Gun owners in staunchly anti-second amendment states have felt forgotten for too long. SCOTUS has restored our faith in the system that the little guy can still fight back in this great country. This case isn’t just about restoring our rights in Connecticut, it’s about ensuring that no other citizens will face similar infringements regardless of which state they call home.
But the courts, strong action from the executive branch, and determined community action eventually stopped the Democrats from socially acceptable lynching, separate water fountains, only sitting in the back of bus, suppressing voters, illegal mixed-race marriages, and a multitude of other injustices.
A culture shift with support from the courts allowed homosexuals out of the closet and the right to marry.
It is now our turn to change the culture in a dramatic and nearly irreversible way.
With a specific constitutionally protected right enumerated in the Bill of Rights to back us up, why can’t we achieve our goals as well? I think we can and will. I think we are on the edge of a widespread collapse of the resistance to our destiny. I think wins in the “assault weapon” cases will break their will to continue.
The NRA has secured a statewide injunction blocking Abigail Spanberger’s ban on semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines. The Virginia court has made it unmistakably clear: this blatant violation of constitutional rights cannot be enforced by any law enforcement agency in the Commonwealth. This is a historic victory for gun owners and the rule of law. It ensures that law-abiding Virginians will not have their rights stripped away while our challenge proceeds. The NRA and our world-class legal team will continue fighting in court until this unconstitutional measure is permanently removed from the books.
Standing up to the manufacturers of these weapons of war isn’t enough. They are shielded by lobbyists and legal protections, making them hard to stop in traditional ways.
That’s why we’re taking action—not by going after the gun makers directly, but by targeting the companies that do business with them… those one step away. Retailers. Lawyers. Brands that power their supply chains.
By taking action against businesses that support gun makers, we can disrupt the systems that allow mass shootings to continue.
We are one step away from saving lives.
…
Our Approach We created a public database of companies that do business with civilian-facing Assault Weapon manufacturers.
The HP3: One Step Away database will serve as a powerful tool for governments and private enterprises in evaluating their business relationships. And daily consumers can make a difference with each of their purchases.
We can make good use of their database. We look there for companies we want to do business with (those labeled enablers) and who we wish to avoid doing businesses with (those labeled heroes).
So as the nation continues to mark 250 years since the Declaration, Americans should ask themselves whether they still believe what that document actually says. If rights are unalienable, they do not vanish when they become politically inconvenient. If government exists by consent, then public officials are bound by limits they did not create and may not erase. And if one generation owes the next the full inheritance of freedom, then this generation has no right to reduce the Second Amendment to a loophole, a relic, or a slogan.
It is part of the American formula. It helped secure the first 250 years of American liberty. It will be just as necessary for the next 250.
While I generally agree with what is said here and think people should reflect on the document which conceived our nation and lead to its birth a few years later. There are two points I would like to make about this.
First, the Declaration of Independence is not a legal document governing our nation. It is historical background which can be used to determine the proper interpretation of other documents of actual legal documents of that era.
Second, there are far too many people in this country who think the rights are something completely different than what our constitution provides for and the Declaration of Independence asserts are true. For example, a scary high percentage of people believe there should be a right to health care, food, and shelter. They cannot seem to understand that if things like that are considered rights, then others must provide those things without compensation. No matter how you twist the words or hide the details in layers of legalize and bureaucracy, if someone gets goods and services without paying for them then someone else was, in essence, robbed in the process of providing them.
Don’t ever let conversations about rights get sidetracked into such distractions. Just tell them, “It is not a right if someone else has to provide it.”
Singlehandedly is a big exaggerating. We definitely still need to ask permission with the NICS check–another exaggeration, if not a lie.
But it is true that he is the probably the most pro-Second Amendment U.S. president ever. He has done a lot. The SCOTUS appointments. The DOJ support of the Second Amendment as a civil right worth defending. All great stuff. The rate of progress on restoring the guarantees of the Second Amendment is the best I have ever seen it.
This is not the first time this has been demonstrated. It happens again and again. Here is another example: The world’s best gun salesman. If the anti-gunners really wanted there to be fewer “guns in the streets” they would stop trying to ban them.
Evidence compiled by the Crime Prevention Research Center shows that the sources the media relied on undercounted the number of instances in which armed citizens have thwarted such attacks by an order of more than ten, saving untold numbers of lives. Of course, law-abiding citizens stopping these attacks are not rare. What is rare is national news coverage of those incidents. Although those many news stories about the Greenwood shooting also suggested that the defensive use of guns might endanger others, there is no evidence that these acts have harmed innocent victims.
We have the facts on our side. We have the principles on our side. And most importantly, we have the U.S. Constitution on our side.
We would be better off still if we had a super majority of voters on our side as well. Take a new shooter to the range. That will help and it is not something the anti-gunners can match. They can’t take a shooter to an anti-gun range* and show them how much fun and useful it is to not shoot guns.
* I cannot claim credit for this phrase. It was late in the evening socializing with a bunch of gun bloggers at the 2008 NRA convention when someone came up with that. It may have been Say Uncle, Robb Allen, or Squeaky. I do not remember for certain.
BREAKING: The Supreme Court has granted cert in two huge Second Amendment cases, agreeing to hear
@2AFdn‘s challenges to the “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Connecticut. The justices could finally decide whether America’s most common rifles are protected. Huge. #2A#SCOTUSViramontes v. Cook CountyGrant v. Higgins
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO HEAR TWO SAF “ASSAULT WEAPONS” CASES!
History was made today.
After years of litigation, the Supreme Court agreed to hear two Second Amendment Foundation challenges to so-called “assault weapons” bans.
Today, the Court agreed to hear two of our cases at once, Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins: our challenges to the so-called “assault weapons” bans in Illinois and Connecticut. Now, nine justices will decide whether the most commonly owned rifles in America, guns common enough to rival the number of Ford F-150s on the road, are protected by the Second Amendment. Whatever they rule becomes the law in every state in the country.
The fight gun owners have waited decades for has officially begun. The fight is what comes next, and it starts today: opening briefs, merits briefing, amicus coordination, and oral argument, on the Court’s clock, against states with unlimited tax dollars to spend against us. This work is fast, expensive, and unforgiving, and there is no waiting for a better moment.
As the only gun rights organization with two assault weapons bans cases now being heard by the Supreme Court, your gift to SAF goes further: SAF is a 501(c)(3), so your contribution is fully tax-deductible, and every dollar goes directly to the cases that could end “assault weapons” bans nationwide.
This has taken so long. It is long past time to make this part of history.
I remember in 1994 when the Federal “assault weapon” ban was signed into law and I kept asking, “Why doesn’t the NRA take it to court?” There was more than one correct answer to that question. And some of them are even pretty good answers. But I was impatient and didn’t really believe the answers.
I remember after the 2008 Heller decision, at the Gun Blogger Rendezvous, Alan Gura told a bunch of gun bloggers something to the effect of, “Don’t expect this to change anything overnight. This is just the start of something that people will still be working on 20 years from now.” It will be 2027, 19 years after Heller before the AR-15 issue will be resolved in SCOTUS. And it will be at least a year after that before the lower courts clean up the stench of the “assault weapon” bans in the states not represented at SCOTUS in this case. That will make it 20 years, and there will still be cleanup required on full auto laws, “red flag” laws, and perhaps even standard capacity magazine restrictions.
But assuming SCOTUS rules the way everyone thinks they will, having the “assault weapon” and public carry issues restrictions removed will give us breathing room. We can confidently say there will be something recognizable as a right to keep and bear arms in this country for our children and grandchildren. That will be our true historic landmark.
— 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.
