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.
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 48th 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.
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.
An evening double murder in Washington, D.C. provided a lesson the media and anti-gunners refuse to recognize. iStock-2151232372
The 6-page criminal complaint against accused Washington, D.C. double murder suspect Elias Rodriguez says he purchased the 9mm handgun recovered by investigators, and that he flew from Chicago to Reagan National Airport in Virginia, crossing state lines with a firearm.
For the establishment media reporting on this tragedy, there is a lesson they are either ignoring or are simply too myopic to grasp. These are the same people who are now “surprised” to learn about Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.
Criminals, and people intent on committing violent mayhem, are not deterred by gun control laws, including the one forbidding concealed carry without a hard-to-get permit in the District of Columbia.
Rodriguez, according to the Justice Department complaint, bought the handgun on March 6, 2020, in Illinois, a state where a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card is required. Whether the suspect had been planning this crime for the past five-plus years hasn’t been established, but he apparently was not discouraged by any of the statutes under which he has been charged.
The Justice Department knows he declared the firearm and flew with it in his checked baggage, which is required by law. His trip occurred one day before the killing, so he presumably was planning the shooting that far in advance. Fox News identified the couple as Yaron Lischinsky and Sarah Milgrim, both staffers at the Israeli Embassy.
Gun rights advocates such as Alan Gottlieb at the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) have been saying for years there is a “disconnect” among gun prohibitionists and their allies on Capitol Hill and in state legislatures. Bad people simply do not obey gun laws which have increasingly restricted honest citizens from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
The Justice Department has charged Rodriguez with murder of foreign officials, causing death through the use of a firearm, two counts of first-degree murder, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence. So far, his only reaction has been to shout, “Free, Free Palestine.”
This crime occurred at the same time the U.S. House was debating the budget reconciliation package which, among other things, removes firearm suppressors from regulation under the 1934 National Firearms Act. The morning after the House passed the budget package, gun control groups were furious, with Brady United leading the mob by offering a form letter for people to sign, and send to their senators, demanding that they “vote no on President Trump’s tax bill that deregulates gun silencers under the National Firearms Act of 1934.”
Evidently, the Brady bunch doesn’t think their supporters are intelligent enough to write their own letters.
Everytown for Gun Safety and Giffords must have compared notes, because both organizations whined about the potential for silencers to make it tougher for police to fight crime.
“There’s a reason silencers have been regulated for nearly a century: They make it much harder for law enforcement and bystanders to react quickly to gunshots,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety, in that group’s press release.“In the name of gun industry profits, House Republicans are putting law enforcement and our communities at greater risk of being shot — all while gutting health care for millions of Americans.”
Likewise, Giffords Executive Director Emma Brown chimed in, “Instead of focusing on the safety of American families, House Republicans just gave gun industry CEOs a $1.5 billion tax break to help boost their bottom line. Silencers will only enable shooters to cause more violence and damage without being detected. Law enforcement has opposed efforts to make silencers more accessible for a reason—they’re dangerous and make their jobs harder. For a party that claims to ‘back the blue,’ House Republicans just gave dangerous people a big win and ignored the impact to public safety.”
But the D.C. murder suspect didn’t use a silencer, and neither did most other mass shooters in recent memory.
What these remarks exemplify is that, once again, the gun prohibition lobby is trying to affix blame for crimes not only on guns, but on firearm accessories actually designed to prevent hearing loss. All they said about the suspect was a reference to hate. Indeed, the only reaction to the crime came from Everytown’s subsidiaries in a news release.
“The devastating combination of hate and access to guns has led to two young people losing a future full of hope and love,” said Constance Freeman, a volunteer with the D.C. chapter of Moms Demand Action.
“The sad truth is that none of us are safe from gun violence in a world where hate is so prevalent and guns are so accessible,” said Michal Heimowitz, a volunteer with Students Demand Action and leader of Students Demand Action’s Jewish Affinity Group.
But these remarks carefully avoided anything close to an admission that existing gun laws, which all of these groups supported and insisted would work, didn’t. It’s as though they believe by remaining silent the truth understood by the firearms community long ago will just go away. But it won’t.
“This morning, the U.S. House of Representatives passed President Trump’s One, Big, Beautiful Bill, which includes the complete removal of suppressors from the NFA. This represents a monumental victory for Second Amendment rights, eliminating burdensome regulations on the purchase of critical hearing protection devices. The NRA thanks the House members who supported this bill and urges its swift passage in the U.S. Senate.”
Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:
“Eliminating the suppressor registration and tax is a major step forward for liberty and safety. This would not have happened without Rep. (Andrew) Clyde’s resolve and strategic leadership. Gun owners have one less unconstitutional hurdle to worry about—but we’re not done. The Senate needs to deliver on President Trump’s campaign promise to protect gun owners from another ban on short-barreled firearms like the Biden Pistol Brace Ban.”
“We have cleared a significant obstacle in the effort to bring suppressors into the mainstream, and make the Hearing Protection Act a reality,” said Andrew Gottlieb, CCRKBA managing director. “The Citizens Committee is proud to have joined with so many of our friends and allies all over the country in pushing for reform of the NFA, which is long overdue.
“It is gratifying to see Hearing Protection make it past this important hurdle,” Gottlieb continued, “because it means members of Congress are finally seeing past the misinformation, myths and outright lies about suppressors which have been perpetuated for years by the gun prohibition movement and their media dupes.”
As underscored in the aftermath of the D.C. shooting, there seems to be a lot of that going around.
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.
A Short History of Bans on Possession of Firearms in Federal Facilities, iStock-490657417
Laws banning the carry or possession of weapons in government buildings are a very late addition to the United States of America. At the time of the ratification of the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, there were only three places where the possession and carry of weapons were banned with some regularity. Those were: Court rooms while court was in session; legislative chambers where governmental bodies were involved in their legislative duties; and polling places on election day. There were no bans on carrying or possessing weapons in most public buildings, most of the time. From the Supreme Court Bruen opinion, bold added p. 27:
Although the historical record yields relatively few 18th- and 19th century “sensitive places” where weapons were altogether prohibited—e.g., legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses—we are also aware of no disputes regarding the lawfulness of such prohibitions.
It wasn’t until the 1960s that the federal government banned the possession of firearms in government buildings.
This was made clear in the United States v. Ayala case arguments. The case is about whether a federal law banning the possession and/or carrying of weapons in post offices violates the rights protected by the Second Amendment. The district court found the post office ban to be unconstitutional. The case is being appealed.
The documents in the Ayala case reveal interesting information. As late as the 1920s, the post office armed mail clerks. From USA v. Ayala Document 57:
P. 11 In fact, when mail train robberies became a growing threat in the early twentieth century, the Postmaster General armed railway mail clerks with “government-issued pistols” from World War I. USPS, AN AMERICAN HISTORY at 23, 107.
The dates, statutes, and regulations listed below come from the Courtlistener Docket for USA v. Ayala, Document 32, p. 14:
Regulations banning weapons were instituted in 1964 and in 1972.
In 1962, as part of the new Federal Property Management Regulations, firearms and other weapons or explosives were banned from federal property except for official purposes. 29 F.R. 15982 (1964). In 1972, the United States codified the ban of firearms, dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives on postal property except for official purposes. Conduct on Postal Property, 37 Fed. Reg. 24346, 24347 (November 16, 1972).
Pub. L. No. 100-690, 102 Stat. 4361, § 6215 (1988); 18 U.S.C. § 930. Exceptions exist for (1) federal or state officials performing official law enforcement activities, (2) other federal officials or members of the Armed Forces “if such possession is authorized by law,” and (3) possession incident to hunting or “other lawful purposes.” 18 U.S.C. § 930.
The law is vague about what “other lawful purposes” might be. To a layman, those appear to include carrying for lawful self-defense.
In 1998, the post office reinforced the general ban of 18 U.S.C. § 930 with a postal regulation. From Ayala, Document 32, p. 14:
Additionally, in 1998 the same ban was codified, reinforcing that “[n]o person while on postal property may carry firearms, other dangerous or deadly weapons, or explosives, either openly or concealed, or store the same on postal property, except for official purposes”. Conduct on Postal Property, 39 C.F.R. § 232.
From the beginning of the United States of America in 1776, and the ratification of the United States Constitution in 1789, there was no general ban on the possession and carry of weapons in government buildings until 1964, when the 1962 regulation was published. A bill passed in 1967 prohibited the possession or carry of weapons in the District of Columbia Capitol Buildings. Congress did not pass a statute banning weapons in federal governmental buildings in general until 1988, only 37 years ago.
For at least 175 years, the United States did not attempt to ban the possession and carry of weapons in government buildings. Except for courthouses and legislatures in session, or polling places on election day, the right to keep and bear arms was not infringed in government buildings.
The bans on weapons in government buildings are neither traditional or long-standing. They are recent innovations which specifically infringe on the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
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.
Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) has been added to the House of Representatives’ reconciliation bill. The Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act will not be included in the House version. The bill passed the House on a party-line vote.
The HPA would remove suppressors from the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA). Under NFA regulations, suppressors must be registered with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Suppressor owners must submit fingerprints and passport photographs. These suppressor owners also must pay a $200 fee for a tax stamp. The ATF screens the applicants using the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). After the ATF deems a person eligible to own a suppressor, their chief law enforcement officer is notified.
If the HPA passes the Senate in its current form, suppressors will be treated as any other Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) item, such as standard handguns and rifles. A prospective buyer must complete an ATF Form 4473 and be processed through NICS. They will not have to pay $200 for a tax stamp, and their suppressor will not be on an ATF registry.
If the HPA passes, dealers can sell these items under a standard federal firearms license (FFL) without needing to pay the Special Occupational Tax (SOT).
The SHORT Act would remove short-barreled rifles (SBR) and short-barreled shotguns (SBS) from the NFA. The NFA requires registration with the ATF if a rifle has a barrel less than 16 inches or a shotgun has a barrel less than 18 inches. This requirement was implemented during the debate over the NFA in 1934. The NFA looked to include pistols, so SBRs and SBSs were added to prevent people from using these “loopholes” to get around regulations. During the debate in 1934, the pistol regulation was removed, but the restrictions on rifles and shotguns remained. The SHORT Act would fix a nearly 100-year-old mistake.
When the reconciliation bill went through the House Ways and Means Committee, some Republicans, led by Rep. David Kustoff (R-TN), pushed back, claiming that removing suppressors and SBRs would violate the Senate’s Byrd rule, which states that only tax-related issues can be resolved using the reconciliation process.
The House doesn’t have a version of the Byrd rule. Many in the Senate don’t believe removing suppressors and SBRs from the NFA violates the Senate’s Byrd rule. Many reject Kustoff’s argument since the United States Supreme Court ruled that the NFA is primarily a tax law. Rep. Kustoff pushed to have the tax stamp fee lowered from $200 to $0 for transfers of suppressors instead of removing the items from the NFA. Applications to make a suppressor at home will still cost $200 if Kustoff got his way.
After a lengthy fight in the House Ways and Means Committee, the bill was passed with a tax reduction for suppressors and no change for SBRs. Gun owners were outraged and unleashed their fury on the House phone lines. The bill didn’t get enough votes to pass out of the House, partially because of the pressure from gun owners.
The budget committee, to appease gun owners, added a “manager’s amendment” to the reconciliation bill, adding back section 2 of the HPA while also including the language lowering the tax stamp fee to $0. The latter is a fallback if the Senate decides that removing suppressors from the NFA would violate the Byrd rule.
The SHORT Act was not included in the reconciliation bill. This does not mean the Senate will not amend the bill. The Senate can add the SHORT Act to the bill, and there seems to be a willingness to do so.
Gun owners let their voices be heard in the House, and it moved Republicans into action on suppressors. Now, gun owners will have to turn their energy to the Senate for both suppressors and SBRs.
With reconciliation, only a simple majority is needed to pass the Senate instead of a 60-vote margin to defeat the filibuster.
Republicans have the votes to pass reconciliation in the Senate. President Trump has already committed to signing it into law. Thus, the Second Amendment community is closer than ever to its biggest Congressional win in history.
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.
If you’re someone who values the Second Amendment, you should be paying close attention to a Supreme Court case that—on the surface—has nothing to do with guns. But dig deeper, and you’ll see why the fight over nationwide injunctions is a backdoor battle that could seriously affect our right to keep and bear arms.
Here’s the quick breakdown—and why this case might change the legal battlefield for good.
What’s This Case Really About?
The Supreme Court just heard arguments in a case tied to the birthright citizenship loophole, allowing the theft of our national heritage. But that’s not the headline for us.
What really matters here is a challenge to nationwide or universal injunctions—court orders from one judge that stop the government from enforcing a law everywhere in America, even for people who aren’t part of the lawsuit.
In recent years, anti-gun, anti-Trump, anti-liberty districts—think places like California, New York, and D.C.—have used this tactic to block federal policies they don’t like. These aren’t class actions with real representation of the whole country.
They’re legal grenades tossed by activist judges to freeze Trump-era and pro-2A policies coast-to-coast.
Why Should Gun Owners Even Care?
Let’s say the ATF tries to enforce some insane new regulation—like calling semi-auto rifles “machine guns” again. Normally, you’d expect gun rights groups to fight that in court, win, and have the rule stopped for their members.
But in the current system, one anti-gun judge can issue a nationwide ban that stops your rights even if you weren’t part of the case.
Even worse? These emergency rulings are flooding the Supreme Court’s docket, forcing them to deal with messy, rushed legal chaos instead of working through proper cases with clear facts and full records.
But What If They Try to Ban Guns Nationwide?
Justice Sotomayor actually floated this fear: “What if a new president tries to confiscate all guns? Wouldn’t we need a nationwide injunction to stop him?”
Sounds dramatic—but it’s a distraction.
As Mark Smith from the Four Boxes Diner explains, the proper way to stop unconstitutional executive actions is through the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). That’s how groups like the Second Amendment Foundation, GOA, and FPC have crushed illegal ATF rules before.
Using vacatur—a legal term that cancels a regulation—a judge can shut down an overreaching gun ban without needing to apply that ruling to every citizen instantly. Gun owners and pro-2A groups would still win in court, just through the proper legal channels.
So What’s the Problem With Nationwide Injunctions?
Here’s the real issue:
They give one judge the power to affect everyone’s rights.
They bypass the hard work of building real class-action lawsuits.
They let left-wing groups “forum shop” for friendly judges in places like San Francisco or D.C.
They weaponize the courts against lawful executive action and constitutional gun policy.
That’s not the rule of law. That’s rule by activist decree.
What Happens Next?
Most observers think the Supreme Court is going to shut this scheme down—likely in a 7–2 decision. That would mean:
No more coast-to-coast bans from one rogue judge.
More power to local and state-level legal battles.
A cleaner path for gun rights groups to strategically fight anti-gun laws—without getting bogged down in politically driven injunctions. This may seem like a courtroom technicality, but don’t be fooled—it’s a power struggle over how federal laws are challenged and who gets to speak for America.
Gun owners have always played by the rules—filing smart lawsuits, sticking to the Constitution, and winning fair and square. These universal injunctions? They’re shortcuts for people who lose in the court of public opinion and try to win in backroom courtrooms.
It’s time to put an end to that game.
Stay informed. Stay armed—with knowledge and your rights. —A proud member of the well-informed, liberty-loving 2A generation
Democrat Washington Gov. Bob Ferguson has signed legislation requiring a permit-to-purchase a firearm in the Evergreen State beginning in May 2027. It turns a constitutional right into a government-regulated privilege, say opponents. (Spoof image; Not a Real Document).
Washington Democrat Gov. Bob Ferguson on Tuesday signed House Bill 1163, which will require all future gun buyers to obtain a permit to purchase firearms after it takes effect in May 2027, but the announcement already has Evergreen State gun owners furious as the gun prohibition lobby cheers.
Alan Gottlieb, founder and executive vice president of the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA) said, “Our legal team is already working on potential challenges.”
“Fortunately,” Gottlieb noted, “the law doesn’t take effect until May 2027, which gives us plenty of time.”
Between now and then, the statute will undoubtedly be carefully dissected to determine the best legal strategy. Nothing needs to happen overnight.
Former Washington state Senator Lynda Wilson commented on social media, “Today, one of our most fundamental and inalienable rights has been demoted to the status of a privilege—subject to permission, payment, and government approval.
“The right to keep and bear arms—the right that secures all others—has now been reduced to something you must apply for, pay for, and qualify for, under criteria determined by the very government it is meant to restrain,” she added. “Rights that require permission are not rights at all. They are privileges—and privileges can be revoked.”
According to a report at KING 5 News, the Seattle-based NBC affiliate, “A permit to purchase a firearm may be revoked if the permit holder commits any act or becomes subject to a condition that would have prevented the issuance of the permit in the first place.”
Veteran Second Amendment advocate Jane Milhans posted on the anti-gun-rights Alliance for Gun Responsibility’s Facebook page, “Celebrating taking away a woman’s right to protect herself and making her an unarmed, unprotected, defenseless target for criminals, abusers and those who attack women.”
Ferguson, who is closely allied with the Seattle-based Alliance for Gun Responsibility—the billionaire-backed gun prohibition lobbying group—was surrounded by representatives from that organization. The Alliance Facebook post claims, “Washington is continuing to be a national leader in the gun violence prevention movement.”
But recent headlines say otherwise. According to Washington State Homicide, a popular site on “X,” so far this year, Seattle has seen a dozen homicides, including three this past weekend. Tacoma has logged 11, and Federal Way—located in between—has posted six killings. Overall, Washington has recorded 91 murders so far this year.
Over at the Washington 2025 Legislative Action Group’s page, veteran gun rights advocate and firearms retailer Daniel Mitchell declared, “See ya in court!” Mitchell is founder of the Washington Civil Rights Association, and during testimony earlier this year against HB 1163, he famously promised the Senate Law & Justice Committee, “F— Around and Find Out.” Mitchell vowed to be the “first person to challenge this in federal court.”
Mitchell, a member of the SAF Board of Directors, said via private message, “Democrat legislators in the state of Washington, followed Everytown for Gun Safety, lobbyists legislative agenda to the letter. They passed an unconstitutional permit to purchase, that will result in excessive delays and costs to the citizens of Washington…This will be challenged in court, and we will win as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has already struck down aspects of Hawaii’s permit to purchase scheme.”
Mitchell is also proprietor of Sporting Systems, a large southwest Washington firearms retailer. On Tuesday, the store posted this statement:
“We have some time, May 1, 2027 is a long ways off. The team is evaluating case law in the 9th circuit and the best way to stop the law cold.
“Second, we will do everything we can to bring a free class to the market. No right shall be converted to a privilege and a fee associated with that right. That’s a Supreme court statement from 1960. We will hang our hats on that.
“We will not stand by and watch companies try profit off the passage of an unconstitutional law.
“Even more so, if those same companies did nothing to fight the passage of the bill. This won’t make us popular in many circles, but we don’t care. Not trying to make industry friends, just trying to protect your 2A rights.”
Expected to line up against the measure when legal action is taken are such organizations as SAF, CCRKBA, the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, National Association for Gun Rights and local groups.
Critics say the new law will effectively turn a constitutionally protected right into a government-regulated privilege. The argument will likely center on the Second Amendment and Article I, Section 24 of the state constitution. Both provisions specifically protect a right to keep and bear arms, and rights do not require government permission before they can be exercised, gun rights activists insist.
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.
Knife Rights URGENT ACTION ALERT: Email TX Committee to Set Floor Vote on HB 956
Knife Rights’ Texas Knife Law Reform Bill, HB 2239, is now pending in the Texas Senate Criminal Justice Committee and we need your IMMEDIATE ACTION to get it a hearing and passed to the floor for a final vote.
HB 2239 would create an exception for two commonly visited places where Location-Restricted Knives (knives over 5 1/2 inches) are banned. Those locations are restaurants and bars that derive 51% of their income from sale or service of alcoholic beverages and amusement parks.
In 2013, Knife Rights’ repeal of Texas’s switchblade ban was enacted. In 2015, Knife Rights’ signature Knife Law Preemption was enacted, nullifying all local knife ordinances more restrictive than Texas state law, including two of the “10 Worst Anti-Knife Cities in America” at the time, San Antonio and Corpus Christi. In 2017, our bill removed all of the “illegal knives” in Texas law, finally allowing Texans the right to carry a Bowie knife, dagger, and others in public. In 2019, our bill removed the ban on the carry of clubs (including tomahawks) and possession of knuckles (including trench knives and the like).
Unfortunately, during the 2017 legislative process, as a result of a tragic stabbing at the University of Texas just blocks from the Capitol, a minor amendment was added to stipulate that knives with blades over 5 1/2 inches are now defined as “location-restricted knives.” These knives may be carried throughout the state except in a narrow list of places such as schools, colleges, correctional facilities, amusement parks, and bars that derive more than 51% of their income from alcohol sales, as well as some other locations.
Houses of worship were originally included, but that ban was removed when permitless carry was enacted in 2021. Minors are also restricted as to when they can carry these knives.
Similar bills to HB 2239 passed by overwhelming margins in the Senate in 2019 and in the House in 2021 and 2023. None have yet crossed the finish line.
Knife Rights is America’s grassroots knife owners’ organization; leading the fight to Rewrite Knife Law in America and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans. Knife Rights efforts have resulted in 53 bills enacted repealing knife bans in 32 states and over 200 cities and towns since 2010.
Background Checks Show Gun Sales Continue Slow Decline IMG iStock-1182677191
The National Instant Background Check System (NICS) numbers for firearm sales and background checks in April 2025 continue the slight decline we have been seeing over the last year. April 2025 gun sales were about 3.7% less than those of April 2024. April 2025 background checks were about 3.2% less than those of April 2024.
If you look at the last 26 years of April data for adjusted NICS, which is a close approximation of firearm sales, 2025, while lower than the last five years, is close, even a little higher, than the sales seen since the election of Barack Obama to his second term in 2012.
NSSF Report: Month of April – 26-Year HistoryNSSF-Adjusted NICS Last 12 Months year-over-year data.
Firearm sales have been at historically high numbers for more than a decade. Several factors have contributed to these sales.
The importance of the political scene cannot be overstated. President Barack Obama declared that his goal was to “fundamentally transform the United States”. He came very close to doing so. The two elections of President Donald Trump, with the disastrous presidency of Obama surrogate Joe Biden during the intervening four years, have been a strong counter-revolution against the policies of the Obama/Biden presidencies. The resulting uncertainty and reasonable fear of absurd economic, international, and domestic policies sent firearm sales skyrocketing. As the second Trump term unfolds, unraveling the absurdities of the Obama/Biden policies continue to present an unknown, if more hopeful, future.
Technological change is another important factor. Decreasing costs of firearms manufacture, brought about by less expensive materials, greater automation in manufacture, and strong international and domestic competition, make very good firearms available at prices far below comparable firearms only two decades ago. The prices have to be compared in constant dollars because of inflation. It is obvious that an ordinary worker in the United States can purchase very good firearms for far less labor. Technological change continues to offer innovative and interesting firearms, helping to avoid market saturation. While there have been some times where ammunition supply was less than market demand, ammunition today is less expensive than it was even 30 years ago, and far less expensive than 60 years ago.
The last 50 years of restoring rights protected by the Second Amendment are a third reason. We are still far from the state of rights protected by the Second Amendment, which existed when the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.
We have restored much of what was lost from 1791 to 1970. There is permitless (Constitutional Carry) in 29 states. Handguns have become more popular than long guns. Suppressors, which appear to be close to being removed from the National Firearms Act (NFA), have been, in large part, legitimized. The Supreme Court has held, and affirmed, that the right to keep arms and to carry them for protection outside the home is an individual, fundamental, constitutionally protected right.
The chart below shows how popular handguns have become. The blue line and bars show handgun sales, the green line and bars show long gun sales, and the orange and red lines and bars show “other” and “multiple” firearm sales.
“Other” most likely represents the sales of finished receivers which can be assembled into either pistols or rifles, depending on the wishes of the purchaser.
This correspondent expects the policies of the Trump administration to succeed. If they do so, stability in prices and in domestic and international tranquility will have a dampening effect on gun sales. A moderate counter to this could result from increasing prosperity. If silencers are removed from the NFA, an increase in sales of firearms threaded for accessories, or integrally suppressed, is likely.
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.
Pushback: Activists Want Relief from NFA; More Demands for Bondi to Act IMG Jim Grant
In the weeks after the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms called on U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to unleash the Justice Department’s “2A Task Force” on a dozen states where gun control laws have gone to the extreme, politicians in Colorado, and now New York members of Congress are asking for the same attention.
Colorado Republican lawmakers signed a letter to Bondi in April calling on Bondi to launch a probe into the new gun control law just enacted in the Centennial State. CCRKBA launched an online petition to Bondi asking for a probe into the “Dirty Dozen” states, which is still active here.
And just days ago, a coalition of 20 gun rights advocates representing several different organizations have signed a letter to U.S. Representatives Jodey C. Arrington, chair of the House Budget Committee, and Virginia Foxx, chair of the House Rules Committee, to include portions of the Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act (H.R. 2395) in the forthcoming reconciliation bill.
It amounts to an expanding campaign to push back on restrictive gun control laws and regulations, which have been stacking up over the course of many years, and the “long story, short” of it is that the Second Amendment community has had enough. With Donald Trump back in the White House and an administration that seems determined to restore the Second Amendment to its full position in the Bill of Rights, the time for action appears to have arrived.
Last week, in their letter to Arrington and Foxx, the 20 signatories state, “The Hearing Protection Act (H.R. 404), introduced by Representative Ben Cline (R-VA-06), seeks to remove firearm suppressors from the NFA’s burdensome regulatory framework, replacing it with a streamlined purchase process for typical accessories. Suppressors, contrary to popular misconceptions, do not silence firearms but significantly reduce noise levels, mitigating the risk of permanent hearing loss for shooters and hunters. The American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery has endorsed suppressors as effective tools for preventing hearing damage, a public health concern affecting millions of Americans. The current NFA requirements — including a $200 tax stamp for both manufacture and transfer of the devices, extensive paperwork, and excessive waiting times — serve no meaningful public safety purpose while imposing undue financial and administrative burdens on responsible citizens. With over 4.8 million suppressors in civilian circulation, their widespread use underscores the need for reform.
“Similarly,” the letter continues, “the SHORT Act (H.R. 2395) addresses the arbitrary NFA classification of short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), which subjects them to the same onerous regulations as transferable machine guns and other highly restricted devices. This outdated framework, rooted in 1930s-era fears of organized crime, lacks relevance in the modern context, where SBRs and SBSs pose no greater threat than standard rifles or shotguns. The SHORT Act would delist these firearms from the NFA, eliminating unnecessary barriers to ownership and ensuring that law-abiding Americans are not penalized for exercising their constitutional rights.”
This came two days after New York Republican Congresswomen Elise Stefanik and Claudia Tenney wrote in a letter to Bondi, “New York State has enacted and enforced a sweeping regime of laws that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of its citizens, in direct defiance of precedent set by the Supreme Court and the Constitution. This is unacceptable, and law-abiding gun owners must be protected.”
Among those activists sending the letter to Foxx and Arrington were Paul Valone, president of Grass Roots North Carolina, Kevin Starrett at the Oregon Firearms Federation and Gary Marbut, president of the Montana Shooting Sports Association.
“Beyond the likely unconstitutionality of the restrictions to what SCOTUS has affirmed to be a basic civil right under the Second Amendment,” Valone said, “use of SBRs and suppressors in crime are rare, yet they are as tightly regulated as machine guns.”
“If Republicans are serious about restoring mainstream American values, including the right to keep and bear arms,” he added, “we demand that they use this opportunity to repeal restrictions which never should have been implemented to begin with.”
Marbut, via email, told AmmoLand News, “It is long past time for innocuous items such as suppressors and SBRs to be removed from the NFA. We’d all like to see the prohibition-era NFA go away entirely, but removing suppressors and SBRs from the NFA would be a step in the right direction. Prohibition is over and the NFA is simply not consistent with the intent of our Nation’s Founders.”
Oregon’s Kevin Starrett had this observation: “Anyone with even a cursory understanding of firearms and suppressors understands that regulating them under the NFA simply makes no sense. Short barreled rifles and shotguns are no more dangerous than any other firearm and suppressors don’t ‘silence’ anything. The restrictions on these items are just a reflection of the ignorance of people who get to make laws without knowledge or accountability.”
Here’s the complete roster of activists who signed the NFA letter:
Paul Valone, President, Grass Roots North Carolina/Exec. Director, Rights Watch International; Gary Marbut, President, Montana Shooting Sports Association; Philip Van Cleave, President, Virginia Citizens Defense League; Sean Caranna, Executive Director, Florida Carry, Inc.; Tom King, President, New York State Rifle & Pistol Assoc.; Rep. JR Hoell, President, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Inc.; Kevin Starrett, Director, Oregon Firearms Federation; Mike Duralia, President, South Carolina Carry; Matthew Andras, President, Coalition of New Jersey Firearm Owners (CNJFO); Richard Pearson, Exec. Director, Illinois State RIFLE Association; Kimberly Morin, President, Women’s Defense League of NH; Klint Macro, President, Allegheny County Sportsmen’s League; Rich Kerlin, President; Beaver County Sportsmen’s Conservation League; Blaine Toy, President, Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania; Rob Pincus, Director, 2nd Amendment Organization; Dianna Muller, President, Women for Gun Rights; J.R. Stoker Jr., President, Firearms Owners Against Crime Institute; Dr. Joe Hannon, VP, Gun Owners of New Hampshire; Dennis Fusaro, Member*Legislative Policy Committee, BOD National Rifle Association, and Jon Richardson, Member*BOD National Rifle Association.
Clearly, pressure is mounting on Bondi and the Task Force to flex some muscle and launch investigations. Whether the focus is on the “Dirty Dozen” states named in the original CCRKBA letter to Bondi—Colorado and New York are both on the list—or some other offending state, such as California, New Jersey, Massachusetts or elsewhere, it would be the first sign that Bondi’s DOJ is ready to back up what she said weeks ago about protecting the Second Amendment. A positive step in that direction is what gun rights advocates have been waiting for.
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.
The forced reset trigger (FRT) saga has come to an end with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) backing down in federal court.
The ATF and DOJ have entered an agreement in National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) v. Garland that had the government admitting that FRTs are not machine guns and agreed to return all confiscated triggers to their owners. In addition to returning all triggers to their owners, the government has decided to drop its appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit over its loss in District Court and drop all other lawsuits across the country.
The battle over forced reset triggers started in July 2021 when the ATF served Rare Breed Triggers with a cease-and-desist letter demanding that the company stop selling the popular FRT-15 trigger.
The FRT-15 is a forced reset trigger that forces the trigger of an AR-15-style rifle into a reset position, allowing for quicker follow-up shots. The ATF claimed these triggers were drop-in auto sears (DIAS). Rare Breed Triggers disputed the claim, stating that the trigger did not meet the statutory definition of a machinegun conversion device (MCD).
The statutory definition of an MCD is that it converts any semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun. A machinegun expels multiple rounds with a single function of a trigger. Rare Breed Triggers pointed out that its trigger only fires a single round with each function of the trigger and did not convert a semiautomatic firearm into a machinegun. Rare Breed Triggers refused to comply with the cease-and-desist letter.
This refusal set off multiple lawsuits across the country. At the same time, the ATF visited the now-defunct Big Daddy Unlimited (BDU) and seized all its Wide Open Triggers (WOT). The WOT was determined by a court of law to be a knockoff of the FRT-15. The ATF started going door-to-door to confiscate the triggers from owners. Several cases charged owners with having an MCD.
In addition to lawsuits filed by Rare Breed Triggers against the ATF and DOJ, the government sued the company in New York State, preventing Rare Breed Triggers from selling the product directly to consumers. Eventually, Rare Breed Triggers would team up with NAGR and sue the ATF and DOJ in a Federal Texas District Court. The pair would get a victory from District Court Judge Reed O’Connor. The ATF was barred from taking enforcement action against the NAGR and its members. The government was also ordered to return the triggers, which it was reluctant to do. The government would then appeal the decision to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Now, under the agreement reached in District Court, the government will drop its appeal to the Fifth Circuit and all other cases around the country, bringing a four-year battle over the triggers to an end.
The government will take no enforcement action against anyone for owning or selling force reset triggers, whether they are a member of NAGR or not. Rare Breed Triggers is free to sell the triggers once again. According to their website, Rare Breed Triggers will sell the item again starting Monday, May 19th. The ATF is also barred from taking future action against FRTs.
This victory shows the change that has taken place at the DOJ. Under the previous Biden-Harris administration, the DOJ would never have considered such an agreement, but after President Donald Trump issued an executive order instructing Attorney General Pam Bondi to examine all legal cases for possible Second Amendment infringements, the Justice Department has been more open to relenting on gun-related cases.
During the first Trump Administration, the President declared the war on the Second Amendment was over. After Trump made that statement, the ATF targeted bump stocks under Trump’s orders. This term is shaping up differently, leading many to wonder if the war against the Second Amendment is now truly over.
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.
and forging a Sharper Future for all Americans
