According to a Gallup poll taken the year after NCCH’s founding (1975), when asked “Do you think there should or should not be a law that would ban the possession of handguns, except by the police and other authorized persons?,” 41 percent of Americans stated that there should be. Asking the same question in 2018, only 28 percent of those polled supported such a measure.
After 45 years of failure to achieve their goal, a more introspective group might consider that there may be a defect in their ideas rather than their marketing. However, history suggests that it is only a matter of time before “Brady” undergoes yet another name change. They should spare themselves the consulting fees. Continuing the trend of creating ever more concise names, the group should further truncate “Brady” to just “Y.” As in: Why does this decrepit handgun prohibition organization still exist?
Y indeed? That was in 2019. It has now been over 50 years of mostly failure, lies, and more lies.
Their founding goal was to ban all handgun possession except for a few exceptions. They have failed after trying for over fifty years. And they have even lost ground with public carry now being (mostly) acknowledged as a constitutionally protected right in all 50 states.
The ban on commercial pistol sales to 18-to-20-year-olds will likely go unenforced in parts of the country following a Trump Administration decision not to further pursue one case against it.
On Friday, the Department of Justice (DOJ) quietly allowed a deadline to file an appeal with the Supreme Court in the case Reese v. ATF to pass. As a result, a unanimous January decision from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals–which covers Texas, Mississippi, and Louisiana–will stand. The panel held that a combination of federal statutes banning licensed firearm dealers from selling pistols to young adults violates the Second Amendment.
I suspect progun groups will appeal the Fourth Circuit decision and SCOTUS will probably accept the request for cert. This will probably result in a resolution by June of 2026.
What I want to know is how will the 4473’s be handled until SCOTUS resolves the issue? Will there be a special “Fifth Circuit” 4473? Will the DOJ announce they will decline to prosecute until the circuit split is resolved?
Our latest legal briefs again argued that because AB 2571 implicates core First Amendment rights, any restrictions must survive strict scrutiny and be narrowly tailored—something the court appeared to accept. There were some powerful moments at the argument, especially when the state’s attorney argued trying to defend Assembly Bill 2571, a law that bans advertising firearms to youth shooters. The Ninth Circuit panel was notably and vocally skeptical of the state’s lawyer’s arguments, pressing hard on the state’s efforts to carve out exceptions to the current injunction that blocks the law from taking effect so that most advertisements could still be banned. The state’s efforts seem to have failed, but we won’t know for sure until the Ninth Circuit issues its ruling.
Let me rephrase this. Supposed I handed you $1 Million dollars in cash to hold and keep safe for me every Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. And the place where you work and keep this treasure safe is public property — or at least open to the public. The building is not built like a bank or courthouse. It has no armed guards at all doors or other elevated security — other than a sign warning people about bringing weapons on to the property. Bad people know these facts.
Now let me add that 20 to 25 other people also hand you $1 Million dollars in cash as well, under the same conditions. Which means every Monday through Friday, from 8 to 3, you are holding and taking care of $25 Million. This is your job, you have promised to return the money, safely, to all the people every day at 3 p.m.
The brainwashed teacher’s sign is additional essential context:
🙄 Let me rephrase this. Supposed I handed you $1 Million dollars in cash to hold and keep safe for me every Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 3 p.m. And the place where you work and keep this treasure safe is public property — or at least open to the public. The building is… pic.twitter.com/1zKCDANalH
In the National Instant background Check System (NICS) data, it appears most of the denials are false positives. Hard data on the errors found in the NICS system are not available. John has pointed out there are very few prosecutions of people who have been denied by the NICS system compared to the number of those denied. John stated NICS denials are often based on the phonetic spelling of the last name. The denials are not done with high levels of certainty. Because many people in the same ethnic group have similar sounding names, and because Blacks and Hispanics have much higher rates of felony convictions than Whites or Asians, it is likely Black and Hispanic people are denied from purchasing firearms in the NICS system at a much higher rates than people who are not Black or Hispanic.
In October of 2020, John Lott was appointed as a senior adviser for research and statistics at the Office of Justice Programs. This was the second time he had worked for the government in D.C. When John got to DC, John went to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) and proposed a study of the NICS denials including data on race and sex. The BJS thought it was a great idea.
The the BJS sent the request for data to the FBI. went through the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The BJS thought the idea of analyzing the NICS data was very good. When the Bureau of Justice Statistics contacted the FBI, The FBI responded, claiming there was no way we can get this done before January 20th. In any case, we are sure the Biden Administration will not be interested. After more emails and calls, the FBI response was: we just can’t think of any reason why anyone would want to break down this data by race and sex.
John responded: You guys break down everything by race and sex. What’s the big deal with this?
The BJS tells the FBI, it is not your decision to make. We decide what to look at and study. Your job is to collect and give us the data. The FBI refuses and the BJS persists. Finally, the FBI says the BJS will have to submit a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request.
…
The AG, Bill Barr, orders the FBI to stop mucking around and send the data to the BJS.
…
The FBI dithers and delays. After a couple of weeks, the BJS receives the data, but something is wrong with it. It does not make any sense. The BJS complains, and the FBI apologizes, says they do not understand what went wrong. There are more delays, then the FBI sends another batch of data, which still doesn’t make an sense. This sequence happens a couple more times. The last time the FBI sends data which does not make sense is on January 19, 2021. Then the Biden administration takes power.
In a sharp and unanimous 3-0 decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down California’s controversial “one-gun-a-month” law. This law, which limited law-abiding residents to purchasing just one firearm every 30 days, was found to violate the Second Amendment. The case, Nguyen v. Bonta, has now set a powerful precedent in favor of gun rights and against what the court called “meaningful constraints” on constitutionally protected conduct.
MTHead frequently asserts communism and/or socialism and/or gun control are crimes against humanity. He is not wrong. But the cancer metaphor resonates more with me. Collectivism, in all its forms, starts out small but grows and metastasizes. It is more than just its nature. It creates societal problems, and it always demands more control to fix the problems it directly or indirectly created.
Almost as a side note… I asked Copilot to explain the difference between an analogy and a metaphor to make sure I was using the correct word here. That resulting in a short chat and Copilot offered to contribute to this blog post. Here is its suggestion:
Quote of the Day – Saturday
> “Collectivism is cancer.” > —Firearms Policy Coalition via X
This is not an analogy. It’s a metaphor—brutal, condensed, and surgical. Cancer isn’t merely unpleasant; it hijacks the healthy systems of the body and redirects them toward uncontrolled destruction. That’s precisely the charge being leveled here: that collectivism corrodes the moral immune system of individual rights.
Ayn Rand’s words, featured in the image, drive the point deeper: “The smallest minority on earth is the individual.” The meme unpacks the metaphor into a worldview—one where individual autonomy is not just precious, but sacred, and any system that subsumes it becomes existentially malignant.
Whether you find that view compelling or inflammatory, it’s a vivid reminder: how we frame ideas matters. A well-placed metaphor can do more in five words than a dissertation in fifty pages.
“We are entering moments that we have never experienced before,” Rep. Summer Lee, D-Pa., told constituents at a town hall in Pittsburgh last week. “The country as we know it may never exist the way that it had. And the reality is that the way that the country had existed was never its best form anyway.”
“The moment is here to build what comes next. My argument is that we should be fighting harder than they are to be the author of what is next,” she said of progressives. “Because if we are not the ones who build it, then they are building it, but it’s getting built one way or another.”
Emilia Rowland, a progressive strategist, said Democrats need to better deal with the consequences of rapid tech advancement that is continuing to reshape society and further concentrate power as the government and other institutions struggle to keep up.
I read the entire article twice, just to make sure. There is not even a glimmer of liberty in their thoughts. It is all about what government programs and institutions they can “be author of.” It is about the ways and means for them to ascend to power. They never consider a free market or a free mind.
And, of course, it included “combating gun violence.”
I view their activities being analogous to the Trump administration is attempting to extinguish a forest fire. The progressives are brainstorming about what to replace the forest fire with.
President Donald J. Trump has instructed his Administration to “protect the Second Amendment rights of all Americans.” Executive Order No. 14,206, Protecting Second Amendment Rights, 90 Fed. Reg. 9503 (Feb. 7, 2025). Attorney General Pamela Bondi has likewise instructed the Department of Justice “to use its full might to protect the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.” Memo. from the U.S. Att’y Gen., Second Amendment Enforcement Task Force (Apr. 8, 2025).
This case poses important questions about the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections. The United States has strong interests in ensuring that these important questions are correctly resolved; that the Second Amendment is not treated as a second-class right; and that law-abiding Americans in this Circuit are not deprived of the full opportunity to enjoy the exercise of their Second Amendment rights.
Pam Bondi doubters of her support of the 2nd Amendment should consider reevaluating their opinions.
Via:
SCORE! USA! USA! USA! Today the federal government submitted an amicus brief on behalf of the United States of America supporting the plaintiffs in the Illinois cases challenging the Illinois semi auto and magazine ban, now on appeal in the 7th Circuit. Its not public till…
Considering the current political climate and how vigorously the Trump administration has championed the right to keep and bear arms, the Second Amendment community has reason to be optimistic we will ultimately prevail on the AR-15 issue before the end of President Donald Trump’s second term.
I think the Supreme Court will ultimately rule that “semi-automatic rifles,” including the AR-15, are protected under the Second Amendment—and it wouldn’t surprise me if Kavanaugh authors that opinion.
The Dallas Township Police Department is aware of recent public statements made by former Dallas High School student Calvin Polachek during a February 2025, rally in Frankfort, Kentucky. The event, organized by the Kentucky chapters of Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, supported the introduction of Kentucky House Bill 214 by (Kentucky) State Representative Adam Moore, which promotes gun safety education.
At the rally, Mr. Polachek claimed that in 2017 he survived a school shooting at Dallas High School in Dallas, Pennsylvania, an incident in which he said he lost is best friend, his brother and nine others. These claims are entirely false. Nonetheless, they were reported by multiple Kentucky media outlets, including Fox 56 in Lexington and the Kentucky Lantern, and have since spread nationally across platforms such as MSN, Yahoo News, various online publications and social media.
The widespread sharing of a fabricated tragedy is not only reckless, it is harmful. It fuels unnecessary fear, disrespects the experiences of real victims of school violence and misleads the public with a narrative that has no basis in truth.
Let us be absolutely clear: This event never occurred.
There has never been a school shooting at Dallas High School. Not in 2017, and not at any point in our community’s history.
As noted above, Mexico here focuses on the manufacturers’ production of “military style” assault weapons, among which it includes AR–15 rifles, AK–47 rifles, and .50 caliber sniper rifles. See supra, at 6; App. to Pet. for Cert. 121a. But those products are both widely legal and bought by many ordinary consumers. (The AR–15 is the most popular rifle in the country. See T. Gross, How the AR–15 Became the Bestselling Rifle in the U. S., NPR (Apr. 20, 2023.) The manufacturers cannot be charged with assisting in criminal acts just because Mexican cartel members like those guns too. The same is true of firearms with Spanish-language names or graphics alluding to Mexican history. See supra, at 6. Those guns may be “coveted by the cartels,” as Mexico alleges; but they also may appeal, as the manufacturers rejoin, to “millions of law-abiding Hispanic Americans.”
What Justice Kagan is saying here should strike terror in the hearts of anti-gun people. She says AR-15’s, AK-47’s, and .50 caliber rifles are in common use for legal purposes. That is exactly what the Heller decision says are protected arms.
Justice Kagan is saying that. Should she try to say otherwise when an “assault weapon” comes before the court will likely result in a stern reminder by Justice Thomas and others of this opinion.
And if you are somewhat persuaded by the argument made in the previous link, you need to read Justice Thomas’ concurring opinion in the Mexico case:
This exception allows otherwise-prohibited suits against gun manufacturers to go forward if, among other requirements, the manufacturer has “knowingly violated a State or Federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the product.”” 15 U. S. C. §§7902(a), 7903(5)(A)(iii). I write separately to note that the Court’s opinion does not resolve what a plaintiff must show to establish that the defendant committed a “violation.” §7903(5)(A)(iii). It concludes only that Mexico has not adequately pleaded its theory of the case—that, as a factual matter, the defendant gun manufacturers committed criminal aiding and abetting. See ante, at 10–14.”
…
In future cases, courts should more fully examine the meaning of “violation” under the PLCAA. It seems to me that the PLCAA at least arguably requires not only a plausible allegation that a defendant has committed a predicate violation, but also an earlier finding of guilt or liability in an adjudication regarding the “violation.” Allowing plaintiffs to proffer mere allegations of a predicate violation would force many defendants in PLCAA litigation to litigate their criminal guilt in a civil proceeding, without the full panoply of protections that we otherwise afford to criminal defendants. And, these defendants might even include ones who were cleared in an earlier proceeding, such as through a noncharging decision or a not-guilty or not-liable verdict. Such collateral adjudication would be at best highly unusual, and would likely raise serious constitutional questions that would counsel in favor of a narrower interpretation.
While technically this is not a 2nd Amendment case, it is a through slap down of the anti-gun movement. It is another brick in the wall to keep them in the dustbin of history.
This post was inspired the following video by constitutional attorney and member of the United States Supreme Court Bar, Mark Smith:
In a surprising decision that’s now under appeal, a federal district judge ruled that the ban on civilian-owned machine guns may actually violate the Second Amendment. The case, United States v. Morgan, comes out of Kansas and challenges the 1986 Hughes Amendment – a law that bans civilians from owning newly manufactured machine guns. Attorney and YouTuber Tom Grieve broke down the case in a recent video, calling it “potentially the most important gun case in decades.”
According to Grieve, this is the first time in a long while that a federal trial court has directly stated that machine guns – yes, actual automatic weapons – are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment. If that ruling stands, it could unravel a huge part of federal gun control as we know it.
I have fairly high confidence the appeals court will find a way to claim machine guns are not protected. Then, I expect SCOTUS to refuse to take the case.
I will be disappointed, but all the briefs and other work that goes into this case can be recycled for other cases. Then, eventually, we will use liberal tears to cool the machines guns at the sporting events in local high schools.
As it should be, this is a 9-0 win. I expected the win. I am a little surprised it is 9-0. I am hugely surprised that it is written by Kagan with a concurring opinion by Jackson!
A major Second Amendment case is heading back to the Supreme Court next week – and it could reshape gun laws across the country. The case is Duncan v. Bonta, a long-running legal battle over California’s ban on magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.
Yesterday, the National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, and FPC Action Foundation filed an amicus brief arguing that the federal prohibition on machinegun possession is unconstitutional as applied to the defendant in the Fifth Circuit case, United States v. Brown.
Federal law criminalizes the possession by private citizens of any machinegun that was not registered by May 19, 1986. The defendant in the case, Justin Bryce Brown, was convicted of possessing such a firearm.
The district court held the ban unconstitutional as applied to Brown, because the government failed to carry its burden of proving that the law is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. As the district court explained, “this is a heavy burden,” and by focusing on policy arguments rather than historical tradition, the government failed to meet it.
Now before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the NRA filed a brief arguing that the district court’s decision should be affirmed. The brief focuses on the standard the Supreme Court set forth for Second Amendment cases in the NRA’s landmark victory, NYSRPA v. Bruen, and emphasizes that the government must be held to its burden no matter what regulation is at issue.
