In a bold move to clean up the nation’s capital and uphold the Second Amendment, President Donald J. Trump signed a new executive order on Friday titled “Making the District of Columbia Safe and Beautiful.” But buried in the sweeping directive was a major win for gun owners: a direct challenge to D.C.’s notoriously slow and costly concealed carry permit system.
The executive order creates the “D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force,” a multi-agency group charged with everything from cleaning up graffiti to cracking down on crime. But one key mission stands out for supporters of the right to bear arms: helping the D.C. government speed up the processing and reduce the cost of concealed carry licenses for law-abiding citizens.
“D.C. belongs to every American,” Trump said in a statement. “America’s capital must be a place in which residents, commuters, and tourists feel safe at all hours…”
A Broken System Finally Under the Microscope
Right now, D.C.’s permit process is a bureaucratic nightmare. Applicants must make an appointment just to apply, and those appointments are booked out for months. One recent attempt to schedule an appointment landed the first available slot a staggering seven months out.
Add to that a $13 application fee, a $35 fingerprinting fee, a $75 license fee—and you still haven’t paid for the mandatory training class, which often runs hundreds more. All told it’s a price tag and wait time that effectively discourages many residents from exercising their Second Amendment rights.
Critics have long accused the District of using red tape as a backdoor gun ban. But now, the Trump administration is putting local officials on notice.
According to the order, the federal Task Force will “collaborate with appropriate local government entities to provide assistance to increase the speed and lower the cost of processing concealed carry license requests.”
While the exact mechanism remains to be seen, options could include directing federal personnel to assist the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department’s Firearms Registration Section, funding additional staff, or putting pressure on city leadership to end the delays.
A New Era of Federal Accountability
This order is part of a growing campaign by the Trump administration to enforce the Supreme Court’s landmark Bruen decision. The decision struck down “may-issue” permitting systems and warned against permit regimes that are slow, expensive, or overly burdensome.
On Thursday, Attorney General Pam Bondi announced a DOJ civil rights investigation into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department for its own lengthy delays and sky-high permit fees. And in a clear warning shot, Bondi promised more investigations would follow in “any other states or localities that insist on unduly burdening, or effectively denying, the Second Amendment rights of their ordinary, law-abiding citizens.”
In contrast to the Biden-era White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention—which aimed to restrict firearms and is now under congressional investigation—the Trump administration is taking the opposite approach: protect lawful gun owners, enforce existing laws, and eliminate unconstitutional local practices.
What Happens Next?
The executive order does not set a timeline for the D.C. Task Force to report results, but many see this as the beginning of a broader Second Amendment enforcement wave.
For gun owners who’ve long been frustrated by D.C.’s anti-gun stance, this could mark a real shift. If the task force lives up to its mission, we could soon see faster permits, lower costs, and more people legally carrying in the capital—just as the Constitution guarantees.
As one Virginia gun owner put it: “It shouldn’t take seven months and hundreds of dollars to exercise a God-given right.”
President Trump’s executive order sends a clear message: Washington, D.C. is America’s city, and that means every American’s rights count here—especially the right to bear arms.
GOP Lawmakers Urge Commerce Secretary to Reverse Biden’s Gun Export Ban iStock-649714964
Several Republican members of the United States Congress want Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick toreversea Bidenadministration rule restricting firearm exports.
On March 7, 88 members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, led by Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green, (R-TN)sent a letterto Lutnick calling him to scrap the policy, which was part of the Biden Administration’s anti-gun agenda via administrative fiat.
“As soon as is practically possible, we respectfully request that you rescind the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) recent interim final rule (IFR) ‘Revision of Firearms License Requirements,” the letter declared. “This misguided and destructive IFR is costing the American firearms industry nearly $500 million annually while doing nothing to advance U.S. interests or regional stability. Despite numerous attempts to rein in these actions through letters, legislation, hearings, markups and oversight, the Biden BIS ignored Congress and used the IFR to advance the Biden administration’s anti-firearms agenda.”
The Biden administration’s temporary export ban was initiallyrolled outas a 90-day pause on many U.S. firearms exports in late October 2023. This “temporary” pause was implemented to allow for a regulatory review of firearm exports. However, on April 26, 2024, the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)publishedan Interim Final Rule that made this pause permanent and implemented additional regulatory burdens on firearm exports.
This ban created three new Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) for semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns, while implementing a case-by-case approval process for licenses, weighing factors such as foreign policy, national security risks, government corruption, diversion of firearms, and human rights abuses.
Further, it introduced a presumption of denial for firearm export licenses to 36 nations arbitrarily deemed as “at risk” by the State Department, and revoked all existing previously approved firearm export licenses to “high risk” countries, which would be effective 60 days after May 30, 2024. Under this policy, U.S. companies with existing firearm export licenses would ultimately be required to re-apply for new licenses.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) was critical of this move, stating that it was intended to hinder the firearm industry’s ability to compete internationally under the guise of advancing U.S. national security. The NSSF alsocontendedthat this policy would result in significant financial losses for U.S. manufacturers and exporters.
The letter also made a reference to President Donald Trump recentlyissuingan executive order directing the newly appointed Attorney General Pam Bondi to conduct a comprehensive review. This review encompasses various actions taken by executive departments and agencies, including orders, regulations, guidance documents, plans, and international agreements. The focus of this review is to identify any measures that may infringe upon Second Amendment rights or align with the Biden administration’s perceived anti-firearms policies.
“Section (2)(b)(vii) of the executive order specifically requires the review and remediation of any agency action regarding the ‘processing of applications, to make, manufacture, transfer or export firearms.’ Because this IFR stops the commercial export of firearms, ammunition and related components to over 36 countries and severely limits the ability of American businesses to obtain export licenses, we believe this IFR ought to be addressed immediately,” the letter read.
Sen. Lee stressed the importance of taking immediate action to roll back these unconstitutional measures.
“For too long, federal agencies have tried to constrict our Second Amendment rights indirectly, in this case by hurting law-abiding gun manufacturers by severely limiting their ability to export firearms,”Sen. Lee said in apress release announcing their push to get Lutnick to reverse course.“I look forward to the Trump administration rectifying this unjust rule pushed by Joe Biden’s bureaucrats.”
Rep. Green, who teamed up with Sen. Lee, in spearheading this campaign, said he and the other members of Congress are optimistic that Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick will reverse this regulation.
“The Biden-Harris administration’s interim final rule on issuance and renewal of export licenses for certain firearms, related components and ammunition has now lasted almost a year,”Rep. Green observed. “With the confirmation of Secretary Lutnick, I trust that this IFR will come to an end. BIS’s actions cost American firearm manufacturers over $500 million annually. It’s time to end this attack on the Second Amendment, and I look forward to immediate action from the Department of Commerce.”
Republicans hold majorities in the House (218-214) and the Senate (53-47), so passing any legislative measures won’t necessarily be a walk in the park due to the razor thin majority they hold in the House. However, with the right pressure from congressional leaders, the Chamber of Commerce could be convinced to take action and nullify this Biden-era policy.
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.
NYC Court Holds Stun Guns are NOT Protected by Second Amendment iStock-Arijuhani 157107201
Judge Eduardo Ramos, the U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York, has issued an Opinion & Order that a ban on stun guns is constitutional. A New York State law prohibits the private possession of stun guns and tasers; a New York City law prohibits the possession and selling of stun guns. Judge Ramos has ruled these laws do not infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.
The case is Calce v. City of New York, filed in October of 2021. Ramos’ court is the first court to conclude that stun guns have not been established as “arms” covered by the text of the Second Amendment, since the Supreme Court rebuked the Massachusetts Supreme Court in the Caetano case. In Caetano, the Court unanimously held that:
The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008) , and that this “ Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010)
Prima facie means “on its face”. The Supreme Court, in the three cases of Heller, McDonald, and Caetano, has repeatedly stated the text of the Second Amendment extends to all instruments that constitute bearable arms. The statement is very clear. It goes back to the establishment of what the words in the text of the Second Amendment mean. In Heller, the meaning of “arms” is established by reference to the dictionary definition at the time:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson’s dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 107 (4th ed.) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham’s important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary (1771); see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).
Heller clearly establishes the word “arms” in the Second Amendment refers to “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another. ” There is not question of the definition of “arms” in the text of the Second Amendment.
Once the action in question in the court is established to be covered by the text of the Second Amendment, the burden of proof shifts to the government to show there were longstanding legal traditions which established exceptions to the text, such as limitations on “dangerous and unusual” weapons.
Courts defying the Supreme Court have adopted a strategy to dilute and deny Second Amendment rights. Those courts claim the burden of proof is on those supporting the Second Amendment to prove that particular arms in a case are in “common use” to be covered by the Second Amendment text.
In the New York case, this is the tactic Judge Ramos used to find in favor of New York City. Judge Ramos claims it is the burden of the plaintiffs to prove stun guns and tasers are “in common use” for them to be covered by the text of the Second Amendment. From Judge Ramos:
“[T]he Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.” Heller, 554 U.S. at 625. Therefore, Plaintiffs must show that stun guns and tasers are in “common use” today, and that they are “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes.”
Judge Ramos is turning the burden of proof on its head. Just because some weapons may not be protected by the Second Amendment does not mean they are not covered by the text of the Second Amendment.
Most jurisdictions and courts are ruling differently. Several jurisdictions have removed their bans on various weapons, including in New York State. For example, On 14 December 2018, a New York District judge, Pamela K. Chen, an Obama appointee, struck down a ban on nunchakus as unconstitutional. In Rhode Island, District Judge William E. Smith found the burden falls to the state to prove particular weapons are not protected by the Second Amendment.
This correspondent views this ruling as another effort by judges who dislike the Second Amendment to delay and delay, hoping for a miracle to reverse current Supreme Court decisions on 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.
Only Orwellian thinking could conclude a democratically elected president carrying out the will of the electorate is anti-democratic. (#HandsOff/BlueSky)
“A million people are going to march in the United States on April 5. A million people,” TikTok influencer Jack Cunningham [jacklcii] advised his followers. “To put this in perspective, these are all of the protests that are being planned for April 5 right now. There are many people protesting on the 5th.”
“This is all part of Hands Off, the National Day of Action,” Cunningham says while displaying a map featuring all the cities in the U.S. where events are planned.
“We need YOU to get in the streets with us in solidarity standing up to the tyrant in the White House,” text under the video announcement reads. “Stand with us in the streets to resist the tyrant in the White House. Get involved and make a difference!”
He’s a “tyrant”? One democratically elected carrying out the will of the majority of voters according to law? Funny how the loudest objections come from Democrats and from apparatchiks like Cunningham, who then claims to speak for “99%” of Americans.
And what about Hands Off, an entity large, financed and connected enough to pull off a nationwide campaign? They’re not exactly transparent about who they are, even registering their website by proxy to mask who is behind it. Still, we are known by the company we keep, and HandOFF “partners” tell us much, evoking nothing so much as the description of Mos Eisley. They include citizen disarmament promoters like Move On, the Center for Biological Diversity, SEIU, and the National Education Association, to name a few. (Curiously, for supposed equality warriors, they want to eviscerate the Second Amendment, the most egalitarian power-sharing arrangement ever devised. Perhaps they’re just lying about their goals.)
“The initiative has been dubbed ‘Hands Off,’ spearheaded by the Indivisible movement,” a National World report informs. “Indivisible is a progressive movement and organisation in the United States initiated in 2016 as a reaction to the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States.”
Now we’re getting somewhere. Nonprofit reporting website Guidestar includes IRS Form 990s, showing revenues in the millions. (Interestingly, for a group promoting “HandsOff Immigration” among other causes, they’re sponsoring a contest requiring entrants to be citizens or “lawful permanent U.S. residents. How will they know, and who will they “disenfranchise” by demanding proof?)
What the 990s don’t show is where they get their money from. But it should come as no surprise.
“Indivisible, an activist hub that has received more than $7.6 million since 2017 from Soros’ Open Society Foundations,” the New York Post reports. Here you have this bespectacled useful idiot on TikTok and all the HandsOff clown troops railing against “the 1%” and look whose bidding they’re doing. (Cue Glinda the Good Witch asking, “Are you a good oligarch or a bad oligarch?”)
No one ever said logical consistency was the long suit of Democrats and the followers they incite, so don’t expect those angrily throwing out terms like “Nazi” and “fascist” at normal Americans to be aware that both Hitler and Mussolini were socialists, or to confront the documented details at the links provided.
Meanwhile, Democrat influencers with wide media reach and plenty of experience ginning up the mob, are turning up the heat. There are innumerable examples, but here are two recent ones:
The View co-host Sunny Hostin called the Trump Presidency an “existential crisis,” and said Democrats must be willing to ‘fight and die’.”
Look at actual calls for violence, and then realize Democrats wanted to prosecute and disqualify Donald Trump for inciting insurrection by saying, “I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.”
THE PRESIDENT OF PEACE
“I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard!” – President Donald Trump (Jan. 6, 2021) pic.twitter.com/SChqNdlfLX
But back to the upcoming April 5 HandsOff rally: What can we expect?
“Lunatics At AOC Rally Brazenly Call For Trump To Be Tortured & Murdered,” Gateway Pundit reports.
One attendee wielding a sign depicting Trump’s severed head was asked “are you calling for for his death?” and responded “I am yes, I believe it’s time the people straight cut his f_____g head off.” Another blathered about hanging Trump by his ankles from a lamppost until dead, stating “the only good fascist is a dead fascist.”
Everyone realizes when they say they want to kill Trump, they also want to kill his supporters, right?
Not known for their self-control and restraint, it would probably be a good idea not to drive a Tesla with a MAGA bumper sticker down to a rally near you. It would be an even better idea to stay away altogether and let Democrat mobs further alienate middle America.
That said, perhaps Elon Musk could arrange for an airplane towing a “Make America Great Again” banner with a Tesla logo to fly over events in more populated cities (except Democrats would then want to charge him for the rage-fueled violence from their followers that would certainly ensue).
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.
DOJ Launches Investigation Into Second Amendment Violations by the LASD, iStock-697763642
On March 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the initiation of a new “pattern or practice” civil rights investigation, this time focusing on potential violations related to the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution by the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department (LASD).
The investigation, detailed in a press release from the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs, marks a significant step in the federal government’s efforts to examine whether particular states or local government entities are engaging in systemic practices that infringe upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. This investigation came nearly two months after President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) demanding the DOJ investigate possible Second Amendment violations.
The DOJ cited a case brought by Gun Owners of America (“GOA”) challenging the LASD’s long wait and delays when issuing concealed carry permits. In that case, two members of GOA were delayed 18 months when applying for concealed carry permits. GOA successfully proved that the delays were unconstitutional. Even though the case only involved two individuals, the DOJ believes many other city residents might have had their rights violated.
“As part of a broader review of restrictive firearms-related laws in California and other States, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division today announced an investigation into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to determine whether it is engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights,” the press release reads. “A recent federal court decision found that “the law and facts [we]re clearly in … favor” of two private plaintiffs who challenged the lengthy eighteen-month delays that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department had imposed when processing their concealed handgun license applications. And the Civil Rights Division has reason to believe that those two plaintiffs are not the only residents of Los Angeles County experiencing similarly long delays that are unduly burdening, or effectively denying, the Second Amendment rights of the people of Los Angeles.”
The DOJ says it will not end its crusade against those violating the Second Amendment rights with just the LASD. The press release quoted United States Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas stating, “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right.” Justice Thomas made that statement in the Bruen decision. The DOJ says it will look into other violations across California and then move to other states.
“This Department of Justice will not stand idly by while States and localities infringe on the Second Amendment rights of ordinary, law-abiding Americans,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and under my watch, the Department will actively enforce the Second Amendment just like it actively enforces other fundamental constitutional rights.”
Today, the Department of Justice announced its first investigation (of many, if need be) into whether States and localities—today, Los Angeles County, California—are engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Americans of their Second Amendment rights.…
Other states have had delays in not only processing concealed carry permits but also pistol purchase permits. Recently, a citizen of West Chester, New York, presented AmmoLand News with proof that the city set his interview for his permit for 11 months after he submitted his applications for the firearm. Suppose the DOJ is serious about targeting the states and localities that violate the Second Amendment. In that case, the federal agency might target New York State next after finishing with California.
The state could head off investigations by changing their artificial delays in permitting. Ever since the Bruen decision, some states have installed roadblocks to prevent concealed carry permits from being issued. The DOJ has a real chance of affecting change, but only if there is real substance and penalties behind the DOJ’s investigations.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
The House Judiciary Committee has advanced H.R. 38, the national concealed carry legislation, on an 18-9 vote. (Dave Workman photo)
The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 38, has taken a major step toward becoming a reality by advancing out of the U.S. House Judiciary Committee on an 18-9 party-line vote, with Democrats predictably opposed.
As noted by the Buckeye Firearms Association, “The legislation would allow concealed carry permit holders, authorized by their home state, to carry a concealed firearm in other states provided they comply with the law in other states — much in the same way a driver’s license is recognized.”
Congressman Jim Jordan (R-OH), who chairs the Judiciary Committee, set the tone of this week’s markup hearing on H.R. 38 when he observed, “Our First Amendment rights do not change from one state to another and our Second Amendment rights should not either. Law-abiding citizens should be able to a concealed firearm between states without worrying about conflicting state criminal laws or onerous civil suits.”
He noted there are millions of concealed carry permit owners throughout the nation. Twenty-nine states have constitutional carry or permitless carry laws.
The H.R. 38 debate occurred during the latter third of the lengthy markup hearing, which may be viewed here.
According to the most recent concealed carry estimate from the Crime Prevention Research Center, there are at least 21.46 million licensed concealed carriers, a number which is down slightly from previous years, likely due to the proliferation of permitless carry laws.
“This means,” Jordan stated, “that a state does not require law-abiding citizens to obtain a concealed carry permit or license before carrying a firearm outside their home.”
“We’re delighted at the outcome of this contentious hearing, and we are hopeful the full House quickly passes this bill and sends it over to the Senate,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Nobody should leave his or her right of self-defense at the border when they cross over into another state. The Founders never envisioned such a scenario when they ratified the Constitution. Law-abiding, licensed citizens do not commit violent crimes.
“Our very essence as an organization is to protect and defend the right to bear arms,” Gottlieb continued. “We’re gratified that other Second Amendment organizations are also on board, so we are in very good company.”
The legislation is also supported by the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America and National Shooting Sports Foundation. The NRA, in a post on “X,” declared, “Thank you, Jim Jordan, for your work to advance this bill in the House Judiciary Committee! It’s time to pass the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act and protect law-abiding Americans’ 2A rights!”
Immediately during the markup hearing, Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) contended, “This bill would cause weak laws and have dangerous nationwide repercussions. This bill would almost certainly lead to nationwide increases in violent gun crime.”
He and other Democrats repeatedly returned to this argument, and alleged passage will somehow threaten public safety, without actually identifying any of the studies to which they alluded while making the claims.
But Rep. Jefferson Van Drew (R-NJ) countered that criminals already carry across state lines, without any permit and with total disregard for existing law. He stressed that it is criminals, not legally-armed private citizens who cause problems and break laws. He said armed private citizens are far less likely to commit a crime than average Americans, an observation his Democrat colleagues could not refute.
Rep. Richard Hudson (R-NC), who has sponsored the legislation before and is sponsoring it again—this time with at least 178 co-sponsors—observed, “Our Second Amendment right does not disappear when we cross invisible state lines, and this commonsense legislation guarantees that. The Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act will protect law-abiding citizens’ rights to conceal carry and travel freely between states without worrying about conflicting state codes or onerous civil suits.”
The odds of House passage appear good, even though Republicans only hold a slim 218-213 majority over Democrats. If the bill is approved and moves to the Senate, Republicans have the majority, 53-45,so they will need the votes of at least seven Democrats for passage.
When Hudson’s legislation was approved by the House during the first Trump administration, it stalled in the Senate, where Kentucky Sen. Mitch McConnell was then the majority leader. But this year, McConnell has been replaced by Sen. John Thune (R-SD) as the majority leader.
President Donald Trump has pledged to sign a reciprocity bill into law if it hits his desk. Support for the measure appears stronger this time around, and if gun owners and concealed carry activists keep up the pressure on Congress, it could result in another victory for gun owners.
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.
Opinion: Crime Prevention Research Center | Analysis & Commentary
iStock-guruXOOX
For years, the media and gun control advocates have painted a grim picture of armed civilians intervening in active shooter events.
Hollywood dramatizes chaos. Anti-gun pundits warn that civilians will shoot the wrong person, get in the way of police, or make everything worse. But what if the numbers tell a completely different story?
Dr. John R. Lott, Jr., Ph.D., President of the Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), just released a new study that throws cold water on the fear-based narrative. This decade-long review of 180 cases from 2014 to 2023 shows that armed citizens don’t just make a difference—they often outperform the professionals.
Let’s break it down.
Civilians With Guns: The Real Stats
Out of 180 active shooter incidents where a concealed carry permit holder stopped the attacker:
Only one case (0.56%) involved a bystander being accidentally shot.
Zero civilians got in the way of law enforcement.
Only one had their gun taken.
Two civilians (1.1%) were killed.
44 (24%) were wounded while bravely stopping the attacker.
58 cases likely prevented mass public shootings altogether.
Police Response: The Numbers
In 350 police-involved stops of active shooters over the same period:
27 officers (7.7%) were killed.
100 officers (28.6%) were wounded.
Four people were mistakenly shot by police, including two other officers.
When comparing performance in non-gun-free zones, armed civilians stopped 51.5% of attacks versus 44.6% stopped by police. That alone raises eyebrows.
So… Who’s Safer, Really?
Despite the constant fear-mongering, armed citizens consistently showed better or equal outcomes compared to trained law enforcement officers.
Civilians almost never shoot the wrong person (0.56%)
Police are twice as likely to make that mistake (1.14%)
Police officers are 5.94 times more likely to die during an intervention
Police are 17% more likely to be wounded
This isn’t an indictment of law enforcement. It’s a reality check: civilians are often the first on the scene. They’re already there.
Colion Noir: “This Study Demolishes the Anti-Gun Argument”
Pro-gun YouTube personality Colion Noir broke down the report in a viral video:
“Armed citizens almost never make the mistake that gun control activists warn you about.”
“When seconds count, the police are minutes away. Even in police-heavy cities, they can’t be everywhere at once.”
He points to Israel, where the government encourages civilians to carry. The logic is simple: the first person on the scene is the real first responder.
Why You Never Hear This on CNN
Every time a mass shooting happens, the media runs wall-to-wall coverage. But when an armed citizen stops the killing? Silence. No headlines. No praise.
In one Virginia case, an off-duty federal agent stopped a shooter within 20 seconds. The attacker had already shot two people with an AR-15-style rifle. But mainstream media didn’t even blink.
Why? Because it disrupts the anti-gun narrative.
A Quiet Army of Patriots
Most concealed carriers aren’t looking for glory. They’re moms, dads, store clerks, off-duty officers, veterans, and everyday Americans who choose to be ready.
This study is more than stats. It’s proof that the Second Amendment saves lives.
Final Takeaway
Armed citizens are not a liability. They are a force multiplier.
This isn’t just about gun rights. It’s about truth. When politicians and media lie about guns, studies like this blow the doors off their narrative. If you believe in self-reliance, freedom, and protecting your family—the numbers are on your side.
Share this. Talk about it. Be ready and stay dangerous. You are your own first responder.
Tred Law is your everyday patriot with a deep love for this country and a no-compromise approach to the Second Amendment. He does not write articles for Ammoland every week, but when he does write, it is usually about liberals Fing with his right to keep and bear arms.
Majority of Federal Gun Confiscations Are NOT for Criminal Acts
Less than one-third of guns and ammunition taken by the federal government are done through criminal forfeitures. During the Biden administration, criminal forfeitures of guns and ammunition nearly doubled, while administrative forfeitures and civil forfeitures were essentially level. The chart shown was obtained from the Department of Justice (DOJ). It lists the three types of forfeitures for the last five fiscal years. The federal fiscal year is the time period used for budget purposes, running from October 1 to September 30 each year. The five years covered span most of the four years of the Biden administration.
Here is a short description of the three types of forfeiture listed. They are derived from longer definitions posted at the DOJ.
Judicial Criminal Forfeiture – the procedure by which property is forfeited by a person as part of a criminal conviction. The connection between the crime and the property must be established by a preponderance of the evidence. This type of forfeiture occurs when a claimant contests the forfeiture. This type of forfeiture accounts for 31% of the federal forfeitures of guns and ammunition.
Civil Judicial Forfeiture – the procedure by which property alleged to be derived from or used to commit an offense is forfeited to the government. No criminal conviction is required, but a court has to find a preponderance of the evidence, presented by the government, links the property to criminal activity. This type of forfeiture amounts to about two percent of the forfeitures of guns and ammunition.
Administrative Forfeiture – the procedure by which property is forfeited without a case being filed in federal court. This occurs when no one contests the forfeiture of the assets. The seizure of the property is required to be based on probable cause. This type of forfeiture is the most common at about two-thirds of the federal forfeitures of guns and ammunition.
It is likely the judicial-criminal and administrative forfeiture of firearms and ammunition will be reduced during the President Trump administration. FY21 ran from October 1, 2020 to September 30, 2021. The first four months were during the first Trump administration. Much of the last eight months happened as the Biden administration found its footing and changed the direction of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). The FY21 number of Judicial-criminal firearms and guns was 8,482. The number increased over the next three years to 16,858, very close to double. There was very little change in the other two types of forfeiture.
The doubling of judicial-criminal forfeitures during the Biden administration likely occurred because of the “zero-tolerance” anti-Second Amendment policy of the Biden administration. Acts that would not have been considered criminal or would not have been prosecuted before the Biden administration were vigorously prosecuted during the Biden administration.
The Trump administration has already put plans into effect to transfer or cut 1000 ATF agents. The ATF has about 2,600 agents. Removing a thousand ATF agents from the ATF means the ability of the ATF to infringe on Second Amendment rights will be greatly reduced. The change in focus of the ATF, away from paperwork errors and toward violent criminals, will probably mean a smaller number of more important cases.
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.
Even with Wayne LaPierre and The Brewer Law Firm out, the bleeding hasn’t stopped: deep disillusionment among the rank-and-file and a Board that let Wayne and his crew pillage unchecked remain.
Members, the NRA’s bedrock, are losing faith fast. If this keeps up, our vaunted influence, built on millions of dues-paying voices, could crumble, leaving a hollow shell. For an outfit that thrives on unity and numbers, this mass exodus isn’t just unsustainable; it’s an existential crisis begging for a fight. Board members, who didn’t speak up in 2019 or take bold public stand against internal corruption? They need to go—yesterday.
Members, this is your NRA—take it back! We’ve got a version 3.0 management team now, and the folks at headquarters are top-notch. Give them a Board that magnifies their hustle, not one that drags them down. The cabal is bleeding us dry, and the silent cowards are accomplices.
Members, you’re not here to prop up the old boys’ club; you are here to dismantle it. Rip out the rot, rebuild an NRA that’s fierce, and that’s yours. The axe is in your hands—swing it hard.
So About That Annual Meeting…
Get ready for a powder keg of guns, grit, and grassroots fury: the 2025 NRA Annual Meeting in Atlanta from April 25th to 27th, 2025, isn’t just a convention; it’s a battleground for the soul of your NRA. A swarm of Board members, slick vendors, and fired-up members collide in a three-day showdown where power teeters. From the chaotic showroom to the high-stakes members meeting, it’s your chance to eyeball the insiders, call out their spin, and possibly spark a revolution like Cincinnati 1977. Atlanta is calling—will you answer?
Tuesday-Thursday, April 22nd-24th: They gather
Board Members drift into Atlanta, some as early as Tuesday, for committee meetings and informal meet and greets. It’s their chance to hash out agendas and swap tales face-to-face before the chaos hits. Newly elected board members, fresh off their wins, roll in just before the convention fires up on Friday, April 25th, to get their bearings for the whirlwind ahead. The storm is brewing.
Friday, April 25th: The Show Kicks Off, & the Lone “76th Seat” Voting Begins
The NRA Annual Meeting sticks to its usual Friday-through-Sunday rhythm, running from April 25th-27th. The showroom explodes with vendors, gear, and attendees in a spectacle that never gets old. Voting for the 76th Board seat, a one-year term, starts Friday as well. Joel Friedman’s cabal crew, previously run by Wayne’s henchwoman, Millie Hallow, will hustle outside the voting zone, likely with Bob Barr’s wink. They will be campaigning for the cabal choice for the 76th seat. If the 1st and 2nd VPs pile on endorsements, that could be a setup. Track down every candidate yourself: don’t let some Board member sweet-talk you into their pick. Most annual members and all mail-ballot voters can vote in person. Pay attention because more people can vote than you think. Results drop Saturday night, so stay vigilant.
Saturday, April 26th: The Main Event
Former NRA Board Member Timothy Knight’s NRA Board Badge
Saturday is the beating heart. The showroom floor’s a bustling hub—vendors, gear, and the biggest crowds gawking at the latest toys and talking shop. You can spot NRA Board members mingling by their name tags (check my old one for a visual) and a small BD (Board of Directors) pin. Be polite, but press them for information; they owe you time as your elected reps. Some are slick with rehearsed lines, so bring your BS detector to sift the real from the fake. Others ditch name tags to roam free, but that BD-marked pin is a dead giveaway. Say hello and ask your questions. It is your right.
The member’s meeting, also on Saturday, April 26th, is where the real drama flares. Most dodge it as too political or boring, but that is a mistake. This is your best shot to confront your NRA and its leaders head-on. Back in 1977, Cincinnati’s fed-up members stormed the meeting, ousted an elitist Old Guard soft on gun rights, and turned the NRA into a 2A powerhouse overnight: NRA version 2.0 if you’re keeping score. Those who are calling the new reform movement 2.0 don’t remember what happened in 1977, and I suggest they embrace the 3.0 mindset. Learn for 1977, but we have to clear the way once again.
That 1977 revolt showcases your raw power when you show up and fight. History proves it: this meeting can flip the NRA if you seize the moment. The Board knows this, and they will try to counter it: time limits from the jump, motions to choke debate, and long-winded speeches to burn the clock. Getting an item on the agenda? A maze built to trip you up. Expect “out of order” gavel slams or Robert’s Rules nitpicks to shut you down. They’ve even booked big-name guests—think Trump in past years—to lure you away with “better things to do.” The Board is huddled upfront; if they swarm the floor mics, buckle up; it is about to get spicy. Jay Prinz, Joel Friedman, Sandy Froman, and, until recently, Marion Hammer led the cabal charge to crush dissent. But sometimes scrappy members or rogue directors rise up. I expect outspoken, rightfully worried members to raise legitimate concerns and pitch motions, even if the meeting is rigged to limit your voice.
Listen hard, reflect, and make the Board and management take it seriously.
Last year, cabal guy David Coy used a proxy, a family friend to fake “member-driven” support for a motion to move NRA headquarters to Dallas. Which almost worked until that friend expressed concern to others before the floor vote. Amanda Suffecool, Maria Heil, (both board members) and Rob Pincus pounced, killing the motion dead. This year’s meeting on April 26th could be a circus. I’ll be there, parked behind the mics, watching who dares to grab one.
Once the members’ meeting wraps up, the new 2026 board member election campaign launches. Petition candidates worth their salt should hit the ground running: collecting signatures from the crowd, meeting members face-to-face, shaking hands, and passing out blank petitions for others to gather signatures. Most current board members skip this hustle, feeling comfortable they have the votes. I am glad to be proven wrong by current board members willing to earn it. Grassroots fighters, always sidelined by the nominating committee’s insider club, can gain traction here if they’ve got grit.
Want to run by petition for 2026? Call the NRA Secretary’s office today for the petition rundown and step up. I’ll be outside the April 26th meeting with a “Petition Candidates” sign, helping anyone bold enough to run by petition. We need new blood to shake things up. Expect odd looks and glares. My mission is to root out the cabal and the squishy middle who’ve failed us.
Saturday also continues the 76th seat vote. Joel’s election crew from California will push to tilt it in favor of their chosen candidate if the cabal has any juice left. If management and officers do not meddle in this process, it would be a first in decades and a sign the swamp is draining. Do your research either way. We will have a result for the 76th seat later on Saturday night.
Sunday, April 27th: the Show Wraps up
The show floor is open, so get there early. Vendors start packing up right after the Annual Meeting ends. They’re a huge reason this weekend rocks, and I echo tons of members by saying we are grateful for their support.
Monday, April 28th: Board Meeting
New board members are sworn in, and others are fired. The open session is tame, but I encourage you to show up and support the crop of new directors. Ask a Board member or visit the 76th-seat voting area for meeting details.
After Atlanta & 2026: The Real Work
Join me in the fight to overhaul the NRA Board. Find and back petition candidates for 2026. Ditch the old guard: state association presidents (Ohio, looking at you), industry titans, and past 2A darlings. Board members from the pre-2019 era owed you answers years ago; they forgot they work for you. Cabal stench on them? Done. It’ll take a few cycles to scrape off the rot, but stay vigilant; trust isn’t handed out, it’s earned. Some favorites, heroes, and even friends might need to hit the road. The cabal’s names on court cases and online scandals are obvious marks. The other silent bunch let us bleed $100M+ in legal fees and lose our D.C. edge. Know who the strongest lobbying group is in Washington, DC, NOT the NRA; it is the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). They grew while we floundered. The silent Board members who let this happen have to go.
People ask if I will run again. If I thought I could cut through the muck and deliver for you, I’d run by petition again to be your voice. It is your NRA; you get to choose who to represent you. Too many spineless relics cling on, but fresh faces spark hope. In 1985, I met Joe Foss over lunch, who flew with my granddad. Mr. Foss was a Medal of Honor hero, a WWII Marine ace, an ex-South Dakota governor, and NRA president from 1988-1990. Learning about a true American hero while sharing a meal is humbling. He said the changes made at the 1977 Cincinnati meeting were a turning point we cannot forget: members that day were bold enough to take back their NRA. His words steered me onto that Board, fighting for the same goal.
NRA President Bob Barr’s leaked March 7, 2025 memo lays it out: 286,215 non-life members, representing 14% of all members, bolted in 2024, with 16,039 and 22,904 more in January and February of 2025. This isn’t a dip; it’s an exodus, stripping an NRA battered by scandal, legal battles, and upheaval. Storm Atlanta, seize your power, forge NRA 3.0—fierce, fearless, yours.
Timothy Knight is a dedicated advocate for Second Amendment and Constitutional rights, known for founding the successful Colorado recalls. He served on the NRA Board, where his integrity earned him a reputation as an NRA Whistleblower. A skilled shooter and devoted family man, Timothy’s early experiences as an Eagle Scout have shaped his lifelong commitment to service and leadership.
Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club members engaging popup targets. (Photo courtesy of the Fort Devens Rifle & Pistol Club).
A small civilian gun club located just 50 miles northwest of Boston has won a “landmark” lawsuit against nearby Fort Devens for violating their rights and federal law by denying them access to military rifle ranges at reasonable rates.
The Ft. Devens Rifle & Pistol Club, Inc., filed suit in 2022, claiming that Fort officials were charging range fees in violation of federal law, according to club treasurer Jim Gettens, a retired attorney who assisted with the legal fight.
Gettens said Monday that his club’s victory was a major “David vs. Goliath” event.
“They were running an illegal profiteering racket,” he said. “That’s the best way to describe it. This was a landmark case.”
Gettens and other club members noticed that their problems with the range began only three days after Joe Biden took office in 2022, which they said would never have happened under President Donald Trump’s Administration.
At issue was a little-known section of U.S. code that requires the Army to make rifle and pistol ranges available for civilian use as long as it does not interfere with military training, and it prohibits officials from charging exorbitant fees for range access.
For decades prior to the 2020 election, club members had been using a wide array of rifle and pistol ranges at Fort Devens free of charge. Club members supplied their own targets, ammunition, Range Safety Officers and other supplies. They even policed their own brass. Most of the club members are veterans, so they are intimately familiar with range safety protocols and other best practices. To be clear, in terms of taxpayer dollars, the club cost the Fort very little, which is why club member were so surprised when the Fort began charging them.
Just days after the 2020 election, the club was notified in writing that they would have to start paying a minimum of $250 per range, and that the fees would increase based upon the total number of shooters.
The bottom line was that Fort Devens tried to charge personnel costs for Range Safety Officers and technicians who were never there. In addition, a range staff member admitted in a memorandum that the range was unable to prove maintenance, supply and repair costs because the Fort never kept any such records.
“The odds were certainly stacked against us,” Getten said Monday. “As it turned out, the U.S. Army Garrison at Fort Devens croaked themselves with their own administrative records. A range officer filed a memo for the record admitting they kept no maintenance, supply or repair records – one of the most egregious abuses. We detailed all of this stuff in a memorandum in support for summary judgement. We just destroyed them.”
While the gun club won and can stop paying fraudulent fees, hundreds of civilian police officers are still charged for their time at the range, which Getten said is a legal problem for their agencies.
“Non-DoD law enforcement officers, state police and municipal police departments are still paying out the wazoo for all of those costs,” Getten said. “Non-DoD law enforcement agencies should not be getting hosed the way they are. Also, ICE, FBI, U.S. Customs and other federal law enforcement agencies pay out the wazoo for their range time and pass the costs onto taxpayers.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Julian N. Canzoneri, who defended the government against the gun club’s lawsuit, did not return phone calls or emails seeking his comments for this story.
This story is presented by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project and wouldn’t be possible without you. Please click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support more pro-gun stories like this.
About Lee Williams
Lee Williams, who is also known as “The Gun Writer,” is the chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. Until recently, he was also an editor for a daily newspaper in Florida. Before becoming an editor, Lee was an investigative reporter at newspapers in three states and a U.S. Territory. Before becoming a journalist, he worked as a police officer. Before becoming a cop, Lee served in the Army. He’s earned more than a dozen national journalism awards as a reporter, and three medals of valor as a cop. Lee is an avid tactical shooter.
The National Rifle Association and California Rifle & Pistol Association filed an amicus brief in a challenge to Illinois’s law prohibiting concealed carry licensees from carrying firearms on public transportation unless those firearms are unloaded and secured—essentially rendering them useless for self-defense.
NRA’s brief explains that the conduct at issue—carrying firearms in public for self-defense—is clearly covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Therefore, Illinois must provide a historical basis for its restriction, and there isn’t one.
Schoenthal v. Raoul case Background:
Schoenthal v. Raoul is a federal civil rights lawsuit filed on October 20, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois. The lead plaintiff, Joshua Schoenthal, is a law-abiding resident of Texas and a holder of a valid Texas License to Carry. He is challenging Illinois’ discriminatory firearm laws that prohibit most non-residents from carrying a concealed firearm for self-defense while in the state. Under current Illinois law, only residents of a handful of states—those with licensing standards “substantially similar” to Illinois—can legally carry concealed firearms within its borders. The plaintiffs argue that this restriction violates their rights under the Second Amendment and the Equal Protection and Privileges or Immunities Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The case, brought with the support of the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition, seeks to strike down Illinois’ non-resident carry ban and affirm that constitutional rights do not stop at state lines.
Second, public transportation, even if owned and operated by the government, is not a “sensitive place” like a courthouse or legislature. It does not provide a core function of government deliberation, which was the historic basis for banning firearms at certain government locations. Moreover, the government does not provide for passenger security on public transit, as evidenced by the myriad headline-making incidents of violence in recent years on subways and at train stations.
Illinois’s regulation is, therefore, unconstitutional and cannot stand.
The case is Schoenthal v. Raoul. It is currently before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
About NRA-ILA:
Established in 1975, the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) is the “lobbying” arm of the National Rifle Association of America. ILA is responsible for preserving the right of all law-abiding individuals in the legislative, political, and legal arenas, to purchase, possess, and use firearms for legitimate purposes as guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Visit: www.nra.org
NEW YORK CITY – This week, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), [working under the direction of the Second Amendment Foundation,] announced the filing of its opening brief with the federal Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Christian v. James, an FPC Law case that challenges some of the State of New York’s post-Bruen bans on public carry. The opening brief, filed Friday, addressed the plaintiffs’ claims regarding carry in public parks and can be viewed at firearmspolicy.org/boron. The Second Circuit plans to hear arguments in June.
Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the ‘plain text’ of the Second Amendment extends to cover carrying firearms in public.
“Given that the Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that the ‘plain text’ of the [Second] Amendment extends to cover carrying firearms in public, and the Parks Ban prevents carrying firearms in public parks, this case unquestionably passes Bruen’s threshold inquiry, and the Parks Ban is presumptively unconstitutional,” argues the brief. “The question then is one for history, and the history of firearms regulation demonstrates that the Parks Ban is neither facially constitutional nor, in the alternative, constitutional when applied to parks outside of urban areas.”
“New York’s ban on carry in parks is unconstitutional and it’s not a close call. The Second Circuit should put a stop to this restriction that the State enacted in defiance of the Supreme Court’s clear decision in Bruen,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.
The Christian case is part of FPC’s high-impact strategic litigation program, FPC Law, aimed at eliminating immoral laws and creating a world of maximal liberty. FPC is joined in the litigation by an individual FPC member and the Second Amendment Foundation. FPC thanks FPC Action Foundation for its strategic support of this FPC Law case.
Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org), a 501(c)4 nonprofit membership organization, exists to create a world of maximal human liberty, defend constitutional rights, advance individual liberty, and restore freedom. We work to achieve our strategic objectives through litigation, research, scholarly publications, amicus briefing, legislative and regulatory action, grassroots activism, education, outreach, and other programs. Our FPC Law program (FPCLaw.org) is the nation’s preeminent legal action initiative focused on restoring the right to keep and bear arms throughout the United States. Individuals who want to support FPC’s work to eliminate unconstitutional laws can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org or make a donation at firearmspolicy.org/donate. For more on FPC’s lawsuits and other pro-Second Amendment initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and follow FPC on Instagram, X (Twitter), Facebook, and YouTube.
