Quote of the Day
It’s hard not to smile or even giggle a little bit when you see how badly President Donald Trump is scaring the country’s paid anti-gun community, especially when you combine the President’s efforts with those of the United States Supreme Court.
No one is feeling this pro-gun heat more than the youngsters working at the Trace, the propaganda arm of former New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg’s gun control empire, who want the public to believe it’s an actual newsroom comprised of actual journalists—a fiction they’ll go to great lengths to maintain.
The Trace kids are extremely busy trying to stop this Second Amendment tidal wave that’s washing across the entire country. They realize that they’re losing, so they’re rabidly coming up with new ideas to counter our coming freedom—and some of their ideas are absolutely crazy.
Two Tracers just released this tome: “New Jersey Just Lost Its Assault Weapons Ban. Here’s Why That Matters for the Rest of the Country.”
The story’s last line is bedeviling. It’s not a quote or taken from any report. It’s completely attributable to the story’s two anti-gun authors:
“If the Supreme Court strikes down assault weapons bans nationwide next year, states could try other strategies, including putting semiautomatic rifles behind a permitting process,” they actually wrote.
Can you actually imagine that?
The highest court in the country says you can legally possess ARs in every state and U.S. Territory, but then some blue state suddenly requires you to obtain a state permit—regardless of the Supreme Court decision?
Do they think that might actually work?
It’s a Second Amendment right, right?
It would be like requiring state permits before allowing someone to read a book or scour the internet, which are rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.
The Trace is redefining desperation.
I’m picturing five-gallon pails of Zoloft, Prozac and Xanax scattered throughout their newsroom, each with a “help yourself” label.
Lee Williams
July 24, 2026
‘And Do You Have a Permit for your AR, Sir?’
To be fair, yes, I do believe there will be states who try to use a permitting process for firearms. Some states are and have been for many years, requiring permits to purchase handguns and many require permits to purchase any firearm. Some examples which already have permit requirements for AR-15s: Minnesota, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and D.C. (yes, I know, not a state).
Although it is far from a sure thing it could be that SCOTUS will address the permitting issue in the “assault weapon” ban cases next year, they might. However, I suspect it will be 2028 before we get rid of the permit to purchase requirements.
” Some examples which already have permit requirements for AR-15s: Minnesota”
Minnesota does not require a permit to “possess” an AR-15.
There is a permit to purchase restriction for “assault weapons/Handguns”. That permit is free, done at your local sheriff & good for 1 year. It’s basically just doing the NICS check early.
A permit to carry qualifies as a permit to purchase. Permit to Carry takes a class with “practical shooting demonstration” (without defining the requirements of that). and costs up to $100(fee set by the local sheriff). Good for 5 years. My sheriff charges $10 for Military Veteran PTC renewals.
Colorado? Or is that enjoined at the moment . .
though I think Colorado’s permit to purchase was in response to local sheriffs refusing to enforce the magazine ban.
Oregon has a permit to purchase waiting in the wings, but it may not survive. Ballot Measures
114 was gun grabber’s wet dream implementing a may issue permit with vague and expensive training requirements and the usual magazine ban, and semi-auto restrictions. So far it’s held up by injunction but the may issue bit makes it a good candidate for a SCOTUS bench slap.
I was about to mention Oregon’s Mz.114.
Not only are the training requirements vague and expensive, it must be provided by law enforcement (prior to Mz.114, it could be provided by an NRA-certified instructor, but the measure eliminated anything from the NRA). However, the law doesn’t explain what the requirements are or provide funding for any law enforcement agency/department in the state to develop the curriculum or provide the training.
Police budgets are strapped as it is, so who’s going to spare whatever it takes to develop the curriculum or assign officers to train future applicants*? Or is it expected that the departments will be able to charge whatever they want for the training, to recoup the costs?
Nobody knows. That’s one part of the basis for the lawsuit — but only one part.
———
* – Emphasis on “future applicants”; Mz.114 says you must complete the training before applying for a permit-to-purchase.
That was the sort of training law that got slapped down in… RI, I think?… years ago. Mandated training, then only offered it occasionally (once annually?) with a class size of 30, effectively-invitation-only. Ruled way to over-restrictive.
I recall it as being Rhode Island as well. It might have been Rhode Island that had a shooting test. You had to use the state supplied gun. It was a revolver with a bent barrel.
Kinda like some of the Jim-Crow-era literacy tests for voting — that were all trick questions that could be marked wrong no matter how the person answered?
Probably no opportunity to appeal or re-test, either, right?
Indeed. But it’s not just the training requirement. The whole permit-to-purchase scheme is “may-issue,” which has also been slapped down; they can apply “may-issue” for carry permits (more correctly, it hasn’t properly and directly been challenged, AFAIK), but ownership in your home is a Constitutional right that they cannot deny “just because.”
Also, if it goes into effect, you’ll have to pass a background check when you apply for the permit-to-purchase (and probably before that, too, when you sign up or show up for the training), and you still have to submit to a background check when you purchase your firearm, permit in hand.
And did I mention, Oregon State Police charge for the “service” of running the background check, which they would get to collect two or three times for every firearm actually sold? (State law requires checks to go through OSP, not the FBI or NICS. Really, it’s just the OSP Background Check Unit calling NICS on the dealer’s behalf and charging a fee. That’s not part of Mz.114; it’s been that way for decades. But Mz.114 DOES increase the fee, from $10 to $27, IIRC.)
There is no down side for State legislatures ignoring the supreme Court.
How many armored divisions does the Supreme Court command?