Knife Rights: URGENT TEXAS ACTION ALERT – Time is Running Out!

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.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT! DO IT TODAY! If you live or work in Texas and have a Texas address, please use Knife Rights’ Legislative Action Center to easily email the Chairman and members of the Criminal Justice Committee and Lt. Governor Dan Patrick to ask for a hearing on HB 2239 at the Next Meeting!

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.

Please consider making a donation today to help us forge a Sharper Future for all Americans!

---

About Knife Rights

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.

from https://ift.tt/a6OUKFr
via IFTTT

Background Checks Show Gun Sales Continue Slow Decline

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 History

NSSF-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.

from https://ift.tt/0bV6gFo
via IFTTT

Pushback: Activists Want Relief from NFA; More Demands for Bondi to Act

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.

RELATED:

CCRKBA Launches Petition to Bondi for ‘Dirty Dozen’ Investigations

Gun Owners in Embattled States Beg for Bondi’s ‘2A Task Force’ Attention

---

About Dave Workman

Dave Workman is a senior editor at TheGunMag.com and Liberty Park Press, author of multiple books on the Right to Keep & Bear Arms, and formerly an NRA-certified firearms instructor.

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

Government Admits Defeat in Forced Reset Trigger Battle

Rare Breed Triggers FRT-15 Forced Reset Trigger

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.

Who Is Really To Blame For The ATF Bump Stock Ban Rule?

Bump Stock Boondoggle, Don’t Blame Trump – Blame LaPierre

 

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/YLiG467
via IFTTT

Gun Owners Could Publicly put ‘Former Republican’ Jolly on Spot for Betraying Them

What won’t he tell people to get their vote? (David Jolly/Facebook)

“Weighing run for governor, David Jolly proposes gun liability insurance to reduce violence,” the Tallahassee Democrat reported Thursday. “Jolly is a former Republican congressman from St. Petersburg introducing himself to voters elsewhere as a potential Democratic candidate for governor. He’s holding a series of town halls; among the things he’s talking about is gun violence.”

What an offensively stupid idea, to blame peaceable gun owners for the criminal misuse of firearms by “0.004% of households with guns involved in gun homicides” (most of which do not even legally “own” them) with the equivalent of a prior restraint poll tax on their birthright.

As for town halls, when? Where? Because Florida has plenty of gun owners who say they believe in the Second Amendment, and those open forums provide perfect opportunities to take a play out of the Democrat playbook, albeit they just disrupt. More ordered points could be made by calling the guy out over how he betrayed everyone who had previously supported him based on his past endorsement by the National Rifle Association.

“The NRA mobilized our members and pro-gun voters in this congressional district. Thanks to our members who voted early and turned out yesterday to vote, their efforts made a significant difference and helped win the day for the only candidate in this race who supported their right to Bear Arms, their hunting heritage and their right to self-defense.”

He’d have never gotten elected otherwise. So, what lies did he tell them to get an “AQ” (based on questionnaire) rating? Bizarrely, presuming he’s a calculated liar gives him more credence than presuming he’s a moron who didn’t comprehend what he was signing up for.  So, why not ask him what he told NRA to get them to mobilize their members on his behalf? Why not get him to release the questionnaire he submitted, and we can see what he promised?

We already have a pretty good idea. Conservative Alaska U.S. Senate candidate Joe Miller shared his “perfect” questionnaire with me, back when NRA was sidelining him in favor of establishment pick Lisa Murkowski.  Among the things Jolly would have had to freely say he agreed with:

• He opposed legislation banning semi-automatic firearms and their ammunition and magazines.
• He supported right-to-carry.
• He opposed legislation ending private sales.
• He agreed a judge’s record and belief in the Second Amendment as an individual right should be “important factors” for confirmation votes.
• He opposed “sporting purposes” requirements.
• He agreed that the Second Amendment is a fundamental individual right applicable to state and local governments as well as to the federal government.

Understand that 2014 was the year for both the above-cited Miller and Jolly campaigns, so it’s reasonable to assume the questions were the same.

So, how long did it take Jolly to do a 180?

In 2016, he proposed a “terror watchlist” bill to disarm Americans who hadn’t even been charged with a crime, let alone convicted of one. Not only are such bills affronts to liberty, what better way is there to tip a real terrorist off that he’d been made, and give him a heads up that it’s time to make tracks?

But Jolly’s thirst for disarming his countrymen did not end there. He “suggested” to MSNBC that Parkland shooting survivor Kyle Kashuv, who emerged from the experience with pro-Second Amendment and “conservative” values intact, should not be allowed to purchase guns because he might be at risk to become a mass shooter. His reason? Kashuv made some racist/antisemitic statements on social media when he was 16 and had since disavowed and profusely apologized for. Presumably, if you’re on the SPLC/ADL blacklists, “A-rated” Jolly says no guns for you.

Add to this Jolly gushing “We owe our trust to Joe Biden,” and praising fellow NRA darlings-turned-Judases Dick and Liz Cheney for the “certain level of patriotism” they showed by endorsing Kamala Harris, and his journey toward the Dark Side is complete. That’s assuming it already wasn’t when he misled NRA on its questionnaire. Because here’s what he says about the Second Amendment now:

Florida suffers needlessly from gun violence. Restricting access to firearms has proven to effectively reduce injury and death. Florida should ban the sale of assault weapons, require universal and comprehensive background checks, explore licensing, and preserve and expand the red flag laws enacted following the tragedy at Parkland.

For someone reportedly about to launch a series of town halls, Jolly’s keeping the “wheres” and “whens” pretty close to the vest. Hopefully, Florida’s politically involved gun owner advocates will be able to track those down and attend, and bring some pointed questions to the fore, including “What specifically did you tell the NRA to get elected?” and “With your record of deception for political gain, why in the world would anyone believe a word that comes out of your mouth and trust you with political power over their lives?”

---

About David Codrea:

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

from https://ift.tt/kM9hRKZ
via IFTTT

Defensive Display Becomes Law in Oklahoma

Women concealed carry handgun pistol in a purse iStock-Dmitri Toms 1609777611

On May 14, 2025, Governor J. Kevin Stitt signed Oklahoma HB 2818 into law. This type of law is known as a Defensive Display law. It codifies and clarifies actions that are allowed during the defense of self, others, and property while being armed. HB 2818 was passed by the House with a 73-16 vote on March 25, 2025. It passed the Senate 39-7 on May 8, 2025. The law took effect immediately. From oklegislature.gov:

4. For purposes of this subsection, “defensive display of a firearm” includes, but is not limited to:

a. verbally informing another person that the person possesses or has available a firearm or any other deadly weapon,

b. exposing or displaying a firearm or any other deadly weapon in a manner that a reasonable person would understand was meant to protect the person against the use or attempted use by another of unlawful physical or deadly force, or

c. placing the hand of the person on a firearm or any other deadly weapon while the firearm is contained in a pocket, purse, holster, sling scabbard, case or other means of containment or transport.

Texas has a defensive display law, Penal Section 9.04, which was last amended in 1993. Arizona passed a defensive display bill in 2009. The Florida defensive display, HB89,  was signed into law in 2014.

Defensive display is a simple concept. If a person reasonably fears a potential opponent, a defense display allows them to inform the potential adversary they are armed, both verbally or by showing the potential adversary they have a weapon. Pointing the firearm at a potential adversary is usually reserved for circumstances that would allow the use of deadly force.

Some states have confusing statutes that make it legally dangerous to let an opponent and possible attacker know a person is armed. Some are quite severe. In Arizona, before the defensive display law was passed in 2009, showing a firearm could be prosecuted as an aggravated assault, a felony. Prosecutorial abuse of this statute led to the passage of the Arizona law.

As a practical matter, the display or reference to a firearm most commonly results in the aggressor stopping the aggression and leaving. These numbers are difficult to quantify, but appear to happen in about 90-95% of defensive uses of firearms. This is reasonable.

Once an aggressor knows they are facing an armed opponent who is aware of their intent, they stop the aggression. Criminals have often been recorded as saying they fear armed victims more than they fear police.

Professors James D. Wright and Peter Rossi surveyed 2,000 felons incarcerated in state prisons across the United States. Wright and Rossi reported that 34% of the felons said they personally had been “scared off, shot at, wounded, or captured by an armed victim”; 69% said that they knew at least one other criminal who had also; 34% said that when thinking about committing a crime they either “often” or “regularly” worried that they “[m]ight get shot at by the victim”; and 57% agreed with the statement, “Most criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police.” (James D. Wright & Peter H. Rossi, Armed and Considered Dangerous: A Survey of Felons and Their Firearms [1986]. See Guns and Public Health: Epidemic of Violence or Pandemic of Propaganda? by Don B. Kates, et. al. Originally published as 61 Tenn. L. Rev. 513-596 [1994]).

Making the most effective defensive use of firearms illegal is extremely dangerous for both suspects and victims. In states where the law is still ambiguous, prosecutors have enormous discretion.

HB2818 is a welcome reform of defense law in Oklahoma. The law protects defenders and makes the killing or wounding of a suspect less likely. States that do not have a defensive display law would do well to consider adopting HB2818 as a good example.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

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

Gun Owners Kill Compromise Bill That Kept Suppressors on the NFA

Gemtech Abyss 7.62 Suppressor

The reconciliation bill that included lowering the tax stamp fee for suppressors but kept the device on the National Firearms Act of 1968 failed to pass the floor vote in the House of Representatives largely in part to Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act being missing.

Reconciliation is a process that deals with taxes. Unlike normal bills requiring a supermajority in the Senate, a reconciliation bill only requires a majority vote. Republicans control both chambers of Congress; they can pass it even if every Democrat votes against it. Since the United States Supreme Court has already stated that the NFA is primarily a tax, it can be modified through the reconciliation process. Pressure from gun owners and activists on members of the House helped to crush the reconciliation bill.

The HPA would have removed suppressors from the NFA while still subjecting them to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) regulations. This change would mean no tax stamp to buy a suppressor, and gun owners would not need to register their devices with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which many view as an infringement.

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.

During the House Ways and Means Committee markup of the bill, Republicans led by David Kustoff (R-TN) changed the language of the HPA to eliminate the $200 tax stamp fee but kept the suppressors on the NFA. Gun Owners were furious and felt betrayed by the Republican-led committee. Rep. Kustoff claimed he pushed what he did because of the Senate’s “Byrd Rule.”

The Byrd Rule states that only tax issues can be done through reconciliation. Speaking to people in the Senate, they do not believe that removing suppressors from the NFA would violate the Byrd Rule since SCOTUS has already determined the NFA to be tax law. They also point out that if the Senate decided it violated the Byrd Rule, it could be modified in the Senate. There was no need for the House to worry about the Byrd rule.

Because Friday’s vote failed to pass the bill through the House, the budget committee will reconvene on Sunday to hash out a bill that will most likely pass. Hopes are high due to the outpouring from the gun community that Section 2 of the HPA will be included. This change would mean that suppressors would be removed from the NFA. Those at AmmoLand News have spoken to in the House are confident that the HPA will be included in the new text. The SHORT Act also has a shot of being included, but that is far from certain.

If the bill is fixed on Sunday, a vote will happen early next week before it is headed to the Senate. This reconciliation package could be a significant step towards dismantling parts of the NFA.

Silencer Central’s Suppressor Lobbying Sparks Controversy Over NFA Deregulation Stance

GOP House Members Fail to Remove Suppressors From The National Firearms Act

---

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.

from https://ift.tt/6Dwscf5
via IFTTT

Sen. Schiff Picks Up ‘Ban-Them-All’ Torch for Gun Control ~ VIDEO

Opinion
By Larry Keane

The time to act is now.

I’m introducing the Assault Weapons Ban Act of 2025. pic.twitter.com/TZu7GTCjvF

— Adam Schiff (@SenAdamSchiff) April 30, 2025

U.S. Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) replaced the late U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and has picked up the mantle of her gun control legacy with one bill in particular. He reintroduced the legislation she often sponsored to reinstate the expired federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” as he hopes to once again prohibit law-abiding Americans from owning the most popular selling semiautomatic rifle in America – the Modern Sporting Rifle (MSR).

Sen. Schiff introduced S. 1531, the Assault Weapon Ban of 2025, and made the announcement through a video he posted to social media. Usurpingly, his claims about the previous federal ban are false. His video message immediately received a brutal Community Note, tagging the first-term senator’s message as “incorrect.” Companion legislation was also introduced in the House of Representatives by Congresswoman Lucy McBath (D-Ga.) as H.R. 3115, with the same title.

“The claim that the Bill 31 years ago held crimes and mass shootings at bay for 10 years is incorrect. It sunset after 10 years when Congress’s own research proved it had no effect on violent crime committed with the rifles it banned,” the note corrected. ABC News reporting was the source provided. In addition, Breitbart News tagged the video message in an article and reminded readers – or more appropriately, Sen. Schiff, that the Department of Justice’s National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported that the ban could not be credited with any reduction in crime.

Still, as is the case with the vast majority of gun control legislation backed by national gun control groups and their allies, facts don’t matter much. Sen. Schiff is gung ho on banning a commonly-owned firearm in the country, with more than 30 million MSRs in circulation.

Cold Water on Capitol Hill

Despite Sen. Schiff’s gaslighting about the horrors of MSRs, which he falsely labels as “military-style weapons of war,” millions of Americans use MSRs for lawful purposes every day, including for target practice and recreational shooting, hunting and yes – self-defense. Especially during the past five years throughout the coronavirus pandemic and a surge in crime across the country, MSRs have been – and continue to be – an especially popular choice of firearm for Americans purchasing guns, including among first-time buyers. Back in Washington, D.C., however, it’s clear Sen. Schiff’s gun control wish fortunately won’t get very far.

Even mainstream media outlets recognize the California senator’s unquestionably unconstitutional gun ban is a pipedream. The Hill described Sen. Schiff’s bill as “having virtually no chance of becoming law” due to the fact that Republicans control the majority in both the House and the Senate. However, missing from The Hill’s reporting is also the fact that when Democrats held majorities during the 117th Congress in 2021-2022, the “assault weapons” ban legislation didn’t even receive a vote in the Senate under Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), with not even all Democrats supporting the legislation.

Bearing Arms’ Tom Knighton noted that during a formal press conference event to mark the introduction of his legislation, Sen. Schiff was joined by California colleague Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Sens. Chris Murphy and Richard Blumenthal, both Democrats from Connecticut. The group also included Rep. McBath and representatives from the major national gun control groups Brady United, Giffords and Newtown Action Alliance.

Popularity Questioned

During his remarks at the press event, Sen. Chris Murphy proclaimed rather confidently that the American people were on their side and agreed with their demands to ban MSRs.

“Not only is the assault weapons ban the right thing to do, it’s the popular thing to do,” the senator declared. “Every single year when you go into the field and ask Americans what they think of an assault weapons ban… by increasing numbers they tell Congress it’s time, its past time to stand up.”

But the numbers again demonstrate the senators don’t have their facts correct. In fact, trends show the opposite of what Sen. Murphy surmises.

According to Gallup, in October 2024, just 52 percent of Americans said they supported a federal ban on co-called “assault weapons.” That number was three percentage points lower than respondents said in 2022 and a full nine points lower than in 2019. On the flip side, the number of Americans vocalizing their opposition to a federal ban has steadily risen – according to Gallup – by nine points over the same time period. This trend demonstrating the increasing popularity of MSRs overlapping the dramatic rise in Americans who oppose bans has been covered before. In fact, The Reload reported on polling from the Washington Post/ABC News (hardly pro-gun media outlets) that found in 2023 a majority of Americans opposed a federal ban.

While gun control allies in Congress like Sen. Schiff and Rep. McBath continue to push for unconstitutional gun bans using false data and faulty messaging, one thing appears clear. There won’t be any Congressionally approved MSR bans happening anytime soon. Gun control groups will use smears and scare tactics to fundraise and generate media attention. The firearm industry and Members of Congress who support the Constitution and Second Amendment rights will continue using facts and data to fight back.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA-15 16" M4 Phosphate 5.56 NATO 1/7 Classic AR-15 Rifle with 13" Lightweight Hex M-LOK Rail, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 859.99 $ 489.99
	PSA PA-15 20" Nitride Rifle-Length 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 Rifle W/Carry Handle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 999.99 $ 569.99
	PSA PA-15 20" Nitride Rifle-Length 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 Rifle W/Carry Handle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 999.99 $ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 13.5" M-Lok Railed Rifle	Palmetto State Armory	$ 959.99 $ 479.99

Cory Booker Goes from “I am Spartacus” to “I am Hypocrite”

Colorado: Gov. Jared Polis & Democrats’ Newest Gun Law is a Constitutional Disaster

---

About The National Shooting Sports Foundation

NSSF is the trade association for the firearm industry. Its mission is to promote, protect and preserve hunting and shooting sports. Formed in 1961, NSSF has a membership of thousands of manufacturers, distributors, firearm retailers, shooting ranges, sportsmen’s organizations, and publishers nationwide. For more information, visit nssf.org

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

Bite This: “Scientists” Uncover Link Between “Gun Violence” & Oral Hygiene

Opinion

iStock-942826332

Some of us remember our days as kids, when the adults in our lives would tell us before bedtime, “Brush your teeth, and say your prayers.”

It wasn’t a threat, however, but an injunction to end the day on a healthy and uplifting note.

Now, however, “science” is informing us that this old-fashioned directive may, in fact, have had relevance to the issue of “gun violence.”

Anti-gun propaganda organ The Trace recently published a story under the headline, “Gun Violence Linked to Surprising Side-Effect: Poor Dental Health.”

This is particularly intriguing, because anybody who has seen an old cowboy movie knows that moments before “gun violence” breaks out, one of the combatants is often prone to tell the other, “Smile when you say that.”

Could it be that poor oral hygiene is indeed considered a provocation in these situations? Could that explain why those types of confrontations often ended badly on the frontier, where dental care was scarce and usually dispensed with whiskey and large pliers?

The Trace article does lend some support to that hypothesis, continuing, “In communities with the highest rates of gun violence, residents are less likely to receive dental care.”

It also notes (perhaps unnecessarily): “The study, published in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine in April, is the first of its kind to examine the connection between oral health and firearm exposure.”

What else could possibly explain this connection?

Fortunately, the researchers had an answer for that: “a pervasive sense of fear, chronic stress, and social and economic disruption brought on by firearm violence could potentially contribute to adverse health behaviors,” including “poor oral health.”

In other words, certain folks might be so demoralized by the presence of guns in society that they can’t bring themselves to brush or floss. (We would only ask how this conclusion squares with the infamously poor dental health of Great Britain, where private ownership of firearms has largely been eliminated. Perhaps they should study a possible link with Ninja Swords.)

The Trace also reports that this work of scientific genius was the product of the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at Rutgers University.

We had noted, during the Biden-Harris regime, that the administration was directing anti-gun states to follow its lead with the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention and establish similar efforts with the taxpayer dollars of their states.

Sadly for projects like this, The Trace article laments that the New Jersey center is now “is at risk of steep budget cuts as funding for gun violence prevention has come under threat at both the state and federal levels.”

And you have to wonder why, when those researchers are busy connecting dots like these, as crime involved individuals on the streets who are already legally prohibited from possessing guns are nonetheless killing each other over things like social media disses.

Wouldn’t it be better, if you were worried about the well-being of these communities, to focus – as McGruff the Crime Dog said –  on taking a bite out of crime?

Not according to the scientists in New Jersey, who have a different prescription. They suggest: “integrating oral care into gun violence prevention organizations could be essential in mitigating the risks of both gun violence and lack of dental care.”

Normally, NRA-ILA does not take a position on dentistry-related issues.

But, if gun control organizations wanted to divert more of their resources to improving oral healthcare in distressed communities (and less to taking away everybody else’s guns), we would certainly consider that a positive development.

Either way, as this hard-hitting exposé shows, taxpayers at any level of government should not have to shoulder the cost for this sort of dubious scientific exploration into “gun violence.”

This time, we can thank The Trace and the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center for reminding us (and hopefully DOGE and DOJ’s Second Amendment Task Force) of that point yet again.

Cory Booker Goes from “I am Spartacus” to “I am Hypocrite”

Firearm Turn-ins, aka ‘Gun Buy Backs’ Worse than Useless?

---

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

from https://ift.tt/LpvgG8W
via IFTTT

1984 NRA Annual Meeting in Milwaukee: Manipulation, Lies, and Betrayal

Jeff Knox addresses NRA members during the 2023 Annual Meeting. (Photo credit: John Richardson)

In 1984, the National Rifle Association (NRA) Annual Meeting was held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It was the first Annual Meeting this correspondent attended. It was characterized by manipulation, lies, and betrayal.

In 1984, this correspondent was a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin. A masters degree in mining engineering was nearing completion. A life membership in the National Rifle Association had been paid off in installments. When informed the annual meeting would be held in Milwaukee, this correspondent, his brother, and a mutual friend, Jim Blair, made plans to attend.

Neal Knox had been booted as head of the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) and off the NRA Board of Directors in 1982, because he was considered too aggressive in defending Second Amendment rights on Capitol Hill. Neal was the first head of the ILA after reformers had taken control of the NRA in what became known as the revolt in 1977, at the annual meeting of that year. He had submitted the motions for the By-Law changes which affected the “revolt”.  Neal had been aggressively recruited by the Executive Vice President, Harlon Carter, in 1977, to head up the ILA. Carter reportedly fired Knox at the request of Senate Majority Leader Robert (Bob) Dole.

Neal and supporters had organized a mini-revolt for the 1984 meeting in Milwaukee. The plan was for the membership to pass resolutions reinstating Knox on the Board of Directors and condemning his removal from the ILA. As a young activist, this correspondent became aware of the plan. Activists in the NRA were not happy with Knox’s removal from the ILA. We planned to do something about it.

During the meeting, it became clear the political winds favored Neal Knox. The person chairing the meeting saw what was happening and put a counter-plan into action. The chair said it appeared this would be a long meeting (The Revolt in Cincinnati had lasted until 4 a.m.). He said it would not be fair to the people who were waiting for the presentation of awards. The chair asked for a motion to suspend the rules, so the awards could be granted before the rest of the business of the meeting was done. He promised the controversial resolutions would be addressed, and the meeting would stay in session as long as it would take to do so.

It was a well-thought-out plan. Instead of a motion to suspend the rules, there could have been a motion to alter the sequence of the agenda. However, the motion to suspend the rules passed in spite of Neal Knox attempting to raise a point of order.

Many of the activists immediately started leaving the hall, in order to obtain a bite to eat. They anticipated a long session, as the Chair had promised. This correspondent, brother, and friend went to a McDonalds less than a block away.  We sat down with another couple of activists. As we were eating, this correspondent noted, under a suspension of the rules, the meeting could theoretically be adjourned before we returned. None of us expected the meeting to be adjourned.

We quickly finished our meal and returned to the convention hall. As we approached it, hundreds of members were streaming out of the doors. We asked what was going on. The meeting is adjourned, we were told. Someone had called for adjournment. The Chair recognized them and immediately asked for a voice vote. After the vote, the Chair claimed the ayes have it and the meeting was adjourned. It was a direct betrayal of the promise of the Chair and the members who had gathered for the meeting. It was this correspondent’s initiation into the Machiavellian internal politics of the NRA.

As the members were leaving, this correspondent spoke briefly with Jeff Knox, Neil’s son. Later, Jeff and this correspondent became colleagues and friends. It is unlikely Jeff would remember the brief exchange from over 40 years ago.

The official account of the Annual Meeting in the American Rifleman did not mention the drama and the betrayal.

This correspondent performed numerous searches on the Internet to find an account of the 1984 Annual Meeting. Conversations with my brother and old friend confirmed the gist of what happened, but not the exact date.  A search of my personal journal from 1984 revealed almost two full pages of entries for May 25, 26, and 27, when the NRA Annual Meeting in Milwaukee occurred. The journal entries are the basis for this article.

Neal Knox started his Hard Corps Report a month after the 1984 Annual Meeting. He remained the foremost proponent of reform within the NRA until his death in 2005. Jeff Knox continues to publish the Hard Corps Report.

This correspondent met Neal Knox a few times and spoke with him occasionally. Neal Knox was a genius at understanding the legislative process and the long-term effects of firearms legislation. Jeff Knox has continued the fight to reform the NRA.

Who would have thought the machinations of a corrupt New York Attorney General would have resulted in the victory of NRA reformers in 2024 and 2025?

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

from https://ift.tt/0Iv4x1d
via IFTTT

Firearm Turn-ins, aka ‘Gun Buy Backs’ Worse than Useless?

Opinion

Another NJ Gun “Buyback” Asks People To Commit Felonies

Once again, Chicago has provided a cautionary tale in gun control. This time the city helped to illustrate the futility of gun turn-ins – sometimes incorrectly termed “buybacks” by those under the misimpression that all property originates from government.

On April 4, the Chicago Sun Times published an item titled, “‘Where is the Glock?’ Gun turned over to Chicago police wound up in the hands of a teenager.” The piece opened by describing a December 2023 gun turn-in held at the St. Sabina Church in Chicago’s Southside. The piece noted:

That day was marked by excitement, confusion and ultimately chaos after one cop inventorying the weapons at a police station noticed something unusual. A Glock handgun that cops had been admiring was missing.

A tag identifying the gun had been slipped onto another one, and an envelope for that gun was soon found in the trash. In an office full of cops assigned to inventory the guns and keep them secure, someone had walked off with the Glock.

Police say they found the stolen gun nearly a year later after chasing down a 16-year-old boy. He had allegedly been pulling on car door handles in South Shore, about 5 miles from the church.

It turns out this wasn’t the first time a turned in firearm wound up in the hands of an alleged criminal in Chicago. The Sun Times piece explained:

The lost weapon’s journey mirrored an earlier event in which a gun turned in by a Cook County judge disappeared from another buyback in Chicago — only to resurface at a fatal police shooting in Cicero, as the Better Government Association and Chicago Sun-Times reported in 2017.

After that report, the city launched an investigation that lasted more than five years. But investigators decided it would be “difficult and unwise” to question everyone involved in the buyback. So they didn’t interview anyone.

Such turn-in events serve as propaganda for gun controllers, are sometimes a burden on the taxpayer, and serve no public safety purpose. A January 2013 Department of Justice National Institute of Justice memo surveying a host of gun control policies for the Obama administration stated, “Gun buybacks are ineffective as generally implemented.” The author went on to point out, “The guns turned in are at low risk of ever being used in a crime.”

Research on the failure of gun turn-ins is nothing new.

A 1994 study that appeared in Public Health Reports noted changes in firearm related crimes following a turn-in campaign in Seattle “were not statistically significant.” In a 1996 article published by the Police Executive Research Forum, Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck made clear, “Existing empirical information provides no basis for believing that gun buy-back programs reduce violence of any kind.”

In 1998, the Clinton Department of Justice published an item titled, “Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising.” “Gun buyback programs” were listed in the “What doesn’t work” category. In 2000, Harvard researcher David Kennedy noted that turn-ins “do very little good… The pool of guns that get turned in in buybacks are simply not the same guns that would otherwise have been used in crime.”

In 2002 a study titled “Missing the target: a comparison of buyback and fatality related guns” was published in Injury Prevention. The item was authored in part by prominent gun control supporter and researcher Garen Wintemute. The study concluded:

Handguns recovered in buyback programs are not the types most commonly linked to firearm homicides and suicides. Although buyback programs may increase awareness of firearm violence, limited resources for firearm injury prevention may be better spent in other ways.

Discussing the present incident with the Sun Times, Wintemute appeared to acknowledge his earlier findings, telling the paper, “When somebody asks me should we do a buyback, my response is that it depends on what you’re hoping to accomplish… If you think it will reduce rates of crime, go back to the drawing board.”

A 2022 working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research that was later summarized in a 2023 CATO Institute research brief came to a similar conclusion. The item noted, “We conclude that [gun buyback programs] are an ineffective policy strategy to reduce gun violence.” Moreover, the piece explained,

in the two months following a [gun buyback program], we detected a small increase in gun crimes with no corresponding change in nongun crimes. This finding is consistent with a possible criminal response to perceptions about the likelihood of self-defense among law-abiding gun owners.

For three decades researchers from across the gun control political divide have understood the inefficacy of firearm turn-ins. With some statistical and anecdotal evidence that these turn-ins may even be counterproductive, the time has come to end these foolish schemes.

Rep. Sheri Biggs Introduces Bill to Ease Shotgun Purchases

Rep. Sheri Biggs Introduces Legislation to Ensure Ability to Ship Firearms

---

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

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