— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) June 25, 2026
I like the Firearms Policy Coalition. They get things done in the courts and they are extremely entertaining.
For a more scholarly take see:
And for the DOJ take on the case:
In Wolford v. Lopez today, SCOTUS rejected HI’s “spirit of aloha” “vampire” property-based efforts to “hobble” 2A rights, which under Bruen allow law-abiding citizens the lawful use of their firearms. @CivilRights says “mahalo” to SCOTUS! This @TheJusticeDept fights for you! pic.twitter.com/1FePvVMYK4
Tick tock! On July 1, CA plans to impose an unconstitutional “Glock Ban.”
Today, I notified @CAGovernor & @AGRobBonta to drop the unconstitutional restrictions on law-abiding citizens’ rights to purchase legal firearms before the ban goes into effect, or we will sue. Stay tuned!
…
This letter is to inform you that as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, I have authorized the filing of a complaint in federal district court against the State. The complaint will allege that the Glock Ban and the Handgun Roster statute violate the State’s citizens’ Second amendment rights by making it a crime to acquire constitutionally protected arms from firearms dealers, and that state law enforcement agencies’ implementation of the prohibition and threat of criminal enforcement constitute a pattern or practice of law enforcement misconduct. The United States is authorized to bring such an action by 34 U.S.C. § 12601.
We have a U.S. Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division filing, and threatening to file more, lawsuits against anti-gun politicians. It feels like I am in an alternate timeline.
I can’t even imagine what it must feel like to be on the receiving end of these lawsuits and threats of more lawsuits. Perhaps their political party cousins who were in the KKK can relate. All the nasty stuff they did in the first two thirds of the 20th century went sour on them. Their laws were overturned and some of them even went to prison for stuff which yielded the semi-public praise a couple of decades earlier.
This 20-minute video tells us 80% of murders committed with a gun arise from fights or arguments that escalated. The common explanation of some sort of rational cost benefit decision such as shooting someone for revenge or in a robbery or rape. Most shooting occur in short burst of emotion.
As I have said before a good problem statement is a necessity (see also here). The above information allows us to come up with alternate solutions. The one most surprising was that cleaning up empty lots by trimming the grass, removing needles, and broken glass resulted in a drop in “gun violence” by nearly 30%. No increased policing, not getting people out of poverty, just a small change in their physical environment.
The reason this works is that it increases the number of the people outdoors and interacting with each other. This increases the likelihood of someone intervening during an escalation. Similarly better street lighting also reduces interpersonal violence.
Bruen pushed states away from discretionary permit systems, but it also triggered a wave of new sensitive-place restrictions, revised training requirements, and fresh litigation. States such as New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California rewrote laws after the ruling, and those revisions kept the public carry fight alive in legislatures and courts.
At the same time, the spread of permitless carry changed the map. States, including Texas, Florida, and others, have moved toward allowing lawful adults to carry without obtaining a permit, though permits often still exist for reciprocity or background screening. That creates a strange policy mismatch: a resident may carry at home without a permit but still needs paperwork to travel armed elsewhere.
Congressional politics amplify the issue every time party control feels competitive. Republicans treat reciprocity as a visible pro-gun promise, while Democrats usually frame it as an override of state safety laws. Because neither side sees much room for compromise, the proposal functions as both a serious policy idea and a potent campaign signal.
The firearms community feels these changes directly. Court victories encouraged expectations of broader carry rights, but expanding rights also raised harder questions about training, liability, and public acceptance.
We have officially entered the spaghetti phase of gun control. This is when those in favor of reducing or eliminating Americans’ gun rights introduce all manner of legislative schemes to restrict law-abiding citizens from purchasing, selling, making, and probably soon inheriting firearms, in the hope that something sticks to the wall.
Sometimes it’s a specific firearm, like the AR-15 rifle or a GLOCK pistol. Other efforts target broader categories of firearms such as all semi-automatic firearms.
Thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States and major legal opinions such asHeller and Bruen, gun control efforts have been hitting a brick wall.
But alas, that hasn’t stopped state legislatures and candidates for public office from making up, well, effluvia. It’s as if they have a team sitting around just dreaming stuff up, which they clearly do.
The same political party did the same type of thing with all the Jim Crow laws, too. No sooner than one law would get struck down they would think of other laws to keep those “uppity black skinned people” under control.
And, of course, nearly all the original gun control laws in this country were originally intended to prevent blacks from being able to defend themselves from the KKK. The political party which likes to think of themselves as progressives is actually very regressive with things like gun control and socialism being the most obvious examples.
Socialism kills, fast or slow. But on the way there, it makes people into dumb animals posturing and killing for no good reason.
The enemy is collectivism. The enemy is welfare. The enemy is turning humans into dependent zoo animals.
None of which will be solved by doing the same, but harder, and with different colors of skin as the all precious must be coddled.
All it will do is destroy the little that is still functioning. And make it harder to come back.
I beg you with tears in my eyes to believe civilization is worth saving. It is socialism that must be torn down. Please start working towards civilization.
As I read it, the main point of her post is that there is a bunch of crap going on all over the world and that includes the U.S.A. A lot of people, of most any political persuasion, try to distill the problem down to skin color. That isn’t the real problem. To use an example of hers:
It’s not the skin color, you see. If it were Abigail Spanberger would be a firebrand for freedom and Clarence Thomas would be communist. Or if you prefer, replace those with Bernie Sanders and Thomas Sowell. The parallel stands. And it remains crazy.
I’ve said this before, judge people as individuals, not as a group. If you judge people as an immutable group you, in some sense of the word, are a collectivist. This will not yield optimal results. You will lose the ideas and influence of people like Colion Noir, Clarence Thomas, Walter Williams, and Thomas Sowell.
Embrace the ideas and accept the contributions of the people that make meaningful advances in our fight against socialism in all its forms.
I’m a member of the NRA Board and the chair of NRA’s Finance Committee.
I see that you are supporting SAF and FPC in their litigation efforts.
NRA has made great strides in righting the ship over the last year. I did an interview at the NRA convention talking about the changes we’ve made:
I hope that in addition to the support you’re rendering to SAF and FPC, you’ll consider supporting NRA CRDF or NRA-ILA as well.
I watched the video. He enumerates a lot of the changes made and changes yet to be made. He emphatically asserts the NRA is back as the 800-pound gorilla as we knew them decades ago.
I have not verified everything said in the interview. However, it was very encouraging about the future of the NRA and its current ability to be an effective and efficient fighter for our right to keep and bear arms. Please watch it for yourself and make your own decisions.
It is so nice to be on the attack after decades of being strictly on the defensive.
And notice that one of those is the U.S. DOJ fighting on our side. 30 years ago, we were fighting the DOJ and losing.
We are not winning all the battles, but we are doing well with the really important battles that SCOTUS accepts.
Please consider donating to your favorite 2nd Amendment organization to add resources to our troops fighting this war. I, with matching donations from my employer, donate thousands each year to SAF and FPC.
The Democrat governor of Colorado signed into law one of the most restrictive gun bans ever adopted in the United States. The law bans the manufacturing and selling of semiautomatic firearms. This is on top of the liberal state’s existing ban on high-capacity magazines. That’s just crazy.
…
So, to all gun manufacturers in Colorado, my question to you is simple. Do you want to move back to America?
To all gun manufacturers in Colorado, my question for you is simple: do you want to move back to America? pic.twitter.com/JTiQdbmCGJ
— Governor Greg Gianforte (@GovGianforte) April 23, 2025
Good question. It is not just the gun industries either. Look at the “wealth taxes” and “millionaire taxes” and high regulations being implemented in the Democrat socialist run states. Business and people are leaving because the further you can distance yourself from such toxins the better your life, community, and future.
Is Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger (D) a mole for the National Rifle Association (NRA)? After the recent scandal involving the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), some may wonder given a curious turn of events in Virginia. Gun sales have surged after Spanberger and the Democrats passed sweeping gun bans. Spanberger also issued a public statement that could help tank the legislation in court — resulting in the striking down of the law (or parts of the law) after spurring record gun sales.
After July 1st, it will be a misdemeanor to buy, sell, transfer, or make an “assault firearm.”
With a July 1 deadline looming, background checks and sales are surging in Virginia. Stores are reporting that they cannot keep weapons on the shelves as Virginians flood stores to beat the deadline.
State Sen. Saddam Salim, D-Dunn Loring, a Spanberger ally who introduced the bill, further fueled the panic by declaring that the legislation will “gradually” take these guns because these firearms “do not belong on our streets.”
Don’t every let anyone get away with telling you that no one wants to take your guns.
Also, I have to wonder… It was a long time ago, but my impression is that Obama and Hillary Clinton both were bigger sales boosters than Heston.
Still, even if it is an exaggeration, the point is valid, anti-gun politicians are a huge boost to gun sales and hence a boost to political organization and pro-gun organization memberships and financials. And what I don’t think the politicians realize is that the more extreme the gun laws the easier target they are. It creates low hanging fruit to create precedents which can be leveraged to eliminate a wider range of gun restrictions.
They create the conditions for their own downfall and the policies they advocate.
DAY 9 of National Gun Violence Awareness Month. And today I want to talk to every person who has ever told a woman she does not need a gun.
It is a Friday night in December. Waco, Texas. You are alone. The neighborhood is quiet. And then your back door explodes.
Not a knock. A KICK. Two men. Masks. Already inside before your brain finishes processing what just happened.
December 12, 2025. Speight Avenue. We do not know her name — she did not ask for coverage. What we know comes from the police report and the emergency room records. Because that last part matters.
She fired approximately eleven rounds. The two men fled.
Twenty minutes later, a 32-year-old named Antonio Chavez was dropped off at Baylor Scott and White with a bullet in his forearm. He was already on the books for two violations of a protective order and continuous violence against family. The system had already met Antonio Chavez. The system had already given someone a piece of paper to keep him away. He violated it twice. Then he put on a mask and kicked in a woman’s back door.
His bond was set at $276,000. The woman was never charged. Because Texas law is perfectly clear about what you are allowed to do when two masked men kick in your door.
She had a gun. She is alive. Full stop.
Now the numbers. Because this is still a science classroom.
Women are seven to eleven times more likely to use a gun for self-defense than to be murdered. Not safer with a gun — DRAMATICALLY safer. The University of Chicago — not exactly a right-wing institution — calculated that more relaxed carry laws between 1977 and 1992 would have prevented 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, and 60,000 aggravated assaults every single year. John Lott found that when concealed carry laws were adopted, rape rates fell measurably, county by county, because predators respond to the possibility of an armed victim the same way every living thing responds to mortal risk — they avoid it.
The Supreme Court already told you in DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989) and Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005) that the government has no legal obligation to protect you. The protective order Chavez violated twice was a piece of paper. The court issued it. The system recorded his violations. And on a cold December Friday in Waco, the piece of paper was nowhere in that room when the door came in.
The gun was.
The gun control crowd says they want women to be safe. Then they spend June trying to disarm the tool that makes women seven to eleven times more likely to survive an attack. Those two positions cannot coexist in good faith.
She did not ask to be a symbol. She just wanted her door to stay closed. When it did not, she handled it.
But what do I know — I am only a combat medic, a science teacher, and the father of daughters who will know how to handle it too.
…
Two protective orders. The paper did not stop him. What did? Tell me.
While a piece of paper will not someone from kicking in your door and doing violent things to you, it is not entirely useless. I would be willing to make a sizable bet that when the police and prosecutor were evaluating the situation for people to put in jail a piece of paper rapidly moved the woman to the, “You did good, but you might want to get some training so you can get better hits next time” category.'” The gun moved her to the “alive but seriously shaken” category when she was hovering over the “hospital or morgue” categories.
Do not ever forget that women safety numbers do not matter to the “gun violence prevention” advocates. Even worse is that they will use the shooting of Chavez in their statistics of “gun violence” which needs to be prevented. In their bookkeeping Chavez is the victim.
For those who doubt this notice that they never mention violence crime rates. They only talk about “gun deaths”, “gun crimes”, and sometimes “gun injuries.” There is a reason for this. They have to be deceptive in order to make the narrative work. Deception is part of the culture. Their culture cannot survive without it. Do not let yourself be fooled. Do not be a part of it. And remember Just One Question.
At one point I thought being on the left was a mental problem. The empirical evidence is so overwhelming. It never worked anywhere, and they refused to accept it.
Therefore, I thought it was a mental problem. I mean some kind of block that doesn’t even let them see the numbers.
They are enemies of numbers. They hate numbers. I don’t know if lefties hate water or number more. I mean I don’t know if they hate bathing more than numbers.
But what I discovered is that being on the left is a disease of the soul. The left is built on envy, hatred, resentment, unequal treatment before the law. They are very violent, and since they have no way or arguments to answer, they go for physical violence.
Lefties always, let’s say resort to physical violence and all kinds of violent manifestations because they are unable to refute the arguments.
Javier Milei March 23, 2026
Via:
Javier Milei: “I thought being on the left was a mental problem. The empirical evidence is so overwhelming that it never worked anywhere, and they refused to accept it.”
“But what I discovered is that being on the left is a disease of the soul. The left is built on envy,… pic.twitter.com/vIK63LlT1f
With this sort of thinking getting more traction we may be able to snatch victory from what just a few years ago looked like certain defeat. But the violence component almost for certain will increase and I don’t know if that will be successfully countered.
I was just looking back at some things and noticed these comments regarding the California law restricting people to purchasing no more than one gun a month. A three-judge panel ruled 3-0 that it violated the Second Amendment. The consensus among my commentors was that an En Banc panel would find a way to declare the law did not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms:
Shawn on said:
Goes En Banc. Gun control upheld. Just like all the times before.
Richard on said:
Shawn has history on his side. At any rate, who the heck buys more than one gun a month. The recently awake?
The Ninth Circuit does have some pro-Constitution judges on it. I don’t know how this case, Nguyen v. Bonta, managed the moonshot — getting a full panel of them — but I expect California will appeal and the en banc court will reverse the panel and uphold the law.
They’ve upheld full carry bans. They’ve upheld onerously-restrictive permitting schemes. They’ve upheld AWB laws. The “one gun a month” law is only mildly unconstitutional compared to those; it’s an easy win for the State. (As Richard implies, very few people buy more than one gun a month. A little patience and planning will get most people all the guns they need in less than a year, so the Constitutional infringement is very slight. That will be the court’s opinion.)
I’m not discounting the level of “winning” at play here, getting this decision out of the Nutty Ninth Circuit. Major Kudos are absolutely in order to the SAF and FPC. Fantastic job!
But it’s too early to celebrate. History says it’ll be reversed in a week, a month tops.
Rolf on said:
Generally agree. It will likely get “randomly” sent to a full panel of anti-gun judges and overturned. On the bright side, it’s then possible to appeal to SCOTUS and get it overturned and set aright on a national basis. At the current rate, the American Empire will have long fallen by then, but it will be a great vindication.
A Virginia judge reaffirmed an injunction blocking the state’s “universal background check” law Wednesday, days after pro-Second Amendment groups sought to hold state officials in contempt when they started enforcing the measure.
Democratic Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger signed HB 1525 into law on April 22 after the General Assembly concurred with her amendments that added an emergency provision directing the Virginia State Police to enforce the law blocked by a permanent injunction issued in October 2025.
The legislature and the governor claim their newly passed law, essentially the same as the previous law, supersedes the court ruling. Does that mean the slaveowner of the 1860s could have gotten their “property” back by repeatedly passing a law that said the 13th Amendment was null and void?
Or how about repeatedly passing a law that said women were not allowed to vote after courts said the 19th amendment prohibited such a law?
These people are not rational. They are like someone who, after I asked, “How do you determine truth from falsity, they responded in complete seriousness with, “It depends on how I feel.”
Twenty percent of likely voters hold a concealed handgun permit (20.2%), over double the rate for adults overall (8%). Constitutional Carry states have only a slightly higher permit rate than pure Right-to-Carry states (21.38% versus 19.81%). However, our research suggests this gap will narrow over time because the share of adults with permits is declining in Constitutional Carry states while rising in pure Right-to-Carry states.
Interestingly, people in Constitutional Carry states carry handguns at much higher rates than those in pure Right-to-Carry states (34.19% versus 25.98%). In Constitutional Carry states, the share of likely voters who carry exceeds the share with permits by about 13 percentage points. In the other pure Right-to-Carry states, the share who carry exceeds the share with permits by about six percentage points. So Constitutional Carry laws result in about seven percentage points more people carrying than have a permit.
There is lots of other interesting information in this post. For example, did you know that:
Very liberal and very conservative likely voters carry frequently at disproportionately high rates relative to their shares of the population. Very liberal voters account for 24.6% of frequent carriers even though they make up only 12.9% of likely voters. Similarly, very conservative voters account for 23.0% of frequent carriers while making up 18.0% of likely voters.
That high a carry rate among voters has to be making a difference in the future of gun ower rights.
