A decades-old U.S. government ban on federally licensed firearms dealers selling handguns to adults under the age of 21 is unconstitutional, a U.S. appeals court held on Thursday, citing recent U.S. Supreme Court rulings expanding gun rights.

The ruling by the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals marked the first time a federal appeals court has held that the prohibition violated the right to keep and bear arms enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment. //

U.S. Circuit Judge Edith Jones, writing for Thursday's three-judge panel, said that decision was wrong, as the statutes were "unconstitutional in light of our Nation's historic tradition of firearm regulation."

The U.S. Department of Justice during Democratic former President Joe Biden's tenure had defended the ban. But Jones said it put forth "scant" evidence to show that the gun rights of adults ages 18 to 20 were similarly restricted during the nation's founding era in the 1700s. //

This case, in addition to being a win for the Second Amendment, could well remove one of these restrictions on people who are legally adults and should be expected to be treated as such. And if a person who is 18, 19, or 20 years old is not deemed responsible enough to buy a gun or a beer, why do we let them vote?

Imagine if a woman lost her right to vote, protected by the 19th Amendment, simply because she crossed into a state with different historical views on sex roles. Or consider if a journalist’s First Amendment protections were recognized in one state but ignored in another. Such infringements are unthinkable — and rightly so.

Yet this is precisely the reality facing law-abiding gun owners who travel with concealed-carry permits. Their constitutional right to self-defense, which has been affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, is undermined by a patchwork of state laws.

Like other rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment exists to protect individuals from government overreach. Allowing states to restrict concealed-carry permits undermines the universality of these protections.

In states with left-leaning legislatures, such as New York and Illinois, gun rights are subjected to restrictions that would never be tolerated if applied to other constitutional rights. This double standard is deliberate. Unlike other amendments, the Second Amendment has been politicized to the point it is often treated as a second-class right. //

National reciprocity streamlines these inconsistencies by requiring states to honor permits other states have issued, similar to how driver’s licenses are universally recognized. Importantly, this legislation would not force states to change their permitting standards. It would simply ensure that permits granted in one state are respected in another, preserving the rights of permit holders while respecting state sovereignty.

Concealed-carry permit holders are statistically among the most law-abiding groups in the country. They commit crimes at rates significantly lower than the general population, including police officers. Allowing them to carry across state lines would not lead to chaos or increased crime. Instead, it would affirm their right to protect themselves and their families wherever they go.
A Matter of Equality and Justice

At its core, national concealed-carry reciprocity is about equality under the law. The current system effectively creates a two-tiered structure of Second Amendment rights, where citizens in some states enjoy full protections while others are without. This disparity is fundamentally at odds with the principles of equality before the law enshrined in the Constitution.

Leftists argue that national reciprocity would infringe on states’ rights. However, states’ rights cannot justify violating individual constitutional freedoms. Just as states cannot override the First or 14th Amendments, they should not be allowed to undermine the Second. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and its protections must apply equally to all Americans.

All of Manley’s 70 plus firearms were unerringly compliant with federal law and the strict firearms laws of Maryland.

When all was said and done, no arrests were made and no firearms or ammunition were seized. The only item taken was Manley’s cell phone.

The family’s home, however, was left in a shambles: front and rear doors shattered, windows broken, floors ruined from flashbang grenades, and dog excrement the family was left to clean up themselves.

Manley told Williams they had only lived in the house for three months when the raid occurred.

To date, the ATF has not issued an explanation for why the raid was conducted, much less publicly apologized for terrorizing the family. Mrs. Manley said the search warrant indicated her husband was a felon in possession of firearms. Manley, however, said he does not have a felony record, he does not sell guns, he does not have any machine guns, and he is still in the dark as to why he was targeted. “To this day we just don’t know,” he told Williams.

If, however, the government truly believed Manley was a felon (hardly a difficult matter for a federal law enforcement agency to investigate and substantiate), he presumably would have been arrested the moment he disclosed his possession of firearms to the agents. That obviously did not happen.

Did the government conduct its due diligence before conducting the raid? What evidence supposedly substantiated the sworn application for the raid? So far, ATF officials have had nothing to say on their own behalf.

The ATF’s actions extracted a heavy toll on the Manley family, who have been left with home repairs, legal bills, and the cost of therapy for their traumatized kids.

Just how restrictive are Mexico's gun control laws? While the reporter notes about 1,000 guns a month are sold legally in the country, around 1.3 million are sold a month in the United States. That's an astronomically higher figure, yet the murder rate in Mexico is well over twice that of the United States.

"60 Minutes" doesn't care about those numbers, though, because the point of their report is to blame the United States for the flow of guns into Mexico. As their narrative goes, because Mexico has such strict gun laws, it must be America's fault that the cartels have fully automatic rifles and machine guns. Of course, those two things are largely outlawed within the United States as well, with only heavily vetted individuals allowed to own them. That's really beside the point, though. //

At the end of the day, nothing is gained by restricting law-abiding citizens from owning firearms. Criminals do not follow gun laws. They don't kill simply because they have access to certain types of weapons. If it wasn't an "assault rifle," it'd be a sawed-off shotgun or a car bomb. The root of the violence in Mexico is not the importation of American-made firearms, however many guns that may add up to. It's the corruption and fecklessness of the government that has allowed the cartels to flourish.

Until that changes, Mexicans and the rest of the world will continue to suffer. If "60 Minutes" weren't such a joke of a news program, they'd have focused on that instead of trying to blame normal Americans for something they have no part in. //

trapper
14 minutes ago
"More guns, less crime". Because guns in the hands of normal law abiding citizens deter crime. This has been demonstrated by John Lott and others again and again.

The bottom line here is that the gun control crowd seems okay with murder if it's murder the mob approves of.

And that, my friends, is something that torpedoes any reason to take the gun control crowd seriously at all. They detest gun violence unless said violence is done on targets that they don't mind seeing gone, or at the very least, are targets politically expedient to ignore. Insurance CEOs, black on black shootings, and border violence to name a few.

Why should we take these people seriously when it comes to their "concerns" about gun violence? They're clearly not that concerned. In truth, many of them treat a wish for gun control like a fad they pick up and drop based on who the victims are.

I mean, these are the same people who threw tantrums when the guy who tried to shoot Trump missed.

Now, I know what you’re thinking: “But synthetic stocks are more durable!” Sure, if you’re planning to drop your rifle off a cliff or leave it in the rain for a week, plastic might hold up better. But durability isn’t the end-all, be-all of a rifle’s value. Wooden rifles weren’t designed to survive a zombie apocalypse; they were made to connect the shooter to something deeper—the land, the tradition, the story. If your only concern is having a rifle that’s “indestructible,” you’re not looking for a rifle. You’re looking for a shovel.

Let’s not forget the charm of modularity—the argument that a modern rifle can be Frankenstein-ed into whatever you want it to be. Adjustable stocks, interchangeable grips, tactical rails galore. But let me ask you: Does a Lego set stir your soul? Because that’s what these modern contraptions are—a mishmash of parts with no heart, no spirit, and no connection to anything but your wallet. A wooden-stocked rifle, on the other hand, is a piece of art. It’s a singular creation, made with purpose and integrity. It’s not a platform; it’s a rifle.

In the end, the difference is simple: a wooden-stocked rifle has a soul. It’s a rifle in the truest sense of the word—a tool, yes, but also a companion, a legacy, and a reminder of what matters. A rifle without wood? It’s just another tool in your toolbox, wedged between the cordless drill and the crowbar. And if that’s what you want, fine. But don’t call it a rifle. Call it what it is: a plastic imposter.

Before November 2020, when the hate speech clause was adopted, the code of ethics all related to how real estate agents and affiliates worked with clients, Fauber said. Now that has changed.

“The NAR has now given themselves permission to police real estate agents 24/7,” Fauber said. “It’s deeply troubling that an organization like the NAR can police my life, and complaints can be filed against me for reading a passage of scripture, even in church; that a person wouldn’t even have to be present to file a complaint about me. That’s far reaching.” //

In Virginia, phone calls of cases like Fauber’s come pouring in daily, Cobb said, regarding someone who has lost a job or suffered significant harm due to their faith. //

Christian realtor Hadassah Carter recently won her case against the Virginia Real Estate Board, citing harassment and discrimination for her beliefs. Carter included Bible verses and Christian phrases on her website and was subjected to monitoring and accused of violating Virginia’s fair housing statutes by the board due to her religious speech.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson questioned whether the court should even be involved in addressing the policy in the first place, saying she was concerned about the court “taking over what Congress may have intended for the agency to do in this situation.”

"I think it can't be assumed that the agency exceeds its authority whenever it interprets a statutory term differently than we would such that all we have to do as a part of this claim here today is just decide what we think a firearm is." //

Justice Brett Kavanaugh expressed concerns that the regulation would criminalize ghost gun sellers who might not be aware that they are violating a law, CNN reported.

“This is an agency regulation that broadens a criminal statute beyond what it had been before,” Kavanaugh asked. “What about the seller, for example, who is truly not aware — truly not aware — that they are violating the law and gets criminally charged?”

Prelogar said prosecutors would have to prove that the seller was willfully violating the law. Kavanaugh described Prelogar’s answer as “helpful.” //

Twist Gamma
12 minutes ago
Kavanaugh nailed it at the end.

I was on board with the government's argument up until Kavanaugh made it clear that this was not a law but an interpretation of a law. Interpretations on something like this should absolutely go in the favor of the citizen, so that citizens do not become criminals without realizing it.

If guns are regulated, there is no problem with regulating, in the same way, a kit that has all of the ingredients + instructions to build a gun. It's the same thing, assuming the kit is complete. Any restriction on guns that passes Constitutional muster could equally be applied to a complete gun kit.

However, deciding that they are equivalent is the job of Congress, not the courts. And ESPECIALLY not the job of the bureaucracy.

Whether the restrictions themselves are Constitutional is a separate question, of course.

The Shot Heard ‘Round The World.

On a cool Massachusetts morning, April 19, 1775, a group of farmers, tradesmen, and other “Minutemen” led by Captain John Parker, gathered on Lexington Commons to…express umbrage at the British Crown’s illegal attempt to confiscate Colonial Weapons.

“Stand your ground. Don’t fire unless fired upon, but if they mean to have a war let it begin here,” declared Parker.

No one knows who fired the first shot, but at the end of the battle, eight Americans lay dead and as many wounded. This came to be known as the “shot heard ‘round the World” and the de facto beginning of the American Revolution.

Fast forward to today—current Vice President and Democrat nominee for President, Kamala Harris again voices a desire to violate an enumerated constitutional right.

The Second Amendment, arguably written with Lexington in mind, is still the only one we need “permission” to exercise and is still under constant attack by the left. That’s generating backlash among popularly elected local Sheriffs, reports The Wall Street Journal. From the article.

The “Second Amendment sanctuary” movement has taken hold in more than 100 counties in several states, including New Mexico and Illinois, where local law-enforcement and county leaders are saying they won’t enforce new legislation that infringes on the constitutional right to bear arms.

This isn’t a “one-of,” issue—we’re talking about over 100 counties across several states. This indicates widespread popular support, support that is galvanizing locally elected Law Enforcement Officials to take notice—and take action. //

Predictably, there has been the mandatory hue and cry from the left, declaring those Sheriffs to be lawless rogues. Strangely enough, this from locales that support sanctuary cities for illegal aliens. Of course, their screeching is without basis. First of all, the local Sheriffs are on pretty solid Constitutional ground.

The “sanctuary” term has most often been applied to immigration. But there are several different types of sanctuary cities – one of which is related to protecting Second Amendment rights. Indeed, over 61 percent of counties in America have declared themselves sanctuaries for gun rights. This means sheriffs and other local law enforcement would refuse to enforce unconstitutional restrictions on firearms coming from state and local governments.

An example would be what happened in Illinois when its government passed an assault weapons ban. Over half of the state’s sheriffs announced they would refuse to enforce the measure. While these counties did not necessarily declare themselves to be sanctuaries, the nullification principle was in action. //

Trump’s vow to end sanctuary cities will have more ramifications than he likely intends. Sure, it would make it easier to track down illegal immigrants – perhaps dangerous ones. But what is to keep a Democratic president from using this as a precedent to crack down on Second Amendment sanctuaries? //

This is why all politics is local. The governments that are closest to us should have the most say over what rules we choose to live under – not politicians in Washington, D.C. The last thing we want is for the federal government to be empowered to go after cities whose elected leaders uphold the Second Amendment – or other natural rights guaranteed in the Constitution. //

Anna DM
8 hours ago
I respectfully disagree. Illegal aliens are, well, illegal and so cutting off the funding to localities that endorse and support illegal activities is perfectly sane and rational. Gun ownership in the US is protected by the 2A. If some localities decide to disobey the 2A (placing unconstitutional prohibitions on the right to keep and bear arms) and then subunits within that locality decide to disobey the disobeying entity, that's not a sanctuary situation. That's a (very constitutional) middle finger to the entity that is disobeying the constitution. In the end, the courts generally overrule such unlawful incursions against the 2A. The two examples are not the same thing, IMO.

I say defund the sanctuary cities as regards illegal aliens. //

Terrible System
8 hours ago
2nd Amendment sanctuary cities are set up to protect clear 2nd Amendment rights. Immigration sanctuary cities are set up t0 abet violations of federal immigration law, which is clearly within the purview of the federal government to enforce.

There is no legitimate comparison here.

Reports have since emerged that Hezbollah was planning an "October 7-like" attack on Israel codenamed "Conquer the Galilee." October 7, 2023, was, of course, the day that Hamas terrorists from Gaza conducted a merciless assault on Israel, resulting in the barbarous murders of thousands of Israelis and the kidnappings of hundreds more — many of whom are still being held hostage nearly a year later.

Following the latest action by Israel, the IDF revealed what they believe Hezbollah was planning:

'Hezbollah intended to infiltrate Israeli communities and kidnap and murder innocent civilians in a similar manner to the October 7 Massacre,' the IDF said.

'The IDF will continue to remove the threat of Hezbollah's capabilities and will continue to operate in all arenas to protect Israeli civilians.' //

Alpinealan
8 hours ago edited
If the Israelis "crossed all lines", why is the Iranian Embassy in Beirut still standing??

I applaud what the Israelis are now doing. With the feckless BribeMe Administration rendered even more impotent now that it is lame duck, it is a good time for settling scores.

However, the Israelis really need to come to terms with human nature and reality. The death penalty for heinous murderers such as Yahwa Sinwar would have prevented him being used as a pawn in ridiculous "hostage negotiations" trading a single soldier for approximately two infantry battalions of hardened criminals who certainly have added themselves to Hamas' order of battle. How many IDF soldiers have died in the past year because the feckless Israeli state put the life of that one hostage above that of soldiers who have to confront them once again on the battlefield? While loudmouthed hostage families pressure Bibi into committing national suicide to save their hostage son (who ended up with a bullet to the back of his head regardless...), Israelis soldiers are bleeding and dying fighting this criminal enterprise. Being serious about the death penalty...broadly supported in the Hebrew scriptures...would do much to staunch the dumbassery that is going on with hostages.

And if every citizen has mandatory military service, how the hell did the citizens face the Oct. 7th terrorists unarmed...discovering that when seconds count, the IDF is hours away? It isn't like citizens don't know how to safely handle weapons, is it? How incredibly stupid.

Liberal lunacy always gets mugged by reality. But then again, how many American Jews will vote for the Laughingstock?

On Wednesday, one of her prior statements went viral in a resurrected clip from a May 2007 press conference. It is more than a little concerning.

Trump War Room @TrumpWarRoom
·
Kamala: “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn't mean that we're not going to walk into that home and check to see if you're being responsible.”

She’s an anti-gun RADICAL.

10:25 AM · Sep 18, 2024

She was talking about legislation she helped write that imposed penalties for gun owners who fail to store their firearms properly at home. //

Harris said the new measure was about legislating "our values" in an attempt to "encourage certain kinds of behavior."

"When we create laws, it's not only about creating an opportunity, if you will, to prosecute someone for committing a crime, but more importantly, when we legislate our values, it's about trying to encourage certain types of behavior," she said at the time.

Harris also once again placed January 6th above 9/11 and the OKC bombing as the “worst attack on our democracy.” //

henrybowman | September 17, 2024 at 8:30 pm
“(Please do not forget the OKC bombing. I get why 9/11 receives the most attention but do not forget the 1995 OKC bombing.)”

When I started out collecting data as a 2A activist in the late ’80s, the largest mass murder on US soil was the Happyland Social Club fire, an arsonist with a jar of gasoline.

Then came Waco.
Then came OKC.
Then came 9/11.
Then came COVID (much less qualifiable, but clearly the record-holder).

In a country with 250 years of history, all this escalation in just 30 years. My God.

You’ll notice that NONE of these mass murders were committed with guns… but at least two of them — the ones that involved housewives and children — were committed by our own government.
Government democide — entirely exclusive of wartime deaths — has killed more humans than all wars combined. //

TargaGTS in reply to henrybowman. | September 17, 2024 at 8:59 pm
I forgot about the Happyland fire…probably because no one in the media brings it up anymore. I would add that the worst school spree murder happened way back in the 1920 or early 1930, the Bath School Massacre, which was also perpetrated entirely by firebombing. Close to 40-dead (mostly children) and another 60(ish) injured. I’m always fearful firebombing might come back into vogue again.

If appealed, I think it is likely that the SCOTUS will deny certiorari. California and Hawaii will continue to restrict citizens from carrying in public and it seems likely that state legislatures, hostile to the 2nd Amendment will deem more areas “sensitive” making concealed carry permits almost useless in some states.

What has been constantly and conveniently ignored by state legislators and courts in California and Hawaii is that citizens who take the time and effort to get a concealed carry permit aren’t abusing it – or shooting people in public without good cause.

And criminals don’t apply for concealed carry permits because - they are criminals. //

Black Magic
an hour ago
Thank God I live in PA which has extremely good concealed carry regulations, though I still question why the other Constitutional Rights are not so encumbered, i.e., I don't think there should be such encumbrances on our Constitutional Rights.

Having said that, I am still anticipating when it is finally adjudicated and approved by the Supreme Court that it is unconstitutional to halt my concealed carry rights at the state line and I am still wondering why it is that, I believe it is the 14 Amendment (which ensures equal protection), insures interstate cooperation in licensing driving for instance, but stops my ability to defend myself when I leave my state.

Trump has previously said he felt this should be addressed and corrected and I look forward to that.

The bottom line is that we don't know where Kamala stands in 2024 on mandatory gun buy-back schemes. What we do know is that she made that part of her platform in the 2020 race, and she has never disavowed that position. Though her "campaign" says she no longer supports it, one of her leading surrogates refuses to give a yes or no answer; in fact, he refuses to acknowledge the question.

All of this fits into Kamala's campaign of deception where she has minions tell the media what her positions are and she retains the ability to change them at whim by blaming an unnamed staffer. //

anon-x2cb
33 minutes ago
They CANNOT buy back something they DID NOT SELL ME!

The framers knew full well that many rights would face perpetual jeopardy, and by enshrining them in the Constitution and creating a system that divided power both between branches and between state and federal governments, they had crafted the surest check possible against future infringement.

While the separation of powers in the national government is often touted in civics and by politicians of all stripes, the federal system, with its two sovereigns — federal and state — is increasingly ignored or forgotten. States absolutely have the power to protect the people if the federal government is violating their rights. This is precisely what Missouri did in enacting SAPA.

Missouri’s law was a clear shot across the bow in the brewing debate over gun control at the federal level and how states could respond. These lawmakers, and leaders such as former Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt and current Attorney General Andrew Bailey, foresaw the danger of a Harris presidency before it was even conceived.

These leaders made clear to current and would-be federal tyrants that Missouri would protect the “promise of liberty” and fight to preserve the critical “tension between federal and state power.” It is a much-needed check against tyranny and abuse, as the U.S. Supreme Court has previously affirmed. Groups such as Gun Owners of America have aggressively supported SAPA and encourage Missouri to stick to their guns by seeking full review of this terrible decision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

RACISM CREATED GUN CONTROL

The first law to prevent the carrying of concealed weapons appeared in Kentucky in 1813. Very few people owned handguns back then, but many had knives. And the large Bowie knife was becoming quite popular at that time. Whites in the South feared blacks, so they outlawed the concealed carrying of any weapon, including knives.

The Democrat Party, which owned the south for generations, were afraid of slaves, freed blacks and abolitionists (i.e. Republicans) carrying Bowie knives. To maintain power over these Americans, Democrat politicians, state by state, outlawed concealed-carry. By 1850 every Southern state had made it illegal to carry any kind of concealed weapon.

Today, Democrats are still afraid of the masses. They cannot gain complete power over us so long as we own weapons. Should Harris/Walz somehow cheat their way into power, Americans can expect them to accelerate the war on the Second Amendment that Democrats have waged for decades now.

The CDC, FBI, and legacy media are conspiring to “debunk” the truth that armed, law-abiding citizens prevent crime and stop mass shootings. //

The Crime Prevention Research Center (CPRC), which I run, has found many more missed cases and is keeping an updated list.

Overall, the CPRC estimates that law-abiding citizens with guns have stopped over 35 percent of active shootings over the last decade and 39.6 percent in the last five years. This figure is eight times higher than the four percent estimate made by the FBI. //

In places where law-abiding citizens are allowed to carry firearms, we estimate that armed civilians stopped 51 percent of active shootings over the past decade. Over the last five years, that figure was 53.1 percent.

U.S. District Judge John W. Broomes in Wichita dismissed two machine gun charges against Tamori Morgan, who was indicted in 2023 for possessing a model AM-15 .300 caliber machine gun and a conversion device known as a “Glock switch” that can make a semi-automatic weapon fire at a similar rate to machine guns.

During trial, Morgan’s lawyers argued that these firearms are protected under the Second Amendment, a claim that Broomes upheld. He ruled that machine guns qualify as “bearable arms” under the Second Amendment and that the state failed to demonstrate a historical precedent that justifies the regulation of these weapons.

Gun sales have remained at over one million per month since 2019, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) reported. But they had leveled out before July 2024.

Historically high, gun sales had slowed month-over-month until the incident involving Trump and Harris' elevation to official Democratic presidential candidate, The Washington Examiner reported. //

The NSSF estimated that over the past five years, about 86,410,889 firearms have been sold. This is a significant increase since Biden took office. There appear to be indications that the attempt on Trump’s life may have contributed to the rise in gun purchases.