Buckeye Firearms Association

SCOTUS takes up rifle bans: what review means for hunters, sportsmen

SHummel — Tue, 14 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Sportsmen's Alliance

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will officially review challenges to state- and local-level semi-automatic rifle bans.

The high court has granted certiorari in cases originating out of Illinois and Connecticut. This marks the most significant Second Amendment development since the Bruen decision in 2022.

As the Sportsmen’s Alliance, we want to ensure our members fully understand what this means, why it matters, and how it impacts the future of hunting and shooting sports.

What 'granting certiorari' means

Certiorari (or “cert”) is the formal process the Supreme Court uses to select the cases it will hear. Because the court receives thousands of requests each year, it is highly selective and only takes a small percentage. It requires the agreement of at least four of the nine justices to grant cert.

It is important to note that granting certiorari does not mean we have won the case, nor does it mean these bans are struck down yet. It simply means the court has officially agreed to hear the case and has placed it on their docket for a final decision.

Why SCOTUS agreed to review semi-automatic rifle bans

Here is why the Supreme Court taking up these cases is a critical turning point for sportsmen:

Address a nationwide issue. Semiautomatic rifles are among the most popular firearms used by millions of law-abiding citizens for hunting, target shooting, and competitive events. A definitive ruling from the high court will finally address whether states have the constitutional authority to ban these standard sporting firearms.
Establish needed legal clarity. For years, lower federal courts have issued conflicting rulings on firearm restrictions, creating an unpredictable patchwork of laws across the country. This upcoming Supreme Court review is the necessary mechanism to establish a uniform, national standard for Second Amendment protections.
Set the rules for the next generation. The outcome of these cases will directly impact the future of our hunting heritage, including youth shooting sports and hunter-education programs that rely on these common firearms.

How Sportsmen’s Alliance is responding

Our legal and legislative teams will track developments with the utmost focus. As these cases move forward, we weigh all of our legal and advocacy options to best help defend and secure the rights of hunters and sport shooters.

We urge our members to stay informed, engaged, and patient as this monumental legal process begins. We will continue to provide balanced, factual updates as the timeline progresses.

Republished with permission from Sportsmen's Alliance.

Supreme Court rejects cert in 18-20 carry case; SAF win stands

SHummel — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000

The U.S. Supreme Court on June 30 handed the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) a victory today by declining to hear a case brought by the organization to vindicate the firearm carry rights of young adults in Pennsylvania. By refusing to take the case, SAF’s victory in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals is now final.

The Third Circuit twice ruled in SAF’s favor, finding that adults under 21 are indeed members of “the People” as contemplated by the Second Amendment, and therefore enjoy the same scope of rights as all other adults. The ruling struck down a portion of Pennsylvania’s carry regime which prevented young adults from being able to carry firearms during declared states of emergency.

Related article: SCOTUS rules Hawaii 'Spirit of Aloha' cannot prohibit carry on property open to public

“While a cert grant on this case could have meant an opportunity for the Supreme Court to take our win in the Third Circuit and apply it nationally, we are still content that our victory in this case is now permanent and final,” said SAF executive director Adam Kraut. “Adults under 21 enjoy all the same constitutional rights as their older adult counterparts, and the rights protected by the Second Amendment are no different. This victory serves as a major stepping stone to striking down additional unconstitutional portions of Pennsylvania state law and those like it around the country.”

Joining SAF in Bivens v. SAF (formerly Lara v. Paris) are the Firearms Policy Coalition and three individuals.

“The Third Circuit ruled not once, but twice, that 18-20-year-olds have the same rights as their peers older than 21,” said SAF founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb. “Those over 18 in this country can buy property, join the military and get married just like those over 21 years old. Why then should they be forced to wait to enjoy their Second Amendment rights? There is no reason — they are adults under the law and should therefore be afforded their full constitutional rights.”

Republished with permission from Second Amendment Foundation.

DeLauro devoid of facts in opposition to pro-2A ATF reforms

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

by Larry Keane

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut), who is the ranking member on the powerful House Appropriations Committee, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with gun control advocates and warned that proposed reforms from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) would make it “easier for guns to get into the wrong hands” (i.e., criminals) and make it “harder for law enforcement to be able to protect us.”

Her claim isn’t just false; it completely ignores the government’s own data on how criminals illegally acquire firearms and misrepresents what ATF is actually doing with its regulatory reforms.

The reforms ATF recently announced did not change who is (still) prohibited from lawfully possessing a firearm. They (still) do not legalize straw purchasing. They are a course correction after years of regulatory overreach by the Biden administration that too often treated lawful gun owners and firearm retailers as the problem instead of focusing federal law enforcement resources where they belong: combatting violent criminals, traffickers, straw purchasers and willful violators. This was, of course, the MO of the Biden administration — along with Rep. DeLauro — that deemed the lawful firearm industry “the enemy.”

The facts don’t lie

Rep. DeLauro’s argument rests on the tired gun control premise that every regulatory burden placed on lawful firearm businesses somehow stops criminals. Federal data prove otherwise.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that 90% of criminals in prison who possessed a firearm during their offense did not obtain it from a retail source. Criminals overwhelmingly get firearms through illegal channels. They steal them. They buy them on the black market. They get them “off the street.” They violate the law.

Those are the facts. Rep. DeLauro is entitled to her opinion, but her statements at the press conference — and her true beliefs — suggest she’s ignoring what the data says.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT! Register now for the 2026 Patriot Fest - Aug. 22 in Hilliard

Firearm retailers are not criminals. Law-abiding Americans who pass an FBI National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) verification are not breaking the law. Manufacturers, distributors, retailers and ranges are not responsible for the criminal misuse of lawfully made and sold products.

It is already a felony for prohibited persons to possess firearms. It is a felony to lie on the ATF Form 4473 when purchasing a firearm at retail. It is a felony to act as a straw purchaser, transfer a firearm to a prohibited person or traffic firearms without a license. The law has tools and it has teeth — prison.

Adding more compliance traps for lawful businesses does not stop criminals who never intended to follow the law.

Crime falling, gun ownership rising

Rep. DeLauro’s warning also runs into another inconvenient fact. Violent crime is falling while lawful firearm ownership remains historically elevated.

FBI data showed violent crime declined nationally in 2024. Preliminary FBI data for 2025 showed a historic decline in violent crime, including a significant decline in murder. Connecticut reflects that trend as well. The state’s violent crime rate in 2024 was 43% lower than it was in 2014. Unsurprisingly, Rep. DeLauro chooses to ignore these statistics in her repertoire.

At the same time, lawful firearm ownership across the country remains historically elevated. More than 26.2 million Americans have become first-time gun owners just since 2020. Connecticut residents are part of that lawful firearms community, even while navigating some of the most restrictive state permitting and transfer laws in the country which do nothing to make the Nutmeg State safe.

That proves the gun control narrative is upside down. More lawful gun ownership has not produced the crime wave gun control advocates have hyperbolically warned about in recent years.

Criminals drive crime. Law-abiding gun owners do not. And, in fact, research supports the assertion that more law-abiding gun owners help reduce crime.

DeLauro’s gun control record is clear

Rep. DeLauro’s preposterous remarks are not a one-off misstatement. They fit a long record of support for gun control policies that target lawful gun owners and the firearm industry.

Her own congressional materials call for universal background checks (that DOJ has said necessitates a national registry to work), bans on commonly owned semiautomatic firearms (blatantly unconstitutional), taxpayer-funded gun violence research (to push taxpayer-funded gun control) and efforts to hold firearm manufacturers liable for crimes committed by third parties (contrary to a 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court ruling). She has backed federal firearm storage mandates (unconstitutional) and mandatory gun buyback proposals (which are just forced confiscation schemes), including a tax credit for turning certain firearms over to law enforcement.

That is why her hyperbolic reaction to the announced ATF reforms was so predictable. For gun control advocates, any action that protects lawful gun owners or firearm retailers from regulatory overreach is portrayed as a threat to public safety. They say the same thing when ATF revises Biden-era rules to conform them to court decisions that have struck down those Biden rules, like the “Engaged in the Business” rule, as exceeding the statute passed by Congress.

ATF will remain focused on criminals

Following a review ordered by President Donald Trump to protect Second Amendment rights, the DOJ and ATF announced 34 regulatory actions intended to modernize regulations, reduce unnecessary burdens on law-abiding citizens and businesses and keep enforcement tied to statutory authority — which is exactly what a federal law enforcement agency should do.

ATF has made clear the proposals do not change who is prohibited from possessing firearms. Unlawful dealing, straw purchasing and trafficking remain illegal. Those who break the law remain subject to prosecution.

That should be the standard. New ATF Director Robert Cekada voiced as much once he was confirmed to his permanent position leading the agency, affirming to Members of Congress ATF’s commitment “to protecting and preserving” the right to keep and bear arms. The bureau, Director Cekada said, has “entered a new era of reform to rebuild trust with the industry, federal firearms licensees, lawful gun owners, and the public while still prioritizing our efforts on public safety.” Under his leadership ATF will not be weaponized against lawful firearm retailers over immaterial paperwork errors or used to chill lawful commerce through regulatory uncertainty. And, unlike the Biden administration, ATF will not exceed its statutory authority granted it by Congress.

The firearm industry supports prosecuting traffickers, straw purchasers and repeat violent offenders. It supports firearm safety, responsible storage and efforts that actually reduce crime. What the firearm industry opposes is using taxpayer dollars, agency rulemaking and enforcement pressure to burden lawful commerce and chill the exercise of a constitutional right.

Rep. DeLauro’s claim collapses under the facts. Criminals are not waiting for regulatory reform to break the law. They already break the law. The question is whether elected representatives in Washington, D.C., will focus on stopping them or continue blaming the lawful industry and the millions of Americans who follow the law every day.

Republished with permission from NSSF.

As court decisions roll in, has gun control finally overplayed its hand?

SHummel — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by NRA-ILA

The final week of June brought a flurry of legal action on various gun control laws in the states. In Virginia, it became all but impossible for even experienced experts to know the precise contours of the law at any given moment. This is what sloppy, ignorant, ill-conceived gun control has wrought. Not only does it burden conscientious, law-abiding people, above all others; it also undermines the very foundations of the law itself.

Nevertheless, the fog may be lifting, as one court after another weighs in on cases challenging these overreaches. Could it be that the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence will also be remembered as the moment when the gun control movement lost control of its signature agenda item: banning America’s most popular guns?

The origins of gun control in the U.S. date back to the immediate post-Civil War era, when southern states implemented curbs on firearms to render freedmen vulnerable to reactionaries and vigilantes. Fortunately, as we recently noted, the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized these laws for what they were: disgraceful outliers and not a true representation of the public understanding of the right to keep and bear arms. Thus, they can no longer be used in legal proceedings to illustrate what sorts of laws have historically coexisted alongside the Second Amendment.

TIME IS ALMOST UP! Register now for the 2026 Patriot Fest - Aug. 22 in Hilliard

The next major impetus for gun control was anti-immigrant sentiment arising in New York City shortly after the turn of the 20th century. This prompted “Sullivan’s Law,” which imposed a licensing scheme on the acquisition, possession, and carrying of handguns that could be manipulated to discriminate between groups favored or disfavored by the local authorities. May-issue licensing thus became an important tool in the firearm prohibitionist’s arsenal.

Apart from a law that sought to ban concealable firearms in the U.S. mails, there wasn’t much significant federal activity on gun control until the National Firearms Act of 1934 (the NFA), supposedly spurred by interstate organized crime associated with bootleggers. The federal authorities of the day at least understood that disarming Americans was, to say the least, not an obvious authority conferred upon the U.S. government by the Constitution. Instead, they couched their gun ban in a prohibitively expensive taxation and registration scheme and aimed it at machine guns, suppressors, and “concealable” firearms. Early lobbying efforts by the NRA prevented the planned inclusion of handguns.

It was, however, the handgun — light, portable, easy to hide, and simple to operate — that became the focus of gun control in the states. Mostly, this consisted of licensing and registration schemes, as well as de facto or overt waiting periods.

Meanwhile, the political upheaval and assassinations of the 1960s spurred renewed interest in gun control by the U.S. government, resulting in the Gun Control Act of 1968 (the GCA). This Act contained language insisting that it did not intend to place unwarranted burdens on Americans’ use of firearms for legitimate purposes, including self-defense, rather it was meant to support law enforcement efforts in the states to tackle violent crime. The law enacted a federal system of licensing for commercial firearm businesses, as well as categories of persons prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms. It also regulated the interstate sale of firearms.

The GCA was then amended by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, which created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), which is queried when a federal firearm licensee (FFL) transfers a firearm to an unlicensed person. The supposed goal of this law is to screen out individuals who are prohibited from acquiring or possessing firearms under federal or state law.

After the enactment of the GCA, however, gun control activism surged, with the avowed goal of banning the possession of handguns by all but police, security, and military forces. By the late 1970s, handgun bans were the law in Washington, D.C., and Chicago. San Francisco also enacted a handgun ban that was eventually found by the state’s highest court to be preempted by California’s own extensive regulation of firearms.

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

The 1970s were a time of high violent crime, especially in large cities. Many jurisdictions unsuccessfully tried to rein this in by further clamping down on the right to keep and bear arms, especially handguns. But a counter movement arose to liberalize the legality of concealed handgun carry by law-abiding citizens. Florida’s 1987 concealed carry law was considered a pivotal development in this movement, and concealed carry swept the nation.

Eventually, for reasons that criminologists continue to debate, America experienced a sustained nationwide drop in violent crime. This drop coincided with the explosion of lawful concealed carry from coast to coast. As concealed carry grew in popularity, public support for handgun bans plummeted. The gun control movement realized it would need a new gun ban franchise to sustain its momentum.

The movement settled on targeting what came to be known as “military style assault weapons.” These were semi-automatic, magazine fed rifles that resembled certain military rifles. The predominant examples were the AR-15 and semi-automatic variants of the AK-47. While none of these guns was used nearly as often by violent criminals as the common (and heavily regulated) handgun, gun control advocates believed their “menacing” looks, coupled with confusion about how they operated, could generate support for bans.

They were right, and by 1994, the Clinton administration managed to get a ban on many common semi-automatic rifles, as well as magazine capacity limits, included in a sprawling anti-crime bill making its way through Congress. Fortunately, the ban had a 10-year expiration date, as well as provisions requiring its effectiveness to be studied.

The Clinton gun ban turned out to be a disaster for the gun control movement. The studies showed it had virtually no measurable effect on crime. But it galvanized pro-gun America behind the banned guns and magazines. By the time the ban expired in 2004, Americans had a huge appetite to arm themselves with semi-automatic rifles, and so they did. In time, the AR-15 would be acknowledged by pro- and anti-gun forces as the most popular rifle in America.

In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its most significant Second Amendment opinion up to that time, confirming the provision protected an individual right to keep and bear arms, including handguns, and to have operable firearms at the ready in one’s own home.

It took the extreme outlier of a handgun ban to get the High Court to reassert the significance of the Second Amendment. Handguns, the majority opinion noted, were the nation’s premier choice for self-defense.

Rather than see the handwriting on the wall, anti-gun jurisdictions doubled down, making handguns even more difficult and expensive to obtain and all but impossible to carry.

Subsequent Supreme Court cases chipped away at these laws, including McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022). Every step in this process required an outlier jurisdiction to ban something the Second Amendment clearly protected. And these anti-gun jurisdictions always accommodated the process, determined to defend the indefensible.

Now, as we have reported elsewhere, Virginia State courts are pushing back against the state’s recently enacted “assault firearm” and “large capacity” magazine laws. And the U.S. Supreme Court has finally accepted two cases for combined review that may resolve the ability of states and localities to ban magazine-fed semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 once and for all.

What will happen to the firearm prohibition movement if bans on the most popular categories of guns in America are no longer constitutionally permissible? Will the funders and activists who sustain the movement be content merely to chip away at the right through the alternative strategy of death by a thousand cuts?

Gun controllers currently have a 1-6 win-loss record before the U.S. Supreme Court since Heller revived the Second Amendment in 2008. While constitutional litigation can never be predicted with certainty, virtually no serious observer of the Second Amendment predicts success for the gun control movement in the semi-auto cases. At least four sitting justices have already expressed strong skepticism about the laws’ validity. And it only takes five to secure a binding judgment.

Will gun control activists ever learn? So far, the answer is a resounding no. Almost all the gun control laws mentioned above have been severely curbed by subsequent judicial and legislative action. And, as has been observed, the Supreme Court’s latest opinion on the Second Amendment, Wolford v. Lopez, was notable for the level of exasperation it displayed towards jurisdictions like Hawaii that have refused to comply with the court’s prior Second Amendment jurisprudence.

What the court will do next is anybody’s guess. But if the gun control movement ends up with an epochal defeat on their (currently) defining issue, they will have surely brought it on themselves.

How a Tulsa store clerk defended against machete-wielding robber

SHummel — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Rob Morse, SlowFacts

A clerk was working at a convenience store in Tulsa, Oklahoma, when an armed robber entered the store and threatened him. The clerk defended himself.

That description is true, but the reality was more complicated. Working at a convenience store is a dangerous job. Police officers and sheriff’s deputies call these stores “stop-and-robs” for a reason. Most of us visit a convenience store for gas or a snack every week. Perhaps we can make the job, and our visit, a little less dangerous after we study the incomplete news reports.

What the defender saw

The store clerk saw a man walk into the store carrying a machete. The intruder waved the machete around and threatened the clerk. The news reports don’t mention if there were other customers or employees in the store. The attacker walked behind the counter. The clerk left the store. The attacker pursued the clerk and followed him outside. The clerk retreated to his car where he grabbed his firearm. The attacker and the clerk re-entered the store. The attacker again threatened the clerk and the clerk shot him.

What the defender did

The clerk recognized the threat. Make no mistake that a machete is a lethal threat. The victim created distance between himself and the attacker. The defender retrieved a firearm as a tool of self-defense. The defender recognized an immediate, lethal, and unavoidable threat. That justified the use of lethal force.

The defender stayed at the scene after the attack. He called 911 and asked for both medical help and help from the police. He also secured the surveillance video and showed it to the police.

What we know now

The 61-year-old attacker was a convicted felon. He had an additional history of drug possession. He stopped attacking the clerk when he received a non-life-threatening gunshot to the hip. Police reports said the attacker would be charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon when he was released from the hospital.

What is best practice?

We want a firearm on our hip. That gives us a useful self-defense tool in seconds rather than minutes.
A firearm works at a distance and a knife requires proximity. We have an advantage if we stay away from our attacker. In general, we don’t want to enter the same room with an armed attacker. There may be reasons to do so, but we’d like to avoid it if possible.
Create ear-witness as well as eye-witnesses. Shout “Stop!” and step back if you have time. If you don’t have time, then you should already be shooting.
It really helps to have a holster on your hip. Not only is the gun within reach, but you also have a secure place to put your firearm after you use it. Be careful where you point your firearm after you’ve defended yourself. Many store clerks shoot the floor when their hands go numb from the surge of adrenaline.
Have a plan with other employees about what to do during a robbery. It would have helped if the clerk could have locked the door while the attacker was outside the store. In general, we want to lock the doors if the attacker runs away.
Have a cellphone nearby and ask for help. Ask if anyone in the store requires first aid, and then ask everyone to call 911. It helps to have the store name and address on a printed card at the cash register. The good news is that we can read when we can’t think.
Know how to give the police copies of your security video. Your lawyer gets the original video.
Have a lawyer to call. Help the police secure evidence at the scene, but say little. Have your lawyer submit your official statement. That should take days rather than minutes.

About 10% of adults are armed in public. More of us are armed at home. We imagine we will think our way through a problem as it happens. We can’t think when we face a man coming at us with a knife. We can recognize a situation we’ve already studied.. and we don’t need to be perfect.

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.

SCOTUS ruling could be beginning of end for AR-15 bans

SHummel — Tue, 07 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Sean Maloney, for AmmoLand

On June 30, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidating the matters to directly confront a constitutional question that activist lower courts have spent years dodging: whether the Second Amendment protects modern semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15.

This historic announcement marks the end of the beginning. For over a decade, gun-control advocates have relied on judicial passivity and interest-balancing tests to sustain draconian bans on America’s most popular rifles. That era is over. Under the strict text, history, and tradition test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), these bans are constitutionally indefensible. The Supreme Court is poised to deliver a definitive victory for the Second Amendment, invalidating “assault weapon” bans nationwide.

Mathematical reality of 'common use'

To understand why Viramontes will sound the death knell for these bans, one must look to the clear roadmap laid down in District of Columbia v. Heller. In Heller, the court explicitly rejected the notion that the government can ban an entire class of arms chosen by the American public for lawful purposes. Id. at 628–29. The core constitutional threshold is whether an arm is “in common use” today.

Lower courts, eager to uphold categorical prohibitions, have intentionally twisted this standard. In the decisions below, the Second and Seventh circuits treated the AR-15 as an “unusual” weapon, a premise that collapses under the weight of basic math:

The production data. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and recent federal manufacturing data, there are now over 32 million Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs)—overwhelmingly AR-15 platform rifles—in civilian circulation in the United States.
The ownership metric. Empirical data from the National Firearms Survey indicates that between 16 million and 24.6 million individual Americans own an AR-15.

To assert that a rifle platform owned by upwards of 24 million citizens and numbering over 32 million units is “unusual” is a legal absurdity. As a point of legal comparison, the Supreme Court in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411, 420 (2016) (Alito, J., concurring), held that approximately 200,000 tasers nationwide was more than enough to satisfy the “common use” test. If 200,000 units can trigger absolute Second Amendment protection, then 32 million modern sporting rifles command an unassailable constitutional shield.

The AR-15 outnumbers the Ford F-150, the best-selling vehicle in America, by a margin of more than two-to-one. Under any rational metric of jurisprudence, if an arm is the single most popular rifle in the nation, it is the absolute definition of common use. See Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 297 (2025) (acknowledging that “the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country”).

Dismantling the 'weapons of war' fallacy

Under any rational metric of jurisprudence, if an arm is the single most popular rifle in the nation, it is the mathematical definition of common use. Even the Supreme Court itself has already abandoned the lower courts’ delusion, explicitly recognizing that “the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in the country.” Smith & Wesson Brands, Inc. v. Estados Unidos Mexicanos, 605 U.S. 280, 297 (2025).

Faced with an overwhelming mountain of math, gun-control proponents are forced to completely detach themselves from reality, relying instead on a highly dishonest talking point: that the AR-15 is a “weapon of war” that belongs only on the battlefield. This argument is a technical and historical fraud that lower courts have shoehorned onto the law. The Supreme Court has already drawn the line between protected civilian arms and unprotected military ordnance. In Heller, the court noted that weapons that are “dangerous and unusual”—specifically citing M16 rifles and fully automatic machine guns—may be restricted because they are not in common civilian use. Heller, 554 U.S. at 627.

Related article: SCOTUS refers to BFA co-founder's amicus brief in ruling against Hawaii

The state attempts to conflate the civilian AR-15 with the military M16 or M4, but the two are fundamentally distinct classes of technology:

Fire control. The military M16 is a selective-fire weapon capable of fully automatic fire or three-round bursts. The civilian AR-15 is strictly a semi-automatic firearm. It fires exactly one round per pull of the trigger, utilizing the exact same internal operating mechanism found in ordinary hunting shotguns and rimfire plinking rifles since the early 20th century.
The legislative precedent. The Supreme Court recognized this exact distinction decades ago in Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (1994). In Staples, the court observed that internal automatic parts are what characterize a weapon of war, whereas civilian semi-automatic AR-15s “traditionally have been widely accepted as lawful possessions.” Id. at 612.
The feature fallacy. State bans do not target the kinetic power or lethality of the firearm; they target cosmetic, ergonomic features. Features like a telescoping stock (which adjusts the rifle to fit the physical stature of different shooters), a pistol grip (which provides an ergonomic hold), or a handguard (which keeps a shooter from burning their hands) do not alter the semi-automatic mechanics of the rifle.

The military has never deployed the civilian AR-15 to any combat theater in history. It is a purpose-built civilian platform. Calling it a “weapon of war” is a political slogan, not a constitutional argument.

Hunting red herring and the true purpose of the Second Amendment

Equally misleading is the standard political refrain that “you don’t need an AR-15 to hunt deer.” This argument fails on two distinct levels: one practical, and one deeply rooted in constitutional law.

Practically, the assertion that AR-15 style rifles are not used or needed for hunting is laughably ignorant. The modularity of the AR platform makes it the premier hunting rifle in modern America. Its adjustable stock accommodates shooters of varying physical sizes, including youth and female hunters, and its lightweight polymer and aluminum construction makes it highly portable across rough terrain. Furthermore, the standard chambering of the AR-15, the .223 Remington / 5.56x45mm NATO round, is the industry standard for varmint control, predator hunting (such as coyotes), and managing invasive feral hog populations that plague American agricultural lands. When chambered in larger calibers like the .300 Blackout, 6.5mm Grendel, or .350 Legend, the AR platform is widely and successfully utilized for medium-to-large game hunting.

In another case: BFA and partners ask court to strike down NFA rules on suppressors, short-barreled rifles

Constitutionally, however, the hunting argument is a complete red herring. The Second Amendment was not ratified to protect a recreational right to harvest wild game. As the Supreme Court explicitly held in Heller, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual, pre-existing right rooted in the natural law of self-preservation. Heller, 554 U.S. at 581, 592. The Founders did not design the Bill of Rights to safeguard sport; they designed it to safeguard liberty against both criminal aggression and political tyranny.

The actual purpose of the Second Amendment, per the Founding Fathers, was to ensure that the citizenry possessed the material means to resist oppression. The historical record on this point is bulletproof.

“To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” — George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380.

The Founders recognized that an armed populace is the ultimate structural check against a government that oversteps its constitutional bounds. Alexander Hamilton made this explicit in The Federalist No. 28, writing that if the representatives of the people betray their constituents, the citizens must exert “that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success.” The Federalist No. 28, p. 178 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961).

Similarly, James Madison in The Federalist No. 46 contrasted the American republic with the tyrannies of Europe by boasting of “the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.” The Federalist No. 46, p. 299. The European monarchies, Madison noted, were afraid to trust their citizens with arms because doing so would instantly smash their tyrannical rule.

To suggest that a modern firearm can be banned because it is not “necessary” for hunting is to completely wipe out the core principles of the American Founding. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to possess the definitive, standard infantry rifle of the contemporary era, precisely because it ensures the preservation of a free state.

Because the AR-15 falls squarely within the Second Amendment’s plain text, the burden shifts entirely to the government under Bruen. To sustain a restriction, the state must affirmatively demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Bruen, 597 U.S. at 24. Historically, American law has never tolerated the categorical ban of an entire class of firearms commonly possessed by law-abiding citizens. The modern cosmetic features targeted by statutes in Illinois and Connecticut have absolutely no historical analogues in 1791 or 1868. Under Bruen, the absence of a founding-era analogue for banning a common, linear ancestor of the typical American rifle is fatal to the government’s case.

The court’s recent adherence to historical methodology in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 574 (2024), confirms that while historical twins are not required, any modern restriction must still match the distinct why and how of an ancestral law. Because early America never banned rifles based on visual configurations or modular utility, modern “assault weapon” feature tests fail the Bruen inquiry entirely.

The remedial landscape post-CASA

Crucially, the practical stakes of Viramontes have been dramatically heightened by another landmark decision from this past term: Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025). In CASA, the Supreme Court severely restricted the equitable powers of lower federal courts, ruling 6–3 that universal or nationwide injunctions exceed traditional equitable authority. Id. at 835. Writing for the majority, Justice Barrett made clear that federal courts may only fashion relief “tailored to the parties before the court.” Id. This structural shift reshapes how Second Amendment litigation protects citizens moving forward.

Post-CASA, when a federal district court strikes down a gun control measure or issues a preliminary injunction, that relief does not automatically protect every citizen across the jurisdiction. Instead, under the strictures of CASA, the injunction provides complete relief exclusively to the named plaintiffs and the specific members of the organizational entities involved in the suit. Consequently, individual gun owners seeking immediate safe harbor under favorable lower court decrees must now rely heavily on direct association with these lawsuits to be covered by the judicial shield.

The convergence of Bruen’s unyielding historical command and CASA’s refined remedial boundaries sets the stage for a historic legal battle in Viramontes. The Supreme Court did not grant certiorari to rubber-stamp the contorted logic of the circuit courts. By consolidating these cases, the High Court intends to resolve the fractured landscape of Second Amendment jurisprudence once and for all.

When the historical record is read the way our Founders intended, and for that, thank you, Justice Thomas, the modern gun-control agenda completely falls apart. The AR-15 is the typical American rifle of our time, chosen by millions of citizens to exercise their birthright of self-preservation. By liberating the Second Amendment from decades of lower-court hostility, the Supreme Court will permanently dismantle these lawless bans. In doing so, they will ensure that the right to keep and bear arms remains secure for our children and grandchildren. For millions of law-abiding citizens, this case isn’t just about a rifle; it’s about defending the sacred right to protect our families, our homes, and our freedom for generations to come.

Sean Maloney is a criminal defense attorney, cofounder of Second Call Defense, and an NRA-certified firearms instructor. He also serves as legal counsel for Buckeye Firearms Association. Republished with permission from AmmoLand.

No more allowing big-dollar anti-gun donors to live in the shadows

SHummel — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Larry Keane, NSSF

For far too long, anti-gun groups have been nothing more than snake-oil salesmen. They claim to speak for a vast army of grassroots citizens, but the reality is these groups astroturf. They aren’t rooted in anything more than anti-gun animus.

They’re also not nearly as down-to-earth with the people they claim to represent. They’re a high-price but cheap knockoff of the real thing. It’s fugazi grassroots.

No summertime plans? Attend Ohio firearm training and special events

NSSF has called them out in the past for their bought-and-paid-for activism. It’s time to do it again. Pull back the curtain and it’s easy to see that the anti-gun movement isn’t much more than a few billionaires and activist foundations pouring cash into their gun control pet projects — to the tune of over $400 million every year. It’s a willing media that goes right along with them, parroting half-truths and twisting narratives to demonize American gun owners and the firearm industry that serves them.

No more. Welcome to Gun Rights Insights.

Gun Rights Insights is a new outreach initiative, including periodic videos, to pull back the veil that these anti-gun billionaires creep around telling America to give up their Second Amendment rights while they enjoy paid armed security. The “rules-for-thee, not-for-me” era must come to an end. That’s why NSSF’s Gun Rights Insights will be making note of the gun control hypocrisy.

Anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg

Take for instance, anti-gun billionaire Michael Bloomberg. The former New York City Mayor has made it his life’s goal to eliminate Second Amendment rights across the nation, spending over $50 million to attack lawful firearm ownership. While mayor, he organized Mayors Against Illegal Guns (MAIG). That group was discredited when they “honored” the terrorist and Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev as a “gun violence victim” in 2013. Add to that, several MAIG members have, ironically, been charged with firearms-related offenses.

Bloomberg, of course, is the financier of Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action and funds their anti-gun media mouthpiece The Trace.

The Trace was seeded with funding tied to the gun control movement. The Trace claims to be “editorially independent,” but when a newsroom is funded by and built around a single political issue with the backing of major gun control activists, it’s fair — necessary, even — to scrutinize how it frames the facts. After all, The Trace is headed by John Feinblatt, who also heads Everytown for Gun Safety and once served as a senior advisor to Bloomberg when he was New York City’s mayor. Feinblatt is the principal officer listed on tax filings for The Trace. Everytown, of course, is a gun control organization that wants to see lawful firearm ownership eliminated in America.

To top it all off, The Trace admits that it has “more than a thousand readers who have stepped up to support financially.” The Trace reported they received over $6.3 million in 2024, according to the watchdog group InfluenceWatch. That means to make that budget work, each of those readers would have had to donated over $6,300. That’s not likely. The Trace’s own website states they make public all donors who give over $1,000 or more per year. The Trace does list over 60 donors and donating foundations that reads like a veritable “who’s who” of gun control supporters.

Soros family and foreign money

George Soros, and now his son Alex, are another source of deep pockets for anti-gun efforts. George Soros’s entities spent $9 million for lobbying efforts to attack Second Amendment rights, including fighting to allow frivolous lawsuits to clog the courts and attempt to bankrupt the firearm industry through a “legislation-through-litigation” strategy. Soros even worked with the Gun Action on Gun Violence, which assisted in the ill-fated and unfounded $10 billion lawsuit by Mexico against U.S. firearm manufacturers.

That doesn’t take into account the Hollywood celebrities who harangue gun owners and the firearm industry. They do this while they make movies and television shows featuring firearms, many times being used in irresponsible and illegal ways. And they do this while they enjoy armed bodyguards.

The time is past due to expose this astroturf effort for what it is. It’s a paper-thin effort to ostracize lawful firearm ownership, funded by wealthy elites who can afford their own armed security but want to deny Second Amendment rights to law-abiding Americans. Poking holes into that false narrative is what Gun Rights Insights aims to do.

Republished with permission from NSSF.

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.