Texas Bill to Restore Legal Status to SBRs

Before it became the MP5K, the original MP5 SMG first morphed into the MP5 Navy like this SBR clone from Turner Fabrications. IMG Jim Grant

In Texas statutes, Section 46.05(a) lists some items that are forbidden to knowingly possess, manufacture, repair, or sell. The statute includes short-barreled firearms, which have been heavily regulated by the federal government since 1934. SB1596 strikes short-barreled firearms from the list of prohibited items. From SB1596:

Any of the following items, unless the item is registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms andExplosives or otherwise not subject to that registration requirement or unless the item is classified as a curio or relic by the United States Department of Justice:

(A)  an explosive weapon; or 

(B) a machine gun; [or

(C)  a short-barrel firearm;

Short-barreled firearms were in common use before 1934. Most people will immediately see the silliness of this rule. Handguns are protected by the Second Amendment. Handguns are short-barreled firearms. 

How is it that handguns are not regulated by the law regulating short-barreled rifles and shotguns?

The answer goes back to 1934. Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) was President. He had appointed Montana Senator Thomas Walsh as Attorney General. Senator Walsh had uncovered the Teapot Dome Scandal. Senator Walsh died on a train en route to DC. Then, President Roosevelt appointed Homer Cummings, from Connecticut, as Attorney General.

Cummings devised the scheme to pack the Supreme Court and, essentially, created the FBI. He was also a gun control advocate who proposed circumventing the Second Amendment by using the federal government’s taxing power to regulate the ownership and possession of firearms, especially handguns.

Originally, the 1934 bill required all handguns to be registered and licensed by the federal government. Firearms enthusiasts rebelled against the idea. The NRA agreed to a compromise: allow sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and silencers to be banned by extortionist taxes, but remove handguns from the bill.

At the time, there were few machineguns or silencers in private hands. The taxes imposed on silencers, short-barreled shotguns, and short-barreled rifles were 10-20 times the cost of the items, about six months’ worth of wages. The NFA was an effective ban on formerly legal items, using federal taxes as the tool.

In a curious twist, the Cummings Department of Justice never meant to include short-barreled rifles in the bill. They were included at the insistence of Harold Knutson, a representative from Minnesota on the Ways and Means committee. Knutson’s comments did not make sense, but the DOJ agreed to add them to the bill.

FDR went on to be elected to four terms. He appointed numerous federal judges, transforming the federal court system into a Progressive court system. Progressive judges were more interested in finding ways to subvert constitutional limits than in enforcing the Constitution. Multiple states endorsed the federal prohibitions, under the realization of how weak the federal “ban through taxes” was under the Constitution. Texas was one of those states. The Supreme Court has since ruled that taxes, aimed at an enumerated right protected by the Bill of Rights, are not an allowed workaround.

Why is SB1596 so relevant today?

Inflation wore away the extortionist taxes imposed by AG Cummings’ 1934 bill. More people experienced using silencers and short-barreled firearms. They saw the obvious stupidity of the 1934 law.  Texas lawmakers removed the state prohibition on silencers. Now, Texas lawmakers are moving to do the same with short-barreled firearms.

The Texas bill will not affect the federal law, except to showcase the stupidity of the federal regulation.  Ridicule is a powerful political tool.

The fundamental assumption behind the 1934 law is: Guns are bad. More guns are worse. It is a false assumption.

---

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/DM4GWud
via IFTTT

Awkward: Legally-Armed Citizen Fatally Shoots Gunman in Anti-Gun Seattle

A legally armed citizen killed a teen gunman in anti-gun downtown Seattle. It may be an awkward situation for city leaders. iStock-1354934183

When a legally armed citizen intervened in a shooting in downtown Seattle, killing the suspect who had just wounded two victims, there was not a sound heard from the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobby headquartered in the city, nor the anti-gun mayor.

It’s a rather awkward situation for Mayor Bruce Harrell and his gun ban allies, who would have the world believe guns are only bad, and gun owners are worse.

The unidentified armed bystander remained at the scene and cooperated with police. Investigators recovered the suspect’s gun, which he was carrying illegally because he was only 16, and the Samaritan was not arrested. What’s so special about this incident?

A string of far-left Seattle mayors and state legislators have been trying for years to make it difficult, if not impossible, for law-abiding citizens to carry guns in the Jet City. The city was successfully sued by the Second Amendment Foundation and National Rifle Association in 2012 after trying to ban guns in city park facilities, in direct violation of the state’s long-standing preemption law.

Subsequent attempts by the city to repeal state preemption have been rejected by the Democrat-controlled legislature.

The incident was put in perspective by Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, who observed, “In a city where political policies have resulted in reduced police manpower while placing limits on the officers who remain, it should come as no surprise that an increasing number of law-abiding citizens are now licensed to carry firearms for their personal protection. Seattle and King County have the highest number of active licenses of any county in the state. Coincidentally, just a few blocks away at about the same time, there was a fatal stabbing, which says a lot about crime in the city.”

An online poll by KOMO News, the local ABC affiliate, showed that an overwhelming 70 percent of respondents say their feeling of safety when working or visiting downtown Seattle is low.

Preliminary indications so far suggest the armed citizen’s intervention looked like a “clean shoot.” Here are the reasons for taking that perspective:

State court rulings have made it clear there is no duty to retreat in Washington state.

The Evergreen State has—despite passage of draconian gun control laws in recent years—solid statutes covering the use of force.

Under RCW 9A.16.020, force is lawful “Whenever necessarily used by a person arresting one who has committed a felony and delivering him or her to a public officer competent to receive him or her into custody;

“Whenever used by a party about to be injured, or by another lawfully aiding him or her, in preventing or attempting to prevent an offense against his or her person, or a malicious trespass, or other malicious interference with real or personal property lawfully in his or her possession, in case the force is not more than is necessary…”

Then there is RCW 9A.16.050, which covers homicide by a private citizen. This statute explains, “Homicide is also justifiable when committed either:

“(1) In the lawful defense of the slayer, or his or her husband, wife, parent, child, brother, or sister, or of any other person in his or her presence or company, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design on the part of the person slain to commit a felony or to do some great personal injury to the slayer or to any such person, and there is imminent danger of such design being accomplished; or

“(2) In the actual resistance of an attempt to commit a felony upon the slayer, in his or her presence, or upon or in a dwelling, or other place of abode, in which he or she is.”

Perhaps also by no surprise, coverage of the incident by the traditionally liberal and anti-gun Seattle Times quickly disappeared from the newspaper’s website, but not before it correctly acknowledged the suspect was stopped by a legally armed citizen.

According to the state Department of Licensing, King County, which encompasses Seattle, has the highest number of active concealed pistol licenses of any county in the state, more than 112,000 at the end of April. There are 705,000 active CPLs statewide, which translates to about 1 in every 9 eligible adults in the state being licensed to carry.

Former King County Sheriff John Urquhart told KING5 News, the local NBC affiliate, that the ultimate decision whether the armed citizen acted within the parameters of state law will come from the county prosecutor’s office. The former sheriff now acts as a law enforcement analyst for the station.

However, Urquhart observed, “The fact that the citizen was not arrested, was not booked, is not being described as a suspect, leads me to believe Seattle police see this as a legal and justified use of force.”

All of this may put Mayor Harrell in the uncomfortable position of having to acknowledge a legally armed bystander stopped an illegally armed would-be killer from causing further mayhem. That is, if he says anything at all. Harrell is known for dodging issues which may put him in an unfavorable position with his hard-left Seattle constituents, and it is an election year.

More than 17,000 Guns Reported Lost/Stolen from FFLs in 2024

D.C. Double Slaying: Suspect Crossed State Lines, Media Ignores Lesson

---

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/Nx4bY71
via IFTTT

Police Responses to Florida Open Carriers Show Need for Direction from DeSantis

Until Florida Republicans get serious about recognizing “shall not be infringed,” their deliberate indifference to police ignorance will continue to leave citizens in danger.

Halfway through Wednesday’s Armed American Radio’s Daily Defense, with host Mark Walters and school safety advocate Ryan Petty, discussion turned to my recent AmmoLand article, “Staged Video Gets It Right About Many Cops and Ignorance on Open Carry.” That article highlighted how street officers have many times not been cognizant of the law and how their lack of awareness can put legally armed citizens at risk, including being intimidated and in danger of being shot for exercising their rights.

That was the case when “Six men who openly carried guns on their hips as they walked onto a Miami Beach pier with fishing equipment” were “assaulted” by police, even though Florida Statutes allow a person hunting, camping or fishing to openly carry a gun.

This is the level of legal acumen a lawful open carrier can expect when exercising his Constitutionally recognized rights. Note how the cop at @ 10:02 in the video below declares, “I’m a firm believer in the First Amendment [sic].”

And his recommendation a few seconds later “to put a jacket over it” — to someone who told him he does not have a concealed carry permit — would seem to open up a whole ‘nother legal pitfall:

Why open carry — which would certainly meet the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard of text, history, and tradition at the time of the Constitution’s ratification —  isn’t recognized in “The Gunshine State,” reflects shamefully on Republican legislative “leadership.” While Gov. Ron DeSantis has come out in favor of signing such a bill, Senate President and resident Vichycon Ben Albritton sides with “Only Ones” over citizens, saying “I trust my law enforcement officials. They oppose it … and I stand with them today in opposition.”

Until such time as Florida gun owners get serious about booting this guy, probably not likely because he wins by wide margins, DeSantis’s hands are tied and the danger of “law abiding” open carriers being rousted by cops prepared to escalate things to deadly force if not immediately obeyed will remain.

There is something that is in DeSantis’ power to do that can mitigate that danger without having to rely on oath-breaking Republican power players, the same thing I recommended to three reluctant successive Ohio attorneys general to do. Here’s what I asked:

How hard could it be for the state’s top law enforcement officer … to write a memorandum recognizing the legality of peaceable open carry, and then send it to every police and sheriff’s department in the state, as well as to the Highway Patrol? One would assume flow-down communications explaining your interpretations and positions on law enforcement issues are already established and routine.

And how hard would it be for the individual LE departments to transmit this information to their sworn personnel? If you’re already requiring employees to sign acknowledgments such as they understand sexual harassment rules, etc., and are placing such proof of training documents in their personnel files, how much more effort would be required to have each officer sign and date a simple acknowledgment that he or she understands that open carry is lawful?”

Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has already shown a willingness to buck infringements when he refused to defend a law (supported by former Florida AG Pam Bondi) stopping citizens under 21 from legally buying a long gun.

It’s an easy ask, Florida gun rights advocates, and an easy thing to do, and would put the expectation on rights deniers to learn the law they swore an oath to uphold. Why not come up with a letter of your own, send it to the governor, publicize that you sent it, and get your lobbyists to seek a commitment when next they get face time with the man?

And if they’re already doing something like this? It isn’t taking. Tell leadership it’s on them to make sure it does.

The life you save may be one of your members.

---

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/P2a4vBN
via IFTTT

Texas Takes Aim at Local Gun Buybacks in New Legislative Move

Texas Takes Aim at Local Gun Buybacks in New Legislative Move IMG iStock-884200682

A bill banning local governments from buying back guns on the taxpayer dime is making substantial progress in the Texas State legislature. 

On May 13, 2025, the Texas House of Representatives passed House Bill 3053, a measure that prohibits counties and cities from spending taxpayer money on gun buyback programs. 

The bill was introduced by freshman Republican legislator Wesley Virdell. It was passed with a decisive 85-56 vote after heated debate. On May 26, the State Senate passed HB 3053 by a vote of 20-11.

State Sen. Bob Hall, said to elected officials during an earlier discussion on May 26 it was a “necessary guardrail against misuse of local authority.”

Gun buyback programs are initiatives where local governments offer cash or gift cards to citizens who voluntarily turn in firearms. The stated goal of these measures is to reduce the number of guns in circulation, thereby lowering the risk of gun violence, accidents, and suicides, at least on paper.

Politicians have implemented these programs in cities across the United States for decades, often in response to spikes in gun crime or high-profile shootings.

However, the effectiveness of these programs is hotly debated. Multiple studies have found that the guns turned in are rarely those most likely to be used in crimes—often old, inoperable, or unwanted firearms. The scale of most buybacks is also too small to make a notable dent in the overall number of guns in circulation. As a result, critics argue that buybacks are more symbolic than substantive, offering little impact on public safety. 

Virdell, alluded to the case of Baltimore, Maryland, where the city held a gun buyback program that “when adjusted for inflation, they spent the equivalent of today’s money of $4.3 million. Though Virdell noted that the result was troubling: “homicides and firearm-related assaults rose by over 50 percent following the Baltimore ‘buyback.’”

“[B]ased on the studies and some of the people who’ve actually participated in these gun ‘buybacks’ … huge costs of money from the taxpayers, and it doesn’t actually have any statistical evidence that it reduces crime or suicides… in some cases, crime actually increased in those areas afterwards,” added Virdell.

Democratic lawmakers, led by Representatives Gene Wu and Trey Martinez-Fischer, pushed back against the bill. They argued that local governments should have the freedom to try different approaches to gun violence, including buybacks, if their communities support them. 

While acknowledging that buybacks may not dramatically reduce crime, they pointed to other benefits—such as providing a safe way for people to dispose of unwanted firearms and raising awareness about gun safety.

For opponents, HB 3053 is part of a broader trend in Texas politics of the state government preempting local authority, particularly in urban areas that lean Democratic. In recent years, the Texas legislature has passed laws limiting cities’ ability to regulate issues ranging from minimum wage policies to environmental standards. 

State Sen. Roland Gutierrez emphasized that while state lawmakers oversee state funds, they don’t control city budgets.

“No disrespect, but how dare you come to me and tell me what the City of San Antonio should do with their tax dollars?” Gutierrez, who represents parts of San Antonio, said.

With the Senate’s passage of HB 3053, the bill now heads to Governor Greg Abbott’s desk, where it is expected to be signed into law, making Texas one of the few states to explicitly ban taxpayer-funded gun buyback programs.

House Bill Aims to Shield Tenants’ Gun Rights in Federally Funded Housing

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Austin, Texas. 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/M8ZJGx2
via IFTTT

More than 17,000 Guns Reported Lost/Stolen from FFLs in 2024

Data from the ATF shows firearms thefts from gun stores last year exceeded 17,000.

Data posted by the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives shows more than 17,200 firearms were reported lost or stolen from federally licensed firearms dealers in 2024, which at least partly explains how criminals invariably seem to manage getting their hands on a gun, while also demonstrating that restrictrive gun laws don’t work.

Minnesota posted a startling 4,847 missing/stolen firearms, and according to Ashlee Sherrill, a public information officer with the ATF in St. Paul, the problem may be with a single retailer, although she could not elaborate.

Following Minnesota in the “Top Ten” for lost or stolen firearms from FFLs are Texas (984), North Carolina (661), Florida (637), California (631), Tennessee (586), Pennsylvania (568), New York (473), Indiana (453) and Georgia (405).

Regardless of how the numbers break down, it amounts to a lot of hardware making its way into the criminal element, and the downside is that law-abiding gun owners often wind up being penalized for crimes they didn’t commit. Anti-gunners gleefully use such crimes to complain about “careless gun dealers,” when nothing is further from the truth. Gun thieves are known to crash their way into gun stores. Such thefts are nothing new, and have been illustrated time after time by security videos such as this one, released in June 2024 by the Murfreesboro, Tennessee Police Department:

As noted at the ATF website, “Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) must report to ATF each missing, lost, or stolen firearm from the FFL’s inventory or collection within 48 hours of discovery of the loss or theft by completing and forwarding a Federal Firearms Licensee Theft/Loss Report (ATF Form 3310.11). In addition, the FFL must also report the firearm theft or loss to the appropriate local law enforcement agency.”

One case which underscores the necessity for retailers to keep a sharp eye on their inventory is that of the infamous “D.C. Sniper” attacks, also known as the “Beltway Sniper” case in September and October 2002. As noted at Wikipedia, over the course of 10 months, the murderous team of John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo are known to have murdered 17 people and wounded 10 others, and when they were apprehended in Maryland, the rifle they used was found to have been stolen from a popular gun store in Tacoma, Washington, some 2,800 miles away. The store apparently didn’t realize the gun had been essentially shoplifted until the Maryland arrest. Muhammad was eventually executed by lethal injection and Malvo is serving multiple life sentences in Virginia.

Like it or not, more guns are stolen from private citizens than firearms retailers, according to data from an unlikely source: Everytown for Gun Safety, the Michael Bloomberg-backed gun control group. According to an Everytown report from last year, “Research from Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund finds that in cities that report data to the FBI, gun thefts from cars are the largest source of stolen guns.”

Source: ATF

Back in 2022, the National Rifle Association posted a short advisory regarding how to store firearms in vehicles, which sometimes cannot be avoided because of various policies prohibiting concealed carry in certain businesses or public buildings. Ideally, such places can be avoided, but that’s not always possible.

The Everytown report asserted, “Everytown analyzed crime data from 337 small- to large-size cities across 44 states—covering roughly 63 million people—obtained from the FBI’s National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). Analyses revealed that in 2022, nearly 112,000 guns were reported stolen in these cities. This is likely a conservative estimate since only a third of US states legally require reporting of lost and stolen guns to law enforcement, and thus thousands of missing guns go unreported annually. While guns can be stolen in a variety of ways and places (e.g., from people’s houses or from gun shops, or individuals directly), in 2022, just over half (51 percent) were stolen from cars. This amounted to nearly 62,000 guns stolen from cars in 2022 across these 337 cities.”

A May 2024 report appearing in the Twin Cities Pioneer Press asserted, “The rate of guns stolen from cars in the U.S. has tripled over the last decade, making them the largest source of stolen guns in the country.” It is important to note this report relied on the Everytown analysis, which became the source for such stories, and was circulated by the Associated Press.

Gun theft is a problem, whether from retailers or private citizens. That much was clear when AmmoLand News looked at gun thefts from vehicles six months ago, in November 2024. However, when the gun prohibition lobby acknowledges gun thefts, it amounts to a refutation of their argument that restrictive gun control laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Apparently, this fact appears to escape their logic, or perhaps anti-gunners just hope the public won’t see the discrepancy, regardless how glaring it is.

Holiday Warning: Secure Your Gun, Don’t Leave it in Vehicle

D.C. Double Slaying: Suspect Crossed State Lines, Media Ignores Lesson

---

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/dpJxFkP
via IFTTT

Social Media Posts by Know-It-Alls with Guns Spread Ignorance

Ignorance is self-defeating, even though the purveyors are blind to it. iStock-1766256041

Two stories came across the transom over the weekend from X that both involve guns and provide insights into the minds of eccentric personalities whose actions could endanger others, but mostly themselves.

The first  came as a video with commentary by Jason B. Alexander, a self-described “journalist” who is “offering to train supporters of the Palestinian people all I know about self-defense.” His stated motivation is that he anticipates retaliation against “leaders and organizers of the Palestinian movement” by “Israel and its supporters” following the targeted assassination of two Israeli embassy staffers in Washington, DC. His qualifications appear to be that he “was raised in the Bronx, in the 1970s. I know alot.”

To prove his skill, he aims a scoped air rifle out his window and fires it, then walks the viewer to a target in his backyard that he says, “is about 50 yards.” He shows a close-up of a paper target with several holes in it, points to one, and claims, “I got a bullseye.”

I’m offering to train supporters of the Palestinian people all I know about self-defense.

I was raised in the Bronx, in the 1970s. I know alot.

After the assassination of two Israeli agents in Washington, DC, by Elias Rodriguez, Israel and its supporters can be expected to… pic.twitter.com/RuuBlVkfZ4

— JB Nicholas (@JasonBNicholas) May 22, 2025

While there’s no way to validate when that shot was fired and from what distance, it’s hardly a remarkable achievement, but it does make some questions fair:  Why an air rifle? And, since he doxes himself announces his address, apparently so the internet can’t be used to trace communications, what do the people who live behind him think of him firing it in their direction with no solid backstop?

Alexander confirms in a subsequent comment that he is the subject of a news account that relates the time he killed a man with a “sawed-off shotgun” and “spent nearly 13 years behind bars.” That would make him a “prohibited person.”

And while New York law is unclear on felons with airguns, 6 CRR-NY 180.3  on Fish and Wildlife adds confusion into the mix:

“The terms firearm or gun shall mean any rifle, pistol, shotgun or muzzleloading firearm which by force of gunpowder, or an airgun as defined in subdivision (b) of this section, that expels a missile or projectile capable of killing, wounding or otherwise inflicting physical damage upon fish, wildlife or other animals.”

Perhaps Mr. Alexander’s skill at saying he is qualified to train others to put down Israeli retaliation will give Mossad operatives reason to pause. Then again, perhaps his time would be better spent mowing his lawn and cleaning his room.

The second instance is another head-scratcher, coming from “Christopher,” an “08’ Obama delegate and independent CD1 congressional candidate” who was complaining that Republicans do nothing on guns and block attempts to control them, When challenged on being a  gun-grabber, he responded by claiming to be a gun owner himself, and then “proved” it by posting a photo of him holding a pistol to his head with his finger on the trigger.

I go to c4 with my friend when we get a few hours on our weekends at the same time pic.twitter.com/rI9CLhqEh7

— Christopher (@tennismd7) May 25, 2025

When challenged for violating cardinal rules of gun safety, he wouldn’t back down from insisting the gun was empty and he’d checked it himself. True, it doesn’t have a magazine, and he may have even cleared the chamber, but that doesn’t alter some inconvenient truths.

Cavalier attitudes toward the Four Rules originated by “Gunner’s Guru” Col. Jeff Cooper, whom Christopher presumably knows better than, lead to careless mistakes over time. That’s evidenced by regular gun owners and “trained” police officers causing negligent discharges because they “thought” the gun was empty and touched the trigger.

Also, as gun owners, we have a moral obligation to conduct ourselves responsibly and safely. That’s especially true for a would-be politician. Posting photos like this for the world to see disregards that not everyone who does knows why it is dangerous and may emulate it themselves. That’s particularly true of young people trying to impress others. And speaking of people with no gun handling experience, one of Christopher’s proposed “solutions” to “make the country safer for all of us [is] we can do gun buybacks…”

Disregard that no less an authority than the DOJ’s National Institute of Justice concluded years ago in its “Summary of Select Firearm Violence Prevention Strategies” that:

“Evidence: Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented. 1. The buybacks are too small to have an impact. 2. The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime. 3. Replacement guns are easily acquired. Unless these three points are overcome, a gun buyback cannot be effective.”

They’re also used to offer inducements to people, who never heard of Cooper’s Rules and may not know how to remove a magazine, or clear a chamber, or keep fingers or anything else from touching triggers, to pick guns up and transport them to collection centers. That hardly “makes the country safer for all of us.”

It would be a waste of time to leave replies to either Jason or Christopher. Their minds, such as they are, are obviously made up and resistant to being changed and to accepting that they may not be as “right” as they think they are. That’s what makes this a learning experience for all of us when dealing with intractable people who act like they know it all. None of us do.

I’m reminded of an article I did decades ago on “smart guns,” where I sought advice from a former Navy SEAL and expert’s expert, providing weapons and tactics training to elite military fighting personnel, civilian law enforcement tactical specialists, and authorized security professionals. With candor typical of true professionals, he admitted up front that “our staff does not know it all, nor have we ‘arrived’. We are in a constant state of learning and consider ourselves perpetual students.”

Compare that to the presumed warfighter trainer who shoots pellets out his bedroom window and the guy who insists it’s OK to put a gun to his head, both of whom refuse to consider that those who do not “respect their authoritah” may have a point.

I know who I’ll listen to.

---

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/PXGct3x
via IFTTT

Constitutional Carry: 29 States and Hoping for More

Constitutional Carry: 29 States and Hoping for More

The ongoing fight between Pennsylvania state representative Frank Burns (D-District 74) and gun rights groups continues. Burns said he only voted against an amendment that would have required the anti-gun Speaker of the House to send House Bill 454, Constitutional Carry of a Firearm, to the floor for a vote. Key opponents claim he used a procedural trick to scuttle permitless carry in the Keystone State.

While acknowledging his 15 years of support for gun rights, the Gun Owners of America announced it is withdrawing its endorsement of Burns. GOA had previously demanded that Burns resign from the House Second Amendment Caucus.

The truth is out there, somewhere. However, constitutional carry was dead the moment it was filed, months before Burns’ vote.

While Republicans won a three-seat majority in the 2024 elections, they wound up with a one-vote deficit in the House.

Had Burns voted with the Republicans on the amendment and the floor vote, the bill very likely would have passed in the Senate – and then everything would end.

Democratic Governor Josh Shapiro has already said he would veto this bill: There’s no way Republicans could marshal a two-thirds supermajority in the Pennsylvania House to override it.

A similar roadblock faces constitutional carry in North Carolina. Democratic Governor Josh Stein has pledged to veto permitless carry in the Tar Heel State.

Senate Bill 50, Freedom to Carry North Carolina, has passed the Senate, been sent to the House, and has been languishing in the House Committee on Rules, Calendar, and Operation of the House since March 25.

Republicans hold the majority of seats in both chambers. There are enough Republicans in the Senate to easily override a veto, but the GOP comes up nine seats short in the House. Without the firm commitment of nine Democrats, the bill might as well sit in committee until the legislature adjourns on July 31.

All of the low-hanging fruit has been plucked; expanding constitutional carry beyond the 29 states that already have it will be challenging.

The best option is action at the federal level. However, Senate Bill 65, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, introduced with much fanfare by Texas Senator John Cornyn (R-TX), was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary on January 9, where it has stayed ever since.

House Resolution 38, the House version of the same bill, has fared far better. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC-9) introduced it on January third and it currently has 183 cosponsors. It was referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. On March 25, the committee considered it and sent an amended version for consideration by the full House of Representatives.

If the House approves it, the next stop is the Senate, where the House and Senate versions will need to be reconciled while Senate majority leadership tries to persuade resident RINOs Susan Collins (R?-ME) and Lisa Murkowski (R?-AK) to vote with the majority and convince seven Democrats to join in. Otherwise, it will fall to the filibuster.

Making the bold assumption it passes the Senate and is signed by President Trump, SB 65/HR 38 is a very good bill, even if it falls slightly short of nationwide permitless carry, because it will be fun to see the reactions of Kathy Hochul, Phil Murphy, JB Pritzker, and Gavin Newsom, to name a few.

There’s also House Resolution 645, introduced by Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY-4) on January 23 and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary the same day. Massie’s bill was a moon shot which would have made true permitless carry the law of the land. It would be very unlikely to get unanimous support from even the Republicans.

Constitutional carry and the nationwide acceptance of our right to keep and bear arms are important issues affecting millions of Americans. However, there’s no easy path.

Constitutional carry or even just mandatory permit reciprocity can’t be added to a must-pass budget reconciliation; they aren’t financial issues. This means we have to keep up the pressure. Keep making contact with your representatives and senators: We know it works.

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago and has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

from https://ift.tt/gm2LpFT
via IFTTT

Update: 533 Million Privately Owned Firearms in the United States

Gun Counter Sale Store Shop shutterstock_Nomad_Soul 1686855574.jpg

There are about 533 million firearms in private hands in the United States of America in 2025. The current population is estimated at 343 million people. This gives a record number of 1.55 firearms for every person in the United States. The number of privately owned firearms in the United States is growing by 15-20 million firearms a year.

The number of firearms which are privately owned in the United States is not clear and obvious or easily measured. There has never been a registry of firearms for the United States. A national firearms registry is forbidden by law. There are partial state registration systems in a few states.  Data on manufacture, importation, and exportation of firearms was not kept as a matter of record until after World War II.

Researchers Newton and Zimring pioneered the estimation of private firearms numbers in the United States. They researched the number of firearms manufactured, imported, and exported in the United States from 1899 through 1945 and estimated a total of 46.9 million modern firearms as of 1945. For the years 1946 to 1972, individual figures were calculated for each year. Shipments of firearms to the military were not included.

US Homicide Rate vs Firearms per Capita

Gary Kleck, in his seminal work, Point Blank Guns and Violence in America, extended the work of Newton and Zimring through 1987, using data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF). As of 1987, the total was over 198 million.

This correspondent has used the ATF numbers from 1988 to 2023 to reach a figure of over 530 million firearms in the private stock in the USA in 2025. The work was previously done through 2015. In the decade from 2015 to 2024, a combination of ATF numbers and estimates from the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) were used. This resulted in an estimate of 516 million firearms in the private stock as of the end of 2024, with another three million added in the first three months of 2025.

The recent publication of Firearms Commerce in the United States Statistical Update 2024 gave access to the official numbers of firearms manufactured, imported, and exported in the United States for the last decade through 2023. These are definitive numbers reported as required by law to the ATF. These numbers were used to update the estimate of the firearms in the private stock given in March 2024. The official ATF numbers were calculated and added to the previous work done through 2015. The change in the estimate is a few million.

As of the end of 2023, the estimate was  513 million firearms. An estimate of firearm sales calculated by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, based on the NICS data, reported by the FBI, adds another 16.5 million in 2024. NICS data for the first four months of 2025 adds another five million.

The estimated total, as of the end of May 2025, is 533 million firearms in private hands in the United States of America.

The number is the cumulative addition of imports minus exports plus domestic manufacture. The number does not account for a reduction of the gun stock through illegal exportation, destruction, loss, or wear and tear. The numbers do not include illegal importation, military surplus sales to the public, or individual manufacture of firearms for private use. As many as 17 million firearms may have been sold as surplus to the American public. Such surplus arms are commonly seen at gun shows. Private manufacture of firearms for personal use is in a boom stage. It is impossible to know how many firearms are lost and gained from these sources.  The unknown losses and gains offset each other to some extent.

The numbers are necessarily imprecise. The method of calculation was pioneered by Newton and Zimring in 1969, updated by Gary Kleck through 1987, and extended to 2023 by this correspondent, using official numbers as reported by the ATF.

The Small Arms Survey in Switzerland uses essentially the same method when estimating the number of privately owned firearms in the United States. The Small Arms Survey has not updated its estimates since 2017. Published in 2018, the Small Arms Survey estimated for the United States as of 2017 was 393.3 million privately owned firearms.

---

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/sSAupCJ
via IFTTT

Chinese Coil Gun Could Proves Fatal Flaw in ‘Common Use’ Argument

“State-owned arms maker China South Industries Group (CSGC) has released footage of its electromagnetic coil gun,” Interesting Engineering claimed Sunday. “Allegedly capable of firing 3,000 rounds per minute, the prototype represents a major technical leap in portable directed-energy weaponry.”

“Portable”? So, they’re not talking about some rail gun prototype designed to be mounted on a ship or other fixed military platform?

“This weapon debuts just a few years after another Chinese coil gun, the CS/LW21, was unveiled in 2023,” the report elaborates. “Another handheld electromagnetic coil gun, the CS/LW21 was developed by China North Industries Group (Norinco) for riot control and non-lethal use.”

So, it’s “handheld,” and per the report, “Far surpasses the AK-47.” It can serve uses “from crowd control to militarization,” with “adjustable lethality, making it ideal for ‘covert missions’,” meaning “the gun could transition to lethal battlefield roles (e.g., drones, automated turrets, or infantry weapons).”

That’s cool. So, how soon will it be available to “We the People”?

“This bullpup gun uses coins as bullets,” a two-year-old video accompanying the story explains. “It is totally legal because there is no gunpowder, and the output power is limited.”

That would even make it outside the purview of ATF. Clearly, whoever presumed “total” legality did not take into account the Democrat mania for citizen disarmament. And the output power can be increased. Let these things hit the market and watch how fast demands to “Close the rail gun loophole” translate into regulatory oversight and outright bans on civilian ownership. Except for the “Only Ones,” of course.

And what about the Second Amendment? They are arms, after all.

This is where our “gun rights leaders” may have painted us into a corner, by seizing on the criteria of being “in common use at the time” as the standard to determine if a gun ban violates the  Second Amendment. It was never intended as a popularity contest.

Since no innovation ever begins “in common use,” a government with the power to do so can ban all new weapon developments from those they would rule, retaining them exclusively for itself. Remember the core purpose of the Second Amendment. To argue the Founders thought sending an outmatched yeomanry to their slaughter would be “necessary to the security of a free State” is insane.

It’s what I warned about when I wrote “Things to Come” back in 2002 for Guns and Ammo:

“It’s been said that a battle isn’t won until a man with a rifle occupies the ground. We must keep in mind that someone probably once said the same thing about spears.”

---

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/eJktuWq
via IFTTT

Texas Legislature Updates Carry Reciprocity

More than 30 percent of American gun owners say they have used a gun in self-defense.

Texas bill SB706 is on the way to Governor Abbott. He is expected to sign the bill into law.  The bill simplifies the way the State of Texas recognizes handgun carry permits from other states. SB706 makes a simple statement:

“A valid license to carry a handgun issued by any other state is recognized in this state.”

The previous subparagraph (b) of  § 411.173 was not quite as clear. Old law § 411.173(b):

(b) The governor shall negotiate an agreement with any other state that provides for the issuance of a license to carry a handgun under which a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state or shall issue a proclamation that a license issued by the other state is recognized in this state if the attorney general of the State of Texas determines that a background check of each applicant for a license issued by that state is initiated by state or local authorities or an agent of the state or local authorities before the license is issued. For purposes of this subsection, “background check” means a search of the National Crime Information Center database and the Interstate Identification Index maintained by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

In addition, there were complications, such as other states’ issuance of permits to citizens between 18 and 21 years old. Texas generally did not recognize many of those permits.

Texas SB706 replaces the old § 411.173(b). Here is the changed language of what the new law is expected to be. It is a bit more than a single sentence:

A valid license to carry a handgun issued by any other state is recognized in this state. The governor shall negotiate with any other state an agreement that provides for the reciprocal recognition of a license to carry a handgun if the other state requires such an agreement before recognizing a license to carry a handgun issued by this state. The department shall publish on its Internet website and annually update a list of states in which a license to carry a handgun issued by this state is recognized.

Texas already has permitless carry, but the legislation only applies to people 21 years of age or older. A federal court case changed that. Texas now accepts applications for concealed carry permits from 18 to 20-year-olds.

SB706 brings Texas law into conformity with the court case recognizing the right of 18-20 year old people to bear arms.  The legislation did not receive two thirds of the votes in both houses of the legislature.  If it had, it would go into effect when Governor Abbot signs the bill into law. Because the bill did not receive two thirds of the votes, the bill, once signed, will go into effect on September 1, 2025.

The practical effect of SB706, when signed by Governor Greg Abbott, simplifies Texas statutes, making it easier for ordinary citizens, judges, and peace officers to determine if other states’ permits are valid in Texas. It brings Texas law closer to conformity with the growing body of law recognizing that young adults, who are 18-20 years old, are included in “the people” whose exercise of rights is protected by the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear a Minnesota case that held that the state must issue carry permits to 18 to 20-year-olds on the same basis it issues permits to older people.  The NRA is appealing an Eleventh Circuit decision that upheld a Florida law which forbids the sale of firearms to people under the age of 21.

---

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/dc3sGXa
via IFTTT

ACLU Attempt to Block Criminal Illegal Alien Removals Fails Spectacularly

PRESS RELEASE: The ACLU’s dangerous campaign to keep violent criminals in the United States is falling apart.

File Photo stock.adobe 155930521

WASHINGTON – Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem announced that the American Civil Liberties Union’s (ACLU) latest attempt to wage lawfare against the Department was dropped. This lawsuit tried to prevent DHS from removing dangerous criminal illegal aliens from the country.

“We are glad to see the ACLU’s meritless, frivolous, and frankly dangerous lawsuit fall apart,” said Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin. “That they claim to be a civil rights organization while advocating on behalf of foreign criminal gang members is laughable. They clearly could care less about the Americans that these illegal alien criminals victimize.”

The lawsuit was filed on March 1, 2025, by the ACLU on behalf of 10 illegal aliens who were being transferred to a detention facility at Guantanamo Bay in preparation for their removal.

Most of these criminal illegal aliens were removed from the country, while the remaining volunteered to drop the suit.

Fortunately, these criminals will no longer to be able to victimize American citizens. The Department will continue to use all available resources to remove the dangerous criminal illegal aliens who were let into our country by the previous administration.

DOJ Announces Second Amendment Task Force

Illegal Alien Scumbags Fined & Imprisoned ~ The Rest Should Self Deport Now! ~ VIDEO

---

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

Trinidad and Tobago Reject ‘Public Health’ Gun Control

Trinidad and Tobago Reject ‘Public Health’ Gun Control iStock-1365229422

On April 28, 2025, in a Parliamentary election in Trinidad and Tobago, the United National Congress (UNC) party won 26 of 41 seats. This was a resounding defeat for the People’s National Movement (PNM) party, which had been in power for ten years. The PNM lost, in large part, because of their unrealistic assumptions about the nature of violence and firearms.

The Prime Minister for most of the ten years had been Dr. Keith Rowley. PM Rowley stepped down on March 16. His Successor, PM Stuart Young, called for a snap election on March 18, to be held on April 28.  A month before PM Rowley stepped down, he attended the three-day Regular Meeting of the Conference of CARICOM Heads of Government, held on February 19-21, 2025. When the Conference was over, Dr. Rowley explained his party’s approach to violent crime. From blackstarnews.com:

Addressing the media following the three-day 48^th Regular Meeting of the Conference of CARICOM Heads of Government in Barbados, Prime Minister Rowley also revealed that leaders will continue to treat violence as a public health issue, noting the impact on communities and the public health system.

“So we adopted the working definition of crime and violence as a public health issue since the effect on human conditions is such that violent crime – largely carried out by firearms – 80% of the killings that we are experiencing are done by firearms – and 90% of those firearms are coming to us from one particular source. So we agree that this is a public health issue, and of course, we will continue to engage it as such,” said Dr. Rowley.

Trinidad and Tobago have been plagued with an enormous increase in violent crime since Hugo Chavez imposed his “Bolivarian” revolution on Venezuela. Trinidad and Tobago are off the coast of Venezuela, with only seven miles separating the two countries.

As the homicide rate in Trinidad and Tobago soared with the importation of gang violence and extortion, the treatment of violent crime as a disease was completely inappropriate and ineffective. Try to make some sense of PM Dr. Rowley’s statement above. It reminds this correspondent of the “word salad” approach of the Democratic Party’s Presidential candidate in 2024, Kamala Harris.

PM Dr. Rowley seems to try to explain why the party decided to consider violent crime as a public health issue, but there is no explanation. There is no complete sentence. No causal relationship is offered. The closest to an explanation is an assertion that violent crime is “largely carried out by firearms”, and that “80% of the killings that we are experiencing are done by firearms”. Neither of those assertions makes any sense.

Firearms cannot commit crimes. Firearms cannot commit killings. Guns are inanimate objects and do not have volition. Firearms cannot make choices.

P.M. Dr. Rowley also says, “90% of those firearms are coming to us from one particular source.” The presumption is that the source is the United States. Again, there is no causal connection. The United States produces most firearms in the Western Hemisphere. It would be very strange if most firearms used in criminal acts came from another source.

If the violent crime as a “public health” issue made any sense, then violent crime in the United States, where there are more guns than people, should have a higher rate of homicide than in Trinidad and Tobago, where guns are relatively scarce.

The homicide rate in Trinidad and Tobago in 2023 was 37.6 per 100k. In the United States, it was 6.61, or about 18% of what Trinidad and Tobago experienced. In 2024, the homicide rate in Trinidad and Tobago increased to 45.7 per 100k. The United States rate for 2024 has yet to be released.

The winning party in the Trinidad and Tobago election took a different approach to firearms and violent crime. The approach was to believe law-abiding citizens could use firearms to protect themselves from violent criminals. Using some state laws in the United States as successful examples, the candidate, now Prime Minister,  Persad-Bissessar, made access to legal firearms, a “stand your ground” law, and reform of home defense laws a core part of her campaign.

The campaign was successful. The new Prime Minister and her cabinet are currently working on the reforms. Her understanding of reality is far different than the previous Prime Minister and the People’s National Movement party.

In the next few years, results should indicate which of the two views of reality is closer to the truth.

---

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/ngQeu0J
via IFTTT

Gun Owners Still Fighting to Undo Anti-Gun Age Ban in Florida

Opinion

Gun Owners Still Fighting to Undo Anti-Gun Age Ban in Florida

Citing a circuit split, the NRA has filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court. The case is National Rifle Association v. Glass, and it’s a seven-year-old battle to correct a law passed in haste by the Florida Legislature, wrongfully depriving hundreds of thousands of young adults of their civil liberties.

Just 24 days after the Parkland murders, Florida Governor (now Senator) Rick Scott signed SB 7026, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act. The bill was introduced by Republican State Senator Kathleen Passidomo just three days after the shooting and about nine months before the Florida state commission created to investigate the shooting released its preliminary findings.

Among the provisions of the new law was, quite literally, the stripping of the Second Amendment rights of every young adult in the state. The minimum age to purchase a rifle or shotgun went from 18 to 21.

The law was already in effect by December 2018 when the commission released a 400-page report. The report put the blame on the shooter, but was very critical of all the circumstances that allowed the incident.

The Broward County School’s diversion policies, the failure of the FBI to forward multiple tips about the shooter to its Miami field office, and the failures of the staff at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School all created the opportunity for the shooter. Even at the last minute, the shooting might have been averted had the school repaired a lock on a security fence and the staff member assigned to monitor the gate been paying attention.

After the first shot was fired, the commission described the response of the school resource officer as “abysmal” and was very critical of the actions of the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.

The commission didn’t have much to say about the Smith & Wesson M&P15. Not surprising: The timeline of the shooting showed virtually any rifle other than a single-shot or bolt-action would have worked equally well. The killer didn’t even use standard-capacity magazines.

And what were the results of this? The school board president who introduced the diversion program was reelected; the citizens of Broward County continued to support the sheriff until the governor stripped him of office; the derelict deputy retired; the shooter took a plea deal and got 34 consecutive life sentences without parole; and more than 725,000 adult citizens ages 18, 19, and 20 were deprived of the right to buy a firearm.

To put it bluntly, the Florida legislature and U.S. Senator Scott should be ashamed of themselves. They should be further shamed by the fact that it has been more than seven years, and a Republican-dominated legislature has repeatedly failed to restore those rights. It’s said Senator Passidomo, who became majority leader the same year her bill was enacted, quashed efforts to repeal the age restrictions.

Instead, this has become an absurd court battle over whether Floridians were ever allowed to buy firearms at 18. The argument is tied to the age of majority, and courts have held, with a straight face, that purchases of guns were limited to those who had reached the legal age of majority.

This ignores the Militia Act of 1792. In addition, it ignores the 49 years between the effective date of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which set the minimum age to purchase long guns at eighteen, and the signing of the Florida law. This also includes the nearly three years the Gun Control Act of 1968 was in effect prior to the 1971 ratification of the Twenty-Sixth Amendment, which effectively lowered the age of majority to eighteen. There has never been any indication the federal government has linked the age to buy guns to the age of majority.

The Chicken Little response to the Parkland shooting indicates Sunshine State lawmakers also were unaware the Parkland shooter was the only person under 21 to commit a mass shooting in at least 49 years and remains the only one today.*

The big questions are, first, why there was a rush to deprive hundreds of thousands of citizens of their constitutionally protected rights because one, or  0.00014%, of them committed an evil act? Equally important is why the Florida Legislature refuses admit their hasty error and correct their poor decision?

*Source: The Violence Prevention Project mass shooter database and additional information covering incidents from September 1949 to December 2024.

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago and has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

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