Port St. Lucie police say an Uber Eats driver fired once after a man followed him from a restaurant, shoved him and produced a knife. iStock.com/[Pratchaya]A defensive gun use outside a Florida restaurant shows why the right to carry matters when an ordinary workday turns dangerous. An Uber Eats driver was picking up an order in Port St. Lucie when a man he had encountered over a parking spot followed him into the restaurant, then pursued him outside. Police say the man shoved the driver and pulled a knife as the driver backed away. The driver fired one shot.
Port St. Lucie’s police chief called the shooting self-defense. The driver faces no criminal charges. He had a gun when he needed one, a fact that now puts this case at odds with Uber’s policy prohibiting delivery workers from carrying firearms while using its app.
Parking Dispute Turns Into an Armed Confrontation
Officers responded at about 3:43 p.m. to a Pollo Tropical at 1365 NW St. Lucie West Boulevard. Police identified the delivery driver as Isaiah Davis, 25, and the other man as Christopher Harris, 37. According to Niemczyk, the encounter began over a parking spot. Harris followed Davis into the restaurant as Davis went to collect an order, then followed him outside.
Exterior surveillance footage showed Harris pushing Davis and advancing as Davis backed away, according to police. Witnesses reported seeing Harris with a knife shortly before Davis fired. Niemczyk told WPBF that Harris pulled a knife after shoving the driver. Davis fired a single round, striking Harris in the chest.
Harris returned inside the restaurant, where bystanders provided aid and called 911. He was flown to HCA Florida Lawnwood Hospital with injuries police described as non-life-threatening. Investigators said one knife had been removed from his waistband while people were helping him; they found another in his front pocket. Police detained Davis at the scene and recovered his firearm during their investigation.
The surveillance video, witness statements and physical evidence led detectives to identify Harris as the primary aggressor. Harris faces attempted aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and felony battery based on a prior battery conviction. Police said he would be booked into the St. Lucie County Jail after his release from the hospital. No charges were pending against Davis in the reports reviewed.
Police See Self-Defense; Uber Prohibits Carry
Niemczyk was direct about the driver’s actions. “It’s self-defense,” he told WPBF, adding that Davis had tried to avoid the confrontation while Harris pursued him. The chief said the shooting also fit Florida’s stand-your-ground rule. The driver was backing away from a man who advanced on him with a knife.
The armed citizen had the means to stop a threat that retreat had not ended. Davis fired once, ending the threat and police say the evidence supports his account. That is the practical value of the right to bear arms: it belongs to someone earning a living as an Uber driver as surely as it belongs to anyone else.
But Uber’s firearms policy prohibits passengers, drivers and delivery partners from carrying while using its app, to the extent permitted by applicable law. It says a person who violates the rule may lose access to the platform. There is no indication in the reporting that Uber has removed Davis or decided what action, if any, it will take.
Police have answered the criminal question for now: Davis faces no charges. Uber still has an policy that would have disarmed a worker when a knife-wielding aggressor came after him. A company policy could have left him defenseless at the moment he needed his gun.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Supreme Court will hear consolidated challenges to AR-15 bans on December 2. Heller rejected limiting the Second Amendment to arms that existed at the founding. IMG Jim Grant
The AR-15 did not exist in 1791. Neither did the modern handgun, the electric stun gun, or the internet. That has never meant the Bill of Rights protects only the technology Americans had when it was ratified.
Yet with the Supreme Court preparing to hear two challenges to bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles, that is effectively the argument being offered against gun owners. Law professor Rory Little says a few words in District of Columbia v. Heller could keep modern rifles outside the Second Amendment. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley took issue with that reading this week. The text of Heller gives him good reason to do so.
The cases are Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated for one hour of argument on December 2. They ask whether the Second Amendment protects possession of AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles in the face of bans imposed by Cook County, Illinois, and Connecticut. AmmoLand has covered the cases and the Justice Department’s support for the challengers. Little’s argument raises another question gun owners should watch: Can a court erase protection for a modern arm by treating 1791 as a cutoff date?
What Heller Actually Says
In a SCOTUSblog column, Little focuses on Heller’s discussion of weapons “in common use at the time.” He reads “at the time” as the founding era. Because semiautomatic rifles did not exist in 1791, he argues that the federal government’s brief supporting the challengers changes Heller’s rule when it asks whether AR-15s are in common use today.
But Heller did not leave that question to guesswork. Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion expressly rejected the notion that the Second Amendment protects only arms that existed in the eighteenth century. It said the right extends, at least presumptively, to bearable arms that did not exist at the founding. The opinion compared that principle to the First Amendment’s protection of modern communication and the Fourth Amendment’s application to modern searches.
“Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” – Justice Scalia, OPINION OF THE COURT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA V. HELLER
The Court’s reference to arms “in common use at the time” appears in its discussion of the historical distinction between common arms and “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Reading those words as a permanent 1791 equipment list clashes with the opinion’s own explicit treatment of later inventions. It would also make the government’s ability to prohibit a firearm depend on how long ago someone designed it, even when ordinary Americans possess it for lawful purposes today.
The Supreme Court has already confronted that exact founding-era argument. In Caetano v. Massachusetts, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court had upheld a stun-gun ban in part because stun guns were not in common use when the Second Amendment was adopted. The U.S. Supreme Court vacated that decision and said the rationale conflicted with Heller. A right to keep and bear arms cannot be frozen at the technology available to the founding generation.
The Rifle Ban Cases Put Common Use Before the Court
The Justice Department’s brief argues that millions of Americans own AR-15s and that governments cannot criminalize possession of a rifle so widely kept for lawful purposes. Justice Brett Kavanaugh likewise wrote in a 2025 statement concerning the Court’s refusal to hear an earlier rifle-ban challenge that those facts give owners a strong Heller argument. Neither filing decides Viramontes or Grant. The justices will hear the merits in December.
Gun owners should reject the premise that improvements in firearms design reduce the scope of a constitutional right. The Second Amendment protects the people’s right to keep and bear arms. Heller recognized that right as an individual one, and Caetano made clear that its protection does not end with the inventions of 1791. When the justices consider bans on America’s most popular rifle, they should apply that principle to the arms Americans actually own.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
An original conceptual image depicting the favors at the center of Santa Clara County’s carry-permit bribery case. Prosecutors said the iPads were promised, not delivered. AmmoLand News / AI-generated editorial illustration
Santa Clara County’s former second-in-command admitted two felony bribery counts tied to concealed-carry permits, iPads and San Jose Sharks tickets. Ordinary applicants were left waiting.
Former Santa Clara County Undersheriff Rick Sung pleaded guilty on September 21 to two felony counts of soliciting bribes in the county’s concealed-carry permit scandal. The permits his office rarely issued to ordinary residents had become bargaining chips for people with money and connections.
One count involved a promised donation of 200 iPads from Apple to the Sheriff’s Office. The other involved access to a luxury suite and San Jose Sharks tickets for then-Sheriff Laurie Smith and her guests. Sung was Smith’s second-in-command. His plea concludes an eight-year corruption investigation that produced six criminal convictions, according to the Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office.
Under the negotiated disposition, Sung must permanently surrender his California peace officer certification and perform 400 hours of community service. Reporting on the agreement says he may later ask the court to reduce the felonies to misdemeanors and dismiss the charges after completing the required terms. He will not be able to work again as a California peace officer.
Ordinary Applicants Waited While Insiders Got Permits
The contrast could hardly be sharper. In a separate 2024 prosecution arising from the same investigation, the DA said testimony established that nearly all first-time carry-permit applications submitted by members of the public in 2018 and 2019 were completely ignored. Meanwhile, prosecutors said, then-Captain James Jensen arranged for an executive-protection company to donate as much as $90,000 in exchange for permits for its personnel. A jury convicted Jensen of bribery and conspiracy.
The iPad and Sharks-suite allegations against Sung were distinct transactions in the broader investigation. Prosecutors said the iPad promise was tied to permits for Apple security personnel. The suite case concerned a businessman’s permit and access to his box at the Sharks’ arena.
Sung’s earlier trial did not convict him: jurors deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. Apple security chief Thomas Moyer was acquitted in the iPad case. Sung’s conviction comes from his own guilty plea ahead of a retrial, not from a jury verdict against the other defendants.
Smith resigned in 2022 before a civil jury found that she had engaged in misconduct in office. She was not criminally charged in this permit scheme. Those distinctions matter. The proven point here is already damning enough: the man who served immediately below the sheriff has admitted felony bribery solicitation involving permits that ordinary residents struggled to obtain.
The Problem With Government Permission to Carry
For gun owners, this is what discretionary “may-issue” licensing looks like when officials control who gets to exercise a right. An applicant seeking to carry a handgun for self-defense could be ignored while people with access to the sheriff’s office found a path through. A constitutional right should never depend on whether its holder can deliver campaign money, gadgets or hockey tickets.
AmmoLand raised concerns about the Santa Clara permit investigation in 2019. The later trial evidence put sworn testimony behind the disparity between the public’s applications and permits steered to connected applicants.
The scandal belongs to the pre-Bruen licensing era. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen rejected discretionary “proper cause” requirements for public carry. Sung’s criminal plea does not itself change California’s current carry laws or decide any Second Amendment lawsuit.
The right to bear arms belongs to the people. Santa Clara’s old system gave officials the power to treat it as a favor.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
A public records request seeks records showing whether Summit County Fair vendors, contractors and vehicle crews were subjected to the same screening used at the public entrance. iStock-1489034470
A public records request was filed Monday with the Summit County Agricultural Society and the Summit County Executive’s Office / Law Department to determine if citizen disarmament protocols mandated for Summit County Fair attendees were also followed for vendors and their set-up crews and vehicles allowed fairgrounds access through gates without passing through the public entrance enclosure.
Do they get scanned? Do their vehicles and equipment that enter the grounds for set-up, maintenance, and tear-down get searched?
As AmmoLand reported in August, because Ohio State law allows armed citizens on fairgrounds but prohibits firearms in their buildings and enclosures, the Summit County Fair took it a step further and constructed an entrance building that attendees are required to pass through, effectively banning guns in the entire property except for parking lots. The intent of the records request is to determine if the same rules are imposed on all visitors — that is, are we all treated the same way? — and if requiring disarmament of personnel who are not admitted through the main entrance is compliant with Ohio law.
Records were requested for:
The reasons the decision was made to route fair visitors through an enclosure that would ensure they were disarmed, including the data used and communicated among Fair decision-makers showing the legal possession of firearms endangers the public and creates a compelling official interest to prohibit admission of lawfully armed attendees.
Any official handbooks, policy packets, instruction sheets, or informational guidelines distributed to vendors, suppliers, contractors, maintenance personnel, and agricultural workers regarding the rules, logistics, and entry procedures for bringing vehicles or heavy equipment onto the fairgrounds.
Any written protocols or instructions provided to gate personnel or event staff regarding the routing and processing of vehicles or equipment that—by nature of their size or contents—cannot utilize the standard visitor entrance security scanners or bag checks.
To ensure legal exemptions were not used to deny the request, the following caveat was included:
I am not requesting tactical law enforcement response plans, security vulnerabilities, or confidential emergency layouts that would trigger an exemption under the “Security Record” provision of R.C. 149.433.
The longtime solution, of course, is for Ohio’s Republican majority legislature to earn their “A” ratings and put a stop to this nonsense. As Buckeye Firearms Association Executive Director Dean Reick remarked about Ohio law when asked about the Fairground enclosure ban:
“We’ll continue working on it because it’s ridiculous to allow someone to legally carry while they walk past the Ferris wheel but ban it in the barn with the butter cow.”
Summit County, with its enclosed entrance, allows neither.
Note that since my longtime attorney filing Freedom of Information Act requests on my behalf has left private practice and is no longer available to represent me, I am filing this records request on my own, albeit, full disclosure, I did use Google’s AI to help formulate the language. It’s not the first time I’ve gone solo on such requests and have had some successes without a lawyer in the past, albeit I am currently in discussions with another Second Amendment-savvy lawyer about future representation for federal requests.
The complete public records request is available here. Responses will be shared when available.
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.
The en banc Ninth Circuit upheld Hawaii’s 30-day handgun-permit deadline and police-inspection requirement in Yukutake v. Lopez. iStock-1312189737
A divided Ninth Circuit has reversed another Second Amendment victory, allowing Hawaii to defend two unusual firearm-acquisition restrictions without showing that either one is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.
In a 6–5 en banc decision in Yukutake v. Lopez, the court reversed a permanent injunction against Hawaii’s 30-day handgun-permit deadline and its requirement that certain newly acquired firearms be physically presented to police for inspection.
The ruling reaches beyond Hawaii. Instead of applying the text-and-history test required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the majority treated the provisions as presumptively constitutional because Hawaii placed them inside a “shall-issue” system. The court then required the gun owners—not the government—to prove the restrictions were being used toward “abusive ends.”
That turns Bruen’s burden on its head.
Hawaii’s Permit Deadline and Police Inspection Rule
Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa challenged two provisions of Hawaii law. Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e) provides that a permit to acquire a pistol or revolver becomes void unless it is used within 30 days. If the permit expires before the buyer obtains the handgun, the applicant must restart Hawaii’s permitting process.
Section 134-3 requires certain firearms to be registered and brought to police for inspection within five days. It applies to private transfers, specified self-manufactured or 3D-printed firearms, and firearms brought into Hawaii.
Both laws were more burdensome when the lawsuit began. The handgun permit originally expired after ten days, while virtually all firearms acquired under the permitting system had to be brought to police. Hawaii extended the deadline to 30 days and narrowed the inspection mandate while the litigation was pending.
A federal district court struck down the provisions in 2021. A divided three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed in March 2025, holding that acquiring firearms is protected by the Second Amendment and that Hawaii had failed to justify its restrictions. The Ninth Circuit then vacated that opinion and reheard the case en banc.
Majority Creates a Shall-Issue Safe Harbor
Writing for the majority, Judge John Owens relied heavily on footnote nine of Bruen. That footnote explained that the Supreme Court’s decision striking down New York’s discretionary “may-issue” carry law should not be understood as invalidating objective “shall-issue” public-carry systems.
The Ninth Circuit stretched that limited discussion of carry permits into a broader presumption covering Hawaii’s firearm-purchase system.
The majority did not decide whether the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the conduct or require Hawaii to produce historical analogues. Instead, it asked whether Yukutake and Kikukawa had shown that the requirements effectively denied ordinary citizens their rights.
The majority called the 30-day expiration period a “reasonable deadline” and described taking a firearm to police as a “brief administrative visit.” It concluded that both were merely “modest, procedural burdens” that did not materially prevent the plaintiffs from acquiring firearms.
The court acknowledged that delays, exorbitant fees or other requirements could become unconstitutional, but did not explain where that line lies.
That leaves anti-gun states with an obvious strategy: place new acquisition obstacles inside an ostensibly objective licensing system and force gun owners to prove that the accumulated burdens practically deny the right.
Five Judges Say the Majority Misread Bruen
Judge Ryan Nelson wrote the principal dissent, joined fully by Judges Daniel Bress and Lawrence VanDyke and mostly by Judges Bridget Bade and Danielle Forrest.
Nelson explained that footnote nine addressed public-carry permits—not every rule attached to buying, possessing or registering a gun. Hawaii’s provisions operate after the state has investigated and approved the purchaser; they are not eligibility requirements.
“Never has a single footnote in a Supreme Court opinion been so misread by so many lower courts to deny so many Americans their constitutional rights,” Nelson wrote.
The dissent concluded that acquisition is protected because citizens ordinarily cannot “keep” arms without first obtaining them. Bruen therefore requires Hawaii to demonstrate a historical tradition supporting its restrictions.
Hawaii did not do so. No historical analogue automatically voided an approved citizen’s permit after 30 days. Colonial militia inspections ensured militiamen possessed serviceable arms for public duty; they did not force citizens to bring privately acquired guns to police for tracking.
Judge Forrest agreed that the laws violate the Second Amendment but would have narrowed the district court’s statewide injunction under Trump v. CASA so it protected only Yukutake and Kikukawa.
VanDyke: Bruen Has Made Things Worse in the Ninth Circuit
Judge VanDyke issued a separate dissent condemning the Ninth Circuit’s resistance to Supreme Court precedent. He noted that the district court struck down Hawaii’s restrictions under the weaker, pre-Bruen intermediate-scrutiny standard. The en banc majority then used Bruen—which rejected interest balancing—to reverse that victory.
“If our court’s takeaway from Bruen is that Bruen changed the law to make it harder to mount a successful Second Amendment challenge, then somebody has seriously lost the plot,” VanDyke wrote.
VanDyke proposed bright-line protections for arms in common use and against modern restrictions adopted by only a few jurisdictions. He predicted that Yukutake will eventually join other Ninth Circuit Second Amendment decisions reversed by the Supreme Court.
Another Ninth Circuit Reversal of a Gun-Rights Win
Second Amendment Foundation attorney Kostas Moros, who represented SAF, the California Rifle & Pistol Association and the Second Amendment Law Center as amici, criticized the decision for reversing Bruen’s burden and reviving interest balancing under the undefined label of “abusiveness.”
Thread on Yukutake, the Ninth Circuit’s latest en banc reversal of a 2A panel win.
The laws at issue are Hawaii rules requiring (1) a narrow window of time to buy a gun after getting a purchase permit; and (2) a post-purchase inspection of that purchased gun at a police… https://t.co/45c2ZGEgqvpic.twitter.com/reaqUA4PNo
The majority itself admitted that lower courts disagree over how Bruen’s footnote nine fits with the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test. It concluded by expressing hope that the Supreme Court will eventually clarify which interpretation is correct.
The justices should take that invitation. A state cannot evade Bruen by fastening novel purchase and registration burdens onto a licensing system, declaring that system “shall-issue,” and demanding that citizens prove the resulting obstacles are abusive. The Second Amendment commands the government to justify its restrictions—not the people to beg a court to recognize when enough infringement is finally enough.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
NSSF, Shadow Systems and Blue Trail Range are asking a federal court to stop Connecticut’s “convertible pistol” sales ban before it takes effect October 1. Shadow Systems XR920 pistol. IMG courtesy of Shadow Systems.
Connecticut is now facing a second federal challenge to its new “convertible pistol” ban—and this lawsuit goes directly after the premise that the state may prohibit common handguns because criminals can illegally modify them.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, Shadow Systems, and Connecticut retailer Blue Trail Range filed National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Griffin, No. 3:26-cv-01528, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut on September 21. The plaintiffs are asking the court to block the challenged portions of House Bill 5043 before they take effect October 1.
The case follows GLOCK’s lawsuit challenging the same Connecticut law, but the two cases approach the ban from different directions. GLOCK argues first that its redesigned Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 pistols do not fall within Connecticut’s definition. NSSF and Shadow Systems make the more fundamental argument: Connecticut cannot ban the future sale of common, unmodified handguns merely because a criminal could attach an already-illegal machinegun conversion device.
Connecticut is punishing the handgun and the law-abiding gun owner instead of the criminal who illegally converts it.
Connecticut Targets the Gun, Not the Illegal Switch
Gov. Ned Lamont signed HB 5043, now Public Act 26-41, in May after it cleared the legislature. AmmoLand warned while the bill was moving through Hartford that its so-called “convertible pistol” language was aimed at GLOCK-pattern handguns and other pistols using a cruciform trigger bar.
Effective October 1, the law makes it a Class D felony to knowingly import, advertise, sell, offer, or expose for sale a covered “convertible pistol” manufactured on or after that date. A conviction can carry up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $5,000.
Connecticut 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 it can be converted into a machine gun through installation of a pistol converter. The law provides an escape clause for a pistol with a non-removable piece molded into the frame that shields the trigger bar.
This is not a general possession ban, and the lawsuit does not challenge Connecticut’s authority to prohibit an illegally converted pistol. It challenges the state’s attempt to close the lawful market to unmodified semiautomatic handguns.
Machinegun conversion devices, often called switches, are already illegal under federal and Connecticut law. Federal law treats the device itself as a machine gun even when it is not installed. Connecticut can prosecute those who possess or install them. It cannot use those crimes as an excuse to deny peaceable citizens access to common defensive arms.
Shadow Systems Gives the Challenge Real-World Stakes
Shadow Systems manufactures American-made GLOCK-pattern pistols built around the cruciform-trigger design. According to the verified complaint, the company shipped more than $204 million in products to retailers nationwide from 2021 through August 2026, overwhelmingly cruciform-trigger handguns. During the same period, it sold more than $530,000 in those handguns into Connecticut.
The company says none of its current popular cruciform-trigger models contains the molded shielding feature Connecticut demands. Complying would require substantial time and money to redesign pistols lawful buyers already choose for their safety, reliability, and familiarity, with no guarantee that Connecticut would not move the goalposts again.
Shadow Systems has already seen what a state-level ban can do. The complaint alleges that California’s similar law forced the company out of that market, costing it nearly $3.8 million in annual revenue, or approximately 11 percent of its business.
Blue Trail Range supplies the retailer side of the case. The Wallingford range and gun store says cruciform-trigger handguns and accessories represent a substantial part of its business. When the pistol a customer trusts disappears from the shelf, some buyers simply walk away.
Those injuries are not theoretical. Unless the court intervenes, Connecticut dealers must begin navigating felony exposure on October 1.
Connecticut’s Ban Has No Limiting Principle
The complaint alleges that more than 500,000 cruciform-trigger handguns are manufactured for the American market annually. NSSF members producing these pistols include GLOCK, Shadow Systems, Ruger, Palmetto State Armory, Derya, and Beretta through Stoeger.
These are ordinary semiautomatic handguns used for self-defense, training, competition, and recreation. Exactly the class of arms the Supreme Court described in District of Columbia v. Heller as the “quintessential self-defense weapon.”
NSSF’s historical argument is straightforward. Americans have long prohibited dangerous modifications without banning the underlying firearm. A criminal can use a hacksaw to create an illegal short-barreled shotgun, but that does not give government authority to ban ordinary shotguns. The historical response to trap guns was likewise to punish the unlawful act, not outlaw the firearm.
The same principle applies here. The existence of an illegal aftermarket switch does not transform an unmodified semiautomatic pistol into a machine gun.
If Connecticut may ban a common handgun because someone can illegally convert it, there is no meaningful limit. As the Supreme Court recognized in Staples v. United States, virtually any semiautomatic firearm can be converted through internal modification. Connecticut’s logic could become the excuse for banning virtually every semiautomatic firearm in America.
Even the Second Circuit Used the GLOCK 17 as the Counterexample
The lawsuit also turns Connecticut’s own appellate precedent against the state.
In National Association for Gun Rights v. Lamont, the Second Circuit upheld Connecticut’s ban on certain semiautomatic rifles. But it contrasted those firearms with popular semiautomatic handguns “like the Glock 17,” emphasizing that Connecticut residents could still possess them.
HB 5043 now attacks precisely the type of handgun the Second Circuit used as its example of an ordinary protected arm. The state cannot rely on the continued availability of GLOCK pistols to defend one gun ban and then turn around and prohibit future sales of those pistols under another.
The plaintiffs filed an emergency motion seeking a preliminary injunction or, alternatively, a temporary restraining order. They want the court to declare the challenged provisions unconstitutional and stop Connecticut’s prosecutors from enforcing them while the case proceeds. NSSF announced the emergency challenge on September 21.
Connecticut already has the authority to prosecute illegal machinegun conversion. What the Second Amendment does not permit is collective punishment of every lawful manufacturer, dealer, and gun owner because criminals refuse to obey laws that were already on the books.
The switch is illegal. The criminal conversion is illegal. The common semiautomatic handgun is not, and Connecticut has no constitutional authority to pretend otherwise.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
An approved firearm transaction becomes a federal surveillance trigger under the FBI’s NICS Monitoring program. Original illustration created for AmmoLand News with OpenAI.
Gun Owners of America is challenging the Trump administration’s defense of NICS Monitoring, arguing that ATF Director Robert Cekada’s description of the program leaves out its most dangerous feature: The FBI built a system capable of notifying federal agencies when legally eligible Americans attempt to buy firearms.
Cekada disclosed that only 61 ATF NICS alerts remained active as of September 17. That number sounds small when compared with the millions of firearm background checks conducted each year. It also counts only ATF alerts—not the full reach of the FBI system.
In a detailed response posted on X, GOA accused Cekada of making two false statements and three misleading statements about the program. The organization says federal records uncovered thousands of past NICS Monitoring alerts established by agencies including the U.S. Marshals Service, Secret Service, and Army.
Unfortunately, there are 2 false statements & 3 misleading statements in @ATFDirectorRC‘s post about the FBI’s warrantless “NICS Monitoring” program
1⃣ “[NICS Alerts] are NOT used to monitor lawful gun purchasers.” FALSE.
GOA did not claim that thousands of those alerts remain active today. The more important point is that neither Cekada nor FBI Director Kash Patel has disclosed the current number of alerts across every agency using the system.
Passing NICS Does Not Make a Buyer a Criminal
Cekada claimed NICS alerts are not used to monitor lawful firearm purchasers. That assertion collapses under the program’s basic operation.
When a person passes NICS and the dealer is authorized to proceed, the government has determined that the buyer is not prohibited from receiving the firearm. If the FBI then sends investigators a real-time notification about that approved transaction, the government is monitoring a lawful gun buyer.
Suspicion does not change the buyer’s legal status. An investigation is not a conviction, a prohibition, or a warrant. The Second Amendment does not become optional because an agent opens a file and wants to know whether an American buys another gun.
As AmmoLand News reported, the Brady Act authorized NICS to determine whether a proposed firearm transfer would violate the law. Congress simultaneously prohibited federal officials from using that system to create a registry of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions involving people who are not prohibited.
NICS Monitoring turns that supposedly limited eligibility check into a federal tripwire. Investigators select a person first. The FBI then watches for future background checks and alerts the requesting agency when the person attempts another firearm transaction—even if the transaction is approved.
That is surveillance of lawful conduct, no matter what label the government puts on it.
“61 Alerts” Number Is Not the Whole Program
Cekada’s disclosure provides useful information about ATF’s present use of NICS alerts. It does not establish the size of the broader FBI program.
GOA says ATF is only one of several agencies that have used NICS Monitoring. Its response identifies the Marshals Service, Secret Service, and Army among the federal entities that established alerts in the past. Until the FBI discloses a systemwide accounting, Americans do not know how many people are currently being monitored, which agencies requested the alerts, or how long the resulting purchase information is retained.
ATF has narrowed its own policy since the program was exposed. That is not the same thing as abolishing the system. A future anti-gun administration would inherit the machinery needed to watch the firearm purchases of disfavored Americans in real time.
Gun owners have already seen where that road leads. GOA says the Biden administration used NICS Monitoring against people because they spent what agents considered too much money on firearms, bought the same models as their roommates, were connected to January 6, or were suspected of violating California’s ban on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.
The Trump administration should not defend a surveillance power simply because its current officials promise to exercise more restraint than Biden’s appointees did.
The Program Became Public Only After AmmoLand Exposed It
Cekada also claimed NICS Monitoring was not secret because ATF published a policy governing its use in 2025. That formulation rewrites the timeline.
AmmoLand first exposed NICS Monitoring in April 2021 after receiving a leaked internal ATF document. AmmoLand provided the document to GOA, which then pursued the paper trail through Freedom of Information Act requests and litigation.
GOA says federal agencies delayed or ignored records requests, and ATF later obtained a protective order restricting the organization from releasing certain documents that the agency had inadvertently produced without its intended redactions. GOA is appealing that order.
A government program does not become retroactively public because officials acknowledged and narrowed it after a whistleblower, a news organization, a gun-rights group, and members of Congress dragged it into the light.
End NICS Monitoring
GOA’s rebuttal leaves the administration with questions that cannot be answered by comparing 61 ATF alerts with millions of annual background checks.
What statute authorizes the FBI to monitor the approved firearm transactions of non-prohibited Americans? What judicial authorization is required before the government watches someone exercise an enumerated right? How many alerts remain active across every participating agency?
The administration should answer those questions, preserve the records for congressional investigation, notify the Americans who were monitored, and shut the program down.
NICS was sold as a point-of-sale eligibility check. It should never have existed as a federal permission slip for exercising the Second Amendment, but even the Brady Act did not authorize the FBI to convert it into a prospective gun-buyer surveillance network.
Narrowing an unconstitutional abuse does not cure it. NICS Monitoring must be abolished.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
ANJRPC and Knife Rights are challenging New Jersey laws that allegedly criminalize carrying common non-firearm arms for self-defense. iStock-1601794574
ANJRPC and Knife Rights are challenging New Jersey laws that criminalize carrying common non-firearm arms in preparation for self-defense.
New Jersey was forced by the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen to recognize the right of ordinary, law-abiding citizens to carry handguns in public for self-defense. Yet the state still threatens those same citizens with prosecution if they carry a baton, defensive knife, larger pepper-spray canister, or another non-firearm arm because they anticipate needing to protect themselves.
That upside-down regime is the target of a new federal lawsuit filed by the Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Knife Rights, and four individual New Jersey residents.
The complaint, filed September 21 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, names Attorney General Jennifer Davenport and Acting State Police Superintendent Jeanne Hengemuhle as defendants in their official capacities. The case is Association of New Jersey Rifle & Pistol Clubs, Inc. v. Davenport, No. 1:26-cv-12401.
New Jersey Criminalizes Preparing for Self-Defense
The lawsuit challenges N.J.S. 2C:39-5(d), which makes it a fourth-degree crime to possess an “other weapon” under circumstances “not manifestly appropriate” for its lawful uses. New Jersey defines “weapon” broadly enough to include purpose-built arms and ordinary objects capable of inflicting serious injury.
The state does not categorically outlaw every baseball bat, hammer, or screwdriver. The problem is what happens when someone carries an otherwise ordinary object in anticipation of using it for lawful self-defense.
The complaint points to State v. Kelly, a 1990 New Jersey Supreme Court decision involving a mother who carried a carpet cutter because she feared encountering a former boyfriend who had repeatedly beaten her. He attacked her as she anticipated, and she used the cutter to stop the assault.
Although the court recognized that spontaneously grabbing a weapon during an immediate attack could be lawful, it held that Kelly’s “anticipatory self-defense” did not excuse possessing the cutter beforehand. In other words, New Jersey punished her for preparing to survive an attack she had good reason to expect.
The Second Amendment Protects Arms, Not Just Guns
The plaintiffs argue that this rule cannot survive New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which confirmed that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to carry arms in public for self-defense.
The constitutional text says “Arms,” not “firearms.” Knives, impact weapons, stun guns, Tasers, defensive sprays, and other bearable weapons therefore cannot be pushed outside the Second Amendment merely because they do not fire a cartridge.
The complaint also challenges New Jersey’s restrictions on specifically named arms, including switchblades, gravity knives, daggers, billies, blackjacks, metal knuckles, and slingshots. It alleges that these weapons are commonly possessed by law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes and are neither “dangerous and unusual.” Under Heller and Bruen, the state bears the burden of justifying its restrictions through the nation’s historical tradition of arms regulation.
The four individual plaintiffs show the irrationality of New Jersey’s approach. Three already hold New Jersey handgun carry permits but say they risk arrest if they carry lower-force alternatives such as collapsible batons or defensive knives. The fourth, Wendy Copenhaver, says she could qualify for a carry permit but presently prefers pepper spray in public. State law limits her to one pocket-sized unit containing no more than 0.75 ounces.
“New Jersey treats the means of self-defense as the crime itself,” ANJRPC President Kathy Chatterton said. “This is a law that enables criminals and disables victims.”
Knife Rights Chairman Doug Ritter said the state’s restrictions “cannot stand in the post-Bruen era.”
The plaintiffs seek a declaration that the challenged provisions violate the Second and Fourteenth Amendments, along with temporary, preliminary, and permanent injunctions against their enforcement. No court has yet ruled on those requests.
The right to bear arms belongs to the people, not to a government that decides which defensive tool a peaceful citizen must use. New Jersey cannot concede the right to carry a handgun while criminalizing less-effective alternatives chosen for the same constitutionally protected purpose.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
GLOCK is asking a federal court to rule that its Slimline, V Series, and Gen6 pistols fall outside Connecticut’s new “convertible pistol” ban. IMG Duncan Johnson
Connecticut cannot tell gun dealers whether GLOCK pistols specifically redesigned to resist illegal machinegun conversion devices will become illegal to sell on October 1. Now GLOCK is asking a federal court to answer the question before dealers risk felony prosecution.
GLOCK filed its 31-page complaint Monday in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Glock, Inc. v. Griffin challenges House Bill 5043, enacted as Public Act 26-41, and names the officials responsible for enforcing it.
The company also filed for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction before the law takes effect.
GLOCK Says Its Current Pistols Are Not Covered
GLOCK first asks the court to declare that its Slimline, V Series, and Gen 6 pistols do not fall within the statutory definition and may continue to be imported, advertised, and sold.
Connecticut defines a “convertible pistol” as a semiautomatic handgun with a cruciform trigger bar that can be “readily altered” and “readily converted” into a machine gun through installation of a pistol converter. The law does not define “readily altered,” “readily converted,” or “readily removed.”
According to the complaint, GLOCK’s Models 42, 43, 43X, and 48 are too narrow to accept known machinegun conversion devices. Its V Series and Gen6 pistols use a “triple block” consisting of reinforced rear frame rails, steel domes in the slide, and a modified slide-cover plate.
GLOCK says a July 8, 2025, ATF report found that the system prevented the installation and operation of every conversion device tested on a Gen6 G19. ATF reportedly determined that the hardened steel bracket molded into the frame was not easily altered.
Since December 1, 2025, GLOCK says it has stopped manufacturing, importing, and selling new Gen5 and earlier standard-width pistols for the American civilian market, replacing them with V Series and Gen6 models. Slimline pistols remain in production.
In other words, Connecticut’s law may block the sale of pistols already redesigned to defeat the devices lawmakers claimed to be targeting.
State Police Allegedly Admitted They Did Not Know
GLOCK says company representatives met with seven members of the Connecticut Attorney General’s Office and two State Police firearms-unit representatives on August 27. Using sample pistols, GLOCK explained why its current commercial models should fall outside the ban.
During that meeting, the State Police representatives allegedly acknowledged that dealers were asking whether new GLOCK pistols would be banned—and that the unit did not know the answer.
GLOCK then asked the chief state’s attorney and the other enforcement officials for a position. None provided one before the lawsuit was filed.
That uncertainty leaves Connecticut’s 659 FFLs, including 35 GLOCK Stocking Dealers, facing a Class D felony carrying up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine.
The complaint also notes that approximately 85 percent of Connecticut law-enforcement agencies issue GLOCK pistols. Public Act 26-41 contains no exception allowing covered pistols manufactured after October 1 to be imported or sold to police agencies, potentially interfering with approved-model purchases and warranty replacements.
GLOCK Raises Second and First Amendment Claims
If the court will not declare the current models outside the law, GLOCK asks it to strike down the ban as unconstitutionally vague and contrary to the Second Amendment. The company argues there is no historical tradition of banning commonly owned semiautomatic handguns because criminals can illegally modify them using devices already prohibited under state and federal law.
GLOCK also raises a First Amendment claim because the statute criminalizes “advertising” without defining the term. Truthful website listings, manuals, buyer’s guides, or dealer-counter materials could therefore be swept into a felony prohibition.
Connecticut wrote a criminal law broad enough that even the police unit overseeing firearm dealers allegedly cannot explain what it bans. The Constitution does not permit the state to leave citizens and businesses guessing where lawful commerce ends and a felony begins.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Fifth Circuit held that the federal ban on direct interstate handgun purchases violates the Second Amendment. iStock-1220273996
One of the Gun Control Act of 1968’s core restrictions just fell in federal court: the federal ban on Americans directly buying handguns across state lines.
In a 2–1 decision issued September 18, the Fifth Circuit held that the combined operation of three provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 922 violates the Second Amendment. It reversed the dismissal of Elite Precision Customs v. ATF and rendered judgment for Firearms Policy Coalition, Texas gun dealer Elite Precision Customs, and individual plaintiffs Tim Herron and Freddie Blish.
The conclusion of the 17-page opinion could hardly be clearer: “The Ban sullies the plain text of the Second Amendment and is inconsistent with the nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
This is a direct rejection of the federal government’s attempt to treat the lawful acquisition of a handgun as something outside the Second Amendment.
How the Federal Interstate Handgun Ban Works
The case challenged 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(a)(3), 922(a)(5), and 922(b)(3), along with an ATF regulation that tracks those restrictions.
Together, the provisions prohibit an FFL from directly transferring a handgun to a resident of another state and restrict unlicensed interstate transfers. Congress created an exception for qualifying rifle and shotgun sales, but no comparable exception for handguns.
A lawful buyer can purchase a handgun from an out-of-state dealer only by having it shipped to another FFL in the buyer’s home state. That second dealer must agree to participate, normally charges a transfer fee, and adds another delay before the buyer can take possession.
Elite Precision Customs said it would sell handguns directly to nonresidents if federal law allowed it. Blish, an Arizona resident, and Herron, a New Mexico resident, would buy from the Texas dealer. Herron said intermediary dealers typically charge him $30 to $40 and delay the transfer.
The Fifth Circuit recognized that system for what it is: a government-mandated workaround for a transaction the government has categorically forbidden.
The Right to Keep Arms Includes the Right to Buy Them
The majority opinion, written by Judge Jerry E. Smith and joined by Judge Kurt Engelhardt, relied on the Fifth Circuit’s earlier decision in Reese v. ATF. That case held that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to purchase them.
That principle controls here. A person cannot keep a handgun the government forbids him from acquiring. Congress cannot evade the Second Amendment by criminalizing the seller or inserting a government-licensed intermediary.
The restriction does not escape constitutional scrutiny merely because the government leaves another, more expensive route open. It eliminates an entire class of otherwise lawful handgun purchases. It is a purchase ban—not an ordinary condition on commercial sales.
The holding reinforces AmmoLand’s recent coverage of the Justice Department’s conclusion that the federal under-21 handgun ban is unconstitutional. It also answers the dangerous reasoning adopted by the First Circuit in Beckwith v. Frey, which placed acquisition outside the Second Amendment.
Excluding acquisition from the Second Amendment turns the right into an empty promise.
Another Government History Lesson Falls Apart
Once the court determined that the Second Amendment covers handgun purchases, the burden shifted to the government to establish a representative historical tradition supporting its ban. It failed.
The government offered 18 colonial and early American laws. The majority sorted them into wartime measures, restrictions on trade with foreign sovereigns or Indian tribes, and early consumer-protection laws covering matters such as defective firearms and gunpowder quality.
None established a Founding-era tradition of prohibiting peaceable Americans from buying handguns across state lines within the same country.
The court also rejected reliance on a 1652 law from Dutch-controlled New Amsterdam. Its full text has been lost, its enforcement is unknown, and it arose outside the English legal tradition that produced the Bill of Rights.
The same problem confronts modern handgun-rationing schemes. As AmmoLand reported in the challenge to New Jersey’s one-handgun-a-month law, governments keep assembling unrelated gunpowder, licensing, and Native American trade laws and calling the pile a historical tradition.
The Government Cannot Charge a Toll for a Right
The opinion also questions the added fee imposed by the mandatory FFL-to-FFL process, comparing such costs with unconstitutional burdens imposed on voting, marriage, and the press.
That concern fits directly with AmmoLand’s recent coverage of taxes designed to make firearms and ammunition more expensive. The problem does not disappear because the government calls the burden a transfer fee, tax, or administrative charge. A government that cannot ban a right should not be allowed to place a tollbooth in front of it.
Fifth Circuit Rejects the Second Circuit
The decision creates a direct circuit split. In United States v. Vereen, the Second Circuit upheld the same federal ban by relying on historical restrictions involving the movement of firearms across colonial borders.
The Fifth Circuit said that approach stretched the historical record beyond what it could support. Colonial borders and trade with separate sovereigns are not interchangeable with commerce between American citizens.
Judge Catharina Haynes dissented in a single paragraph, saying she agreed with the district court that the challenged provisions were constitutional.
What the Decision Means for Gun Buyers
The Fifth Circuit reversed the lower court and rendered judgment for the plaintiffs, but the opinion does not provide immediate operating instructions for gun dealers. It should not be read as an invitation to walk into any gun store in another state and demand an over-the-counter handgun transfer while federal procedures remain unsettled.
The government may seek rehearing or Supreme Court review, and dealers will need clear guidance on how the judgment affects enforcement and their licensing obligations.
The constitutional holding, however, is unmistakable. State lines do not erase the right to keep and bear arms. The federal government cannot convert an unconstitutional handgun-purchase ban into a permissible regulation merely by forcing Americans to find another dealer, pay another fee, and wait longer to exercise a right the Constitution commands shall not be infringed.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Justice Department alleges San Jose’s $1,591 municipal carry-permit fee and additional psychological-testing requirement violate the Second Amendment. iStock-901657484
The Justice Department sued San Jose and its police department on September 16, alleging that the city has put a $1,591 price tag on the constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense.
That figure is only San Jose’s municipal application fee. It does not include state charges, fingerprinting, mandatory training, or the applicant-funded psychological evaluation imposed by the San Jose Police Department.
Under the city’s system, a first-time applicant pays $318 up front and another $1,273 when the license is issued. The federal complaint argues that the charge is not a legitimate administrative fee but an abusive financial barrier designed to make lawful carry impractical for middle-class residents and impossible for many lower-income citizens.
The Second Amendment does not protect only those with enough disposable income to satisfy anti-gun officials. The right to bear arms belongs to “the people,” not merely the people who can afford San Jose’s toll.
San Jose Made Carry a Rich Man’s Right
California law permits local licensing authorities to recover the reasonable cost of processing concealed-carry applications. According to DOJ, however, the San Jose resolution establishing the $1,591 charge does not attempt to justify that amount.
The complaint compares San Jose with jurisdictions that are hardly known for respecting gun rights. San Francisco charges $144. Washington, D.C. charges $75, Boston charges $100, Chicago charges $150, and Philadelphia charges $20. Even New York City’s three-year license costs $340.
DOJ does not concede that every one of those fees is constitutional. The comparisons show just how far outside the norm San Jose has gone.
The Supreme Court expressly warned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that a nominally “shall-issue” licensing system can still violate the Second Amendment when “exorbitant fees” deny ordinary citizens their right to carry. A city cannot replace the discretionary “proper cause” test struck down in Bruen with an equally effective wealth test.
Psychological Testing Adds Another Infringement
The financial barrier is not San Jose’s only attack on the right to bear arms. SJPD also forces applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation and pay the evaluator before receiving a permit. According to DOJ, California law does not require that examination, and San Jose’s municipal code does not authorize it. The police department imposed it through its own policy.
That turns a pre-existing constitutional right into a privilege granted only after a government-approved psychologist decides an applicant is “worthy” to exercise it. The Second Amendment contains no psychological-test exception, and it gives police departments no authority to demand a mental-health permission slip from peaceable citizens before allowing them to bear arms.
The policy compounds that constitutional abuse by leaving applicants responsible for an unspecified fee charged by an “authorized psychologist.” DOJ alleges that applicants receive no advance notice of the cost or assurance that it reflects only the licensing authority’s reasonable expense. After Bruen stripped anti-gun officials of their discretionary “proper cause” test, San Jose appears to have rebuilt the same gatekeeping system through wealth and psychological screening. The label changed; the unconstitutional presumption did not. San Jose still treats citizens as disqualified from exercising the right to bear arms until they pay the government’s price and prove otherwise.
DOJ Expands Its Second Amendment Civil-Rights Campaign
The legal vehicle is as important as the dollar amount. DOJ sued under 34 U.S.C. §12601, which authorizes federal action against a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of constitutional rights. Because SJPD administers and enforces the licensing system, DOJ argues that collecting the fee constitutes unlawful police misconduct.
That is the correct principle: gun rights are civil rights. Officials enforcing unconstitutional gun laws are not merely making questionable policy choices; they are depriving Americans of a right secured by the Constitution.
DOJ seeks declaratory relief and a permanent injunction barring San Jose from charging abusive licensing fees and requiring corrective policies. The case is United States v. City of San Jose, California, et al., No. 5:26-cv-10508, in the Northern District of California.
For now, this remains a complaint, not a judgment or injunction. San Jose’s requirements remain in effect unless the city changes course or the court intervenes. But the message from DOJ is unmistakable: a government cannot claim to respect Bruen while pricing ordinary citizens out of the right it protects.
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 and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
![.45 Caliber hollow point bullets near handgun and magazine stock photo iStock.com/[Pratchaya]](https://www.ammoland.com/wp-content/uploads/2026/07/45-ACP-Hollow-point-ammo-1911-pistol-iStock-531419950-600x401.jpg)
Unfortunately, there are 2 false statements & 3 misleading statements in 
