necessary to lawfully exercise the right to bear firearms for self-defense were unconstitutionally withheld under the then-existing special needs provisions of Hawaii’s may-issue licensing laws. He prevailed on this argument before the trial court, but that decision was then reversed by the Hawaii Supreme Court. The actual legal basis for the state supreme court’s opinion was that Wilson lacked standing to challenge the licensing law, because he had never applied for a license. This ignored the fact that no one at the time was granted the requisite licenses to carry, other than for professional purposes.
Nevertheless, although the Hawaii Supreme Court hedged its legal bets by ruling on a narrow state law issue, it wrote an expansive, highly disrespectful treatise on the U.S. Supreme Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence. Part of that diatribe occurred in the opinion’s ruling on Hawaii’s own constitutional right to arms, which just happens to have the exact same wording as the U.S. Second Amendment. This gave the Hawaiian judges their own “redo” of the Supreme Court’s last 16 years of Second Amendment jurisprudence, as state courts are free to interpret the enactments of their jurisdictions as they see fit. Not only did the Hawaii jurists depart from the U.S. Supreme Court’s holdings that those words protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, they mocked that reading, elevating their own judicial acumen above the U.S. justices’. They also rendered a civil right meant to protect the people of Hawaii from official abuse a nullity.
The Hawaiian court’s over-the-top theatrics earned it the attention and praise of the antigun media, with one outlet approvingly noting the Wilson opinion dispensed with the usual duties of “deference” and even “basic respect” toward the nation’s highest court. It was instead, that article continued, “an open display of contempt.”
But the Wilson court’s bravado stopped short of actually ruling on the merits of the defendant’s Second Amendment claims, so the U.S. Supreme Court arguably had no federal issue in the case to correct. The Hawaiian court, in other words, picked its fight from what it assumed was an inaccessible perch. That, and the fact the decision concerned an issue raised before the final outcome of Wilson’s prosecution (which theoretically could still be decided in his favor), led the U.S. Supreme Court to let the state proceedings conclude before deciding if their involvement was warranted.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s own disposition of the matter was a model of judicial restraint and modesty, under the circumstances. One could argue that its demeanor only made the self-indulgence of the Hawaiian court that much more blatant and unseemly.
But three of the court’s leading Second Amendment lights did not let the occasion pass without comment.
Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Samuel Alito (both authors of opinions derided by the Hawaii court) wrote a statement “respecting the denial of certiorari,” because a final judgment in the case had not yet been issued.
But they took issue with the “empty formalities” the state court insisted upon in its standing analysis, pointing out other circumstances where plaintiffs had successfully challenged unconstitutional licensing schemes without actually applying for the license. The two justices argued: “a state-law holding that a defendant lacked standing to attack the constitutionality of the ordinance because he made no attempt to secure a permit under it is not an adequate nonfederal ground of decision where the ordinance on its face violates the Constitution” (internal formatting omitted). They continued: In an appropriate case … we should make clear that Americans are always free to invoke the Second Amendment as a defense against unconstitutional firearms-licensing schemes.” The opinion concluded pointedly: “And, this Court’s intervention clearly remains imperative, given lower courts’ continued insistence on treating the Second Amendment right so cavalierly” (internal quotation marks omitted).
Also issuing a statement respecting the denial of certiorari was Justice Neil Gorsuch, again because of the procedural posture in which Wilson’s Second Amendment challenge arose. But, he insisted, “the Hawaii Supreme Court’s decision raises serious questions,” including its focus on procedural minutiae in the face of a case that so obviously implicates a fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution. Like Justices Thomas and Alito, Justice Gorsuch was unimpressed by the state court’s standing analysis. The Hawaii Supreme Court’s dodge of the important constitutional issues in the case, he argued, “invites with it the distinct possibility that Mr. Wilson may be convicted of, and ordered to serve time in prison for, violating an unconstitutional law.” Justice Gorsuch noted that it wasn’t too late for justice to be served in the course of Mr. Wilson’s ongoing state criminal proceedings. But his final point also carried with it an implicit warning: “If not, Mr. Wilson remains free to seek this Court’s review after final judgment.”
What happens next for Christopher Wilson remains to be seen.
Criminal prosecution imposes its own burdens and hardships, and even an accused whose cause is just can be worn down or impoverished in the attempt to stand up for his rights. Meanwhile, the Hawaii legislature – at least – has recognized it can only go so far in defying the U.S. Supreme Court and has amended the laws under which Wilson was convicted to supposedly give other applicants a more realistic chance of getting a carry license. Whether those changes go far enough, or whether Mr. Wilson himself has the wherewithal to keep fighting, only time will tell. But surely Hawaii has not seen the last of legal challenges to its defiance of the right to keep and bear arms.
As they unfold, one can only hope that the cynicism, contempt, and unprofessionalism of the Hawaii Supreme Court serves as a lasting and illuminating example of the sorts of public officials who find the Second Amendment, in particular, unworthy of respect. Perhaps that will in turn provide the U.S. Supreme Court with added impetus to ensure that provision is not treated as a second-class right.
The court of last resort, in maintaining its judicial dignity and decorum, sometimes speaks softly. But it always gets the last word.
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
Mark “Choppa” Manley is a gun owner, a gun collector, and a Second Amendment advocate. He has more than 70 legally owned firearms diligently stored in a gun safe at his Baltimore, MD home.
All of his firearms comply with federal and Maryland laws, and he is always very careful about that. Manley works as an intervention specialist for his local school district. His day begins early and ends late, usually around 7 p.m., because he also coaches girls’ flag football.
Manley and his wife, who did not want her first name used in this story, get up early for their jobs. For them, November 21st, 2024, began just like any other workday.
“The morning of the raid started just like any other morning,” Manley told the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project.
“My wife went downstairs around 4:30 a.m. to make coffee,” he said. “I was sitting on the side of the bed, getting myself together.”
“Mark, there’s someone outside the house!” his wife yelled. She saw people moving around in their front yard.
Manley grabbed a handgun and looked out the window. He could see ATF agents making “tactical movements” all over his front yard.
“I could see agents crouching down with long guns,” he told SAF.
Manley checked his home security system’s monitor and saw more agents taking tactical positions in his backyard. He put down his pistol and quickly woke his two daughters, but not his 15-year-old son, who was sleeping in the basement.
“I looked out the window again and could tell they were going to bust down our door,” Manley said. “I yelled ‘Hello! We are up here.’ All of a sudden, a bomb went off. My wife screamed. She followed right behind me on our way out, but she was disoriented. She was in pure shock.”
As the family walked out through their front door, they saw dozens of heavily armed ATF agents.
“I got my arms up and I’m walking down the steps. When I got to the bottom I turned around and saw that the agents had rifles pointed at my daughters,” Manley said. “I have young kids. They had guns pointed at my children. It was a pretty emotional moment for me. I was about to lose control. I yelled ‘You have guns on my f—ing children!’ They lowered their weapons.”
Manely and his 17-year-old daughter were each handcuffed. His wife and children were moved to the rear of a SWAT van. It was 20-degrees outside, and they were only wearing pajamas.
“I would like you to take the handcuffs off my daughter,” Manley’s wife told the ATF agents. “Why did you handcuff my husband? He complied with everything you asked for.”
The family then overheard ATF agents talking about their 15-year-old son, who was flash-banged in his basement bedroom.
“My son loves the basement,” Manley said. “He has his own place, but they busted down his door, threw a grenade and 14 agents ran into his room, guns drawn and threatening to shoot him. He was woken by surprise. They busted down the glass door to his room and had guns drawn. We were relieved to see him when they brought him out.”
“They brought our son out as we were ready to get back inside the house,” Manley’s wife said. “It was a half-hour later.”
Manley started thinking about his neighbors. He and his family had only moved into their home three months ago. Their neighborhood is predominantly white.
“For us to be the only black family on the block – the ATF just assumed they would find something in our home,” his wife said.
Next, the ATF agents brought police canines and their handlers into the home.
“The dogs ransacked our house,” Manley said. “They defecated everywhere – even on my daughter’s bed. This was completely uncalled for.”
Meanwhile, Manley said a host of ATF agents “ransacked” his home.
“They threatened to blow up my gun safe,” Manley said. “I don’t have anything to hide, so I told them I’d open the safe. They uncuffed me and told me ‘Don’t try to run.’ Where was I gonna run to? My family was right there.”
Manley unlocked his gun safe and slowly swung open the door.
“They were all standing around waiting and hoping,” he said “This was their moment, they thought. They started pulling out rifles and shotguns, but everything was registered and Maryland-compliant. ‘We got nothing here,’ one of them said.”
One ATF agent, who had told Manley’s wife he was the lead investigator, asked her later via a phone text for dimensions and other information about the doors and windows his team had destroyed, which he promised to replace.
“I didn’t want to talk to them,” she said. “I didn’t reply. They had just waged war on us.”
All of Mark Manley’s firearms comply with both federal law and the laws of Maryland. (Photo courtesy of Mark Manley).
Rogue ATF’s Aftermath & a Falsified Search Warrant
The Manley family was never told, at least officially, why they were mistakenly targeted by the ATF.
“I have done nothing illegal. I don’t sell guns. I don’t own any machineguns,” Manley said. “The search warrant said he is a felon,” Mrs. Manley said. “It said he is a felon in possession of firearms.” “I don’t have any felony record,” Manley said.
Their home was terribly damaged in the raid. It needs new floors in the living room and in their son’s bedroom because of the flash-bang grenades, and their front and rear doors still remain shattered. The police canine feces, the family had to clean up themselves.
The agents asked Manley why “someone would make up stuff about you?”
“Are you kidding me?” Manley said. “I made it out of the inner city and poverty. People who are still there know me and envy what I’ve become. I do all of the giving back, but there is still hate and jealousy. Someone must have gotten caught with something and said, ‘Mark’s got all kinds of guns.’ To this day we just don’t know. Someone must have gotten caught and said some lies. It was all too easy for them to kick down my doors.”
Manley and his family have started a Go Fund Me page, which so far has raised more than $19,000. They are also speaking with several attorneys.
Neither Toni M. Crosby, the Special Agent in Charge of ATF’s Baltimore Field Division, nor Katherine Rottman, the office’s Public Information Officer, returned calls or emails Thursday afternoon.
“Thank you for contacting the ATF Baltimore Field Division. This inbox is not actively monitored but we are in receipt of your email and a member of our team will follow up with you,” the email reply states.
Said Manley: “Would this happen if I was white? Probably, but I feel like more of a target because I am black, but I don’t want to. I was targeted because I am such a strong supporter of the Second Amendment. I am heavily armed. I’m a black man, but me being a black man doesn’t help my case. They put me in the worst position as the man of the house. It was all just horrific, man.”
The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.
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.
With the sun setting on the 2023-2024 legislative session, this week the Michigan Senate held a marathon session lasting over 24 hours. While citizens were sleeping, anti-gun lawmakers were able to pass two pieces of legislation, which are now headed to the Governor for her signature. Please use the take-action button below to contact the Governor and urge her to veto this anti-gun legislation!
Passed out of both chambers and are eligible for the Governor’s signature:
House Bills 5450 & 5451: Mandate public schools annually post and distribute information regarding the state’s mandatory storage laws to the parents and guardians of every enrolled student.
House Bills 6144, 6145, and 6146: Require law enforcement agencies to destroy any firearm that has been confiscated or returned during a “gun buy-back”.
Anti-Gun Legislation Pending in the House:
The Michigan House was unable to obtain a quorum this week and adjourned until Dec. 31st, presumably coming back to pass a sine die resolution. This means the pending anti-gun bills are less likely to pass, however the House can return prior to that date, so it is important to keep the pressure on.
Senate Bills 1149 & 1150: Propose severe restrictions on “home built” firearms and the raw materials used to make them.
Senate Bill 942: Seeks to ban bump stocks, making them illegal to own, sell, or possess in Michigan—imposing stricter regulations than those governing machine guns. This comes despite the U.S. Supreme Court overturning the federal ban on bump stocks earlier this year.
Senate Bill 1086: Creates both a temporary and indefinite “Do Not Sell” list that suspend an individual’s Second Amendment firearms purchase rights. Although joining such lists would be voluntary, removal from these databases has proven to be exceedingly difficult in the few states which have adopted such laws.
Senate Bills 857 & 858: Expand “gun-free zones” in Michigan by prohibiting gun owners from carrying a firearm in the Michigan State Capitol Building, the Binsfeld Senate Office Building, and the Anderson House Office Building, with an exception for legislators. The Capitol Commission in recent years banned both open and concealed firearms carry in the Capitol and Democrat leadership restricted citizens’ rights to carry in legislative office buildings by rule. This legislation would expand and codify those restrictions into state law, making it near impossible for citizens to regain the right to carry in these areas.
House Bills 6183, 6184, and 6185: Directly undermine the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act by abolishing immunity for firearm manufacturers and opening them up to frivolous lawsuits and vastly increased liability exposure. These bills also mandate the purchase or offer for sale of a trigger lock or secure storage container when transferring a firearm.
House Bills 6222 and 6223: Require anyone selling a firearm to report any attempt by a prohibited person to acquire said firearm to law enforcement within 24 hours. Failure to do so would be a FELONY.
Take action by contacting your representative using the button below and urge them to oppose these anti-gun measures:
Recently signed by the Governor:
Earlier this month, Governor Whitmer also signed two bills HB 4127 and HB 4128, now Public Acts 157 and 158 of 2024 into law. These laws expand “gun-free” zones by prohibiting an individual from possessing a firearm within 100 feet of a polling place, which includes ballot drop boxes, early voting sites, a city or township clerk’s office, or within 100 feet of any entrance to these sites. It would also prohibit possessing a firearm within 100 feet of any location where ballots are being counted or processed. The ban would take effect while voting or counting of ballots was in progress or 40 days before an election in the case of absentee voting boxes. Law-abiding gun owners should not face criminal penalties for simply crossing arbitrary lines with no intent to disrupt or interfere with the voting process. Furthermore, many of these locations, like ballot drop boxes, are not well known and can be placed in areas like a grocery store entrance. Passing within 100 feet of some of these areas unknowingly and unintentionally could be easy to do and prohibit you from accessing areas where it would otherwise be legal to carry.
Please continue to check your inbox and NRA-ILA for updates concerning your Second Amendment rights and hunting heritage.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
