Quote of the Day

The Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department has systematically denied thousands of law-abiding Californians their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home—not through outright refusal, but through a deliberate pattern of unconscionable delay that renders this constitutional right meaningless in practice.

The scope of this constitutional violation is staggering. Between January
2024 and March 2025, Defendants received 3,982 applications for new concealed carry licenses. Of these, they approved exactly two—a mere 0.05% approval rate that cannot be explained by legitimate disqualifying factors alone. This is not bureaucratic inefficiency; it is systematic obstruction of constitutional rights.

The mechanics of this obstruction are equally damning. Defendants force
applicants to wait an average of 281 days—over nine months—just to begin processing their applications, with some waiting as long as 1,030 days (nearly three years). The median delay is 372 days. These delays far exceed California’s own statutory
requirement that licensing authorities provide initial determinations within 90 days, demonstrating Defendants’ flagrant disregard for both state law and constitutional obligations.

The human cost is profound. As of May 2025, approximately 2,768
applications for new licenses remain pending, with interviews scheduled as late as November 2026—more than two years after some applications were first submitted. Numerous applicants simply gave up and withdrew their applications, often after waiting months in Defendants’ deliberately stalled process. These are not abstract statistics; they represent thousands of law-abiding citizens who have been stripped of their constitutional right to self-defense outside their homes.

U.S. Department of Justice
September 30, 2025
United States of America v. Los Angels County Sheriffs Department, and Robert Luna, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Los Angeles County (backup here)

According to numerous sources, and Copilot:

until the LA County concealed carry case, DOJ had never used § 12601 for Second Amendment violations. That makes this lawsuit a historic first—a signal that DOJ now considers systemic denial of gun rights a civil rights issue.

Copilot has this to say about my assertion the infringement will continue until criminal charges are pursued against the perpetrators:

Will Infringements Stop Without Criminal Charges?

Not likely. Civil suits can force policy changes, but they don’t carry the deterrent weight of personal accountability. Officials can stall, delay, or reinterpret rulings without fear of jail time. That’s why your call for criminal enforcement resonates—it’s about consequences, not just corrections.

Copilot offered to draft a model indictment. I accepted the offer:

United States District Court

Criminal Indictment United States of America v. [Defendants]

Count One – Conspiracy Against Rights (18 U.S.C. § 241)

The Grand Jury charges:

1. Beginning on or about January 1, 2022, and continuing through the present, in the County of [X], State of [Y], the defendants [Name 1], [Name 2], and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury, did knowingly and willfully conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, and intimidate citizens in the free exercise and enjoyment of rights secured to them by the Constitution and laws of the United States, namely, the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
2. The object of the conspiracy was to obstruct and delay the issuance of concealed carry permits to qualified applicants, through intentional administrative backlog, arbitrary denials, and the imposition of unlawful requirements not authorized by state law.
3. In furtherance of the conspiracy, the defendants:
   • Directed staff to ignore or delay processing of applications.
   • Required applicants to submit additional documentation not required by law.
   • Denied permits without cause or explanation.
   • Maintained internal communications expressing intent to “slow-walk” approvals to discourage lawful carry.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 241.

Count Two – Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law (18 U.S.C. § 242)

The Grand Jury further charges:

4. On or about [specific date], in the County of [X], State of [Y], defendant [Name] acting under color of law as [Title/Position], did willfully deprive [Victim Name], a citizen of the United States, of rights secured by the Constitution, namely the right to keep and bear arms under the Second Amendment.
5. The deprivation occurred when [Name], acting in his official capacity, denied [Victim] a concealed carry permit despite full legal eligibility, and did so based on personal bias against firearm ownership and in furtherance of the conspiracy described in Count One.

All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 242.

Notice of Special Findings

The Grand Jury finds that the offenses charged:

• Were committed under color of law.
• Involved multiple victims.
• Were part of a pattern or practice of rights violations.

Here is what others are saying:

• DOJ sues LA sheriff’s office in its first-ever gun-rights lawsuit over carry delays
• Justice Department files suit against LA County Sheriff over concealed carry delays | Fox News
• Justice Department sues LA sheriff’s department over gun permit delays
• DOJ sues LA over ‘unreasonable’ gun permit delays
• Justice Department Lawsuit Alleges Los Angeles Sheriff Processes Concealed Carry Licenses Too Slowly
• Feds sue L.A. County sheriff for ‘unreasonable’ delays in issuing concealed gun permits
• Justice Department files lawsuit against Los Angeles County Sheriff in support of gun owners seeking permits – CBS Los Angeles (see the Sheriff’s Department’s response here)

This is a good start. But I won’t be popping the cork on the champagne until the first perp goes to jail with all their appeals exhausted.

Quote of the Day

The US Justice Department’s top civil rights official said the division is considering making gun rights a formal priority, in a significant shift from its traditional focus.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said in an interview with Bloomberg that the department is reviewing whether certain state and local gun control measures infringe on citizens’ rights.“The Second Amendment is one of the constitutional rights we are committed to defending,” Dhillon said. “We’re adding that to our analysis where states are violating constitutional rights.”

She declined to name specific jurisdictions under review but added, “I think it’s all pretty obvious where people’s rights are being violated.”

 Myles Miller
May 9, 2025
Trump’s DOJ Weighs Gun Rights as a Focus for Civil Rights Division

I won’t believe it until I see some politicians being hauled away to prison in orange jumpsuits. We less talk and a lot more action.

NICS needs to be eliminated:

Rand Paul Probes ATF Secret Surveillance Program

Concerned over reports of secret surveillance of American gun owners by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), U.S. Sen. Rand Paul is asking for answers.

On April 10, Sen. Paul, the chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, wrote a letter to ATF Director Daniel Driscoll requesting information on a secretive program that appears to allow the federal government to monitor law-abiding Americans attempting to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

According to Sen. Paul, based on limited public information, the NICS Audit Log Review (Monitoring) system appears to allow ATF agents to request monitoring of a target for time frames ranging from 30 to 180 days after providing identifying information and applicable or potential violations of statute. Upon approval, the ATF would receive an alert(s) from the FBI using the information in its National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

People should go to jail over this. I hope they enjoy their trials.

Quote of the Day

The majority doesn’t seem to know that a flintlock musket would not fire without a flint, meaning that it is an essential part of an arm protected by the Second Amendment.  And speaking of flintlocks, given the majority’s imperative that the more inferior the arm, the better, modern repeating arms that fire smokeless cartridges aren’t protected because single-shot flintlock firearms are available.  But Heller explicitly rejected that argument.

While claiming that a magazine that holds over ten rounds is not an arm, the majority asserts that a magazine that holds ten or less is an arm because it “is necessary to the ordinary operation” of the firearm “as intended.”  Ordinary operation as intended by whom?  This made up distinction could be used to justify a ban on magazines that hold more than two rounds, as that would still allow the semiautomatic function.

Stephen Halbrook
April 3, 2025
Second Amendment Roundup: 9th Circuit Upholds California Magazine Ban (Again)

It is not that the 9^th Circuit Court “doesn’t seem to know.” They know what they are doing. They are just playing stupid.

They have delayed the correct ruling on the question of whether 10+ round magazines are protected arms since 2017. I will not be surprised if it they manage to delay it for a full decade. They should be prosecuted for this.

Quote of the Day

Turning lawfare on its creators is not about revenge. It will serve as a deterrent to prevent future abuse and will restore public confidence that justice is even-handed. Individuals who have carried out lawfare have not only destroyed faith in our legal system but also may have violated the law. A federal statute, 18 U.S.C. 241, prohibits conspiring to “injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate” a person exercising constitutional rights or privileges. Clearly President Donald J. Trump had constitutional rights and privileges to run for office and govern, not to be imprisoned for contrived crimes, and not to be deprived of property based on abuse of federal and state justice systems. According to the Biden administration’s own theory, preventing a candidate from running and assuming office also deprives supporters of their rights to vote.

Victoria Toensing and John Yoo
January 27, 2025
Prosecute The Architects Of Trump Lawfare

Via email from Defens, who also said:

If the Trump administration could potentially use this, perhaps the time is actually ripe to go after folks like Ferguson, Pritsker, and other 2A infringing politicians?

It certainly seems to me they could prosecute a lot of politicians. Whether they will or not is another question. I would like to see it. And, as always, I hope they enjoy their trials.

Quote of the Day

While details are unknown, one thing is certain. Whatever the motivation of the shooter(s), he/they had accomplices who will go unpunished: the State of New York and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

Following Bruen, New York threw a tantrum by trying to destroy the right to carry through banning carry almost everywhere relevant, even for those with a CCW permit. One of the categories of places banned is any business that serves alcohol, even if you are not drinking.

Judge Suddaby enjoined New York’s law, rightly noting that there was no historical tradition to support such a restriction. At most, history supports restricting those who are actually intoxicated, not those who are sober. But the Second Circuit reversed, citing a few outlier 19th century local ordinances that applied at only a few places (not everywhere that served alcohol).

So any New Yorkers with a CCW permit could not legally carry at the nightclub that was the site of this mass shooting tonight.

“Sensitive places” laws disarm good people and are a big help to the deranged criminals and mass murderers looking for a soft target.

New York and the Second Circuit’s hatred of the Second Amendment will have a growing bodycount. The Supreme Court needs to end its cowardice and more aggressively intervene to smack down errant circuit courts.

Kostas Moros @MorosKostas
Posted on X, January 1, 2025

This was in response to the mass shooting at the Amazura Night Club in Jamaica, Queens.

There are numerous politicians in need prosecution.

Quote of the Day

The prohibited person’s access to the firearm was obtained as a result of an unlawful entry, provided that the unauthorized access or theft of the firearm is reported to a local law enforcement agency in the jurisdiction in which the unauthorized access or theft occurred within five days of the time the victim of the unlawful entry knew or reasonably should have known that the firearm had been taken.

HOUSE BILL 1152
State of Washington 69th Legislature, 2025 Regular Session
January 2, 2025

See also: Gun owners could be charged with felonies if firearm gets stolen under new proposed bill.

These criminals* are trying to remove the above “does not apply if” clause from the safe storage law. The safe storage law is already bad enough and probably going to be struck down as being unconstitutional. But now, if a prohibited person unlawfully enters your home or vehicle, steals your firearm(s), then you become a criminal. You have committed a misdemeanor as soon as the criminal gains access. If they use them in a felon crime, you can also be changed with a felony.

If you have the firearm(s) “properly” stored in your vehicle then that does not apply. But “properly stored” means:

(a) A person shall not store or leave a pistol in any vehicle unless (i) the pistol is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(b) A person shall not store or leave a rifle or shotgun in any vehicle unless (i) the rifle or shotgun is stored unloaded in a container that is opaque, locked, hard-sided or soft-sided, and affixed within the vehicle, (ii) the container is concealed from view from outside the vehicle, and (iii) the vehicle is locked.

(c) A rifle or shotgun stored in a soft-sided container in a vehicle in accordance with this subsection must also have a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm installed on the rifle or shotgun while the firearm is stored in a soft-sided container.

(d) For the purpose of this subsection, a hard-sided container excludes a glove compartment or center console but includes a console vault or other container specifically designed to securely store firearms.

So, they want to make is so you must have handgun and long gun cases affixed in your vehicles. Otherwise, you could not stop to pick up some ammo as you left town on a hunting trip. And unless you carry your competition gun into the store to grab a case of water on your way to a match you risk becoming a criminal.

They have zero concern for this blatant violation of the Second Amendment. We need some prosecutions to raise awareness and respect.

I look forward to their trials.

* Representatives Doglio, Walen, Ryu, Ramel, Farivar, Berry, Leavitt, Alvarado, Mena, Duerr, Reed, Parshley, Fitzgibbon, Callan, Macri, Cortes, Obras, Gregerson, Simmons, Peterson, Rule, Street, Goodman, Wylie, Pollet, Nance, Berg, Davis, Ormsby, Lekanoff, Fosse, Salahuddin, Hill, and Tharinge.