Connecticut Glock-Style Pistol Ban HB 5043 Heads to Gov. Lamont

Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm Pistol. Img Duncan Johnson

After clearing the Connecticut House in April, the so-called “convertible pistol” bill passed the state Senate 22–11 after an overnight debate and is now headed to Gov. Ned Lamont’s desk. Local reporting says senators debated the bill from about 3 a.m. to 8:30 a.m. before approving it Wednesday morning.

HB 5043 is not a narrow bill aimed only at criminals caught with illegal machine-gun conversion devices. It targets the future sale and importation of common semiautomatic pistols, Connecticut politicians claim, can be “readily” converted with a so-called Glock switch.

The bill defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be altered by hand or with a common household tool so the pistol can be converted into a machine gun by installing or attaching a pistol converter. The bill excludes hammer-fired pistols and certain shielded designs, but the target is obvious: Glock-style striker-fired handguns, among the most common defensive pistols in America.

If signed, the ban takes effect on October 1, 2026. The bill would make it a Class D felony to import, advertise, sell, offer, or expose for sale covered “convertible pistols,” with penalties reported as up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.

AmmoLand previously reported that the House passed HB 5043 86–64 on April 22, with every House Republican and 15 Democrats voting no. At that point, the bill was headed to the Senate. Now it has cleared both chambers and sits where Gov. Lamont wanted it all along: on his desk.

Lamont introduced the proposal, and anti-gun Democrats sold it as a response to illegal Glock switches. That excuse falls apart quickly. Machine guns are already illegal under Connecticut law. Conversion devices are already heavily restricted under federal law. Criminals installing illegal switches are already breaking the law. HB 5043 instead punishes lawful buyers, dealers, and manufacturers by attacking the handgun itself.

Republicans made that point during the debate. Sen. Rob Sampson said the bill bans “perfectly lawful firearms” even though Glock switches and illegal conversions are already prohibited.

Supporters claim the bill is not taking anyone’s existing guns. That is a dodge. A ban on future lawful sales is still a ban. It cuts off ordinary citizens from purchasing some of the most widely used defensive handguns in the country while doing nothing meaningful to the criminals already ignoring the law.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 10+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 699.99
	Glock 19 Gen 6 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black with Aimpoint COA	MidwayUSA	$ 1053.00
	Glock 19 Gen 6 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 10+1 Round Black with Aimpoint COA	MidwayUSA	$ 1053.00

HB 5043 creates a new prohibition on a class of commonly owned handguns because criminals can misuse illegal parts.

That is the dangerous precedent.

If Connecticut can ban Glock-style pistols because a criminal might illegally convert one, the same logic can be used against nearly any semiautomatic firearm. Anti-gun lawmakers do not need to win the entire handgun-ban argument at once. They only need to keep creating new categories, new labels, and new excuses until lawful ownership becomes impossible for everyone but the politically favored.

The National Association for Gun Rights is now urging Connecticut gun owners and Second Amendment supporters to contact Gov. Lamont and demand a veto. NAGR’s action page warns that HB 5043 has been pushed through the legislature and “now goes to Governor Ned Lamont’s desk for a signature or veto,” asking supporters to email Lamont and insist that he veto the bill.

PISTOL BAN MOVING FAST IN CONNECTICUT

In the dead of night, with debates not even starting until 3:24 AM, the Senate passed HB5043 which could ban most striker fired pistols in the state.

It now heads to the Governor’s desk. Use the link below, demand a veto! pic.twitter.com/cWZWWkDrDB

— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) May 6, 2026

Connecticut gun owners should not wait. The legislature has already done its damage. The fight is now at the governor’s desk.

This bill does not stop violent criminals. It does not stop illegal switches. It does not make Connecticut families safer. It takes aim at lawful gun owners, lawful retailers, and some of the most popular defensive handguns in America.

For Connecticut Democrats, the criminal misuse of illegal machine-gun conversion devices has become the excuse. The target is the handgun.

Connecticut is not acting alone. Anti-gun states are now testing a new front in the gun-ban fight by labeling common striker-fired handguns “convertible pistols” and blaming lawful gun designs for the criminal misuse of illegal conversion devices. Connecticut is among the first states moving this kind of legislation, alongside similar efforts in places like California, Maryland, Illinois, and New York.

At the same time, the Department of Justice has started challenging bans on commonly owned arms, suing Denver over its ban on semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15-style rifles, and filing a separate challenge to Colorado’s magazine ban. If DOJ is serious about defending arms “in common use,” these so-called convertible-pistol bans could be the next obvious target.

They use the same basic trick: take a firearm millions of Americans lawfully own, attach a scary political label to it, and criminalize future access.

ATF’s 34-Rule Reform Package Is a Start, Not a Finish Line for Gun Owners

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/CP5x9Gy
via IFTTT

DOJ Is Finally Fighting Hardware Bans. Now SCOTUS Needs To Step In.

DOJ’s lawsuits against Denver and Colorado put common semiautomatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines at the center of the next major Second Amendment fight. image Duncan Johnson

Politicians and advocates for gun control have tried repeatedly to turn the Second Amendment into a second-class right. Carry rights, magazine bans, “assault weapon” bans, pistol-brace traps, registration schemes — the strategy is always the same. Criminalize ordinary gun owners first, then force them to spend years in court to recognize rights the Constitution already protects.

That is what makes Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon’s latest comments so important.

In a new interview highlighted by Just the News, Dhillon said she believes the Supreme Court will eventually rule that AR-15s are legal for law-abiding citizens nationwide. She called AR-15 bans “low-hanging fruit,” pointing to Heller, Bruen, and the Supreme Court’s recent unanimous language in Smith & Wesson v. Mexico recognizing the AR-15’s popularity among ordinary Americans.

Now, the DOJ is finally going after anti-gun states to protect the rights of American citizens.

On May 5, the Department of Justice sued Denver over its long-running ban on so-called “assault weapons.” DOJ says Denver criminalizes possession of certain constitutionally protected semiautomatic rifles, including AR-15-style rifles, and that law-abiding Americans own “tens of millions” of rifles like those banned by the city.

The complaint is blunt. DOJ calls “assault weapon” a politically charged term, says the firearms Denver bans include ordinary semiautomatic rifles possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans, and argues that the city banned arms in common use for lawful purposes.

But Denver is no longer the whole story.

One day after suing Denver over its ban on common semiautomatic rifles, the Justice Department filed a second lawsuit against the State of Colorado and the Colorado Department of Public Safety over Colorado’s statewide magazine ban. The May 6 complaint challenges Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-12-302, which makes it a crime to sell, transfer, or possess a so-called “large-capacity magazine.” Under Colorado law, that means, among other things, a detachable magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds.

DOJ did not accept Colorado’s terminology. The complaint calls “large capacity” a misnomer, arguing that magazines holding more than 15 rounds are standard-capacity magazines for many popular firearms, including the AR-15. The government also argues that detachable magazines are integral to most semiautomatic firearms and are covered by the Second Amendment.

This is the hardware fight the Supreme Court keeps avoiding.

Rifle bans and magazine bans are two sides of the same anti-gun strategy. If politicians cannot ban the entire firearm, they ban the features. If they cannot ban the rifle outright, they ban the magazines that make it function as designed. Then they ask courts to pretend the Second Amendment protects some hollowed-out version of the right while ordinary gun owners are left with criminal penalties for owning what millions of Americans already possess.

DOJ’s Colorado complaint makes the point directly. The government says law-abiding Americans own hundreds of millions of magazines like those Colorado bans, and cites an NSSF report estimating at least 448 million standard-capacity magazines in the United States.

This is why the Supreme Court should take one of the hardware cases already before it. The question is no longer academic. DOJ is now in federal court arguing that common rifles and standard-capacity magazines are protected arms. Harmeet Dhillon is saying publicly that AR-15 bans are headed for a Supreme Court reckoning. And states like Colorado are still enforcing laws that criminalize ordinary gun owners for possessing the magazines that come standard with some of the most popular firearms in America.

The Court should not wait years for Denver or Colorado to crawl through the lower courts. It already has the issue in front of it. Take a rifle case, take a magazine case. Take both. But stop allowing lower courts to treat “common use” like an empty phrase.

In National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, the petition asks whether bans on AR-15-style rifles and magazines over ten rounds — both possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans — violate the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court docket shows the case has been repeatedly distributed for conference, including for May 1, 2026.

In Grant v. Higgins, another Connecticut “assault weapon” ban challenge, the petition is also tied to the Second Circuit’s decision and has likewise been repeatedly distributed for conference.

Magazine-ban cases are also stacked in front of the Court. Duncan v. Bonta, the long-running challenge to California’s ban on magazines over ten rounds, was docketed in August 2025 and repeatedly distributed for conference into 2026. Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington, another magazine-ban case, has followed a similar path.

These cases go to the core of the Second Amendment: whether government can ban entire categories of arms owned by millions of peaceable Americans simply because anti-gun lawmakers dislike their features, capacity, appearance, or political symbolism.

Justice Kavanaugh already signaled the problem in Snope v. Brown. Although the Court denied review of Maryland’s AR-15 ban, Kavanaugh wrote that Americans possess an estimated 20 to 30 million AR-15s, that AR-15s are legal in 41 states, and that petitioners had a strong argument that AR-15s are in common use and protected under Heller. He also said the Court should and presumably would address the AR-15 issue “soon, in the next Term or two.”

Justice Thomas was even more direct. He would have granted review, calling it “surprising” that the Fourth Circuit concluded AR-15s were not protected arms under the Second Amendment.

Lower courts are treating common rifles and standard magazines as if they can be banned by rebranding them as “dangerous,” “unusual,” “military-style,” or “accessories.” That cannot be squared with Heller. Common-use arms are not unusual. Magazines are not decorative add-ons. A semiautomatic rifle without a functioning magazine is not a meaningful arm for self-defense.

This is the same shell game gun owners see every legislative session. Politicians claim they are not banning guns, just “features.” They are not banning arms, just “accessories.” They are not targeting the Second Amendment, just “weapons of war.” Then the law-abiding citizen finds out his rifle, magazine, pistol brace, or ordinary firearm configuration has turned them into a felon overnight.

The Supreme Court needs to end that game.

DOJ’s Denver lawsuit is important because it shows the federal government, for once, treating the Second Amendment like a real civil right. Dhillon said, “These rights do not protect themselves,” and she is right. Anti-gun cities and states have spent decades betting that ordinary citizens will not have the time, money, or patience to fight every unconstitutional ban to the finish line.

The bigger issue is no longer one city or state. It is whether the Supreme Court will finally take a hardware case and tell the lower courts that Bruen was not a suggestion.

The cleanest move would be for the Court to grant one of the pending AR-15 cases, such as NAGR v. Lamont or Grant v. Higgins, and resolve whether states may ban common semiautomatic rifles. A magazine case like Duncan or Gator’s Custom Guns would also allow the Court to address the increasingly popular “accessory” dodge being used to strip protection from the parts that make modern firearms function.

The Court does not need another decade of lower-court defiance. It does not need another city ordinance dressed up in scary language. It does not need another state telling citizens that the most popular rifle in America is somehow outside the Second Amendment.

It needs to answer the question directly.

If the Second Amendment protects arms in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, then AR-15s and standard-capacity magazines are protected. If courts can still uphold bans on those arms, then Heller and Bruen are being reduced to parchment barriers.

Dhillon’s comments and the DOJ’s latest lawsuits put anti-gun jurisdictions on notice. Now the Supreme Court should do the same.

ATF’s 34-Rule Reform Package Is a Start, Not a Finish Line for Gun Owners

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor to AmmoLand News and serves as part of the editorial team responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/l9pVZ5R
via IFTTT

DOJ Sues Denver Over Unconstitutional “Assault Weapons” Ban

The Justice Department wasted no time in fulfilling its threat to sue the City of Denver over its ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Only one day after Denver Mayor Mike Johnston defiantly said “Hell, no,” AAG Harmeet Dhillon filed the legal action. Image Travis Pike

The U.S. Department of Justice has sued Denver, Colorado, over the city’s 37-year ban on so-called “assault weapons,” arguing the ordinance violates the Second Amendment by criminalizing commonly owned AR-15-style rifles.

Only one day after Denver, Colorado, Mayor Mike Johnston cavalierly told reporters his answer to a Justice Department vow to bring legal action over the city’s long-standing ban on so-called “assault weapons” was “Hell, no,” the DOJ hit the Mile High City with a federal lawsuit.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, in announcing the lawsuit, stated, “I have directed the Civil Rights Division, through our new Second Amendment Section, to defend law-abiding Americans from restrictions such as those we are challenging in these cases. Law-abiding Americans, regardless of what city or state they reside in, should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction just for exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms, which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens.”

In the same announcement, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche—who replaced Pam Bondi last month—explained, “The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. Denver’s ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms. This Department of Justice will vigorously defend the liberties of law-abiding citizens nationwide.”

Although Bondi had announced the DOJ would aggressively defend the Second Amendment early last year, not much action beyond a lawsuit against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and a legal action against the Virgin Islands police had happened. Many in the firearms community quietly believed Bondi was dragging her feet. Blanche, on the other hand, appears to have hit the ground running.

Language in the federal complaint is clear.

“The (Denver) Ordinance uses politically charged rhetoric,” the complaint says. “The term ‘assault weapon’ is not a technical term used in the firearms industry. Rather, as Justice Thomas has aptly noted, ‘assault weapon’ is a rhetorically charged political term developed by anti-gun publicists.”

According to the Denver Gazette, Johnston told a press conference Monday, “No, we will not roll back a common-sense policy that has kept weapons of war off of these city streets for 37 years. No, we will not put first responders at greater risk every time they respond to a dangerous incident. No, we will not go back to a time when folks are worried about walking into movie theaters, grocery stores, or public elementary schools.”

In his reply to Dhillon, Denver City Attorney Miko Brown wrote, “Notably, all six federal appellate courts that have considered assault weapons or large-capacity magazine (“LCM”) prohibitions following NYSRPA v. Bruen…have upheld them—specifically, the First, Second, Fourth (en banc), Seventh, Ninth, and D.C. Circuit. While the Tenth Circuit has not yet ruled on an assault weapon or LCM case, in United States v. Morgan, 150 F.4th 1339, 1347 (10th Cir. 2025) a three-judge panel unanimously held that a statute precluding the transfer or possession of machineguns did not violate the Appellee’s Second Amendment right. In its opinion, the Tenth Circuit squarely rejected the argument you make here—that the number of a certain weapon in private hands is what matters under the Second Amendment…It does not. Therefore, even if your bald, unsupported statement that ‘literally tens of millions of AR-15 style rifles’ are held by private individuals is true (and you have presented no evidence showing it is), your point is irrelevant.”

Johnston and the City of Denver will now have the opportunity to prove that in court.

In a defiant press release from Johnston’s office, which included quotes from other city officials, there is also a statement from a representative at the nation’s wealthiest gun prohibition lobbying organization, Everytown for Gun Safety. Including the remarks from Everytown managing director of Second Amendment litigation Janet Carter clearly shows on which side of the gun rights argument Johnston and the city are aligned.

“If the DOJ’s threat succeeds, Denver residents will be less safe. Assault weapons are weapons of war, and they have absolutely no place in our communities. It is heartbreaking that this would even be a question after the horrific events in Columbine, Aurora, and Boulder,” Carter said. “Denver’s life-saving ban is constitutional, and courts nationwide – including six federal appeals courts – have overwhelmingly upheld similar measures. We are proud to stand with Mayor Johnston and the city of Denver as they lead with courage, and will fight tirelessly to ensure this vital public safety measure remains in place.”

In her April 28 letter to Mayor Johnston, AAG Dhillon also told Johnston to retain all “documents, photos, videos, files, tapes, emails and computer files, that may be relevant to this matter.”

This lawsuit provides dramatic evidence that the Blanche DOJ, with Dhillon heading the Civil Rights Division, is going to be more aggressive in its effort to remind the media, the gun prohibition lobby and anti-gun politicians that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.

That this comes only a week after Robert Cekada was confirmed as the new director at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives appears to underscore this new approach to Second Amendment enforcement.

In the complaint, DOJ notes, “When the City banned AR-15 style rifles with standard capacity magazines, it banned an arm in common use for lawful purposes by law-abiding citizens. Therefore, the Ordinance violates the Second Amendment, and the United States brings this action to vindicate the rights of Denver citizens whose rights have been—and are continuing to be—violated by Defendants.”

Dhillon signed the complaint, along with other DOJ officials. The lawsuit is seeking to enjoin the city from further enforcement of the 37-year-old gun ban.

“Unless this Court enjoins Defendants and also grants the declaratory relief the United States describes below,” the complaint notes, “Defendants will continue to engage in a pattern or practice of conduct that deprives law-abiding individuals of their Second Amendment rights to acquire and possess arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

While Johnston maintains the city’s gun ban is legal, the firearms community is reminded that in 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court threw out a century-old gun permit law in New York state, in the landmark Bruen ruling. It reminded the country that just because lower courts may have upheld a regulation doesn’t mean it complies with the Second Amendment. If this case is fast-tracked through the federal court system, the high court may have another opportunity to show how that works.

ATF Revised Machine Gun Definition Does Not Go Far Enough

---

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/R6aukTf
via IFTTT

CTRLPEW Expands Federal Lawsuit, Accuses California Of Policing 3D Gun Speech In Florida

The Plastikov v4. Image courtesy of The Gatalog / CTRLPEW. Used with permission.

Earlier this year, California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu sued CTRLPEW, LLC and The Gatalog for providing firearms computer-aided design (CAD) files over the internet. California law prohibits sharing files that allow users to 3D-print firearms at home. Although the law applies only to California residents, The Gatalog makes the files freely available to anyone on the internet via Odysee.com. California claims the two websites are violating the law even though neither is hosted in the state.

Alexander Holladay (known online as CTRLPEW), CTRLPEW, LLC, Centurion Partners Group, LLC, Jonathan Adams, and Trey Bickley are now suing the state of California. They allege that the state is infringing on their First and Second Amendment rights and assert claims of extraterritorial overreach and retroactivity.

Mr. Holladay is a designer and author of numerous CAD files for guns. Centurion Partners Group, LLC is a federally licensed firearms manufacturer (Type 07 FFL) that uses CTRLPEW resources for lawful business purposes. Mr. Bickley and Mr. Adams are Florida residents who receive, view, archive, and use the content. (Adams lawfully manufactured and possesses a Plastikov V4 firearm using CTRLPEW materials.)

The case is a § 1983 civil rights action seeking declaratory and prospective injunctive relief against the State of California. The plaintiffs are not asking the Florida federal court to interfere with the ongoing California state court enforcement action (People v. Gatalog Foundation Inc., et al.) or to block California from enforcing its laws against in-state manufacture, possession, sale, or distribution.

Instead, they are challenging the defendants’ extraterritorial application of two new California Civil Code provisions (effective 2026), §§ 3273.61 and 3273.625, to purely Florida-based speech and conduct:

• Publication of 3D digital models (STEP/STL files), written guides, photographs, political commentary, humor, and curation on the open internet from Florida.
• Receipt, viewing, archiving, discussion, repair, maintenance, and lawful use of that protected speech in Florida.

The plaintiffs argue that Holladay’s STEP/STL files are digital sculptures containing expressive 3D art, including geometry, aesthetics, and political satire. One example cited is the “Joshie Woshie 9,” a design intended to mock Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro’s crusade against homemade firearms. They contend that the files constitute commentary and parody, filled with cultural references. They emphasize that STLs are not G-Code and cannot be automatically printed into a firearm; the end user must run separate slicer software and make numerous choices to produce a physical object. The accompanying guides are also full of humor, quips, and political speech.

The plaintiffs further argue that California’s broad definitions and enforcement theory, which reaches “promoting” or “facilitating”, chill protected speech in Florida and prevent Florida residents from receiving it.

The plaintiffs also claim that the California laws infringe on Second Amendment rights by burdening Florida residents’ and businesses’ ability to make, keep, maintain, repair, and use lawfully possessed arms in Florida. For example, Mr. Holladay has stopped publishing new designs out of fear of liability, which prevents Florida residents and businesses from accessing new resources. Adams cannot obtain Holladay’s reinforced grip model to repair his broken Plastikov V4, and Centurion cannot use new designs for lawful manufacturing and repair.

Additionally, the plaintiffs challenge the laws on grounds of extraterritorial overreach and retroactivity. California is currently suing CTRLPEW in state court and seeking millions in penalties for conduct that occurred entirely outside the state. The state is targeting works created and posted years before the statutes took effect or the enforcement action began. California is demanding that the plaintiffs retroactively block Californians from accessing openly posted internet content or face massive penalties. The plaintiffs note that California has already sought a preliminary injunction that would reach agents, affiliates, and third-party internet platforms and hosts.

The plaintiffs’ injuries are clear: Mr. Holladay has halted publication of new works due to fear of ruinous liability and third-party takedowns. Florida users (Bickley, Adams, and Centurion) are deprived of new expressive content and practical repair/manufacturing resources. The chilling effect extends far beyond the plaintiffs and is felt throughout Florida.

CTRL+PEW Sues California in Federal Court Over 3D-Printed Gun Files

---

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 @right2bear or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/7GwcMmf
via IFTTT

SAF Urges Supreme Court To Review Adamiak Case, Warns Courts Are Dodging Bruen

The Second Amendment Foundation is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to review Patrick Tate Adamiak’s NFA case, arguing lower courts are avoiding Bruen’s required historical analysis. iStock-2162938083

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) is urging the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Patrick Tate Adamiak v. United States, a National Firearms Act case involving a Navy veteran sentenced to 20 years in federal prison after being convicted on machinegun and destructive-device counts. SAF filed the amicus brief with the National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, Second Amendment Law Center, Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, and Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

The brief does not simply ask the Court to revisit the facts of Adamiak’s prosecution. It asks the justices to address a larger Second Amendment problem: lower courts are using the “plain text” step of New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen to avoid the historical analysis that Bruen requires.

SAF’s brief calls the facts of Adamiak’s case “outrageous” and describes his situation as a “miscarriage of justice,” but its main legal argument is aimed at how courts are applying Bruen after Heller, Caetano, Bruen, and Rahimi.

Adamiak enlisted in the Navy at 17, served overseas, had orders to report to BUD/S, and was a gun collector who sold legal gun parts before a paid ATF informant falsely reported that he possessed a Mk-19 grenade launcher. After a search and trial, Adamiak was sentenced to more than 20 years in prison.

AmmoLand has covered Adamiak’s case extensively, including prior reporting on the disputed evidence, ATF classifications, and the broader argument from Adamiak’s supporters that the prosecution reflects agency overreach. The latest development is the Supreme Court amicus brief and its Second Amendment argument. SAF points the Court to the investigative work done on Adamiak’s case, noting that its Investigative Journalism Project has covered the case across almost 40 articles.

The Fourth Circuit gave Adamiak only a limited win. The appeals court agreed that one of his convictions and consecutive sentences violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, remanding for resentencing. But the court otherwise affirmed, stating that “Only his Double Jeopardy argument succeeds.” The court also said Adamiak’s Second Amendment challenge was foreclosed by Fourth Circuit precedent, including Bianchi v. Brown and United States v. Hunt.

SAF argues that if the government is going to treat the items at issue as firearms under the NFA, then Adamiak’s prosecution necessarily implicates the Second Amendment. The brief says that if the items are illegal weapons, the plain text is implicated, and a historical analysis should have been completed. If they are not weapons, SAF argues, then the charges make no sense.

The brief frames this as a chance for the Supreme Court to clarify what an “arm” is under the Second Amendment. SAF argues that lower courts have created a restrictive “Goldilocks” test at the plain-text stage, allowing the government to avoid its historical burden. Under that approach, courts can say some claims are too far removed from “keep” and “bear,” while other claims fail because the plaintiff has not produced enough statistical evidence showing that a specific arm is commonly used for self-defense.

SAF argues that this gets Bruen backwards. The brief says the “common use” question may matter when courts analyze historical tradition, but it should not be used to decide whether an item is an “arm” in the first place. The brief points to Heller’s broad definition of arms and argues that lower courts are carving weapons, components, and accessories out of the Second Amendment one category at a time.

That issue matters beyond Adamiak. If courts can say gun parts, accessories, or related conduct fall outside the Second Amendment before the government ever has to produce historical analogues, then Bruen’s protection becomes easy to evade. SAF warns that this same logic has been used in cases involving magazines, stun guns, acquisition rights, and other Second Amendment-adjacent conduct.

The brief also argues that Bruen is not supposed to be a new two-step test. SAF says the analysis is “one step: history and tradition.” Once a firearm regulation implicates the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the government to show the law is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros said lower courts are distorting Bruen by turning the plain-text inquiry into a restrictive test that lets the government avoid history.

“Lower courts continue to distort Bruen by turning the ‘plain text’ step into a restrictive Goldilocks test that lets the government evade its historical burden entirely,” said SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Kostas Moros. “If cut-up gun parts and inert training aids are being regulated as ‘firearms’ under the NFA, they are presumptively ‘arms’ under the Second Amendment and require historical analogues. Patrick Adamiak should not be spending decades in prison because, among other abuses, courts refuse to apply the Supreme Court’s precedents faithfully.”

SAF founder Alan Gottlieb said Adamiak’s case shows the “human cost” of lower courts refusing to apply Bruen faithfully.

“This case highlights the human cost of lower courts’ refusal to faithfully apply Bruen,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “A Navy veteran is behind bars over inert gun parts, yet his Second Amendment claim was never even heard on the merits. SAF and its partners are committed to defending the right to keep and bear arms against this kind of judicial abuse, and we believe the Supreme Court must intervene.”

For AmmoLand readers, the case is important for two reasons. First, Adamiak remains a central example of the controversy surrounding ATF classifications and NFA prosecutions. Second, the amicus brief gives the Supreme Court a clean legal question: when the government prosecutes someone under federal firearms law, can courts avoid the Second Amendment by narrowing what counts as “arms” before the historical test ever begins?

The brief asks the Supreme Court to grant Adamiak’s petition or at least hold the case pending another case that resolves the same Second Amendment issues.

The Supreme Court has said the Second Amendment is not a second-class right. SAF’s brief argues that some lower courts are still treating it like one by shifting the burden back onto gun owners and avoiding the historical inquiry Bruen requires. Adamiak’s case now asks the justices whether they are willing to stop that practice before more Americans are forced to fight the government under a watered-down version of the right to keep and bear arms.

Gun Owners Should Write President Trump & Demand a Pardon for Patrick “Tate” Adamiak

---

from https://ift.tt/feCw7qY
via IFTTT

Gun-Control Groups Tell Court Americans Have No Right to Body Armor

The fight over New York’s body armor ban has now produced a clear picture of both sides.

Body armor is at the center of a federal Second Amendment challenge to New York’s ban on ordinary citizens buying protective gear. iStock-2247234200

On one side are gun owners, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Armored Republic, arguing that body armor is exactly the type of arms the Second Amendment has always protected: defensive equipment for free citizens.

On the other side are New York Attorney General Letitia James, Brady, Giffords Law Center, and Everytown for Gun Safety, arguing that ordinary Americans can be blocked from buying armor unless they are a special class of citizen.

Heeter v. James is a federal lawsuit challenging New York’s body armor ban in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York. AmmoLand previously covered the plaintiffs’ summary-judgment motion, where they argued New York criminalized the purchase and acquisition of defensive gear that falls within the plain text of the Second Amendment.

New York’s law does not simply punish violent criminals who wear armor during crimes. It blocks the sale, purchase, and acquisition of body armor by ordinary citizens unless they fit into one of the state’s “eligible professions.” Albany has decided that police, military personnel, security guards, and other approved categories may protect themselves from gunfire, while everyone else must remain exposed to gunfire.

Brady, Giffords, and Everytown: Armor Is Not Protected

On April 29, 2026, Brady, Giffords Law Center, and Everytown filed an amicus brief supporting New York’s defense of the ban. Their argument is exactly what gun owners should expect from the modern gun control lobby. First, they claim body armor is not a “bearable arm.” Then they claim it is not in common civilian use for lawful self-defense. Then they drag in mass shooters to justify stripping law-abiding Americans of protective equipment.

The brief argues that body armor is not protected by the Second Amendment because it is not a weapon used to injure or kill. That argument tries to rewrite Heller by pretending that “arms” means only offensive weapons, even though the historical understanding of “arms” includes defensive armor. AmmoLand has already covered that point in this case: the plaintiffs cited Heller’s discussion of “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.”

The gun control groups want the court to believe body armor becomes “dangerous” because a criminal might wear it while committing a violent act. By that logic, running shoes are dangerous if a bank robber uses them to flee, and a locked door is dangerous if a fugitive hides behind it.

Body armor does not shoot, stab, slash, or explode. It protects the person wearing it. Calling armor dangerous because it can stop a bullet is a confession that the anti-gun movement is not merely interested in disarming citizens. It wants citizens easier to hurt.

The Mass-Shooter Argument Is the Same Old Gun Control Play

The anti-gun brief leans hard on the 2022 Buffalo supermarket murders, where the killer wore body armor. No one should minimize that evil. The killer murdered innocent people, and retired Buffalo police officer Aaron Salter Jr. died heroically trying to stop him.

But constitutional rights do not disappear because a murderer misused a lawful item.

The Brady/Giffords/Everytown brief cites the Buffalo attack and claims that 28 mass shooters over the past 45 years wore body armor, including at least 17 after 2009. The brief also argues that the Buffalo murderer’s armor helped him survive Salter’s defensive gunfire and continue the attack.

That is emotional ammunition, not a limiting constitutional principle.

Criminals have used cars, phones, backpacks, computers, clothing, and cash to help commit crimes. The answer is to punish criminals, not ban peaceable citizens from owning ordinary defensive tools. New York could have targeted violent criminal misuse of body armor. Instead, it chose to ration protection by profession and create a ban for ordinary people.

The anti-gun side also argues that even assuming 55,000 civilian body armor units were sold in 2022, that would represent only a tiny share of the national population and therefore is not “commonplace.”

That is a rigged argument. Government buyers dominate the armor market; many companies have long favored government and law-enforcement sales, and states like New York are actively trying to suppress civilian access. The government should not be allowed to choke off access to defensive gear and then cite reduced access as proof that the gear is uncommon.

Armored Republic Fires Back

Armored Republic’s amicus brief, filed April 7, 2026, gives the court the sharper constitutional answer.

The brief argues that New York’s law is backward because the state requires many able-bodied male residents ages 17 to 45 to report for militia service if summoned by the governor in cases of invasion, disaster, insurrection, riot, breach of the peace, or imminent danger, while also forbidding most of those citizens from acquiring body armor that could protect them in those exact conditions.

New York wants the power to call ordinary citizens into danger, but not the humility to let those same citizens buy armor that may keep them alive. The state wants the obligation of citizenship without the rights of citizenship.

Armored Republic describes the result as a system where the favored organized militia receives state-furnished body armor, while the disfavored unorganized militia is legally compelled to serve, punished for not appearing, and forbidden from acquiring the same protection on its own.

That is the kind of two-tier system anti-gun politicians always seem to build. The government gets the guns. Government gets the armor. Government gets the exemptions. The citizen gets the jail cell.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	AR500 Armor C3 Level IV 10" x 12" Ceramic Multi-Hit Ballistic Plate	MidwayUSA	$ 277.99
	AR500 Armor Morale Patch	Primary Arms	$ 2.74
	AR500 Armor Testudo Plate Carrier Gen 2 Multicam	MidwayUSA	$ 225.00
	AR500 A1 Body Armor Ballistic Plate Level III+ 11" x 14" Build Up Coat	MidwayUSA	$ 207.00

“The People” Does Not Mean “The Professionals”

Armored Republic’s brief hammers home another point at the center of this case: the Second Amendment protects the people, not merely police, soldiers, and state-approved professionals.

The brief argues New York is trying to replace “the people” with “the professionals,” noting that taxi drivers, janitors, farmers, fishermen, construction workers, and the unemployed are just as much part of “the people” as attorneys, physicians, and police officers.

The Second Amendment is not a government-employee privilege. It is not a benefit package for badge holders. It is not a safety program for politically favored job titles.

The right belongs to the people.

New York’s body armor ban treats ordinary citizens as a lower class: good enough to obey, good enough to be taxed, good enough to be summoned in an emergency, but not good enough to buy a plate carrier or armor panel without Albany’s permission.

Body Armor Belongs at the Center of the Second Amendment

Armored Republic also makes a strong Miller/Heller argument. Under United States v. Miller, the Second Amendment protects arms with a reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, including ordinary military equipment. Armored Republic argues that body armor is not merely in common private use, but is standard modern equipment for citizen-soldiers responding to a call to duty.

The company also says its own sales of body armor products to American civilians exceed 2.5 million, which it argues is enough by itself to establish common use.

That undercuts the gun-control lobby’s attempt to portray civilian armor ownership as some fringe activity. Millions of Americans understand what New York refuses to admit: armor is defensive gear. It is useful precisely because government cannot guarantee your safety.

AmmoLand has covered this fight from the beginning. In 2024, we reported on Armored Republic’s challenge to New York’s ban, including the law’s carveouts for favored professions and its criminal penalties for unauthorized possession, sale, or transfer.

AmmoLand also covered the case after Judge John Sinatra allowed the challenge to proceed, making clear that New York’s law was not just a fight over body armor, but part of a broader attempt to decide which citizens may protect themselves.

Bigger Than Body Armor

Gun owners should pay close attention to this case. The anti-gun lobby’s theory is not limited to body armor. Their argument is that courts should narrow the word “arms,” exclude useful modern defensive tools, and then let the government decide which civilians have a “need” for protection.

That same logic can be used against magazines, optics, suppressors, braces, parts, accessories, ammunition, and anything else anti-gun states want to push outside the Second Amendment.

New York’s position is simple: trust the state, stay vulnerable, and let politicians decide who deserves protection.

The Second Amendment says something very different: “shall not be infringed.”

A free citizen does not need a permission slip to buy a rifle. He does not need a permission slip to buy a magazine. He should not need a permission slip to buy armor that may save his life when the government fails to protect him.

Body armor is not the problem. Criminals are the problem. Politicians who punish the law-abiding for the actions of criminals are the problem.

New York’s body armor ban should fall.

Heeter v. James Challenges New York Body Armor Ban Under the Second Amendment

---

from https://ift.tt/hy3Nt0f
via IFTTT

States Move to Protect Suppressor Owners as NFA Tax Falls to $0

Are suppressors part of your home defense kit? img Travis Pike

In 1934, the National Firearms Act (NFA) was passed by Congress. The bill, which became law, was a consolation prize for the Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) administration. The primary purpose of licensing and registration of all handguns had been stripped from the bill because of lobbying by the NRA and Second Amendment supporters. One item left on the bill was an absurdly high tax on silencers/suppressors.

The $200 tax was punishingly high. Using the first federal minimum wage adopted a few years later in 1938, it equaled roughly four to five months of full-time wages.

Silencers had never been involved much in crime. No serious reason is included in legislative history for the inclusion of silencers in the NFA. Their ban was part of the hysteria of the time. The new Attorney General, Homer Cummings, conflated guns and crime. The NFA was his grab for power within the FDR administration.

In 1934, when what was left of the National Firearms Act made silencers unaffordable except for the very rich, the law was relatively limited. It only applied to silencers that had crossed state lines. If you made your own silencer, it was not involved in interstate commerce, so the federal law did not apply. It was the middle of the depression, and people were too concerned with having enough to eat and a roof over their heads to be worried about a silly new federal law.

All of that changed over the next 50 years. The Interstate Commerce clause and the National Firearms Act of 1934 were expanded far beyond their original boundaries. Short-barreled rifles came to include pistols with shoulder stocks. Short-barreled shotguns came to include revolvers with shot cartridges and smoothbores. The Interstate Commerce Clause came to include almost everything. Bureaucracies became the dominant force in most people’s lives.

Many states came to mirror federal law about silencers and other items regulated by the National Firearms Act. This served two purposes. It tied state and federal law together so that court challenges had to overcome both state and federal defenses. It provided a way for state and local law officials to prosecute people for what had been made a crime by the National Firearms Act.

By 2000, inflation had eroded the insanely high $200 tax on silencer ownership to the merely extreme one week’s minimum wage. The truth about silencers and their many beneficial uses was being exposed.

By 2020, the fight to restore Second Amendment rights was in full swing in the courts. In 2025, Congress reduced the NFA making and transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and AOWs to $0, while leaving the federal registration structure in place. In 2026, several lawsuits challenge the constitutionality of the NFA’s inclusion of silencers, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns.

If the federal law is removed, state laws that reinforced the NFA create a trap. If a law requires compliance with an NFA rule which no longer exists, hundreds of thousands could become felons overnight, without any action on their part. Fortunately, several states are taking action to prevent this legal disaster.

Texas eliminated its requirement to comply with the federal law on silencers in 2021. Mississippi passed a similar bill in 2023, which is contingent on the state of federal silencer law.

Montana passed a bill eliminating the federal requirement in 2025. Here is the Montana provision:

45-8-336. Possession of silencer. (1) A person commits the offense of possession of a silencer if the person possesses, manufactures, transports, buys, or sells a silencer and has the purpose to use it to commit an offense or knows that another person has such a purpose.

South Dakota eliminated the requirement for federal compliance in 2026. Other states have bills in progress. They are:

Arizona SB1069 in process.

Missouri has a bill in progress, SB273.

Ohio has Senate Bill 214 in process.

The trend is moving in the right direction. Congress has already reduced the NFA tax burden on suppressors to $0, lawsuits are now attacking the remaining registration scheme, and several states are cleaning up laws that made suppressor ownership depend on federal NFA paperwork.

Gun owners should not confuse a $0 tax with full deregulation. Suppressors remain inside the federal NFA framework unless and until Congress or the courts remove them. That is why state-level reform matters. Anti-gun lawmakers built layers of state and federal restrictions over decades. Removing one layer is progress, but the work is not done.

Restoration of rights protected by the Second Amendment is happening, but it all takes time.

The information above is not comprehensive. State laws are changing rapidly.  Use the comments to add information about bills and statutes not mentioned in the article.

---

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/w1HGOcd
via IFTTT

Gun Control and their Delusions of Freedom

Po Murray says gun-control advocates should reclaim the term “gun control.” That honesty should also extend to the policy results. iStock-1365229422

Po Murray lives in Newtown, Connecticut. She is the cofounder of the Newtown Action Alliance, one of the gun control groups formed in the aftermath of the heinous murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School. From what I could tell, Ms. Murray is cut from the same cloth as the rest: heavy on the emotions; light on the facts.

On April 14, Ms. Murray posted “Reclaiming ‘Gun Control’: Why We Need Safety, Prevention, and Control” on Substack.

“I embraced the language many in our movement adopted,” she wrote. I spoke about “gun safety” and “gun violence prevention” because we were told these terms would resonate more broadly, reduce polarization, and help us reach people who might otherwise shut down when they heard ‘gun control.’”

She has come to a new conclusion: Strip away the euphemisms; call it what it is.

Good idea! Now let’s apply the same thinking to assault weapons, large capacity magazines, and gun violence.

Ms. Murray continues: “I no longer believe this is a choice between one set of words or another. I believe we need all of them, and we need to use them more intentionally.

“At the same time, we need to be clear about what this work is ultimately about. It is about freedom. Not abstract freedom, but the freedom to live our daily lives without fear. The freedom to send our children to school, to gather in our communities, to worship, to work, and to simply exist without the constant threat of gun violence.”

There is no such thing as freedom to live our lives without fear. There is also no right to live “without the constant threat of ‘gun violence.’”

No government or society on earth could make such promises. Life is not sanitized for our protection.

It is, however, quite possible to live a long and productive life without the “constant threat of gun violence.” Simply ignore the blow-up bogeymen and papier-mâché tigers created by gun control fans.

Better, do some independent research. It’s like firing a howitzer into a house of cards.

Washington state got on the gun control bandwagon about 12 years ago and has been going gangbusters ever since.

In 2015, Seattle’s murder rate was 3.49 per 100,000 population. In 2020, it had risen to 7.16 per 100,000 population, more than twice the 2015 rate. After about 2021, homicide rates began falling. Seattle’s rate rose seven percent.

No fudging here: Population courts were verified with the U.S. Census Bureau; offense counts were sourced from state statistics and individual law enforcement agencies. Our data is spin-free.

By all the data, gun control does not work. At best, it’s irrelevant; at worst, it’s a joke.

Over the years, I have compared the gun-grabbers’ remedies to the snake oil nostrums hawked by fast-talking hucksters in the Old West traveling medicine shows. How else would you describe measures that ignore virtually every factor impacting this so-called ‘epidemic’ or can’t be enforced because critical information is missing, and it’s a violation of federal law to gather it?

A point to consider: In 2016, voters in Nevada barely passed a referendum in favor of universal background checks. Only one county in Nevada passed the referendum, but that one county was Clark County, which includes Las Vegas.

Everytown for Gun Safety volunteered to assist Nevada legislators in drafting a bill. It eventually passed. But Everytown screwed up: they didn’t check to see who processed the background checks and specified running all inquiries through the FBI’s NICS system.

Unfortunately for the ban fans, the state of Nevada had set up its processing when the background check system was first being implemented. The state’s choice was the Nevada Department of Public Safety.

The FBI refused to take over processing, so the state had to wait two years for the next legislative session to set things right.

Did the gun control zealots take their lumps and retire to consider their error? Nope: they sued the governor and state attorney general because they refused to implement a law that could literally not be enforced.

As Po Murray said, this is all about freedom. Just not the freedom she envisions.

ATF Rolls Back Biden-Era Gun Rules in Major Reform Package

---

About Bill Cawthon

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

---

from https://ift.tt/V0sXPAm
via IFTTT