Second Amendment/ATF related cases

[MechAg94]

The case of Mexico suing gun manufacturers was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday I think.  A couple people livestreamed the audio.  John Crump did a livestream talking about it.  He predicted 8-1 against Mexico, but we will see. 

[Live Life]

The case of Mexico suing gun manufacturers was heard at the Supreme Court yesterday I think.  A couple people livestreamed the audio.  John Crump did a livestream talking about it.  He predicted 8-1 against Mexico, but we will see.

I did 1256 mile 2-day trip to pick up my BIL so no chance to post transcript of arguments.  Mark Smith just did a "highlights" video of the arguments and maybe I will do a bulleted transcription later today/tonight.

SCOTUS NEWS: HIGHLIGHTS OF SCOTUS GUN RIGHTS ARGUMENT... SCOTUS held a major oral argument in Mexico v. Smith & Wesson involving the 2nd Amendment and Mark Smith Four Boxes Diner discusses with recordings from the oral argument in this video - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WYWiKH1-fvM

[Live Life]

Update to Forced Reset Trigger - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466634#msg1466634

Update from Hannah Hill, Vice President of National Foundation for Gun Rights, legal arm of NAGR

Hannah Hill - https://x.com/hannahhill_sc/status/1897321948453199883

Hey @Kash_Patel and @PamBondi, the ATF is refusing to return seized forced reset triggers although the courts vacated the classification of FRTs as machine guns - the very classification that the FRT seizures were based on.

Are y'all okay with this?

[Live Life]

Adding Ban on Export of Firearms.

Lee Leads GOP Urging End to Biden Firearm Export Rule - https://www.lee.senate.gov/2025/3/lee-leads-gop-urging-end-to-biden-firearm-export-rule

WASHINGTON – Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) and House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Mark Green (R-TN) have issued a letter with 86 colleagues in the Senate and House requesting that the Secretary of Commerce reverse a rule restricting firearm exports for law-abiding American manufacturers.

“As soon as is practically possible, we respectfully request that you rescind the Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security’s (BIS) recent interim final rule (IFR) “Revision of Firearms License Requirements” (89 FR 34680; RIN 0694-AJ46). This misguided and destructive IFR is costing the American firearms industry nearly $500 million annually while doing nothing to advance U.S. interests or regional stability. Despite numerous attempts to rein in these actions through letters, legislation, hearings, markups, and oversight, the Biden BIS ignored Congress and used the IFR to advance the Biden administration’s anti-firearms agenda.”

“President Trump recently signed an executive order to secure Second Amendment rights. The order instructs Attorney General Pam Bondi to review all orders, regulations, guidance, plans, international agreements, and other actions of executive departments and agencies that violate the Second Amendment or furthered the Biden administration’s anti-firearms agenda. Section (2)(b)(vii) of the executive order specifically requires the review and remediation of any agency action regarding the “processing of applications, to make, manufacture, transfer, or export firearms.” Because this IFR stops the commercial export of firearms, ammunition, and related components to over 36 countries and severely limits the ability of American businesses to obtain export licenses, we believe this IFR ought to be addressed immediately.”

“For too long, federal agencies have tried to constrict our Second Amendment rights indirectly, in this case by hurting law-abiding gun manufacturers by severely limiting their ability to export firearms,” said Sen. Lee. “I look forward to the Trump administration rectifying this unjust rule pushed by Joe Biden’s bureaucrats.”

“The Biden-Harris administration’s interim final rule on issuance and renewal of export licenses for certain firearms, related components, and ammunition has now lasted almost a year,” said Rep. Green. “With the confirmation of Secretary Lutnick, I trust that this IFR will come to an end. BIS’s actions cost American firearm manufacturers over $500 million annually. It’s time to end this attack on the Second Amendment, and I look forward to immediate action from the Department of Commerce.”

You can read the entire letter HERE - https://www.lee.senate.gov/services/files/9684282F-EA8C-4458-A406-13C05944C302

Gun Owners of America - https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1897737969005391881
This was never about safety—it was always about control.

Thank you to @BasedMikeLee & the other leaders fighting to end the tyrannical export restrictions on firearm manufacturers.

The Biden-era policy is a direct attack on the Second Amendment & is costing the industry millions.

[Live Life]

Update to Executive Order on Second Amendment and Efforts to abolish ATF/Repeal NFA/Hearing Protection Act/Legalize suppressor parts - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466850#msg1466850

Risch Leads Bill to Protect Law-Abiding Gun Owners and Hold ATF Accountable - https://www.risch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2025/3/risch-leads-bill-to-protect-law-abiding-gun-owners-and-hold-atf-accountable

WASHINGTON - U.S Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) introduced legislation today with U.S. Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kansas), and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) to improve the fairness, speed, and transparency of background checks and application processes for National Firearms Act (NFA) items. The ATF Transparency Act will ensure law-abiding gun owners experience a fair and speedy application process when exercising their Second Amendment rights.

“Law-abiding gun owners wrongfully denied their Second Amendment rights should be able to appeal their case through an efficient, transparent process,” said Risch. “My ATF Transparency Act is simple. It codifies the current appeals process, holds the ATF to a higher standard, and gives Idaho’s lawful gun owners a faster, fairer process for firearm applications.”

“Lawful gun owners should not be denied their constitutional right to own a firearm because of unchecked bureaucratic rulings,” Crapo said. “A more transparent review and appeals process for those improperly flagged by the ATF will give individuals the due process they rightly deserve."

“The Second Amendment is an integral part of our Montana way of life, and law-abiding citizens should not have to worry about their constitutional rights being denied because of a processing error,” said Daines.“This legislation will create a quick and transparent appeals process for Montanans who have been wrongfully flagged by the ATF, and I’ll continue to stand up for our right to keep and bear arms.”

“No system is infallible, including the federal bureaucracy. The ATF Transparency Act would help ensure law-abiding Americans aren’t denied their Second Amendment rights due to mistakes in their background checks that may wrongfully prevent them from owning a firearm,” Hyde-Smith said. “I credit Senator Risch for leading the charge to fix this injustice.”

"Unelected D.C. bureaucrats at the ATF should not be able to criminalize law-abiding gun owners nor throw up roadblocks for appealing unfair rulings," said Lummis. "I'm proud to work with my Senate colleagues to bring much needed accountability and transparency to the ATF and enhance Americans' constitutional right to bear arms."

“As a lifelong gun owner and supporter of the Second Amendment, I came to the Senate with the mission of protecting this sacred Constitutional right of all Kansans,” said Marshall. “The ATF Transparency Act furthers this mission by requiring the ATF to develop an appeals process to protect Americans’ background checks from being wrongfully denied. This is a commonsense step forward to safeguard the Second Amendment, and I am proud to stand alongside my colleagues in support.”

The ATF Transparency Act has received support from Gun Owners of America and National Rifle Association.

"Gun Owners of America is proud to endorse Sen. Risch's legislation to eliminate ATF's bureaucratic loopholes in the already unconstitutional National Firearms Act. ATF has deceived Congress and the American public with inaccurate NFA approval estimates for far too long. There is no reason that a NFA approval time should take longer than a normal background check, especially since ATF has shown they are able to rapidly approve forms after Congress instructed them to. A Right Delayed is a Right Denied” said Aidan Johnston, Director of Federal Affairs, Gun Owners of America.

“The ATF Transparency Act is a crucial piece of legislation that will allow individuals the opportunity to appeal their denied application of National Firearms Act items. The ambiguity of denials is an issue that must be resolved and the NRA thanks and applauds Sen. Risch for reintroducing this important legislation and standing up for all Americans' Second Amendment rights,” said John Commerford, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

The ATF Transparency Act would:

- Codify the appeals process to protect law-abiding Americans’ background checks from being wrongfully denied;

- Require the ATF to process applications within 3 days. If the ATF fails to do so, applications will be automatically approved; and

- Requires the Government Accountability Office and DOJ to report on the number of NFA items involved in unresolved background checks, recommend ways to reduce unresolved checks, and report on the FBI's National Instant Criminal Background Check System involvement.

Gun Owners of America - https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1897760065731371379

We are proud to endorse this legislation to eliminate ATF's bureaucratic loopholes in the already unconstitutional National Firearms Act.

The ATF Transparency Act is a step in the right direction towards gutting tyrannical NFA restrictions and removing the teeth from ATF.🔥

[Live Life]

Update to Executive Order on Second Amendment - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1468184#msg1468184

MASSIVE BREAKING NEWS: AG PAM BONDI FORMS 2A RESTORATION WORKING GROUP… Trump Administration Creates DOJ Working Group to Restore 2A Rights and more according to a story in the New York Times - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZterNiVwyhc

- Major breaking news out of the Trump Administration
- A working group has been formed within the Department of Justice to restore Second Amendment rights across this great country
- New York Times has reported about this working group to restore Second Amendment rights
- A small batch of people to get their gun rights back would be the first step toward a broader policy goal ... through rewriting justice
department regulations to more clearly give that power to the attorney general
- This is huge folks
- This is huge because what this is saying is that the Department of Justice is going to redo their regulations about who can have their Second Amendment rights restored and they're going to take that away from a bunch of unelected DC-based Deep State bureaucrats who won't want anyone armed other than the police/government
- The fact that it is being taken away from Deep State regulators and bureaucrats as far as that's how I interpret that language from The New York Times is great news as far as I'm concerned
- New York Times goes on to discuss this new policy by the Trump Administration in favor of the Second Amendment this is the next thing - Within the working group, the government lawyers seem to generally agree that a significant period of time since a conviction should have passed for someone to be eligible for such relief, perhaps 10 or 15 years and that it should not be extended to convicted murderers and armed robbers but the issue of domestic violence proved to be a sticking point particularly when it came to Mr Mel Gibson
- Again the fact this conversation is occurring is the fact that a new policy is going to be set by this Administration in favor of the Second
Amendment is a really really big deal and a positive side of where the trends are going
- The working group would generate a list of candidates to get back their gun rights as part of a longer term effort to have
the Attorney General restore such rights to some individuals
- Her office came up with an initial batch of 95 people she considered worthy of consideration made up principally of people whose convictions were decades old who had asked for the restrictions to be lifted and for whom the risk of recidivism was low
- As a side note, historically there is a federal statute overseen basically by the ATF for the restoration of rights ... that office has been defunded for the last many years because the Democrats don't want people getting their gun rights back

[Live Life]

Update to Carry Ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1467500#msg1467500

NOTE: This is a state case

MA Supreme Court rules in favor of out of state carry.

SAF - https://x.com/2AFDN/status/1899830782874759613

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has issued a win for gun rights and a win for Defendant Sean Donnell in a case supported by SAF amici briefing. SAF supporters will remember that Mr. Donnell was arrested and charged in Massachusetts with unlawful possession of a firearm.

Mr. Donnel is a New Hampshire resident who had a permit from his home state, but not a Massachusetts non-resident permit. At the time of his arrest, those MA non-resident permits were "may issue" and nearly impossible to acquire. In today's opinion, the court determined that the prior MA non-resident permitting regime was indeed unconstitutional, as the express holding in Bruen clearly states that "may issue" regimes violate the Second Amendment.

As a result, the court has dismissed the unlawful gun possession charge against Mr. Donnell. Massachusetts has since changed their non-resident permit statute, with the new law having been recently upheld by this same court.

Ruling - https://saf.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/SJC-13561_Slip_Opinion.pdf

The defendant is a New Hampshire resident. On November 8, 2021, he was arrested in Massachusetts for operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol following a collision on Interstate 495 in Lowell. During a search of the vehicle's passenger compartment, a State police trooper found a handgun and ammunition stored inside a duffel bag. Lacking a Massachusetts nonresident firearm license, the defendant was charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of G. L. c. 269, § 10 (a) (§ 10 [a]).

... The issue presented in this case is whether the Commonwealth's "may issue" nonresident firearm licensing scheme in force at the time the defendant committed the unlawful possession offense violates the Second Amendment ... Certainly, the Commonwealth has the power to enforce firearm restrictions within its own borders that are consistent with the United States Constitution. See Marquis

In this case, however, the statutory scheme under which the defendant was charged fails to pass the constitutional test as laid out in Bruen (Page 8)

... Expanding on the historical analysis from Heller and McDonald, the Court held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense extends outside the home. Bruen

... The Court further explained that any restriction on that right will be upheld only if "the government ... affirmatively proves that its firearms regulation is part of the historical tradition that delimits the outer bounds of the right to keep and bear arms."  The Court examined the history of American firearm regulations offered in support of New York's licensing scheme and found no historical analogue. Accordingly, the licensing scheme was struck down as inconsistent with the Second Amendment ...  (Page 11)

Because the Commonwealth has failed at step two of the Bruen analysis, we hold that the version of the Commonwealth's nonresident firearm licensing scheme in effect at the time of the offense violates the Second Amendment. Accordingly, as the defendant was charged with violating § 10 (a) after the Supreme Court issued Bruen, he is entitled to dismissal of that charge ... (Page 18)

Our holding today does not, as the Commonwealth suggests, preclude it from requiring firearm licenses for persons within its borders. See Marquis To be consistent with the Second Amendment, the Commonwealth's nonresident firearm licensing scheme cannot vest an official with the discretion to deny a license to a qualified applicant. The defendant was charged under a firearm licensing scheme that did just that. This manner of firearm restriction is no longer permissible. Bruen, supra. Accordingly, the allowance of the defendant's motion to dismiss is affirmed.

So ordered.

[Live Life]

Somebody pinch me.

9th Circuit three judge panel ... yes, THAT 9th Circuit, just properly applied Bruen methodology and ruled Hawaii's permitting scheme, 30 day timeline to obtain handgun after permit and then physical inspection at the police station within 5 days unconstitutional and state failed to carry the burden of providing historical analogous evidence.

Update to Carry ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1468667#msg1468667

Regarding Yakutake v Lopez (HI permit/timeline to purchase/inspection of handgun) - https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/66787905/todd-yukutake-v-anne-e-lopez/

From the ruling - https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/14/21-16756.pdf

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii
J. Michael Seabright, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 14, 2023
Honolulu, Hawaii
Filed March 14, 2025

Before: Carlos T. Bea, Daniel P. Collins, and Kenneth K. Lee, Circuit Judges.
Opinion by Judge Collins;
Concurrence by Judge Lee;
Dissent by Judge Bea

SUMMARY

Second Amendment

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary judgment for Todd Yukutake and David Kikukawa in their action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the Attorney General of Hawaii from enforcing two provisions of Hawaii’s firearms laws on the ground that the provisions violate the Second Amendment.

First, plaintiffs challenged the constitutionality of Hawaii Revised Statutes § 134-2(e), which provides a narrow time window (originally 10 days, and now 30 days) within which to acquire a handgun after obtaining the requisite permit. The permit application process includes a
background check.

Second, plaintiffs challenged § 134-3 to the extent that, as part of Hawaii’s firearms registration process, it requires a gun owner, within five days of acquiring a firearm, to physically bring the gun to a police station for inspection. The district court concluded that the challenged aspects of both provisions were facially unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and permanently enjoined their enforcement.

The panel denied the State’s motion to dismiss the appeal ...

The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment that § 134-2(e)’s short timeframe for completing a firearms purchase after obtaining a permit was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.  The purchase and acquisition of firearms is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Because § 134-2(e) regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the Second Amendment presumptively protects that conduct. The burden therefore fell on the State to justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.

The panel evaluated the State’s justifications ... interpreted Bruen ... determined that the State did not carry its burden to justify the very short temporal limit on firearms acquisition permits ...

In Section IV(B)(4) of the opinion, the panel concluded that the temporal limitation was “abusive” within the meaning of Bruen and remanded for the district court to revise its permanent injunction, as appropriate, in light of the recent amendment to § 134-2(e) and to conform to the panel’s ruling.

The panel affirmed the district court’s conclusion that § 134-3’s in-person inspection requirement violates the Second Amendment.  Even assuming arguendo that Hawaii’s basic system of registering firearms by owner, type, serial number, etc., was valid under Bruen—a point the panel did not decide—Hawaii’s broad in-person inspection requirement could not be justified as merely a proper ancillary logistical measure in support of such a system. The government failed to point to evidence supporting its conclusion that the addition of a broadly applicable and burdensome physical inspection requirement will materially advance the objectives of the registration system. As with plaintiffs’ challenge to § 134-2(e), the panel remanded to the district court to revise its permanent injunction, as appropriate, in light of the recent amendment to § 134-3 and to conform to the panel’s ruling ...

V

We next address Plaintiffs’ challenge to § 134-3’s requirement that, within five days of acquiring a firearm, the firearm must be physically inspected by the local “chief of police” as part of the process of registering the firearm.

Because this requirement regulates and burdens the acquisition of firearms by ordinary citizens, it regulates conduct that is covered by the text of the Second Amendment and “presumptively protect[ed]” by it. Bruen As with § 134-2(e), the State therefore must carry its burden to “justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” (Page 47)

Accordingly, we conclude that the colonial militia inspection laws are not “relevantly similar” to § 134-3 for purposes of applying Bruen’s historically based test. Bruen (Page 53)

VI

For the foregoing reasons, we generally affirm the district court’s judgment, but we remand to the district court with instructions to revise its judgment in light of the recent amendments to the challenged laws.

AFFIRMED and REMANDED.

Mark Smith discuss the ruling in detail.

HUGE 2A RIGHT TO CARRY WIN IN FEDERAL APPEALS COURT ... Ninth Circuit, ruled that Hawaii's licensing regime was unconstitutional, in part, under 2A - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QgjoKjQTylw

[Live Life]

Update to AW/Magazine Ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1467798#msg1467798

Redistributed for 3/7 conference.

SAF - https://x.com/2AFDN/status/1901662291885772821

Snope has been redistributed for conference Friday, 3/21

[Live Life]

Update to CA Handgun Roster due to Boland v Bonta (CA handgun roster) and Renna v Bonta (CA Unsafe Handgun Act/Handgun roster) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466745#msg1466745

Recently Added Handgun Models (149 added since Boland 3/20/23 and Renna 4/3/23 v Bonta preliminary injunctions) - https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/certified-handguns/recently-added

An asterisk (*) next to the model name below indicates that the handgun was added pursuant to the court's order in Boland v. Bonta.

Manufacturer   Model   Caliber   Gun Type      Date Added
Girsan/EAA   MC P35 CAL LIBERADOR (GOLD)*   9MM   Pistol   4.87"   03/11/2025
Century Arms Inc.   METE MC9L-FDE (HG7884CAD-N)*   9MM   Pistol   3.2"   02/20/2025
Century Arms Inc.   METE MC9LS- SLIDE BLACK FRAME FDE (HG7885CABD-N)*   9MM   Pistol   3.6"   02/20/2025
Century Arms Inc.   METE MC9LS-FDE (HG7885CAD-N)*   9MM   Pistol   3.6"   02/20/2025
Century Arms Inc.   METE MC9L- SLIDE BLACK FRAME FDE (HG7884CABD-N)*   9MM   Pistol   3.2"   02/20/2025
Biofire   Smart Gun*   9MM   Pistol   4.69"   02/04/2025
Smith & Wesson   SD9VE CA COMP SKU 13580 H-175 (REB)*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   642-2 (S&W Logo Grip) SKU 163810A   .38 Spl   Revolver   1.87"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   686-6 Plus SKU 150854A   .357 Magnum   Revolver   5"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   686-6 M686 SKU 150712A   .357 Magnum   Revolver   6"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   PC 637-2 SKU 170349A   .38 S&W Special +P   Revolver   1.875"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   SD9VE 4" CA COMP SKU 123903*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   629-6 (Matte) SKU 170135B   .44 Magnum   Revolver   2.625"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   SD9VE CA COMP SLIDE SKU 13576 H-190 (ARMOR BLACK)*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   686-6 M686 SKU 150855A   .357 Magnum   Revolver   7"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   686-6 M686 SKU 150713A   .357 Magnum   Revolver   3"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   PC M642-2 SKU 170348A   .38 Special +P   Revolver   1.875"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   66-8 Combat Magnum SKU 10061A   .357 Magnum   Revolver   2.75"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   M629-6 SKU 170320B   .44 Magnum   Revolver   6"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   SD9VE CA COMP SKU 13577 H-127 (MAGPUL FDE)*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   M642-1 SKU 150972A   .38 Spl   Revolver   1.875"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   629-6 M629 Deluxe SKU 150714A   .44 Magnum   Revolver   6.5"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   69 Combat Magnum SKU 10064A   .44 Magnum   Revolver   2.75"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   460 XVR Hunter SKU 170339A   .460 S&W   Revolver   14"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   SD9VE CA COMP SKU 13578 H-236 (OD GREEN)*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   617-6 (S&W Logo Grip) SKU 160578A   .22 LR   Revolver   6"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   629-6 M629 Deluxe 3" SKU 150715A   .44 Magnum   Revolver   3"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   642 SKU 10186A   .38 Special +P   Revolver   1.875"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   642-1 (Matte Silver) SKU 178042A   .38 Spl   Revolver   1.87"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   SD9VE CA COMP SKU 13579 H-214 (BULL SHARK GREY)*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   637-2 (S&W Logo Grip) SKU 163050A   .38 Spl   Revolver   1.87"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   686-6 M686 SKU 150853A   .357 Magnum   Revolver   3"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   M642-2 SKU150466A   .38 Spl   Revolver   1.875"   01/28/2025
Smith & Wesson   686-6 Plus Pro Series (Stn Stnls) SKU 178038A   .357 Magnum Revolver   5"   01/28/2025
Century Arms Inc.   METE MC9L- BLACK (HG7884CA-N)*   9MM   Pistol   3.2"   01/23/2025
Century Arms Inc.   METE MC9-SLIDE BLACK FRAME FDE (HG7651CABD-N)*   9MM   Pistol   3.2"   01/23/2025
Century Arms Inc.   METE MC9-FDE (HG7651CAD-N)*   9MM   Pistol   3.2"   01/23/2025
Century Arms Inc.   METE MC9LS- BLACK (HG7885CA-N)*   9MM   Pistol   3.6"   01/23/2025
Shadow Systems   MR920 SS-1052-CA*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/22/2025
Shadow Systems   XR920 SS-3052-CA*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/22/2025
Heckler & Koch   VP9 Match*   9MM   Pistol   5.51"   01/22/2025
Shadow Systems   XR920 SS-3040-CA*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/22/2025
Shadow Systems   DR920P SS-2240-CA*   9MM   Pistol   4.5"   01/22/2025
Shadow Systems   MR920 SS-1040-CA*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/22/2025
Girsan/EAA   MC P35 CAL LIBERADOR*   9MM   Pistol   4.87"   01/14/2025
Shadow Systems   XR920 SS-3039-CA*   9MM   Pistol   3.75"   01/01/2025
Smith & Wesson   M&P9 Shield Plus (Purple Frame)-14299*   9MM   Pistol   3.1"   01/01/2025
Rost Martin   RM1C FDE OSP*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/01/2025
Colt   PYTHON (PYTHON-BP6WTS)   .357 Magnum   Revolver   6"   01/01/2025
Rost Martin   RM1C GRAY OSP*   9MM   Pistol   4"   01/01/2025
Henry Repeating Arm   H016GD   .22 S/L/LR   Revolver   4"   01/01/2025
Shadow Systems   DR920P SS-2239-CA*   9MM   Pistol   4.5"   01/01/2025
Smith & Wesson   M&P9 Shield Plus (Pink Slide)-14298*   9MM   Pistol   3.1"   01/01/2025
Shadow Systems   MR920 SS-1039-CA*   9MM   Pistol   3.75"   01/01/2025
Smith & Wesson   M&P9 Shield Plus (SLV/REB)-14297*   9MM   Pistol   3.1"   01/01/2025
Colt   PYTHON (PYTHON-BP4WTS)   .357 Magnum   Revolver   4.25"   01/01/2025
Rost Martin   RM1C BLACK OSP*   9MM   Pistol   4"   12/04/2024
FMK Firearms   9C1 G3 (Black)*   9MM   Pistol   4"   12/03/2024
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   LCP MAX 13748*   380 Auto   Pistol   2.80"   11/26/2024
Heckler & Koch   VP9 UPC 642230267961*   9mm   Pistol   4.09"   11/20/2024
Heckler & Koch   VP9 UPC 642230267947*   9mm   Pistol   4.09"   11/20/2024
Heckler & Koch   VP9L UPC 642230267985*   9mm   Pistol   5"   11/20/2024
Heckler & Koch   VP9SK UPC 642230268005*   9mm   Pistol   3.39"   11/20/2024
Sig Sauer   365XL-9-ROSE-MS-CA*   9mm   Pistol   3.1"   10/30/2024
Century Arms Inc.   METE MC9*   9mm   Pistol   3.2"   10/08/2024
North American Arms   NAA-PUG-D   .22 Mag   Revolver   1"   08/13/2024
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   LCRx-05439B   .22 WMRF   Revolver   1.87"   07/17/2024
Smith & Wesson   SD9 VE-11907*   9mm   Pistol   4"   07/16/2024
Kimber   RAPIDE (DAWN)(9MM)*   9mm   Pistol   5"   07/03/2024
Kimber   RAPIDE (DAWN)(45ACP)*   .45 ACP   Pistol   5"   07/03/2024
Kimber   CUSTOM LW (SHADOW GHOST)(9MM)*   9mm   Pistol   5"   07/03/2024
Kimber   CUSTOM LW (SHADOW GHOST)(45ACP)*   .45 ACP   Pistol   5"   07/03/2024
Smith & Wesson   SW22 VICTORY SKU 108490*   .22 LR   Pistol   5.5"   06/12/2024
Springfield Armory   Hellcat-Stainless HC9319SOSPCA*   9mm   Pistol   3"   06/11/2024
Springfield Armory   Hellcat Pro- Stainless HCP9379SOSPCA*   9mm   Pistol   3.7"   06/11/2024
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   SP101-05765A   .22 LR   Revolver   4.2"   05/21/2024
Sig Sauer   320XF-9-BXR3P-MS-CA*   9mm   Pistol   4.7"   05/16/2024
Sig Sauer   320X5-9-LEGION-MS-CA*   9mm   Pistol   5"   05/16/2024
Sig Sauer   365XCA-9-COMP-MS-CA*   9mm   Pistol   3.1"   05/16/2024
Kahr Arms   CW90G93/CW90G93N   9mm   Pistol   3.5"   05/07/2024
Standard Manufacturing Co.   S333 THUNDERSTRUCK GEN III   .22 WMR   Revolver   2.25"   05/07/2024
Springfield Armory   XD-M Elite Compact 3.8 OSP-CA*   9mm   Pistol   3.8"   04/03/2024
Springfield Armory   XD-M Elite 4.5 OSP-CA*   9mm   Pistol   4.5"   04/03/2024
Springfield Armory   XD-M Elite 3.8 OSP-CA*   9mm   Pistol   3.8"   04/03/2024
Girsan (Imported by European American Armory Corporation)   MC P35*   9mm   Pistol   4.87"   04/02/2024
Walther   P22 CA (Grey Slide) Grey Grip   .22 LR   Pistol   3.42"   03/08/2024
Browning   Buck Mark Medallion Rosewood*   .22 LR   Pistol   5.5"   03/05/2024
Browning   Buck Mark Micro Bull*   .22 LR   Pistol   4"   03/05/2024
Taurus   2-85621ULC31NS   .38 Special   Revolver   2"   02/22/2024
Smith & Wesson   M&P9 Shield (OD) SKU 14016/Stainless Steel;Polymer   9mm   Pistol   3"   02/09/2024
Smith & Wesson   M&P9 Shield (OD) SKU 14015/Stainless Steel;Polymer   9mm   Pistol   3"   02/09/2024
Colt   PYTHON (PYTHON-SP5WTS)   .357 Mag   Revolver   5"   02/06/2024
Colt   PYTHON (PYTHON-SP2WCTS)   .357 Mag   Revolver   2.5"   02/06/2024
Heckler & Koch   VP9*   9mm   Pistol   4.09"   01/31/2024
Heckler & Koch   VP9L OR*   9mm   Pistol   5"   01/31/2024
Heckler & Koch   VP9 OR*   9mm   Pistol   4.09"   01/31/2024
Heckler & Koch   VP9SK OR*   9mm   Pistol   3.39"   01/31/2024
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   LCRX-05437B   .22 WMRF   Revolver   3"   01/11/2024
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   SP101-05773A   .327 Fed Magnum   Revolver   4.2"   01/11/2024
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   SUPER REDHAWK - 05526   .22 Hornet   Revolver   9.5"   01/11/2024
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   MARK IV - 40187   22 LR   Pistol   5.5"   01/04/2024
Taurus   2-856P39   .38 Special   Revolver   3"   01/04/2024
Taurus   2-605P39   .357 Mag   Revolver   3"   01/04/2024
Henry Repeating Arm   H017BDM   .38 Spl/.357 Mag   Revolver   4"   01/04/2024
Smith & Wesson   M&P9 M2.0 - 14033*   9mm   Pistol   4.25"   11/16/2023
Smith & Wesson   M&P9 M2.0 Compact - 14032*   9mm   Pistol   4"   11/16/2023
Smith & Wesson   M&P9 Shield Plus - 14031*   9mm   Pistol   3.1"   11/16/2023
Springfield Armory   XDM Elite*   9mm   Pistol   4.5"   11/16/2023
Springfield Armory   Hellcat Pro*   9mm   Pistol   3.7"   11/16/2023
Springfield Armory   Hellcat*   9mm   Pistol   3"   11/16/2023
Colt   ANACONDA (ANACONDA-SP4RTS)   44 Magnum   Revolver   4.25"   11/16/2023
Kimber   K6XS Carry   .38 Special +P   Revolver   2"   11/16/2023
Sig Sauer   365-9-BXR3P-MS-CA*   9mm   Pistol   3.1"   11/02/2023
Henry Repeating Arm   H017GDM   .38Spl/.357Mag   Revolver   4"   09/19/2023
Charter 2000   14423 Bulldog (Grip Rose wood)   .44 Special   Revolver   4"   09/19/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-DFDE   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (OD Green)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-OD   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (OD Green)(w/Polished Barrel)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Dark Grey)(w/Polished Barrel)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-DBB   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (FDE)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-DAF   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Burnt Bronze)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Blue Jay)(w/Polished Barrel)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-DRD   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (FDE)(w/Polished Barrel)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-DTAF   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Pink/Raspberry)(w/Polished Barrel)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-SG   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Burnt Bronze)(w/Polished Barrel)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Blue Jay)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-FDEC   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Pink/Raspberry)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-BB   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Dark Grey)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Titianium Grey)(w/Polished Barrel)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-GRC   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Black)(w/Polished Barrel)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP-FDE   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Black)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
FMK Firearms   9C1 Gen II (Titanium Grey)   9mm   Pistol   3.87"   08/08/2023
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   Max-9 03518*   9mm   Pistol   3.2"   08/03/2023
Armscor Precision   M1911 A1 FS PSA Standard (AS) (57007)   .45 ACP   Pistol   5"   08/01/2023
Sig Sauer   320CA-9-M18-MS-CA*   9mm   Pistol   3.9"   07/13/2023
Heckler & Koch   P2000-V3 9mm - GRN/Tungsten   9mm   Pistol   3.3"   07/05/2023
Heckler & Koch   P2000-V3 9mm - FDE/Tungsten   9mm   Pistol   3.3"   07/05/2023
Heckler & Koch   P2000-V3 9mm - Tungsten   9mm   Pistol   3.3"   07/05/2023
Heckler & Koch   P2000-V3 9mm - Cobalt   9mm   Pistol   3.3"   07/05/2023
Heckler & Koch   P2000-V3 9mm - RAL8000   9mm   Pistol   3.3"   07/05/2023
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   SP101, 05784A   327   Revolver   3"   06/29/2023
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   LCP II 13747*   .22 LR   Pistol   2.75"   06/14/2023
Colt   ANACONDA (ANACONDA-SP8RTS)   .44 Magnum   Revolver   8"   06/13/2023
Colt   ANACONDA (ANACONDA-SP6RTS   .44 Magnum   Revolver   6"   06/13/2023
Smith & Wesson   SKU13331   350 Legend   Revolver   7.5"   05/30/2023
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   MARK IV-40183*   .22 LR   Pistol   5.5"   05/24/2023
Sturm, Ruger & Co.   SR22P-03657*   .22 LR   Pistol   3.5"   05/24/2023
Juggernaut Tactical   JT-9 SSP   9mm   Pistol   8.5"   05/18/2023

[Live Life]

Updated listing of 2A/ATF related cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466746#msg1466746

- 2A/ATF - Executive Order on Second Amendment - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1468623#msg1468623
- 2A - Pro-2A organizations efforts and accomplishments - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1465759#msg1465759
- 2A - AW/Magazine ban - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1469071#msg1469071
- 2A - National carry reciprocity - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1462803#msg1462803
- 2A - Carry ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1468904#msg1468904
- 2A - Significance of Bruen Methodology tested in Rahimi case (Harvard/Georgetown Journal of Law & Public Policy) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458590#msg1458590
- 2A - Bruen methodology applied to other cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1459075#msg1459075
- 2A - States defying Bruen - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1463075#msg1463075
- 2A - Gazzola v Hochul (NY CCIA affecting ammunition/FFLs/gun shops) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458404#msg1458404
- 2A - Rahimi/Range (violent/nonviolent felon RKBA), OH/PA state cases and Drug user RKBA - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466432#msg1466432
- 2A - Handgun Roster - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1462252#msg1462252
- 2A - CA Handgun Roster (Pistols added after preliminary injunctions) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466745#msg1466745
- 2A - Ammunition Restriction and Importation of arms/ammo - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1463746#msg1463746
- 2A - Ban on export of firearms - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1468183#msg1468183
- 2A - Post Office Carry - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/fpc-saf-file-post-office-gun-ban-lawsuit.931523/
- 2A - B&L Productions v Newsom (CA gun show on state property) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1465640#msg1465640
- 2A - Elite Precision v ATF (Federal handgun transfer ban) - FPC lawsuit challenging federal ban on interstate handgun sales - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1462252#msg1462252
- 2A - 18-20 year olds RKBA / Reese v ATF - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1467345#msg1467345
- ATF - Bump Stock - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1458134#msg1458134
- ATF - Pistol Brace - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1465292#msg1465292
- ATF - 80% frame or receiver / "ghost gun" - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466564#msg1466564
- ATF - Forced Reset Trigger - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1467893#msg1467893
- ATF - Efforts to abolish ATF/Repeal NFA/Hearing Protection Act/Legalize suppressor parts - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466714#msg1466714

[Live Life]

Update to Rahimi/Range (violent/nonviolent felon RKBA), OH/PA state cases, US v Daniels (Drug user RKBA) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466432#msg1466432

Update to Executive Order on Second Amendment - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1468623#msg1468623

Bondi Proposes "Clean Slate" to Process of Restoring Gun Rights - Attorney General Pam Bondi is advocating for a "clean slate" when it comes to the federal restoration of Second Amendment rights in a proposed rule slated to soon be published in the Federal Register - https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2025/03/19/bondi-clean-slate-revisions-to-restoring-gun-rights-n1228030

Gun Owners of America - https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1902387288094454081

Department of Justice proposes rule to allow federal restoration of gun rights for the first time in 32 years pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 925(c)

Would-be gun owners who committed non-violent crimes & who have had other rights restored have written to GOA for more than THREE DECADES requesting relief from the "Schumer Amendment."

The importance of this gun rights restoration rule by @TheJusticeDept cannot be understated.

https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1902400306433925565

Because of an amendment by @SenSchumer in 1992, ATF has been prohibited from restoring gun rights for the last 32 years!

Thank you @AGPamBondi for undoing this egregious infringement.

[Live Life]

Update to Efforts to abolish ATF/Repeal NFA/Hearing Protection Act/Legalize suppressor parts - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466714#msg1466714

Update to Executive Order on Second Amendment - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1469281#msg1469281

On March 17, Biden-era holdover acting US Attorney Michael Simpson "filed brief for @TheJusticeDept arguing that silencers are NOT arms & are NOT protected by the Second Amendment" for US v Peterson - https://x.com/GunFoundation/status/1901776688100360477

On March 19, Robert Leider is hired as Assistant Director/Chief Counsel. 👍

So who is Robert Leider? - https://www.guns.com/news/2025/03/20/pro-2a-law-professor-now-chief-counsel-at-atf

Self-described on his social media page as "Associate Professor, GMU, Antonin Scalia Law School. Interests include the right of self-defense, gun control, and the Second Amendment," Leider has written extensively on the subject of Constitutional rights, and, in particular, gun rights. One of his recent scholarly works includes a 56-page paper on "The Individual Right To Bear Arms For Common Defense," preceded by a 48-pager on "The General Right to Bear Arms," and 23 pages on "Constitutional Liquidation, Surety Laws, and the Right to Bear Arms."

Leider has also provided analysis on important gun rights cases for the Federalist Society and The Volokh Conspiracy, among others.

Perhaps most importantly, last December, he weighed in at The Reload on why gun rights advocates may stand to benefit more from an extensively reformed ATF rather than see the Bureau scrapped. This could show the Trump administration's hand on what may be in store for the country's gun regulatory agency.

And within 24 hours, AG Pam Bondi's DOJ does an about face 180 and "will reconsider its incorrect position" expressed by Biden-era holdover Michael Simpson for 30 days.

Gun Owners Foundation - https://x.com/GunFoundation/status/1902749833909129662

🚨BREAKING🚨

The Department of Justice will reconsider its incorrect position that suppressors are not arms and are not protected by the Second Amendment.

[Live Life]

Update to AW/Magazine ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1469071#msg1469071

Regarding Duncan v Bonta (CA Magazine ban) - https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/

Ruling - https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-03-20-Opinion.pdf

Ninth Circuit strikes again in Duncan v. Bonta - https://crpa.org/news/alert/en-banc-duncan-decision-on-to-scotus/

Just like so many times in the past, the Ninth Circuit has left the 2A community scratching our heads and prepping an appeal to the Supreme Court.  Today’s en banc decision upholds the state’s ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds over vigorous three judge dissent.

Judge Patrick J. Bumatay’s scathing dissent pointed out the panel’s misapplication of the new standard: “Bruen did two things: (1) it ended judicial interest balancing and (2) it provided a new framework for considering Second Amendment challenges. Despite this revolutionary change, things remain the same at the Ninth Circuit. Faithfully applying Bruen requires a course correction that the majority refuses to take. Instead, the majority just declares it knows better and charts its own path. But that disrespects the Supreme Court and the rule of law.”

“But the majority didn’t just butcher the Second Amendment and give a judicial middle finger to the Supreme Court. It also spurned statutory procedure for en banc proceedings. As explained in my dissent from the order filed concurrently with this opinion, this en banc court lacks statutory jurisdiction to decide this new appeal, years after it remanded the prior appeal to the district court,” added Judge Ryan Nelson.

Judge Lawrence VanDyke went so far as to record a video explaining his dissent from the majority.  It’s well worth a watch, you can check it out here.

CRPA President & General Counsel Chuck Michel expressed disappointment regarding the outcome and resolve to continue the fight:

“This incorrect ruling is not surprising considering the inclination of many 9th Circuit judges to improperly limit the Second Amendment’s protections. We will seek review from the Supreme Court immediately. That Court has already vacated an incorrect ruling from the 9th Circuit in this case once, and we expect that the Justices will do that again. It is high time for the Supreme Court to reign in lower courts that are not following the Supreme Court’s mandates as laid out in the Heller and Bruen cases, and this case presents an opportunity for the High Court to do that emphatically.”

Instead of applying the Bruen standard properly, the majority in today’s decision embraced the state’s feeble argument that the magazines banned by the statute are not arms at all, but rather “accessories.”  Sure, the state could not cite any historical analogs to the law as Bruen requires, but all that held little weight for the majority.

Kostas Moros of Michel & Associates - https://michellawyers.com/attorney-profile/konstadinos-t-moros/

Kostas Moros - https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1902868035691745322

In sum, this ruling was exactly what we expected when the Ninth Circuit questionably took this as a "comeback" case to the exact same 11-judge panel (which they did to make sure there was no chance of a conservative panel roll).

The Supreme Court vacated and remanded their last ruling so they could redo it in light of Bruen. They kicked it all the way back down to the district court to waste two and a half years. And then, they reached the exact same ruling. Not one of the 7 judges in the majority changed their position even with Bruen shredding their prior interest-balancing method. They just repackaged their same logic into a Bruen/Rahimi costume, and issued it again. 

So now the games are over. 

This case has been pending since 2017. It has already been vacated and remanded by SCOTUS once. It is a final judgment case with a lengthy record. The Ninth Circuit has, as Judge Nelson put it, given the Supreme Court the middle finger and refused to budge from their prior result. If SCOTUS does not intervene, thousands of Californians with "freedom week" magazines will permanently be dispossessed of their property (or become criminals).

The stakes couldn't be higher, and there are NO EXCUSES for the Supreme Court to deny cert. If they deny even this, then the message is clear: they are hanging the Second Amendment out to dry and didn't really mean what they said in Bruen.

I hope they grant cert in this case, Snope, or both, and we finally put this issue of bans on common arms to bed.

[Angel Eyes]

Re Duncan v. Bonta:  Judge Van Dyke made a video dissent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMC7Ntd4d4c

[Live Life]

Re Duncan v. Bonta:  Judge Van Dyke made a video dissent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMC7Ntd4d4c

AK on the wall was a nice touch.

[dogmush]

An interesting scilencer case, brought by James Reeves of TFBTV; https://x.com/jjreeves/status/1902765257141125595?t=es9_33E4NSf_rU3F-WugxQ&s=19

This could be a good test of what post-Chevron "determinations " are going to look like.

This morning, I filed a lawsuit against the BATFE.

Suit was filed on behalf of my client @_DonnyFL. The lawsuit concerns the ATF's silencer classification scheme.

First, I should mention that @_DonnyFL is financing this lawsuit of of their own pockets - we don't have any support at all from any gun advocacy or lobbying groups - we'll gladly take whatever help we can get.

DonnyFL manufactures airgun moderators. If you haven't shot a modern airgun, you might not understand how these are definitely useful. Indeed, several companies manufacture airgun moderators, but DonnyFL was individually targeted by the BATFE for making firearm silencers.

Airgun moderators aren't designed for use with powder burning rounds and won't hold up to centerfire cartridge pressures. Moreover, moderators are made with unusual thread patterns to prevent their use on firearms. However, the BATFE discovered that the DonnyFL "Ronin" would allegedly suppress a .22LR fired from a Ruger 22/45 pistol. How? With use of a thread adapter to couple the 1/2x20" Ronin to the 1/2x28" Ruger.

Ignoring several issues with this, the most glaring is that the BATFE already lost this *EXACT SAME CASE* in U.S. v. Crooker, 608 F.3d 94 (1st Cir. 2010) where the court opined that an airgun moderator requiring a thread adapter to fit onto a .22LR pistol does not automatically become a “silencer” just because it is *capable* of suppressing a firearm after it has been modified or adapted. The court found that the question of whether
the moderator is a “firearm silencer” turns on whether the defendant *intended* that the airgun
moderator be used as a silencer for a firearm.

After I pointed this out to the BATFE, they never responded to me, and instead spent nearly a year hunting for 1/2x20" threaded firearms and found the Intratec TEC-22 (Intratec was out of business before DonnyFL even started), and the CZ 457 Royal (which came out AFTER DonnyFL began making the Ronin). Both of these guns, for some reason, use a 1/2x20" muzzle thread pitch.

The BATFE used these two obscure, anachronistic guns as evidence that DonnyFL *intended* their moderators to be used as firearm silencers.

DonnyFL does not want to be forced to turn over customer lists or destroy inventory as a result of this arbitrary determination and has decided to fight it instead.

Historically, agencies like the ATF have relied on Chevron deference, a doctrine established in Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which required courts to defer to an agency’s interpretation
of ambiguous statutory language if the interpretation was reasonable. However, the Supreme Court overturned Chevron deference in 2023, which means courts no longer owe deference to the ATF’s determinations.

Accordingly, this lawsuit isn't just about airgun moderators - instead, it will have lasting implications as to what a silencer is and who gets to define it.

My firm is honored to represent Donny and his company, and we will do our best to bring visibility - and maybe an end - to shifting definitions and selective enforcement of silencer regulations.

[Live Life]

Update to Executive Order on Second Amendment - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1469390#msg1469390

The White House - https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1902902359467995602

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. 🇺🇸

The White House - https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1903074315509137477

What a difference a new President can make! 🇺🇸

[Live Life]

Update to National carry reciprocity - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1462803#msg1462803

Rep. Richard Hudson - https://x.com/RepRichHudson/status/1903182583476916399

🚨BREAKING: Chairman @Jim_Jordan and @JudiciaryGOP are planning a markup next week for my bipartisan HR 38 — the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act!

This is a major step in getting HR 38 passed & signed into law, & I’ll continue fighting until we get the job done.

Gun Owners of America - https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1903238018632389097

🔫 President Trump is calling on Congress to pass nationwide carry.

We are glad to see the House of Representatives advancing H.R. 38, the GOA-endorsed Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. 🇺🇸

[Live Life]

 

Kostas Moros - https://x.com/MorosKostas/status/1903318048137941301

We also cite an obscure academic. I forget who he is, but no worries though you probably won't see him come up much these next four years.

Update to Efforts to abolish ATF/Repeal NFA/Hearing Protection Act/Legalize suppressor parts - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466714#msg1466714

... On March 19, Robert Leider is hired as Assistant Director/Chief Counsel. 👍

So who is Robert Leider? - https://www.guns.com/news/2025/03/20/pro-2a-law-professor-now-chief-counsel-at-atf

Self-described on his social media page as "Associate Professor, GMU, Antonin Scalia Law School. Interests include the right of self-defense, gun control, and the Second Amendment," Leider has written extensively on the subject of Constitutional rights, and, in particular, gun rights. One of his recent scholarly works includes a 56-page paper on "The Individual Right To Bear Arms For Common Defense," preceded by a 48-pager on "The General Right to Bear Arms," and 23 pages on "Constitutional Liquidation, Surety Laws, and the Right to Bear Arms."

Leider has also provided analysis on important gun rights cases for the Federalist Society and The Volokh Conspiracy, among others.

Perhaps most importantly, last December, he weighed in at The Reload on why gun rights advocates may stand to benefit more from an extensively reformed ATF rather than see the Bureau scrapped. This could show the Trump administration's hand on what may be in store for the country's gun regulatory agency.

And within 24 hours, AG Pam Bondi's DOJ does an about face 180 and "will reconsider its incorrect position" expressed by Biden-era holdover Michael Simpson for 30 days.

[Live Life]

Adding to Executive Order on Second Amendment - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1469446#msg1469446

"Donald Trump is the BEST Second Amendment President EVER"

TRUMP & AG PAM BONDI LAUNCH POWERFUL 2A ATTACKS... Trump and Bondi's latest support of 2A - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV0RDlA0q5k

- Major breaking news ... involving Pam Bondi and Donald Trump and the Department of Justice and the Second Amendment
- There's a little misinformation out there but don't worry the overall trend is ... great news
- A lot of stuff including a powerful statement ... from the White House on their X official account
- Let's start off with the good news, the fantastic news ... just exactly how aggressive and robust the Trump administration ... Pam Bondi has been advancing our Second Amendment rights
- Remember ... Trump administration needs to get their Second Amendment people into the administration and I explained ... who can qualify for what positions under the "plum book" - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466780#msg1466780
- We still don't have a Second Amendment Solicitor General of the United States in place ... John Sauer has had his confirmation ... but he has not yet been voted on and that is mission critical because it is the Solicitor General ... the job in the department of justice who is responsible for advocating and articulating the administration's position in all court of appeals cases including the 5th Circuit (we'll get to that in a second) and in particular the US Supreme Court and they argue the big cases  ... which means that until John Sauer is confirmed, we're not going to have the official Second Amendment positions ... in federal courts ... the person that basically lays down the law ... on behalf of the Trump administration
- Not only that, Trump needs John Sauer and others in there not just for the Second Amendment fights but also for all this insanity going on with those DC district court judges which we'll cover in a separate video
- So let's get into the specific news
- First of all, fantastic news right off the start ... the White House official account literally sent out last night the following words in response to a comment from Dan Bongino who is now with the DOJ ... went to visit the ATF and the White House retweeted photos of him at the ATF and talking about how they're going to protect our constitutional rights and here's what the White House official account said,

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms (then in all caps) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

- When was the last time we saw a powerful statement about the Second Amendment from a White House official account on X or otherwise?
- Fantastic news! It goes back to the point I've been saying long before the election Donald Trump gets in there, he will be and continue to be the best Second Amendment president we have ever had and that is 100% true ... And if you don't understand why I'm saying this it means you don't understand the history of the country and the dynamics involving the politics and what we now confront in the anti-gun with the anti-gun movement now having billions of dollars backstopping them in a way that other presidents including President Reagan did not have
- Donald Trump is the BEST Second Amendment president EVER ... I stand fully by that and this is further proof of that but there's a lot more evidence of that we're going to get to right this second which is all the actions that are being taken
- Okay now ... involving that suppressor issue ... 5th Circuit ... Peterson case which was a terrible decision by a three judge panel totally got it wrong and I explained that ... very embarrassing ... panel concluded that suppressors are not arms under the text of the Second Amendment ... they argued textually ... that suppressors are not arms they embraced the Joe Biden DOJ position because it was the Biden lawyers that argued this to the 5th Circuit and ... this was clearly wrong
- 5th Circuit court of appeals indicated, uh kind of already indicated they're going to reflect on whether or not they wanted to rehear this En Banc internally
- Remember this is the case called United States versus Peterson ... this is a criminal case ... Mr. Peterson was allegedly caught with an unregistered suppressor ... the lawyers for Mr. Peterson filed a motion with the 5th Circuit arguing for rehearing En Banc ... which means every single judge ... for the 5th Circuit would hear the question of whether or not suppressors are protected arms under the Second Amendment and that aspect of the NFA is unconstitutional and lawyers for Peterson argued that 5th Circuit should rehear this case En Banc
- The 5th Circuit then issued a directive to the US Department of Justice saying "Please tell us what your position is."
- The acting US attorney for the district of Louisiana ... filed a submission to the 5th Circuit basically reiterating the basic position that suppressors are not protected arms under the Second Amendment and everyone said "Oh my god this is Pam Bondi and Donald Trump throwing the Second Amendment movement under the bus."
- And I said on X unequivocally ... do not worry about this ... this is irrelevant ... there's no chance ... that this acting US attorney from Louisiana is going to set the Second Amendment policy on suppressors or otherwise for the Trump administration and Pam Bondi ... I'm sure that neither Trump nor Pam Bondi even knew this was going on ... don't worry about it ... literally lose zero sleep
- Well guess what just happened?
- What just happened was that obviously someone in the Trump administration noticed ... and just filed a request to the 5th Circuit saying that please wait, we are going to reconsider our position as the Department of Justice as to whether or not suppressors are protected arms under the Second Amendment so hold off ... don't do anything until we get back to you ... we may be altering our position from that submission from the acting US attorney down there in Louisiana
- Which absolutely is the correct position ... Again the 5th Circuit is not unsophisticated ... the judges there I'm sure totally understood that that submission was meaningless because they knew that the Trump administration was probably going to come in with a more robust Second Amendment defense once John Sauer is confirmed as the Solicitor General of the United States
- Because again right now you really have a football team, if you will, that has an owner which is Donald Trump ... it has a general manager which picks the players which is sort of Pam Bondi but you have no head coach over constitutional questions in the courts of appeals or the Supreme Court because the head coach is the Solicitor General of the United States
- And as we sit here right now, we have an acting Solicitor General who's very good ... Sarah Harris she's excellent technically ... she's a very good lawyer but the reality is you're going to want your official full-blown confirmed Solicitor General to be officially setting policy on these huge cases including the Second Amendment and that's not going to happen until the confirmation of John Sauer
- So anything involving the Second Amendment ... DOJ made that clear with a submission saying hold off we're going to reconsider our position and there's no doubt in my view that suppressors are arms for a whole host of reasons
- The definition of arm is anything that can be used offensively or defensively
- If you ban suppressors, what you've essentially done is you've banned an entire category of firearms those are firearms that are capable of firing suppressed rounds
- We also know specifically from the Bruen decision there's a critical sentence in there where they're discussing what are protected arms ... they specifically say that an arm is any ... listen carefully ... any instrument ... any instrument they didn't say arm ... they didn't say weapon ... they said any instrument that helps facilitate ... facilitate not necessary not essential that helps facilitate armed self-defense ... that's the critical language in Bruen
- An instrument that facilitates armed self-defense is a protected arm ... there's no doubt that a suppressor is an instrument ... there's no doubt it facilitates armed self-defense because you can use it on a weapon to do all sorts of protective things ... including protecting your hearing and the hearing of people and your loved ones around you
- Under the "in common use" test there are between four and five million suppressors in the United States totally in common use
- I think ultimately we should win the Peterson case ... it may go to the US Supreme Court and I think the DOJ under John Sauer and Pam Bondi and Donald Trump will make the arguments that are appropriate but we'll see
- The next critical thing that Donald Trump has done is ... it's a huge deal ... is the restoration of rights
- Remember there are somewhere between ... two and four million felons that have served their sentences in the United States today and yet they have been disarmed for life this includes people like Brian Range in the 3rd Circuit who had to win his case to get his gun rights back.  People like Martha Stewart that were convicted of lying to the FBI (even though the FBI gets to lie to us, we're not allowed to lie to the FBI how is that fair but I set that issue aside)
- Other great thing that Donald Trump has done of course Robert Leider who has done events for the Federal Society ... a great guy, very talented former Clarence Thomas clerk, powerful credentials ... He's a great academic and a great scholar ... he's an excellent lawyer ... an excellent addition to the Trump administration and to the Department of Justice so that is a huge advantage
- He's now been named the Chief Counsel to the ATF, this is a huge win for the Second Amendment ... He's going to do a fantastic job and as you know the old rule ... if you pick the right people, you get the right policies ... I think one of the things that Donald Trump has done so well this term is he's picking fantastic people including people like Robert Leider who's a spectacular pro-Second Amendment, pro-right to keep and bear arms guy
- Next thing of course is you've seen that Pam Bondi has redeployed the ATF law enforcement agents to immigration enforcement ... This is a big deal because again to the extent that the ATF law enforcement agents with the power to arrest, the power to carry guns are focusing on illegal aliens and kicking them out of the country ... that means they're not harassing law-abiding gun owners
- The other great thing ... continuing resolution that was enacted and signed off by President Trump and the Congress that's got Chuck Schuber into big trouble is a hugely positive deal for the Second Amendment ... Donald Trump and DOJ has the authority to use the money for the Second Amendment ... hear what I just said ... it went from like being very specifically targeted to like here's the money for ATF, here's the money for prisons, here's the money for FBI, here's the money for OM, here's the money for this department and that department the Solicitor General's office
- You see ... it went from being very specific ... to under the new continuing resolution that was just adopted it just said "Here's a bunch of money for the Department of Justice, the Department of Justice to spend on the Department of Justice." See ... you went from a situation where there were specific kind of line item budget items ... to just giving Donald Trump and Pam Bondi the authority to allocate money at DOJ within the DOJ as they see fit which actually means .... listen carefully folks ... you're going to like this you're going to love this ... means Donald Trump could take all the money and Pam Bondi could take virtually all the money away from ATF and reallocate it to I don't know immigration enforcement or the FBI or some other thing because it hasn't been line item specifically saying ATF gets all this money ... it's just allocated to the DOJ and if Pam Bondi wants to reallocate the bulk of that money outside of ATF and starve ATF of funds, I'm not seeing a reason why that cannot occur
- I think that's why ... they are so upset with Chuck Schumer not filibustering the budget deal is the argument was this was not a traditional continuing resolution where you just continued every program in the as it was the prior year ... this was technically a new budget here what I just said it wasn't really a continuing resolution it was really ... it was really just a new budget bill that now ... allowed Pam Bondi and Donald Trump to take all this money away from ATF or the Department of Education and reallocated by virtue of how the bill was written which is fantastic news

[Live Life]

Update to AW/Magazine ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1469405#msg1469405

SAF - https://x.com/2AFDN/status/1901662291885772821

Snope has been redistributed for conference Friday, 3/21

Another relist ...

SAF - https://x.com/2AFDN/status/1904193810688868459

Snope has been redistributed for conference on 3/28/25.

[Live Life]

Update to  80% frame or receiver / "ghost gun" - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466564#msg1466564

Regarding VanDerStok v Bondi - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/17-states-join-goa-gof-and-sue-atf%E2%80%99s-new-firearms-rule-on-80-percent-kits.908730/page-6#post-12995558

Firearms Policy Coalition - https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1904901385771979205

FPC LEGAL ALERT: The Supreme Court has upheld the ATF's "frame or receiver" rule. You can read the opinion here: https://firearmspolicy.org/vanderstok

Ruling - https://assets.nationbuilder.com/firearmspolicycoalition/pages/6573/attachments/original/1742998466/2025.03.26_OPINION.pdf?1742998466

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

BONDI, ATTORNEY GENERAL, ET AL. v. VANDERSTOK ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 23–852. Argued October 8, 2024—Decided March 26, 2025

The Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA) requires those engaged in importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms to obtain federal licenses, keep sales records, conduct background checks, and mark their products with serial numbers. The Act defines “firearm” to include “(A) any weapon ... which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; [and] (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon.” 18 U. S. C. §921(a)(3).  Recent years have witnessed profound changes in how guns are made and sold, with companies now able to sell weapon parts kits that individuals can assemble into functional firearms at home ...

In 2022, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) adopted a rule interpreting the Act to cover weapon parts kits that are “designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile,” 27 CFR §478.11, and “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” frames or receivers, §478.12(c). Before ATF could enforce its rule, gun manufacturers and others filed what they described as a facial challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the GCA cannot be read to reach weapon parts kits or unfinished frames or receivers. The District Court agreed and vacated the rule. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that §921(a)(3)(A) categorically does not reach weapon parts kits regardless of completeness or ease of assembly, and that §921(a)(3)(B) reaches only finished frames and receivers ...

...  reversed and remanded.

GORSUCH, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SOTOMAYOR, KAGAN, KAVANAUGH, BARRETT, and JACKSON, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., KAVANAUGH, J., and JACKSON, J., each filed concurring opinions. THOMAS, J., and ALITO, J., each filed dissenting opinions.

... Of course, the plaintiffs think the agency’s new rule reaches further than the statute can bear by seeking to regulate some products too far removed from finished frames or receivers. But, for our purposes, what matters is that even the plaintiffs do not really insist that subsection (B) reaches only finished frames and receivers.

Here, again, our reasoning has its limits. In saying that a product like Polymer80’s qualifies as a “frame,” we do not suggest that the GCA reaches, and ATF may regulate, any combination of parts susceptible of conversion into a frame or receiver with sufficient time, tools, and expertise. Like the term “weapon,” the artifact nouns “frame” and “receiver” have their bounds. Some products may be so far from a finished frame or receiver that they cannot fairly be described using those terms. But this case requires us to explore none of that. The plaintiffs do not challenge ATF’s new rule as applied to particular products. They argue only that §478.12 is facially inconsistent with the GCA. And, here again, we have no trouble rejecting that unqualified view.

... This case requires us to answer only whether subsection (B) reaches some incomplete frames or receivers. Saying that it does is enough to resolve the dispute before us.

The plaintiffs close by asking us to invoke the rule of lenity or the doctrine of constitutional avoidance to resolve in their favor any ambiguities about §921(a)(3). Brief form Respondent VanDerStok 38; see also post, at 24 (THOMAS, J., dissenting). But neither lenity nor avoidance has any role to play where “text, context, and structure” decide the case. Van Buren v. United States, 593 U. S. 374, 393–394 (2021). And even if ambiguities at the outer boundaries of subsections (A) and (B) emerge in future disputes involving the application of those provisions to particular products, no room for doubt exists about the answer to the question the parties have posed to us. The GCA embraces, and thus permits ATF to regulate, some weapon parts kits and unfinished frames or receivers, including those we have discussed. Because the court of appeals held otherwise, its judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

[Live Life]

Update to National carry reciprocity - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1469522#msg1469522

Rep. Richard Hudson - https://x.com/RepRichHudson/status/1903182583476916399

🚨BREAKING: Chairman @Jim_Jordan and @JudiciaryGOP are planning a markup next week for my bipartisan HR 38 — the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act!

This is a major step in getting HR 38 passed & signed into law, & I’ll continue fighting until we get the job done.

Nice!!!

Thomas Massie - https://x.com/RepThomasMassie/status/1905047117409800200

Yesterday, our Judiciary Committee passed HR 38, National Reciprocity. I support this bill, but there is a better option, and it is National Constitutional Carry.

29 states already have Constitutional (i.e. permitless) Carry. Why not extend it to all 50 states?

Under HR 38 (Reciprocity), a resident of one of the Constitutional Carry states can carry in any state that allows their citizens to obtain a permit. The recent “Bruen” Supreme Court decision requires all states that aren’t Constitutional Carry to issue carry permits to their citizens.

This means that when HR 38 passes, any resident of those 29 Constitutional Carry states will be able to carry in any of the 50 states without a permit. Ironically, however, residents of the 21 states (like New York or California) that aren’t Constitutional Carry will need a permit to carry in their own state, while visitors from states that are Constitutional Carry (like Kentucky or Ohio) won’t need a permit to carry in states like New York or California.

If Congress, relying on the Second Amendment, can force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Kentuckians who visit California, why would we not force California to allow “Permitless” Carry for Californians who are in California? In other words, why not pass National Constitutional Carry and afford everyone in the United States the right to “bear arms” which is enshrined in the Constitution?

The other quirk of HR 38 is that (I believe) it would allow a person from Kentucky to carry an AR-15 pistol with a 20-round magazine in California, while Californians would not be allowed to carry, or even own, the same equipment. The Supreme Court decision in “D.C. v. Heller,” whether you agree with it or not, allows states to have some regulations on firearm equipment and eligibility to possess, but HR 38 seems to contradict that framework.

Contrast this with my National Constitutional Carry bill which basically says if a state allows people to possess (KEEP) a particular firearm, that state must also allow people to carry (BEAR) that firearm.

I introduced my National Constitutional Carry bill in committee yesterday as a substitute amendment to HR 38, National Reciprocity. After introducing the amendment for the record and describing it, I withdrew the amendment instead of putting my Judiciary Committee colleagues in the position of deciding whether to replace National Reciprocity with National Constitutional Carry. The dilemma is that not enough Republicans in the whole House understand the difference, and the prevailing opinion is that Reciprocity can pass the whole House, but Constitutional Carry cannot.

Perhaps when more of my colleagues who are not on the Judiciary Committee understand why we should pass National Constitutional Carry instead of (or in addition to) National Reciprocity, we can make a strong push to report National Constitutional Carry out of the Judiciary Committee for a vote in the full House of Representatives. In the meantime, I’m glad HR 38 is going to the House floor for a vote.

[Live Life]

Update to Executive Order on Second Amendment - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1469595#msg1469595

Update to Carry ban cases - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1468904#msg1468904

Regarding CRPA v LASD (CA non-resident carry permit) - https://armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=70249.msg1466562#msg1466562

Chuck Michel @CRPAPresident - https://x.com/CRPAPresident/status/1905389965623918610

Almost two years ago, CRPA notified California Attorney General Bonta that numerous cities and counties were violating the right to carry by charging exorbitant amounts for CCW permits, or taking as long as two years to process applications. Bonta did nothing, so we had to launch our lawsuit against some offending jurisdictions in CRPA v. LASD.
 
What a difference an election can make. Today, we are pleased to see that the Trump Administration is acting to protect the Second Amendment rights of Californians where California's politicians have failed to, by launching an investigation into these abuses in Los Angeles. We are also excited to see our lawsuit referenced throughout their announcement.
 
We look forward to continuing to work with the United States Department of Justice whenever possible to protect the Second Amendment rights of Californians.

Chuck Michel @CRPAPresident - https://x.com/CRPAPresident/status/1905385906795852256

Full press release here, which references our lawsuit's preliminary injunction.

Pay attention California cities, particularly LAPD and Santa Clara. CRPA will be suing you next and letting DOJ know about your games.

And of course, thank you to @2AFDN, @GunOwners, @GunOwnersCA for joining CRPA as Plaintiffs in CRPA v. LASD!

U.S. Department of Justice Announces Second Amendment Pattern-or-Practice Investigation into California’s Los Angeles County - https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/us-department-justice-announces-second-amendment-pattern-or-practice-investigation

Attorney General Pamela Bondi - “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and under my watch, the Department will actively enforce the Second Amendment just like it actively enforces other fundamental constitutional rights.”

Thursday, March 27, 2025

Office of Public Affairs

Protecting the Second Amendment rights of ordinary, law-abiding Americans is a high priority for this Administration.

As part of a broader review of restrictive firearms-related laws in California and other States, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division today announced an investigation into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to determine whether it is engaging in a pattern or practice of depriving ordinary, law-abiding Californians of their Second Amendment rights. A recent federal court decision found that “the law and facts [we]re clearly in … favor” of two private plaintiffs who challenged the lengthy eighteen-month delays that the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department had imposed when processing their concealed handgun license applications. And the Civil Rights Division has reason to believe that those two plaintiffs are not the only residents of Los Angeles County experiencing similarly long delays that are unduly burdening, or effectively denying, the Second Amendment rights of the people of Los Angeles.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that the Second Amendment is not “a second-class right.” And over the past two decades, the Supreme Court has recognized that the Second Amendment is a fundamental, individual constitutional right and has taken multiple opportunities to strengthen Second Amendment protections for ordinary, law-abiding citizens.

Some States and localities, however, have resisted this recent pro-Second Amendment caselaw. And California has been a particularly egregious offender. In response to recent Supreme Court caselaw, California enacted new legislation to further restrict the ability of ordinary, law-abiding Californians to keep and bear arms. And many California localities appear to be imposing additional burdens beyond those required by California state law, including by subjecting ordinary, law-abiding Californians to expensive fees and lengthy weight times associated with applications for concealed handgun licenses.

“This Department of Justice will not stand idly by while States and localities infringe on the Second Amendment rights of ordinary, law-abiding Americans,” said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and under my watch, the Department will actively enforce the Second Amendment just like it actively enforces other fundamental constitutional rights.”

Attorney General Bondi hopes that states and localities will voluntarily embrace their duty to protect the Second Amendment rights of their citizens. But if necessary, today’s announcement will be the first of many similar investigations, lawsuits, or other actions involving other localities in California, the State of California itself, and any other states or localities that insist on unduly burdening, or effectively denying, the Second Amendment rights of their ordinary, law-abiding citizens.