ATF Director Cekada Talks Gun Rights, Rule Rollbacks & Reform with Shermichael Singleton

ATF Director Robert Cekada says the Bureau needs to focus on violent criminals, not law-abiding gun owners, while promising more transparency and reform inside the agency.

Shermichael Singleton of We the Free recently interviewed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Director Robert Cekada on his platform, alongside ATF Chief Legal Counsel Robert Leider.

Director Cekada was confirmed in late April. On the same day, he and Leider introduced a package of 34 new rules and regulatory rollbacks intended to make the ATF more accessible and responsive to law-abiding gun owners. This approach represents a clear departure from the previous ATF administration, which took a much more adversarial stance toward gun stores and gun ownership. Cekada has publicly stated that he wants the ATF to focus on criminal activity rather than average, law-abiding gun owners.

The interview began with Cekada’s personal history and background in law enforcement. His parents immigrated from Yugoslavia to escape a brutal communist dictator. His father worked in the trades and held a negative view of law enforcement, not only because of the Yugoslavian secret police that made political dissidents disappear, but also due to corruption in the New York City Police Department (NYPD).

Despite his father’s objections, Cekada joined the NYPD in 1992. He served in anti-gang units, street crime, and organized crime investigations, eventually rising to the rank of detective. He later served with the Plantation Police Department in Florida before joining the Broward County Sheriff’s Office, where he worked in patrol and as a member of the SWAT team. In 2005, Cekada joined the ATF as a Special Agent, where he would serve for over 20 years.

Director Cekada said most Americans do not understand what the ATF does on a daily basis. He noted that when the Bureau fails, it makes headlines, but its successes often go unnoticed. He acknowledged that the ATF has not done a good job of explaining its mission. Cekada believes the lack of transparency and ambiguity surrounding the agency has led to widespread misunderstandings about its role and operations.

Mr. Leider noted that the Bureau has held diverse views on the Second Amendment over the years. He pointed out that under the previous administration, some high-ranking officials held anti-gun views. Cekada confirmed Leider’s statement and highlighted how the ATF has flip-flopped on policy in the past. He criticized the agency for previously making decisions with little or no explanation. Cekada said he intends to fix that by making the Bureau far more transparent.

Director Cekada criticized the last administration for targeting lawful gun owners instead of focusing on criminals. One key way to change this, he said, is to reform or roll back certain rules.

Leider emphasized that the ATF must operate within the laws passed by Congress. He noted that some previous ATF regulations went too far beyond what Congress intended — specifically citing the pistol brace rule. Cekada even mentioned receiving pushback for personally owning braced pistols. He pointed out that braced pistols rarely appear at crime scenes. He described the old pistol brace rule as more of a “feel-good” measure than an effective public safety policy.

Director Cekada said the ATF would be happy to work with Congress to clarify and revise regulations on suppressors, short-barrel rifles (SBRs), and short-barrel shotguns (SBSs).

When Singleton asked why the ATF needs to keep records for 20 years, Cekada replied that data shows records that are 20 years old still provide value, while older ones do not. He said this position is supported by data.

Director Cekada stated that he needs additional budget support for technological improvements. He believes customers should be able to purchase a suppressor and walk out with it the same day. He noted that the ATF is currently limited by outdated technology and budget constraints that prevent the implementation of such a system. This exchange highlighted the agency’s need for better technical personnel.

As an engineer who specializes in some of the systems the ATF uses, I can say that implementing this upgrade would not be a heavy lift.

The final topic was the Tiahrt Amendment. That law restricts how the ATF can share firearm trace data. Recently, the ATF sent unredacted information to Gun Owners of America (GOA). The ATF tried to claw back the data and got a restraining order against the gun rights group, preventing them from sharing it.

That legal battle continues, but both men highlighted that certain anti-gun states are sharing the information that is supposed to be used for law enforcement only.

Firearm Freedom Act Would Repeal Hughes Amendment Machine Gun Ban

---

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/KyxcfSV
via IFTTT

Discrimination Against Black Lions on Gun Licenses a Threat to All Gun Owners

Revocation of carry licenses over vague “character and reputation” claims raises serious due process and Second Amendment concerns for all gun owners. AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand using ChatGPT/OpenAI.

“Visibly Armed, They Patrolled the Streets to Protect the Public from ICE. Now Their Gun Licenses are Being Revoked,” The Trace reported May 20. “Philadelphia says it pulled the licenses of Black Lions because of their “character and reputation.” The group argues it’s retaliation for policing the police.”

“The Trace?”, gun owners active in protecting the right to keep and bear arms might well ask. The group funded by anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg that poses as a legitimate journalism outlet while spreading anti-gun propaganda designed to abet citizen disarmament edicts?

Why would we believe anything they say?

Noting the number of times this correspondent has called them out on just those charges, it’s a legitimate question, so it pays to corroborate the information from other sources. It’s also curious that in this case, the focus of The Trace is not to cheer this on as a “commonsense gun safety law,” and that’s especially contradictory considering the sentiments of its benefactor when it comes to armed minorities.

Noting the Black Lions “(formerly the Philadelphia chapter of the Black Panther Party) identify with revolutionary socialist and Black nationalist traditions, which are heavily rooted in Marxist principles,” it’s also fair to ask why the hell Second Amendment advocates should give a damn if their licenses are revoked. After all, one of the purposes of the Militia as envisioned by the Founders was “to suppress Insurrections,” and it certainly looks like they have the potential and the inclination to threaten Constitutional rule of law, especially if political tensions being egged on by racist Democrat demagogues erupt into widespread collectivist violence.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride A2 Mid-Length 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 20" Nitride Rifle-Length 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 Rifle W/Carry Handle, Black	Palmetto State Armory	$ 599.99
	PSA PA-15 16" Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO Classic AR-15 13.5" M-Lok Railed Rifle	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99
	PSA PA-15 16"Nitride M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO MOE EPT AR-15 Rifle, FDE	Palmetto State Armory	$ 549.99

It’s because the Constitutional rule of law says the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and that efforts to disarm citizens can only be legitimate if it has been proven – with full due process – that they cannot be trusted with a gun (meaning they shouldn’t be trusted with unfettered access to the rest of us).

The whole concept of prior restraint licensing and the reason for revocation given, “character and reputation,” are tyrannical affronts to everything the Republic is supposed to stand for, and a government powerful enough to enforce such diktats is much more of a fearsome threat than the one it’s “protecting” from. Just don’t forget that what the government can do to the Black Lions, it will do to whomever it can. (It’s ironic that the communist system they would impose on all ultimately relies on a disarmed populace. It never seems to evolve beyond Marx’s dictatorship of the proletariat and into the stateless Nirvana he promised.)

“We condemn any program that involves enforcing unconstitutional ‘laws’, even if such ‘laws’ are enforced only against violent criminals,” the Project Exile Condemnation Coalition declared in 2001. “Unconstitutional ‘laws’ are illegal, harmful to public safety, tyrannical, and are inevitably enforced against ordinary, non-criminal citizens.”

If the Black Lions are threatening and victimizing people and obstructing immigration law enforcement, go after the ones doing it with the laws against it. Otherwise, leave them alone to run food assistance programs, give out clothes to the needy, and, yes, patrol the streets while armed.

The Eagle could stand to learn from that.

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Illinois FOID Card Gun Licensing Law

---

About David Codrea:

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

---

from https://ift.tt/Pps1dXC
via IFTTT

Minnesota Binary Trigger Ban Struck Down as Gun Control Bill Dies

The Minnesota Court of Appeals just handed Tim Walz and the DFL another gun control defeat.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and his legislative allies in the Democratic-Farmer-Labor (DFL) party had a rough eight days in May, with the legislative session ending on the 18^th without passing their gun control legislation, and a major court loss on the 26^th, striking down the “binary trigger” ban snuck into a spending bill in 2024.

Walz has not had a good year, with much attention paid to welfare fraud in the North Star State on his watch, and his inability to move legislation which would have put new restrictions on gun owners. It is no wonder he is not running for re-election, and is vowing to quite politics.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus is celebrating its victory in the state Court of Appeals, nullifying the binary trigger ban because its inclusion in the 2024 omnibus tax/spending bill violated the state constitution’s single subject rule. The MGOC had earlier won at the trial court level before Ramsey County District Court Judge Leonardo Castro. The Appeals Court ruling cemented the defeat.

In a news release, MGOC Chairman Bryan Strawser observed, “This is a complete victory on the question we asked the court to decide. The Walz administration and anti-gun legislators tried to sneak a firearms ban into an omnibus bill where it didn’t belong. The district court said no. The Court of Appeals said no. Minnesota’s Constitution, not legislative gamesmanship, controls how laws get made in this state, and Minnesota gun owners just proved it twice.”

It came one week and a day after the legislature adjourned, putting a spike through SF 4067, which the MGOC described in a news story as a “sweeping gun ban omnibus bill.”

The legislation died even after—or perhaps because—DFL lawmakers held a sit-in to demand action on the gun control bill. They were furious that Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuth had declined to move it to a vote.

Joining Minnesota gun owners in celebrating the defeat of gun control for another year, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms issued a scathing statement to the media, describing the binary trigger ban as a “shenanigan used by anti-gunners time and again to conceal something they know would never pass muster in the broad daylight.”

“We’re delighted our colleagues at the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, a CCRKBA state affiliate, challenged this sneaky tactic,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb.

But the nationally-recognized gun rights leader had something more ominous to say.

“Tim Walz and his anti-gun-rights DFL cronies in St. Paul were defeated twice this month,” he added, “once when they couldn’t pressure Minnesota House Speaker Lisa Demuth with their ridiculous ‘sit-in’ to bring their gun ban bill up for a vote, and now by the state Court of Appeals. It was briefly fun to watch them pout like disappointed spoiled brats, but the novelty wore off pretty fast. All they’ve proven is their willingness to be sneaky and childish in an effort to get their way, while the adults at the capitol and in the court keep them in check. We hope Minnesota voters remember this in November.”

Right now, there is an even split in the Minnesota House, which could change with this fall’s elections. If Democrats win, expect more gun control to be introduced, but if Republicans take majority control, such legislation would likely be held in check.

Is there national significance in the Minnesota situation? There is clearly a message that GOP unity and strength can prevent restrictive gun control from becoming law, and across the map, Democrats are recognized as the “party of gun prohibition.” They have rammed through gun and magazine bans in Washington, Colorado, Illinois and other states, and Maryland Gov. Wes Moore just signed legislation banning Glock-style pistols, for which he was promptly sued in federal court by the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation and Firearms Policy Coalition.

Last December, Walz made headlines when he demanded that insurance companies turn over information on firearms, as noted by the Daily Caller, declaring, “We are the murder gun capital of the planet, because people have made the decision to protect gun manufacturers and those who don’t want to take responsible action.” His remark epitomizes the sentiment of many Democrats, who are invariably leading the charge for more gun restrictions.

Traditionally, mid-term elections result in a loss of seats for whichever party is in control, including the White House. But this year has a new dynamic with the elections of highly vocal socialist mayors Zohran Mamdani in New York City, and Katie Wilson in Seattle. His pronouncements and her ineptitude have made some interesting headlines over the past five months, and they’re just getting started.

Democrats will try to make the fall elections entirely about Donald Trump, but Minnesota is proof that far more is at stake.

Firearm Freedom Act Would Repeal Hughes Amendment Machine Gun Ban

---

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/7VFPwWc
via IFTTT

Virginia Defies Court Order: State Police Resume Unconstitutional Background Checks

Virginia officials are moving to restart private firearm sale background checks despite a court injunction blocking enforcement of the state’s universal background check law. AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand using ChatGPT / OpenAI.

The Virginia Attorney General’s office has notified the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL) and Gun Owners of America (GOA) that the Virginia State Police (VSP) will begin enforcing universal background checks on private firearms sales. This move directly violates a standing court order that declared such requirements unconstitutional under the Virginia Constitution.

In 2020, Virginia passed legislation (Virginia Code § 18.2-308.2:5) mandating background checks for nearly all firearm transfers. This included private sales between individuals, which previously did not require checks. Under the law, these transactions had to be processed through a federally licensed firearms dealer (FFL), who would then run the check through the Virginia State Police system.

VCDL and GOA joined forces to challenge the law in state court. They argued that it infringed on the rights protected by the Virginia Constitution. In October 2025, a judge in the Lynchburg Circuit Court ruled in their favor in the case Wilson et al. v. Colonel Matthew D. Hanley. The court struck down the law and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting its enforcement anywhere in the state.

Democrats quickly labeled the ruling “the Lynchburg loophole.” Earlier in 2026, the General Assembly passed new legislation to restore background checks for private sales. Former CIA officer and current Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger signed the bill into law. She invoked emergency powers to make it effective immediately, bypassing the standard delayed implementation period.

Initially, the Virginia State Police acknowledged the court order and stated they could not enforce the new requirements while the injunction remained in place. VSP even updated its public guidance to reflect that private sale background checks were neither required nor available.

That position changed recently. Federal firearms licensees across Virginia received notices indicating that the State Police would once again process background checks for private sales, despite the active court injunction. At the same time, the Attorney General’s office, now led by Jay Jones, who fantasized about killing the children of a Republican revival, sent a formal letter to VCDL and GOA confirming that the VSP would resume enforcement of the law.

This development represents a direct challenge to judicial authority. The VSP’s new stance appears to defy the permanent injunction issued by the Lynchburg Circuit Court. Under the fundamental principle of the separation of powers, neither the executive branch nor the legislature has the authority to override a final court ruling. Yet that is precisely what seems to be occurring here.

Critics, including gun rights advocates, point out that the Attorney General’s office provided no clear legal justification for disregarding the court order. Jones, who faced significant controversy during his campaign over past text messages in which he fantasized about violence against Republican figures and their families, now finds himself at the center of this constitutional confrontation.

The situation is poised to trigger further legal action. VCDL and GOA are expected to return to court to enforce the existing injunction and seek remedies for what they view as open defiance of the judiciary.

This case raises profound questions about the rule of law in Virginia. If state agencies can selectively ignore court orders they dislike, it undermines the entire judicial system and sets a dangerous precedent that could affect rights far beyond the Second Amendment.

For Virginia gun owners, the implications are immediate and practical. Private sales—such as those between family members, friends, or at gun shows—had become simpler and more private following the 2025 ruling. The attempted revival of mandatory checks through FFLs adds cost, inconvenience, and delay. Many law-abiding citizens worry that this creates unnecessary hurdles for exercising their constitutional rights while doing little to address actual criminal activity, since prohibited persons already bypass legal channels.

This episode highlights the ongoing tension in Virginia between expanding gun control measures and constitutional protections. Advocates for the right to keep and bear arms argue that the state’s actions reflect a broader pattern of incremental restrictions that erode longstanding traditions of private firearm transfers. They emphasize that the Virginia Constitution contains strong protections for this right, independent of federal interpretations.

As the legal battle unfolds, all eyes remain on the courts. The outcome could determine not only the future of background checks in Virginia but also the balance of power among the state’s branches of government. Gun rights organizations like VCDL and GOA have vowed to continue fighting to preserve the court’s original injunction and protect the freedoms of Virginia’s law-abiding residents.

This conflict serves as a reminder of the importance of an independent judiciary in safeguarding individual liberties against overreach by other branches of government. Virginians on all sides of the issue will be watching closely to see whether the rule of law prevails or yields to political pressure.

Virginia Officials Rebel: Sheriffs and Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce New Gun Ban

---

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/cBjgIV2
via IFTTT

NRA, FPC, SAF Sue Maryland Over Glock-Style Handgun Ban

NRA, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation have filed a federal lawsuit challenging Maryland’s new Glock-style handgun ban, SB 334. Img Duncan Johnson

Maryland Gov. Wes Moore signed SB 334 into law, and gun-rights groups wasted no time dragging the state into federal court.

The National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, challenging the state’s new ban on so-called “machine gun convertible pistols.” The complaint argues the law is not really about machine guns at all. It is a ban on nearly every Glock and Glock-style handgun on the market.

Starting January 1, 2027, SB 334 makes it illegal for ordinary Marylanders to manufacture, sell, offer for sale, purchase, receive, or transfer a covered pistol. The law defines that category around semiautomatic pistols with a “cruciform trigger bar” that can allegedly be converted into a machine gun by installing a backplate-style conversion device.

Maryland is going after Glocks and all Glock-style pistols.

Live Inventory Price Checker

	Timney Alpha Competition Trigger for Glock Gen 6 Pistols	GunMag Warehouse	$ 129.99
	Glock 19 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.02" Barrel 15+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00
	Glock 17 Gen 6 9mm (OR) 17rd Pistol, 4.49" GMB Barrel	Bereli	$ 620.00
	Glock 17 Gen 6 ORS 9mm Luger Pistol 4.49" Barrel 17+1 Round Black	MidwayUSA	$ 620.00

The complaint points out that all factory Glock pistols use a cruciform trigger bar. It also names popular Glock-style pistols, such as the Palmetto State Armory Dagger, the Ruger RXM, and many Shadow Systems models, as likely swept into the ban. These are among the most popular and widely owned defensive handguns in America.

“This Maryland law bans nearly every Glock and Glock-style handgun on the market today,” said SAF Executive Adam Kraut. “These pistols are among the most popular on the market, chosen in overwhelming numbers by peaceable citizens for lawful purposes like self-defense. Maryland has now attempted to ban these firearms because a subset of criminals illegally modifies them, using conversion parts that are themselves illegal to possess, and then commit crimes with the modified handguns. Not only is this law as foolish as banning hops and barley to prevent drunk driving, but these commonly owned arms are clearly protected by the Second Amendment, the ratification of which takes certain policy choices – including this one – off the table.”

Maryland is not banning Glock switches. Those are already illegal under federal law and Maryland law. The state is instead punishing every law-abiding gun owner who wants to buy a semiautomatic handgun because criminals might illegally modify one.

The complaint makes clear that pistol converters, often called Glock switches, are already treated as machine guns under federal law. Maryland also bans “rapid fire activators,” which include these types of devices. Those bans are not what this lawsuit challenges. The question in this case is whether Maryland can ban common, ordinary handguns simply because someone else might illegally turn them into something they are not.

Under Heller, handguns are at the core of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court called them the “quintessential self-defense weapon.” Under Bruen, the government must justify modern gun restrictions by reference to the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Maryland is going to have a hard time finding a Founding-era tradition of banning the most popular handguns in the country because some criminal might misuse illegal conversion parts.

@govwesmoore just signed Maryland’s Glock ban.

SAF won’t stand for this, and neither should you. Our lawsuit will be filed imminently. Wanna support getting it over the finish line? Head over to https://t.co/niCyD7cIYS and become a member today. pic.twitter.com/NiUzGCQujP

— SAF (@2AFDN) May 26, 2026

The complaint also argues that the Second Amendment protects not only possession but acquisition. A right to keep and bear arms means very little if the state can shut down the lawful sale, purchase, and transfer of the arms citizens actually use.

Anti-gun politicians are trying to create a new category of banned handguns by tying common pistols to illegal conversion devices. If they can get away with that, every popular firearm platform is at risk. The AR-15 can be blamed for illegal auto sears. The Glock can be blamed for illegal switches. The gun owner, as usual, gets punished for the actions of criminals the state failed to stop.

“Bans like the one just signed in Maryland are the antithesis of good policy,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “This unconstitutional law does nothing more than punish peaceable gun owners in the state, and it cannot be allowed to stand. You can’t stop criminal violence by broadening the law just to make everyone a criminal. That strategy never works.”

The lawsuit names Gov. Moore, Attorney General Anthony Brown, and Acting Maryland State Police Superintendent Michael Jackson as defendants. The Maryland State Police are tasked with creating regulations to implement the law, including publishing a list of prohibited pistols. That means the state will decide which handguns Marylanders are no longer allowed to buy or transfer.

The plaintiffs are asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and block its enforcement.

FPC President Brandon Combs did not mince words. “Maryland’s politicians just declared war on an entire class of constitutionally protected handguns and the peaceable people who want to own them. This ban is immoral, unconstitutional, and tyrannical. FPC and our Grassroots Army are going to force Maryland to respect the Second Amendment, full stop.”

The NRA is also framing the fight as part of a larger national campaign against common handguns.

“With a single stroke of his pen, Governor Wes Moore has banned one of the most popular handguns in America,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA-ILA. “Instead of going after criminals and enforcing existing laws, he has chosen to disarm law-abiding Marylanders and strip them of their constitutional rights. The NRA is filing an immediate legal challenge to this unconstitutional assault on the Second Amendment and will exhaust every option available to ensure this law is struck down.” – John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action

Maryland’s SB 334 is not aimed at violent criminals. It is aimed at the ordinary people standing at a gun counter, trying to buy one of the most common defensive pistols in America.

NEW GLOCK Gen 6 Review | The Future of Perfection

---

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/nkUumwg
via IFTTT

Virginia Officials Rebel: Sheriffs and Prosecutors Refuse to Enforce New Gun Ban

Virginia’s new “assault firearm” and magazine ban is already facing resistance from prosecutors, sheriffs, and localities before it takes effect July 1. Image Duncan Johnson

As the deadline for the new Virginia gun laws approaches, Governor Abigail Spanberger’s master plan is showing cracks. Multiple localities, sheriffs, and Commonwealth’s Attorneys have publicly stated they will not enforce what they consider unconstitutional laws.

The laws go into effect on July 1, but some Commonwealth’s Attorneys have already instructed law enforcement not to arrest anyone for violations of the “assault firearms” ban because they will not prosecute the cases.

Ryan Mehaffey, a Marine veteran and one of the Commonwealth’s Attorneys standing up against the Governor’s gun grab, sent a letter to Spotsylvania Sheriff Roger Harris, instructing him that the ban is “unconstitutional and cannot be lawfully enforced.”

Mehaffey believes the United States and Virginia Constitutions protect citizens’ rights to possess standard infantry weapons. During the country’s founding, the standard issue was a musket with 20 rounds of ammunition. Today, he says, that equates to an M4A1 carbine and a 30-round magazine.

“Our founders were careful to make sure, when they drafted our founding document, that the ultimate right of the people was preserved — the right to defend themselves and their community,” Mehaffey said. “So, the linchpin of the constitutional analysis is whether this instrument has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia.”

Smyth County Commonwealth’s Attorney Phillip Blevins, an Air Force veteran, has also refused to enforce the ban. Like Mehaffey, Blevins believes the bill is unconstitutional. He took an oath to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and he says enforcing the law would violate that oath.

“As Commonwealth’s Attorney, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of Virginia,” Blevins said. “That oath is not situational, and it does not change based on politics, headlines, or pressure from either side of an issue.”

Pulaski County Commonwealth’s Attorney Justin L. Griffith will also not enforce the law. He emphasizes that enforcement of criminal laws is at the discretion of each locality’s Commonwealth’s Attorney. Griffith believes the ban “is not a necessary tool for justice in Pulaski County.” He said he will continue to prosecute criminals for the misuse of guns but will not target law-abiding citizens as this bill does.

“I am not going to take law-abiding citizens as of June 30, 2026, and criminalize that same behavior on July 1, 2026, solely on the basis of this new law,” Griffith said. “Justice has been and will continue to be sought against those that use guns in the commission of crimes, outside of this new law.”

Powhatan County Commonwealth’s Attorney Rob Cerullo has also notified law enforcement that he will not bring charges against people who violate the new ban. He believes the law violates the United States Supreme Court’s Bruen ruling. Cerullo plans to honor his oath to the Constitution, even if that means going against the former CIA agent-turned-governor.

“The provisions mentioned above place both my office and yours in an untenable position; we can either honor our oath to preserve the Constitution, or enforce statutes which are clearly unconstitutional,” Cerullo wrote in a letter to Powhatan County Sheriff Bradford W. Nunnally.

Scott County Commonwealth’s Attorney Kyle Kilgore and Sheriff Jeff B. Edds also issued a joint statement declaring they will not enforce the new “assault firearms” ban. The two men believe the ban violates Virginians’ protected Second Amendment rights. They also cited their oath to the Constitution.

In addition to the five Commonwealth’s Attorneys pledging not to enforce the ban, seven sheriffs from Amherst, Campbell, Carroll, Page, Floyd, Scott, and Washington counties have told their departments that the ban will not be enforced. Additionally, 58 localities have enacted protections to prevent the enforcement of the new gun laws.

Virginia has long been the birthplace of rebellion, with figures such as George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason standing up against tyranny. Nearly 250 years later, Virginians are still answering that call.

Bruen’s Text-and-History Test Spreads Beyond the Second Amendment

---

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/TjSWclo
via IFTTT

New Hampshire Campus Carry Bill Killed After Senate Guts HB 1793

New Hampshire’s HB 1793 campus carry bill died after the Senate gutted the House-passed version and rejected a conference committee. iStock-1454441872

The New Hampshire Campus Carry Bill, HB1793, appears to have been killed by amendments and the Senate’s unwillingness to compromise with a conference committee. As reported on AmmoLand, the bill looked to have a bright future earlier this year.

HB 1793 had two major provisions. First, it removed the special power of public institutions of higher learning, mostly colleges and universities, to infringe on the exercise of Second Amendment rights in New Hampshire. Second, the Bill made clear that no special permit would be required to exercise those rights on campus. The legislature had the power to do this because the institutions of higher learning were public, not private institutions.

To enforce rights protected by the bill, individuals could sue institutions and individuals for violating those rights, as can be done with other constitutional rights. The bill had significant support. It passed the New Hampshire House on the fifth of February, 2026, 188 to 165, with 11 not voting and 30 absent. It was then sent to the New Hampshire Senate.  On May 14, 2026, the Senate passed the bill with a “poison pill” amendment, which eliminated the two provisions above, except for university professors. The House countered by not accepting the Senate amendment but calling for a conference committee to work out a compromise.

On May 21, the Senate rejected the request for a conference committee on a voice vote, effectively killing the bill.

Through long observation, I’ve learned institutions of higher learning have influence with state legislatures far beyond what would be expected from the size of their staff and student bodies. Those institutions have moved further and further to the political left in the last 50 years.

The logic of HB1793 was impeccable: Allow people on institutions of higher learning to exercise rights protected by the Second Amendment which they already could exercise when they stepped across the campus boundary line.

The emotional arguments against the bill did not hold up against the facts. Considerable testimony and facts were presented in the legislative debates. New Hampshire already has Constitutional Carry.

Universities and colleges have long ago become centers of power of the political left and, particularly, Progressive ideology. The rights protected by the Second Amendment are intensely rejected by Progressive ideology. Hostility to the Second Amendment is part of Progressive DNA. Progressives consider limits on governmental power to be irrational and evil.

A strong lobbying campaign was conducted against HB1793. It was enough to swing the votes to kill the Bill in the Senate. This will not be the end of efforts to restore constitutional rights to students on campus in New Hampshire. It is the end of a promising bill in the New Hampshire legislature this year.

Representative Samuel Farrington is the primary sponsor of the bill. He is one of the youngest members of the New Hampshire General Assembly. He showed himself to be energetic, capable, and strategic. The bill came very close to passage.  The fight for the bill accomplished a great deal of education about campus carry in New Hampshire.

AmmoLand will continue to watch and report on the situation in New Hampshire and other states.

Firearm Freedom Act Would Repeal Hughes Amendment Machine Gun Ban

---

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/Ai0CeXz
via IFTTT

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Illinois FOID Card Gun Licensing Law

A new federal lawsuit filed by the New Civil Liberties Alliance challenges Illinois’ FOID card requirement, arguing the gun-owner licensing mandate violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. iStock-1810940319

A new federal lawsuit challenging Illinois’ requirement that gun owners obtain a state police issued license landed in court this week, marking the latest front in a multi-pronged legal assault on a system that critics say forces citizens to prove their innocence before exercising a constitutional right.

The New Civil Liberties Alliance filed the lawsuit Tuesday against Illinois State Police Director Brendan Kelly, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neill Burke, arguing that the Illinois Firearm Owners Identification Card Act violates both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution.

“Representing Navy veteran Christopher Laurent, Chicago chef and restaurateur Kim Dalton, and liberty advocate Justin Tucker, NCLA urges the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to declare that the FOID Act violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and stop its enforcement,” the group announced.

The three plaintiffs bring distinct but related grievances against the FOID system. Laurent and Dalton both want firearms for self-defense in their homes but have refused to submit to the licensing process on constitutional grounds. Tucker already possesses a FOID card but objects to the legal requirement that he carry it whenever he possesses a firearm or ammunition, and he does not wish to renew it when it expires.

The complaint stated that “Plaintiffs Christopher Laurent and Kim Dalton both wish to obtain a firearm for self-defense in their respective homes – but they have not done so because they do not have FOID cards, refuse to submit to the state’s unconstitutional procedure, and are unwilling to subject themselves to criminal prosecution by violating the law.”

Regarding Tucker, the filing added that “Plaintiff Justin Tucker has obtained a FOID card, but he does not wish [to] keep it in his possession whenever he possesses a firearm or ammunition as the law requires, nor does he wish to renew it upon its expiration – though he does wish to retain his Second Amendment rights.”

Illinois stands alongside Massachusetts as one of only two states in the nation that require residents to secure government licensing before possessing any firearm for any purpose, a distinction that animates the constitutional challenge. The NCLA argues this framework inverts the relationship between citizens and government that the Bill of Rights was designed to protect.

“The Fourteenth Amendment forbids states from depriving anyone of their liberty without due process of law,” the group explained. “The FOID Act restricts this core liberty with no due process of law, and it flips the presumption of liberty, placing the burden of proof on citizens to get government permission to exercise their freedom.”

The consequences for violating the FOID Card Act are severe. First time violations constitute Class A misdemeanors punishable by fines and up to 364 days of imprisonment. Subsequent offenses can escalate to felony charges carrying up to three years in prison.

An Illinois State Police spokesperson told reporters the agency is “unable to comment on pending litigation.” The Attorney General’s Office and Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office did not respond to requests for comment.

John Vecchione, also a Senior Litigation Counsel at NCLA, drew a comparison to other fundamental rights. “We don’t ask a bureaucrat for permission to speak or worship. We shouldn’t have to ask one before exercising the right of self-defense either.”

The federal lawsuit arrives against a backdrop of sustained legal pressure on the FOID system from multiple directions. On three separate occasions, judges have ruled the FOID card unconstitutional, in 2018, 2021, and 2025, declaring in one ruling that “It is asinine to think that in this ‘land of the free and home of the brave,’ one must petition the government and pay a fee to be able to enjoy the fundamental Constitutional right to protect oneself inside one’s home.”

The Second Amendment Foundation has backed the ongoing Vivian Brown case, and the NRA supported the Guns Save Life challenge now heading toward the Illinois Supreme Court. But the NCLA’s federal filing carries particular strategic significance. Unlike state court rulings that apply only to individual defendants, a federal district court order striking down the FOID Act would create binding precedent that could effectively nullify the law statewide.

Mark Chenoweth, President and Chief Legal Officer of the NCLA, emphasized that the case targets the licensing requirement itself rather than all firearms regulations. “This case is not about invalidating all licensing related to guns. But requiring people to get permission from the government in advance even to obtain a gun for hunting or for self-defense in the home is outrageous. The point of having Constitutional rights is that we do not have to get the government’s permission to exercise them.”

The NCLA’s federal challenge represents a long overdue reckoning for a licensing regime that treats law-abiding citizens as suspects and demands they beg the state for permission before exercising a right the Founders considered self-evident. Illinois has operated for decades under the fiction that constitutional rights can be reduced to bureaucratic privileges, and a decisive federal court ruling would finally restore the proper order between free citizens and their government.

Bruen’s Text-and-History Test Spreads Beyond the Second Amendment

---

About José Niño

José Niño is a freelance writer based in Charlotte, North Carolina. You can contact him via Facebook and X/Twitter. Subscribe to his Substack newsletter by visiting “Jose Nino Unfiltered” on Substack.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/bUxI4yV
via IFTTT

Firearm Freedom Act Would Repeal Hughes Amendment Machine Gun Ban

Rep. Jimmy Patronis’s Firearm Freedom Act would repeal the Hughes Amendment, the 1986 provision that blocked newly manufactured machine guns from the transferable civilian market. IMG Jim Grant

A new bill has been introduced by Congressman Jimmy Patronis (R-FL) in the United States House of Representatives that would repeal the Hughes Amendment. The bill, titled the “Firearm Freedom Act of 2026,” would undo the restrictions Congress placed on machine guns in 1986.

In 1986, Congress passed the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA), a measure intended to reform certain aspects of federal gun control laws and protect the rights of law-abiding gun owners. However, during a late-night session, Democrats added the Hughes Amendment. This addition effectively closed the machine gun registry and banned the transfer of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The amendment was passed by a highly contested voice vote, with questions later raised about its procedural legitimacy.

The new legislation seeks to reverse what many view as an unconstitutional stripping of rights from American citizens by once again allowing the legal transfer and ownership of newly manufactured machine guns by civilians.

Proponents argue that fully automatic firearms are protected under the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. However, federal courts have generally been hostile to challenges against regulations on automatic weapons. Judges have often cited the Supreme Court’s reasoning in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), describing machine guns as “dangerous and unusual” weapons not in common use for lawful purposes, thereby justifying the ongoing restrictions.

BREAKING@PatronisFL just introduced the GOA-backed Firearm Freedom Act of 2026, H.R. 9009.

40 years after the Hughes Amendment was signed into law, this is the first bill ever introduced to repeal it and restore the rights the Founders intended Americans to have. pic.twitter.com/5Nzn4fRnQx

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) May 22, 2026

The Heller decision affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess firearms for self-defense, but it also included language noting that certain “longstanding prohibitions” and regulations on “dangerous and unusual weapons” remain permissible.

Lower courts have leaned heavily on this language to uphold the Hughes Amendment’s ban on post-1986 machine guns. As a result, it is widely considered unlikely that the judicial branch will overturn the restriction on its own. This judicial pushback underscores why legislative action may be the most viable path forward. The best, and perhaps the only realistic way to eliminate these decades-old restrictions on machine guns is through a direct change in federal law.

Despite strong support for Second Amendment rights among many conservatives, the bill faces an uphill battle in Congress. While most Republicans publicly champion gun rights, a significant number draw the line at machine guns, viewing them as excessively powerful tools better suited for military use than civilian ownership.

Even if the Firearm Freedom Act manages to pass the House of Representatives, it is likely to encounter stiff opposition in the Senate. There, procedural rules often require a supermajority of 60 votes to overcome a filibuster and advance most legislation, making passage particularly challenging in a divided chamber.

Bills like this usually fail upon their first introduction. The strategic purpose behind reintroducing such measures in successive congressional sessions is to gradually build awareness, secure cosponsors, and cultivate broader political support over time until there are enough votes for successful passage. Whether the Firearm Freedom Act can achieve this momentum over the next few years remains to be seen. The odds are currently stacked against it due to entrenched political divisions, competing legislative priorities, and lingering Democrat concerns about firearm accessibility.

Nevertheless, the introduction of this bill by Rep. Patronis marks a notable development in the ongoing national conversation about gun rights. Backed by groups like Gun Owners of America (GOA), it represents the first comprehensive legislative effort to fully repeal the Hughes Amendment. Supporters see it as a long-overdue correction to what they describe as an infringement on constitutional liberties.

New Legal Strategy Challenges ATF’s Interpretation of the 1986 Hughes Amendment Machine Gun Ban

---

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/gAfQcZS
via IFTTT

New England Firearms Advocacy Conference Brings Gun-Rights Fight to Massachusetts

The New England Firearms Advocacy Conference will bring attorneys, lawmakers, activists, media voices, and Second Amendment groups to Chicopee, Massachusetts, on May 30.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms announced its speakers for the New England Firearms Advocacy Conference. The event is on May 30, and there are seats available.

Where Freedom Was Born and Died

CCRKBA has decided to bring the fight right to the belly of the beast, Massachusetts. The inaugural FAC is being held in Chicopee, Mass. The goal of the conference is to bring New England advocates, activists, legislators, attorneys, and Second Amendment supporters together. This is a first-in-kind event, and the Committee recently announced the full lineup of speakers.

The New England FAC will be held May 30, 2026, at the Castle of Knights, 1599 Memorial Dr., Chicopee, Mass. The event starts at 9 a.m. and runs until 4:30 p.m. Advanced registration is required.

Speakers Announced

A multitude of national and New England figures are scheduled to attend. The conference is being emceed by Charlie Cook from Riding Shotgun With Charlie.

From CCRKBA’s announcement, the scheduled speakers include:

Attorneys Cameron Atkinson, Kevin Wynosky, Jason Guida and Frank Soccoccio, plus attorney and Connecticut lawmaker Doug Dubitsky. Second Amendment Foundation attorney Bill Sack will also appear. Additionally, Massachusetts State Sen. Peter Durrant, Maine Rep. Rachel Henderson, and Massachusetts Rep. Jeff Turco are scheduled. Other speakers will include JR Hoell, Toby Leary, Joe LoPorto, Laura Whitcomb, Greg Wilkes, Dr. Walt Kupson, John Petrolino, Patrick Collins, Jake McGuigan, Michael O’Neil, and Dr. John Lott, founder and CEO at the Crime Prevention Research Center. Cam Edwards and Jared Yanis will be sending video messages.

“We’re excited about the upcoming New England FAC and bringing together some of the best and brightest from the region and country,” said conference chair and CCRKBA Director Holly Sullivan. “We’re hopeful that our conference will energize patriots to continue the fight as well as help educate on the issues, tactics, and challenges we’re dealing with in the Northeast.”

“The great list of speakers we’re having at the New England conference should make for a lively, educational, and meaningful event,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “We’re grateful to have such a robust talent pool of speakers and volunteers participating in this event.”

State and National Groups Will be in Attendance

A number of New England organizations will be participating in the conference:

Connecticut Citizens Defense League, Massachusetts Gun Owners’ Action League, Civil Rights Coalition, Gun Owners of Maine, New Hampshire Firearms Coalition, Rhode Island 2nd Amendment Coalition, and Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs. The Second Amendment Foundation, National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action, and National Shooting Sports Foundation will be represented.

Second Amendment Media Attending

Several prominent Second Amendment media personalities will be coming to cover, participate in, and witness the event. Michael Schwartz from Gun Owners Radio is flying in from California to report on FAC. Cheryl Todd from Gun Freedom Radio is also flying in for the proceedings, from Arizona. Amanda Suffecool, NRA director, and host of Eye on the Target Radio will be driving down from Ohio with co-host, Rob Campbell. And New England’s own Charlie Cook will be there with his stagecoach, reporting for “Armed Lifestyle” and “News2A.”

Generous Benefactors

The conference is made possible by the generous sponsorship from the United States Concealed Carry Association. USSCCA enthusiastically pledged their support early on in the development of this conference.

“The USCCA is proud to support the New England Firearms Advocacy Conference this May,” said USCCA New England District Manager Greg Wilks. “As the birthplace of our nation, New England holds a defining place in the history of American liberty, making it especially significant to see organizations from all six states come together in support of the Second Amendment. We’re honored to stand alongside them to educate, inform, and empower individuals to defend their rights and help shape what comes next.”

A now-sold-out happy hour is being sponsored by Guns and Gadgets. Guns and Gadgets is a premier source of Second Amendment news and commentary. Anyone who’s interested in Second Amendment-related content should tune into Jared Yanis’ channel. Yanis has been a strong and stalwart supporter and friend to CCRKBA and many Second Amendment organizations.

“I’m proud to support the New England Firearms Advocacy Conference because events like this are critical to educating and energizing grassroots Americans who still believe in the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms,” said Yanis. “At a time when anti-Second Amendment activists are working overtime to chip away at our freedoms, it’s more important than ever for gun owners across New England to come together, get informed, build relationships, and stay engaged in the fight to preserve liberty for future generations.

“The CCRKBA has a long history of defending constitutional rights through activism and education, and I’m honored to stand with them in support of this important event.”

What to Expect

“We wanted to create an environment where state and regional organizations could come together and discuss the issues that are unique to their areas,” said Sullivan. “Launching our inaugural regional conference in New England will bring together states with some of the best and worst gun laws to share strategies as well as highlight potential battles that may come to the more liberty-minded states.”

Each of the six New England States will be delivering “State of the State” addresses. There will be presentations on ongoing litigation as well as pending/upcoming legislation. A number of fire-side chats, or panels, will host speakers. Those panelists will talk about national, state, and municipal advocacy and strategies.

“Bringing a conference like this into the middle of the battlefield is common sense,” said Gottlieb. “Massachusetts was at the heart of the American Revolution, and Bay Staters — along with many of the New England states — have to fight for their independence from tyranny yet again. We’re proud to bring this event to the epicenter of an anti-gun haven and hope our programming will inspire and educate this generation of Second Amendment supporters.”

We’ll See You There

There are still some seats available for this event you’re not going to want to miss! To learn more about and sign up for the conference, head over to CCRKBA.org/fac/.

I hope to see you there!

---

About John Petrolino

John Petrolino is a US Merchant Marine Officer, writer, author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on General Gun Safety & Use and NRA certified pistol, rifle, and shotgun instructor living under and working to change New Jersey’s draconian and unconstitutional gun laws. You can find him on the web at www.johnpetrolino.com on twitter at @johnpetrolino, facebook at @thepenpatriot and on instagram @jpetrolinoiii .

---

from https://ift.tt/5pCygaU
via IFTTT