Buckeye Firearms Association

Washington circuit court pumps brakes on Virginia gun, magazine bans

SHummel — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by NRA-ILA

In a major victory for the right to keep and bear arms, the Washington Circuit Court on June 29 granted a statewide preliminary injunction preventing enforcement of Virginia’s newly enacted “assault firearm” and magazine bans, finding that the plaintiffs demonstrated a strong likelihood of success on their claim that the bans violate Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution.

The case, Santolla v. Katz, challenges legislation signed into law by Gov. Abigail Spanberger on May 14, 2026, that was scheduled to take effect on July 1. In a June 29 opinion letter, Judge Jeffrey L. Campbell concluded that the challenged laws likely violate the Virginia Constitution’s guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms.

Related article: Virginia demonstrates importance of electing pro-gun governor

“The NRA’s world-class legal team delivered a clear, powerful argument demonstrating that Abigail Spanberger’s gun ban is a blatant constitutional infringement on the rights of law-abiding Virginians,” said John Commerford, NRA-ILA executive director. “Our strategy has now secured a comprehensive statewide injunction, blocking enforcement of this law until the courts hear our full case. This is a major victory, but our mission is not complete. We will not rest until this unconstitutional measure is struck down in its entirety and added to the long list of gun control laws the NRA has removed from the books for good.”

In reaching its decision, the court held that the plaintiffs satisfied each of the requirements for preliminary injunctive relief. The court found that the plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits because the Virginia Constitution provides robust protections for the right to keep and bear arms and the challenged restrictions likely cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. It further determined that Virginians would suffer irreparable harm through the loss of constitutional rights absent an injunction, that the balance of equities favored protecting those rights, and that the public interest is served by preventing enforcement of laws that are likely unconstitutional.

The court’s order preserves the status quo while the litigation proceeds, preventing the Commonwealth from enforcing the challenged provisions beginning July 1. The case will now proceed on the merits.

Trump reiterates support for national right-to-carry reciprocity

SHummel — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by NRA-ILA

During remarks to American workers at a Mack Trucks facility in Macungie, Pennsylvania, on June 23, President Donald Trump reiterated his support for national right-to-carry reciprocity and NRA.

The president singled out NRA President Bill Bachenberg for recognition and noted how he is working with NRA. President Trump pointed out, “The NRA … they’ve been with me right from the beginning.”

The president then asked those gathered what they thought of national right-to-carry reciprocity, federal legislation to ensure a state right-to-carry permit is honored throughout the country, which elicited enthusiastic applause. President Trump then stated, “national right-to-carry, we’re working on it.”

Supreme Court decision: Hawaii 'Spirit of Aloha' cannot prohibit carry on property open to public

Just as NRA has been with President Trump right from the beginning, the president has been right on national right-to-carry reciprocity from the beginning. In a September 2015 policy paper, Trump explained:

A driver's license works in every state, so it's common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving - which is a privilege, not a right - then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

National right-to-carry reciprocity shouldn’t be controversial. Moreover, it’s good politics.

After the NRA-supported victory in the U.S. Supreme Court case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), Right-to-Carry is the law of the land. The Court made clear that law-abiding Americans have a Right-to-Carry outside the home for self-defense and that governments can’t deny this right, either entirely or with the use of subjective permitting criteria. More recently, the U.S. Supreme Court reiterated its defense of the Right-to-Carry for self-defense in Wolford v. Lopez (2026), striking down a Hawaii law that made all private property open to the public gun-free zones by default.

Right-to-carry is popular. A Marquette Law School poll from the summer of 2024 asked respondents:

In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that, subject to some restrictions, the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. How much do you favor or oppose this decision?

An overwhelming 69% responded that they favored the ruling.

This popularity is why the right-to-carry was already the law in the vast majority of the country before Bruen. Prior to the Bruen decision, 42 states respected the right to carry.

It’s no wonder that the right to carry has flourished.

A 2023 Gallup poll showed that 64% of Americans believe homes with a firearm are safer. That same year, an NBC News poll found that more than half of American voters lived in gun-owning households — likely to be a severe undercount. A Pew Research Center survey from 2023 found that 72% of gun owners cited protection as a “major reason” they own a gun, and 91% cited it as a “major” or “minor” reason.

And Americans do use firearms to defend themselves. Research on defensive gun uses estimates that Americans defend themselves using firearms several hundreds of thousands to millions of times each year.

It’s only logical for Americans to understand that the utility a firearm provides for self-defense extends outside the home.

Further, right-to-carry permit holders have proven themselves trustworthy. Examining permit revocation data for his annual “Concealed Carry Permit Holders Across the United States” report, economist John Lott determined, “Even given the low conviction rate for police, concealed carry permit holders are even more law-abiding than police.” In 2004, Congress enacted the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which wisely allows law enforcement officers and qualified retired law enforcement to carry throughout the country.

Today, most states allow visitors to carry in their jurisdictions. In fact, the majority of states (29) have constitutional carry, allowing visitors to carry without a permit.

In many ways, the success of constitutional carry is national right-to-carry reciprocity’s best argument. Just as the Wild West scenarios predicted by gun control advocates at the outset of the right-to-carry movement in 1987 in Florida never materialized, recognizing law-abiding citizens’ right to carry without a permit hasn’t led to anarchy either.

With the right to carry now constitutional law and 29 constitutional carry states, the murder rate is at a 125-year low. U.S. Department of Justice statistics (2024) show the state with the lowest homicide rate, New Hampshire, and a majority of the top 10 lowest have constitutional carry. The same goes for state rankings on violent crime, with constitutional-carry Maine sneaking just past constitutional-carry New Hampshire for the lowest violent crime rate.

As it turns out, dangerous criminals willing to misuse firearms to harm others never cared about gun control laws and prophylactic restrictions on the law-abiding only succeed in diminishing constitutional rights and subjecting decent people to danger.

At this point, the Senate politics of national right-to-carry reciprocity should be a no-brainer. With 29 constitutional carry states, there should be 58 Senate votes for reciprocity right off the bat. Those 58 senators, along with those from another state that has outright recognition of carry permits would be enough to get past a Senate filibuster.

After all, supporting national right-to-carry reciprocity could only enhance the rights of these senators’ own constituents by providing them with the same rights that their states already offer visitors. That’s, of course, if all these senators were concerned with serving their own constituents and not out of state anti-gun interests.

President Trump is right to emphasize national right-to-carry reciprocity as a policy that’s time has come.

VIDEOS: Ramaswamy vows 100% commitment as most pro-2A governor Ohio has ever had

SHummel — Wed, 01 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Joe D. "Buck" Ruth

Ohio Republican gubernatorial candidate Vivek Ramaswamy, whom Buckeye Firearms Association PAC has endorsed, visited the Gun Collective's GunCon 2026 on June 20 and shared his pro-Second Amendment stance in a pair of social-media videos.

"People in there know that I will be the most pro-Constitution, pro-freedom, pro-2A governor this state has ever had," he said in one video posted to Facebook. "And I'm running against the most anti-freedom, anti-Constitution, anti-2A governor (candidate) who's ever run, Amy Acton, so take your pick."

In another video on X, a retired U.S. Marine captain asked Ramaswamy if he would commit to protect Ohioans against overreaching red flag laws.

"You have my 100% commitment to that," he said. "So we gotta do a better job of standing for our veterans. But the last thing we need to do is penalize them for the struggles they go through, to say that these red flag laws — which, by the way, take away (from) somebody without even a criminal conviction, just because somebody picks up the phone and calls — that's where this has become in many states, a slippery slope. We're gonna draw the line. We're not doing the red flag laws that open up that slippery slope in Ohio for anyone, certainly not for our veterans. And you have my commitment to that."

A veteran at GunCon asked me to make a commitment on protecting those who have served from overreaching red flag laws. Here’s what I told him. pic.twitter.com/DtCJSwXpEO

— Vivek Ramaswamy (@VivekGRamaswamy) June 23, 2026

Acton, his Democratic opponent who was the Ohio Department of Health director during the start of COVID and who ordered endless lockdowns, has not said too much publicly about her stance on gun control, but the fact that Everytown for Gun Safety has endorsed her as a Moms Demand Action Gun Sense candidate speaks volumes. All she can promise is to "undertake common sense reforms to reduce the scourge of gun violence," which she sees as a public health crisis.

"Gun violence is taking its toll in too many Ohio communities," she said on X back in August 2025. "We must work together to end this senseless violence and keep Ohioans safe."

So from a Second Amendment perspective in Ohio, it comes down to a choice: Ramaswamy, a candidate endorsed by Buckeye Firearms Association PAC who promises a "100% commitment" to protecting your rights, or Acton, an anti-freedom, lockdown candidate who blames guns for violence.

Joe D. "Buck" Ruth, a pen name for Scott Hummel, is a longtime small-game hunter and gun owner who spent nearly three decades in the news industry. He is the website and social-media manager for Buckeye Firearms Association.

Congresswoman wants to ban suppressors, but we won't 'HEAR' of it

SHummel — Tue, 30 Jun 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Jenn Jacques, NSSF

Gun control politicians are proving once again that “common sense” has never been the standard. In fact, we see time and again that “gun control” is really less about guns and more about control.

U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-New Jersey) reintroduced the misnamed Help Empower Americans to Respond Act, or HEAR Act — federal legislation that would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, transfer, and possession of firearm suppressors. Billed by gun control activists as a “public safety measure,” it is really confiscation legislation aimed at law-abiding Americans who have followed the appropriate channels, paid the required tax, completed the additional background check process, and legally acquired a firearm accessory designed to protect hearing.

This is exactly why Congress must reject this latest gun control overreach and pass the NSSF-supported Hearing Protection Act (HPA), H.R.404 instead.

Hollywood myth

Firearm suppressors do not make firearms silent, a la scenes from Jason Bourne-style Hollywood movies. They do, however, reduce the sound report of a firearm to help protect hearing and reduce recoil. Suppressors are hearing protection devices, reducing the decibel level of a firearm to a safer hearing level that won’t cause permanent and irreversible damage. Suppressors can reduce long-term hearing loss and make hunting, target shooting, and training safer and more enjoyable for participants. They are also less intrusive for the neighbors of hunting areas and shooting ranges.

Related article: BFA and partners ask court to strike down NFA rules on suppressors, short-barreled rifles

Congress has already acknowledged that the federal government’s treatment of suppressors is outdated. The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBB) eliminated the $200 National Firearms Act (NFA) transfer tax on suppressors at the beginning of this year. This was a victory for law-abiding gun owners and the lawful firearm industry. It removed a Depression-era tax barrier that was never about public safety and served only to discourage Americans from obtaining a lawful safety accessory. The elimination of the tax resulted in an explosion in firearm and suppressor ownership thus far far this year. Eliminating the tax, though, was only part of the job.

The HPA, H.R.404 in the U.S. House of Representatives and introduced by U.S. Rep. Ben Cline (R-Virginia), along with the U.S. Senate companion S.364, introduced by U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), would finish what Congress started by removing suppressors from the burdensome NFA provisions and allow them to be transferred through the same background check system used for traditional firearms. It preserves accountability, respects the Second Amendment, and recognizes the simple truth that suppressors are a safety accessory.

As if more convincing were needed, the facts are overwhelming. Suppressor ownership has surged because law-abiding Americans understand their practical value. ATF reported more than 6.1 million registered silencers in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record as of May 4, 2026. In April 2026 alone, ATF received 127,996 Form 4 applications. Thanks to the diligence of federal agencies, including ATF and FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), Individual eForm 4 median processing times are now down to seven days. That’s called evidence of lawful demand.

Creating a problem to solve

That’s not how Rep. Watson Coleman sees it, though. And it’s no surprise. The gun control politician is stuck on repeat with the tired accusations that suppressors are “tools of murder.” She can’t be bothered by facts, however. In a study looking at the criminal use of suppressors in California and nationwide between 1995 and 2005, researchers found that of 153 federal criminal cases involving suppressors, only 15 involved the actual use of the suppressor in the commission of a crime. Less than 0.1% of homicides, an infinitesimally low 0.00006% of felonies in California, and a mere 0.1% of armed robberies involve a suppressor.

Paying no heed to the narrative that less gun control would return the country to the Wild, Wild, West, the Federal Bureau of Investigations’ (FBI) Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program released an early look at the historic decrease in crime from 2024 to 2025. Preliminary data shows violent crime decreased an estimated 9.3%, with murder and nonnegligent manslaughter down an estimated 18.1%. Contrary to what Rep. Watson Coleman repeatedly and misleadingly states, suppressors are in fact rarely used in any crimes.

Suppressors are already legal in 42 states, and hunters may use them in 41. States have steadily moved toward normalization because the fact is that suppressors are a safety device. They are especially valuable for new shooters, younger shooters, older hunters, and anyone concerned about permanent hearing damage.

Call your Congressmen

The firearm industry has been clear. Suppressors protect hearing. They make shooting sports and hunting more responsible and enjoyable for all participants — and neighbors, too, for that matter, in near proximity to ranges or hunting areas. They are legal across most of the country and are already owned by millions of law-abiding Americans. Congress should not punish those citizens for following the law.

Now lawmakers need to hear that message directly from their constituents.

Members of Congress and U.S. Senators should reject Rep. Watson Coleman’s HEAR Act (H.R.9208) and instead pass the Hearing Protection Act. Constituents should contact their elected officials and tell them plainly: Suppressors are hearing protection devices, their treatment under the NFA is outdated, and Congress must finish the job.

The tax barrier is gone. Now Congress must remove the remaining red tape and pass HPA.

Republished with permission from NSSF.

How Ohio’s new capital improvements bill benefits hunters, trappers

SHummel — Mon, 29 Jun 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Sportsmen's Alliance

Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine signed his final capital improvements bill, and it contains a major allocation of funds that will benefit Ohio’s hunters and trappers. Senate Bill 450, which provides bond funding for various state priorities, includes $25 million to acquire state wildlife and forestry lands for sportsmen.

How will the land acquisition funding be allocated and matched?

The funding priority was made possible because it enjoyed key support from more than the governor, and included Republican gubernatorial nominee Vivek Ramaswamy and his running mate, President of the Senate Rob McColley, who joined House Speaker Matt Huffman in supporting the acquisition.

Little time left: Sign up for the Aug. 22 Patriot Fest now!

The funds will double their $25 million line item in the budget because they enable the Ohio Department of Natural Resources Divisions of Wildlife and Forestry to leverage those funds to gain additional matching federal dollars, such as funds from the Wildlife Restoration Fund and the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The total amount of funds available will greatly increase the size of land purchases available to sportsmen. The anticipated land holdings are in southern and southeastern Ohio and border existing wildlife and forestry lands.

What does this funding victory mean for Ohio sportsmen?

“The most urgent need for sportsmen in Ohio is to gain additional lands for hunting, trapping, fishing, and recreational shooting,” said Sportsmen’s Alliance President and CEO Evan Heusinkveld. “Beginning in 2018, we asked incoming Gov. DeWine to work with us to prioritize land acquisition.

These funds in the 2026 capital bill cap an eight-year run of tremendous gains for sportsmen. We appreciate the support of the governor and the legislature in making these gains possible.”

Republished with permission from Sportsmen's Alliance.

Supreme Court: Hawaii 'Spirit of Aloha' cannot prohibit carry on property open to public

SHummel — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 12:26:37 +0000

by Joe D. "Buck" Ruth

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 25 ruled against a Hawaii law that would have prohibited anyone from carrying a firearm onto private property without first obtaining the property owner's permission, including gas stations and other businesses open to the public. The ruling also included references to amicus briefs filed by the late Kenneth Hanson, a Buckeye Firearms Association co-founder and legislative chair.

In its 6-3 opinion, the court ruled the state's "Spirit of Aloha" anti-gun sentiment cannot supersede the Second Amendment in the U.S. Constitution.

Per Justice Samuel Alito's opinion:

"Hawaii’s argument that its 'particular customs and laws' … support the new default rule fails because the Second Amendment has the same meaning in all parts of the United States. The Second Amendment cannot give way to 'the spirit of Aloha' in Hawaii, contra, State v. Wilson, … any more than it can yield to the spirit of the Big Apple (Bruen) or the Windy City (McDonald). Merely local attitudes can neither shrink nor inflate the meaning of fundamental Bill of Rights guarantees that apply to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment."

The case, Wolford v. Lopez, dates back to June 2023, when three plaintiffs from Maui County sued over new state legislation that criminally prohibits a person with a concealed carry permit from bringing a handgun onto 15 types of property. Prior state law allowed a person with a carry permit to bring firearms onto private property that is open to the public unless the property owner prohibited it. Under new law, carrying a firearm onto private property that is open to the public is generally prohibited unless the owner affirmatively gives permission or by posting clear and conspicuous signs — somewhat similar to Ohio law on places of worship. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in September 2024 upheld the state law.

In another case, State v. Wilson, the Hawaii Supreme Court actually ruled that the state constitution supersedes the U.S. Constitution in relation to firearms, even though its own constitution recognizes the right.

Alito was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Dissenting justices were Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

The ruling also included a pair of footnotes at the bottom of pages 3 and 5 (7 and 9 of 76 pages) referencing an amicus brief by the late Kenneth Hanson, Buckeye Firearms Association co-founder and legislative chair, representing Buckeye Firearms Foundation.

The first footnote references the brief in D.C. v. Heller and the court's landmark opinion in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban violated that right. The footnote reads, "²See, e.g., Brief for Buckeye Firearms Foundation et al. as Amici Curiae 8–11."

That brief co-authored by Hanson reads, in part:

"The jaded citizens of the District have essentially given up on the police and the administration, resigning themselves to living as victims—or as outlaws, for those who choose to defend themselves despite the D.C. Gun Ban. The unavoidable result of the D.C. Gun Ban is that it is the victims, not the criminals, who are disarmed and rendered helpless. Not only are the police failing to protect district residents but the District government is burdening proven private sector solutions."

The second footnote referenced Hanson's (et al.) brief in McDonald v. Chicago and builds on the Heller case. You can read that brief here.

In 2016, Hanson was recognized for his many years of service to protect and defend the Second Amendment. Read more about Hanson and his work with BFA.

Check out BFA's coverage of the D.C. v. Heller case, including audio and a transcript of the 2008 arguments to the Supreme Court.

Register for Protecting Houses of Worship, Oct. 3 in Mount Gilead

SHummel — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 10:00:00 +0000

Does your organization have a security team ready to go and are they prepared to counter an active killing event? This Protecting Houses of Worship training event Oct. 3 is designed as an intro to help identify security needs as well as organizational and team training standards. Training will include the history of active killing events, including current tragedies, as well as medical training, tactics, and Active Killer Response scenarios.

This Saturday seminar, scheduled for 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Pines Christian Church, 6775 U.S. Route 42 in Mount Gilead, is sponsored by Buckeye Firearms Association and will include the history of active killing events, including current tragedies, as well as medical training, tactics, and Active Killer Response scenarios. SIGN UP HERE!

A recent "Protecting Houses of Worship" training session brought together community members, church leaders, and safety volunteers with a shared mission: to safeguard places of worship while preserving their welcoming environment.

Students left the program not only with new skills but also with a deep appreciation for the training team.

One participant remarked, “The instructors were top-notch. The different types of sessions/scenarios and getting everybody to participate worked quite well. I learned a great deal. Look forward to doing it again.”

Another student praised the program’s structure. “Very satisfied with the presentation and the way the team worked together. Very well organized. Great job.”

Read other comments here.

For more information, call BFA administrative assistant Angela Armstrong at 614-715-4867.

Sign up for the seminar here.

Vivek Ramaswamy donates Sig MCX-SPEAR LT 5.56 as raffle prize for our Patriot Fest on Aug. 22.

drieck — Wed, 24 Jun 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Dean Rieck

Our Patriot Fest fundraising banquet will feature a variety of gun raffles and auctions. Available prizes include as many as 60 guns from Henry, Kahr, Faxon, Century Arms, Tippmann Arms, and more.

We've also added door prizes, including a Sig Sauer 1911-X Stainless with a retail value of $1,420. Every ticket holder will be eligible to win simply for showing up.

And we've just taken possession of a MCX-SPEAR LT rifle from Sig Sauer (valued at $2,600), donated by our keynote speaker, Vivek Ramaswamy, who is running as BFA-PAC's endorsed candidate for Ohio Governor.

The MCX-SPEAR chambered in 5.56 is the exact semi-automatic counterpart to the U.S. Army's next-generation M7 battle rifle and will be the featured prize in one of our rifle raffles.

"I'm excited about this generous donation," said Dean Rieck, executive director for Buckeye Firearms Association. "It's a high-end rifle that you don't often see in retail stores. And what a great prize for a raffle!

"We'll have multiple rifle raffles, bucket raffles with a whole lineup of guns, our popular Tons o' Guns game where winners can choose whatever gun they want if they win, a silent auction, and more. It's going to be fun night."

Seating is limited and we have just over 100 tickets left available. So please reserve your seats ASAP for this spectacular August 22 event in Hilliard, Ohio.

Click here for complete details on the Patriot Fest.

Were these armed defenders skilled or just lucky in preventing a kidnapping?

SHummel — Tue, 23 Jun 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Rob Morse, SlowFacts

The mainstream media refuse to cover most examples of armed defense. Some outlets have never covered a single story of that type. That leads to several problems. We can forget that armed defense occurs. We are also less versed in what we should do if we see a lethal threat. The problem is out of sight so out of mind.

Let’s look at what some neighbors in Port St. Lucie, Florida, saw and at what they did as it relates to the armed defense of a woman who was being kidnapped by an ex-boyfriend while leaving church.

What the defenders saw

Two men were in the parking lot of the First United Methodist Church at about 11 a.m. one Sunday morning when they heard a woman scream. Each man walked toward the screams, and they saw a 74-year-old woman being forced across the parking lot by a 64-year-old man. The attacker was pointing a handgun at the woman, who shouted for help as she was being forced toward the attacker’s car.

What the defenders did

Both defenders followed the pair, and both were armed. The victim fell to the ground. Surveillance cameras show one of the defenders placing his hand on his concealed firearm, and both defenders positioned themselves between the kidnapper and woman. The kidnapper then faced an uncooperative victim and two armed defenders. It is unclear if either defender drew their firearm and pointed it at the attacker. The attacker returned to his car and fled the scene while the defenders remained with the woman.

What we know now

The victim and the attacker had been in a romantic relationship, and the relationship failed. The victim broke off contact with the attacker and was assaulted by him. The victim asked for and received a domestic violence injunction. That court order required the ex-boyfriend to stay away from his ex-girlfriend, but he stalked her. He knew she attended a particular church service, and he grabbed her immediately after as she stepped out of her car. Simply being within 100 feet of her car was a violation of the court order.

Here in Ohio: BFA-backed bills move forward before Ohio legislature's summer 2026 recess

The attacker was a convicted felon with a prior charge for violating the prohibition of felons possessing firearms. The attacker had a history of criminal violence and attempted kidnapping. He also was reported to have said, "If I can’t have you, then no one can." He was arrested at his home, where police found a BB gun but no firearm.

In addition to the existing weapons charge, the attacker was charged with the following:

attempted kidnapping while armed with a firearm
battery on a person 65 years of age or older
possession of a firearm by a convicted felon
aggravated stalking (violation of the active domestic violence injunction)
aggravated assault with a deadly weapon

Bail was set at $745,000.

What is best practice?

Here are some important points to remember:

We want eyewitnesses and earwitnesses. The victim screamed and got help. Criminals don’t like drawing attention.
It is seldom to our advantage to move with an attacker. If attackers attempt to move you, they are taking you to a position where they believe they have a greater advantage. The kidnap victim in this case helped herself by falling down.
The victim faced an immediate, lethal, and unavoidable threat. Those factors justified the use of lethal force by the innocent victim. A third party — the two defenders in this case — were justified to use lethal force because the victim was justified to do so. You do not have the right to threaten to use lethal force if you don’t have the right to actually use lethal force.
Putting your hand on your guns saves time. Even if you have to draw your firearm from the holster, most often you will not have to press the trigger. Is that how you practice at the range?
We can’t know what might have occurred, and there are risks with every choice. In this case, the attacker posed a lethal threat to an innocent party. The defenders left the victim in danger while they tried to deescalate the situation. It might have been better to stop that threat immediately. It worked this time, but the victim could have been shot while the defenders talked.
Call 911 if your gun becomes exposed. That is true even if you don’t have to present it and press the trigger.
If you are in a situation like this one, shout for everyone to call 911. You want to have the phone numbers of witnesses. If possible, gesture to one person nearby to call 911.

That is a lot to think about — and too much to process as the situation unfolds in front of us. In the moment, we can respond to a plan, but we won’t have time to think as it occurs. You can recognize a problem and solutions if you have already thought about it.

About one out of a dozen of us is armed in public. Thank you for thinking about what to do while you have time.

Rob Morse writes about gun rights at his SlowFacts blog and hosts the Self Defense Gun Stories Podcast and co-hosts the Polite Society Podcast.

Brady gun control group sues to keep ‘name-and-shame’ charade intact

SHummel — Mon, 22 Jun 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Larry Keane

The gun control group Brady: United Against Gun Violence is hopping mad that its “name-and-shame” charade no longer enjoys government support. They’re so mad, in fact, that the group is suing to force the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to violate federal law, risk law enforcement safety, and release data so they can twist a media narrative to falsely accuse firearm retailers for the criminal misuse of firearms.

Brady filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the DOJ and ATF to answer their Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for information surrounding the Demand 2 Program. That program, begun during the anti-gun Clinton administration, requires firearm retailers to provide additional information to the ATF when 25 or more firearms are traced back to them subsequent to the recovery at a crime scene and the time from retail sale to trace is three years or less (what ATF calls “time-to-crime”) in a calendar year.

Coming up: Attend Ohio firearm training and special events

This information is protected from public release, and for good reason. The Tiahrt rider, which has been reauthorized by Congress since it was passed in 2003, restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement-only firearm tracing data. This restriction is supported by Congress, ATF, and law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) because it secures sensitive tracing information that would jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and put the lives of law enforcement officers, cooperating retailers and witnesses at risk.

Brady would rather have their media “name-and-shame” narrative instead of protecting the lives of law enforcement investigating illegal firearm trafficking cases.

Protecting against abuse, law enforcement lives

Former ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan wrote of the importance of safeguarding firearm trace data and not using this information as a political football.

“If the Tiahrt Amendment were repealed, it could seriously undermine, if not eviscerate, the critically important investigations ATF special agents and local law enforcement are building to bring illegal firearm traffickers to justice,” Sullivan wrote. “However, it’s becoming clearer that some within the administration see this as a calculated opportunity to set the conditions for a ‘name-and-shame’ effort to smear firearm retailers and manufacturers, at the expense of ATF’s important and well-executed mission, which includes relationships with those in the industry who also want to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited persons.”

He added, “The ATF has long held that firearm trace data isn’t to be used as a political tool.”

Gun control groups like Brady, Michael Bloomberg’s gun control mouthpiece for Everytown for Gun Safety, The Trace, and others have abused this information to smear firearm retailers as somehow being complicit in crimes for which they have no responsibility. NSSF has been critical of the misuse of this protected firearm trace data to attempt to “name-and-shame” firearm retailers for crimes in which they had no involvement.

It wasn’t just gun control groups that abused and warped the data to fit their antigun narrative. Former ATF Director Steve Dettelbach came under criticism for sharing protected trace data with USA Today and Brady, a violation of the Tiahrt Amendment. So has U.S. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland) when he introduced legislation to force publication of the protected trace data. New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham sought to “name-and-shame” firearm retailers in her failed “emergency public health order” that was nothing more than a sham gun control pitch before courts blocked it.

Demand 2 Program ripe for abuse

The ATF has long been wary of the misuse of this information. The ATF provides a disclaimer with this statement: “Firearms are normally traced to the first retail seller, and sources reported for firearms traced do not necessarily represent the sources or methods by which firearms in general are acquired for use in crime.”

Even earlier, the ATF wrote in the 1998 Crime Gun Trace Analysis Reports, “The appearance of [a licensed dealer] or a first unlicensed purchaser of record in association with a crime gun or in association with multiple crime guns in no way suggests that either the federal firearms licensed dealer (FFL) or the first purchaser has committed criminal acts. Rather, such information may provide a starting point for further and more detailed investigation.”

In April 2024, the ATF released Volume Three of the National Firearms Commerce and Trafficking Assessment. The report focused specifically on 9,700 ATF firearm trafficking investigations over a five-year period between 2017 and 2021.

The ATF’s own report found just 136 cases of illegal firearm trafficking tied to an FFL over the five-year period — just 1.6% of all 9,700 cases. With 134,516 FFLs at the end of 2021, that equates to just 0.1% of all FFLs being implicated in allegedly illegal firearm trafficking.

Conversely, illegal straw purchases and private sales accounted for 80% of all cases. Stolen firearms represented another 25% of cases of illegally trafficked firearms.

Even the ATF acknowledged that the firearm industry is doing its part in self-policing.

“The data analyzed in this report indicates that a shift in the types of trafficking channels used over the course of the last two decades has occurred,” the report states. “Corrupt FFL investigations represented almost 9% of trafficking investigations in the 2000 report, but now represent less than two percent of trafficking investigations.”

Time to end it

The Demand 2 Program is rife with problems. That’s why the ATF confirmed last year that the program is ending. ATF Director Robert Cekada wrote to Congress during his confirmation process that he supports pausing the program because of “efforts of advocacy groups to mischaracterize the Demand program and evade … disclosure restrictions on related data. This pause is allowing the ATF to evaluate the program effectiveness from reporting mandated to tracing results.”

NSSF was encouraged by the ATF’s confirmation last year that the Demand program was ending. However, it would be foolish to think that the gun control’s “name-and-shame” gravy train wouldn’t end without a legal fight. That’s why NSSF gives full-throated support to Rep. Clay Higgins’ (R-Louisiana) Law Enforcement Protection and Privacy Act of 2025, H.R.1698. This bill would enhance safeguards for protected firearm trace data. Essentially it would put “teeth to the Tiahrt rider” by providing accountability for individuals who purposefully and unlawfully release this sensitive law enforcement information that is reserved for use in law enforcement investigations.

Brady, and their gun control allies, knows the spigot of trace data leaks is being shut off. That’s got them not just hopping mad. It’s got them hopping into federal court to demand the DOJ and ATF violate federal law and risk the lives of law enforcement to feed their corrupt media narrative. The name that needs to be shamed is Brady and their gun control allies.

Republished with permission from NSSF.