Buckeye Firearms Association

SAF seeks SCOTUS review in 'sensitive places' case

SHummel — Fri, 29 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners on May 20 petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for review in Novotny v. Moore, SAF’s challenge to Maryland’s so-called “sensitive places” carry ban.

Maryland was among the states forced to change their carry permit laws after the landmark Bruen decision held that every American had the right to carry in public. In response, the state passed a new carry ban in which, even with a newly available permit, residents are still not allowed to carry a firearm in a long list of overlapping “sensitive place” categories, like mass transit facilities, state parks, healthcare facilities, museums, stadiums, and more.”

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

“Since the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in Bruen, states have found novel ways to circumvent not only the Court’s holdings, but to continue infringing on the core rights protected by the Second Amendment,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “By labeling essentially all areas open to the public “sensitive places,” municipalities have attempted to completely ban the possession and carry of firearms in public all over again. We are hopeful presenting this case to the Supreme Court provides an attractive opportunity for the court to once and for all clarify what places are, and are not, sufficiently ‘sensitive’ to justify extinguishing peoples’ rights.”

As noted in the petition, “… because this case addresses a wide variety of locations, it is an ideal vehicle for this Court to clarify the narrow scope of the historical “sensitive places” limitation on the right to keep and bear arms. There is no historical tradition of banning carrying firearms in “crowded” places or places where “vulnerable” people are present.” Joining SAF in the case are Maryland Shall Issue, Firearms Policy Coalition, Maryland State Rifle and Pistol Association, and four private citizens.

“States that for many years refused to grant carry permits at all – and were forced to do so after Bruen — passed these so-called “sensitive places” carry bans resulting in citizens continuing to have their right to bear arms trampled,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Even with permits, residents in Maryland still face five years in jail for carrying a firearm just about anywhere people actually need or want to go out in public. This infringement cannot be allowed to stand, and we encourage the Supreme Court to provide guidance to these senseless laws.”

For more information visit SAF.org.

Republished with permission from Second Amendment Foundation.

Trump taps BFA-backed Ohio Judge Matthew Byrne for federal district court

SHummel — Thu, 28 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

President Donald Trump on May 27 announced on Truth Social that he has appointed Judge Matthew Byrne to serve on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio.

Byrne, whom Buckeye Firearms Association endorsed in 2020 for the Twelth District Court of Appeals in Ohio, previously worked as an attorney at two major Cincinnati law firms, received his law degree, cum laude, from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and earned his Bachelor of ARts from Xavier University.

From Truth Social:

I am pleased to announce the nomination of Matthew Byrne to serve as Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio. As Judge on the Ohio Twelfth District Court of Appeals, Matt has distinguished himself, and delivered strong results for The Buckeye State. He comes strongly recommended by our Great Vice President, JD Vance, and Senators Bernie Moreno and Jon Husted! Matt previously worked as an attorney at two major Cincinnati Law Firms, received his J.D. from The Ohio State University Moritz College of Law, and earned his B.A. from Xavier University. The Constitutional Rights of the incredible people of Ohio are in good hands with Matt on the Federal Bench. Congratulations Matt! President DONALD J. TRUMP

Byrne was elected to the Twelth District Court in 2020 and began serving Jan. 1, 2021. He is currently the court’s elected administrative judge, according to his bio page on the district court's website. Byrne also serves on the Ohio Supreme Court’s Commission on the Rules of Practice and Procedure and on the Board of Commissioners on Character and Fitness.

Prior to law school, Byrne was a member of the White House Staff in the Office of Presidential Personnel, according to his bio page. There he was responsible for preparing documents submitted to President George W. Bush concerning his selection and nomination of appointees for high-level federal government positions and for coordinating with the Offices of White House Counsel, Press Secretary, and Executive Clerk regarding candidate background clearances, press announcements, and the status of appointments/nominations.

Byrne has been a member of the Federalist Society since law school and served for five years as the president of the society's Cincinnati Lawyers Chapter. He is a member of the Ohio State Bar Association, the Butler County Bar Association, the Warren County Bar Association.

Byrne resides in Deerfield Township, Warren County, with his wife, Julie, and their three children.

Appointments to U.S. district courts require the president to officially nominate a candidate, followed by a public hearing and favorable vote by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Finally, the full Senate must debate and pass the nomination with a simple majority to confirm the appointment, according to congress.gov.

NRA-ILA applauds House passage of Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act

SHummel — Wed, 27 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

The U.S. House of Representatives on May 21 passed H.R.1041, the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act.

This bill, sponsored by Chairman Mike Bost (R-Illinois), would reverse a controversial and deeply troubling policy that stripped veterans of their right to keep and bear arms without due process, simply because they have been assigned a fiduciary to help manage their Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits that they’ve earned through suffering a service-connected disability.

MIdterm elections: 90% of BFA PAC-endorsed candidates win in 2026 primary

It would allow veterans to receive the benefits and assistance to which they are entitled by their selfless service to our country without the fear of losing their fundamental freedoms of purchasing and possessing firearms.

“This vote represents a significant victory and another step in the right direction of eradicating this terrible practice and should be celebrated by veterans and all Americans alike,” said John Commerford, executive director of NRA-ILA. “On behalf of millions of NRA members and veterans nationwide, we applaud the U.S. House for voting to protect our veterans and honoring their service by ensuring that they are not treated as second class citizens.”

NRA-ILA would like to thank Chairman Mike Bost for his steadfast leadership on this issue. Through his relentless effort, he has shepherded this important legislation through his work as chairman of the House Committee on Veterans’ Affairs and through annual appropriations battles. Additionally, NRA-ILA would like to thank Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, and Majority Whip Tom Emmer for their efforts to bring this bill to the floor of the U.S. House for consideration. And finally, last but certainly not least, NRA-ILA would like to thank the representatives who have cosponsored this legislation and helped maintain steady support for this effort.

But we cannot rest. America’s veterans need us to take our efforts to the U.S. Senate. It is now more important than ever for Senate Majority Leader John Thune and the U.S. Senate vote to pass the Veterans 2nd Amendment Protection Act so that President Trump can sign this bill and end this shameful chapter of VA history once and for all.

Hollywood gaslights us again on guns

SHummel — Tue, 26 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Matt Manda

Speaking from the European elite artsy mecca of film — in a country with no constitutional gun rights and strict laws all but suffocating civilian ownership — one of Hollywood’s recognizable actresses declared she’s had enough.

After decades of participating in films, many of which included guns, shootings, scenes of violence and she herself handling and using a firearm, actress Julianne Moore pontificated that she no longer wished to act in films with violence.

“I don’t like someone being murdered. I don’t like explosions and guns,” she told a crowd during an interview at the Cannes Film Festival last week in France. “Particularly now, at a time when things are really rough globally, it’s very difficult for me to invest in a story that I think is pretend.”

Moore, one of Hollywood’s most progressive, far left, anti-gun actresses, now resides in New York City, at a residence that has private security. She also might want to check what the crime stats reveal about violence in the United States right now.

Moore’s misunderstanding

Moore’s anti-gun efforts began more than a decade ago, when she became an outspoken advocate for more gun control. She spoke out at gun control rallies, aspired to meet and replicate gun control activist Shannon Watts’ Moms Demand Action efforts. She’s even tried the whole “I support the Second Amendment, but …” charade that so many do.

“We respect the Second Amendment, but keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of convicted criminals, terrorists, domestic abusers, stalkers, and dangerous people isn’t anti-gun; it’s pro-common sense,” she wrote in a 2015 blog post. The firearm industry agrees and fortunately for the mistaken Moore, individuals like those she references are already barred by law from purchasing and possessing firearms.

Aug. 22 at the Makoy in Hilliard: Sign up now for the 2026 Patriot Fest

She made the statement while announcing her new venture, Everytown Creative Council, to get Hollywood officially on board with the efforts of the billionaire Michael Bloomberg-funded Everytown for Gun Safety.

“We know that more than 90 percent of Americans support common-sense reforms that are proven to save lives,” Moore falsely suggested. “What not enough people know, and what the gun lobby doesn’t want more of us to know, is that a large majority of gun owners support these reforms, too.”

One glaring example of where she’s flat wrong is her support for a new federal ban on modern sporting rifles (MSRs), the AR-15-style semi-automatic centerfire rifles that Moore and others deem so-called “assault weapons.”

According to recent data, Americans are practically evenly split when it comes to imposing any new ban on commonly owned firearms — including MSRs. That’s just asking the question and not delving into the debate of constitutional violations.

Politics and protection

The problem with Moore and her Hollywood friends so eager to join her “gun violence prevention” effort is that the vast majority support politicians who impose severe gun control restrictions on law-abiding Americans, while at the same time implementing policies that go easy on criminals. In recent years this includes gutting law enforcement budgets. All the while, Hollywood elites live within gated neighborhoods or in ritzy buildings with locked doors and private armed security services. It’s “security for me but not for thee.”

During the rise in community violence across the nation following the death of George Floyd, Moore joined in the protests, attending one in Montauk, New York, on Long Island. That was also a high point of the calls by Leftwing activists to defund the police. That year, the Los Angeles City Council voted 12-2 to cut $150 million from the police budget. What was the result in Moore’s Hollywood? The Los Angeles Police Department actually sent out a press release warning would-be victims to “cooperate and comply” with criminals who might be attacking them. “Be a good witness,” the LAPD said.

And now, after decades of acting and making millions of dollars from films that include violence, firearms and criminal behavior, Moore has had an epiphany and wants no more. How noble of her.

In the real world

Moore, and her gun control activist colleagues, may be having a difficult time processing what is actually happening now across the country. After all, they’ve spent decades living and working in a bubble of unreality.

As of 2025, NSSF estimated that there are over 26.2 million new first-time law-abiding gun owners in America, since 2020. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court, which Moore rallied outside of for a new federal “assault weapon” ban, issued the Bruen decision, striking down New York’s — and other similar states’ — restrictive and subjective may issue concealed carry permit scheme, meaning millions and millions more Americans now lawfully conceal carry their firearms than did in 2022 before the court’s decision.

And what has happened? Despite claims by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, major gun control groups like Everytown and Shannon Watts herself, that there would be “bloodshed” in the streets and America would become a “warzone”, the exact opposite happened.

2025 saw the lowest level of violent crime, homicide and criminal gun misuse in more than a century. That includes Moore’s home of New York City.

Moore, her Hollywood coworkers, and those privileged elites who so often reside in protected, gated enclaves far away from the reality of American communities can keep their self-reflection naval gazing about “violence” and “bloodshed” to themselves.

What’s happening in real America is that millions and millions of Americans are choosing to exercise their God-given right to own a firearm. And the country has never been safer. That’s no Hollywood movie script. That’s reality.

Republished with permission from NSSF.

The 'accessory' gambit: Why Eleventh Circuit’s mechanical logic fails 2A

SHummel — Mon, 25 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Sean Maloney, for AmmoLand

In the recently published decision of United States v. Alsenat (2026), the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction involving Machine Gun Conversion Devices (MCDs), specifically “Glock switches.” The panel rested its holding on the claim that machineguns are not protected arms in common lawful use. However, the district court also accepted the government’s fallback theory that unattached conversion devices are mere “accessories” or “accoutrements,” not protected “Arms.”

That accessory framing should alarm gun owners.

To the casual observer, this may seem like a minor semantic point. To a firearm attorney, it is a transparent attempt to deconstruct the Second Amendment by its parts.

As one of the attorneys who represented the Buckeye Firearms Association in our successful suit against the city of Cincinnati regarding their bump stock ban, I have seen this “accessory gambit” before. It failed in Ohio, and it should fail in the federal courts as well.

Lessons from Buckeye Firearms Association v. City of Cincinnati

When Cincinnati attempted to bypass Ohio’s firearm preemption law (R.C. 9.68) to ban bump stocks, their primary legal tactic was to argue that a bump stock was a mere “accessory” and not a “component” or “part” of a firearm. They believed that by changing the label, they could evade the state’s “uniform laws” mandate.

Our legal team challenged this head-on. We argued that a device that interacts with the fire-control group to enable a specific cycle of fire is, by definition, part of the firearm. The Court of Common Pleas agreed, and the First District affirmed, providing a definitive rebuke to the city’s logic. The court recognized a fundamental truth: you cannot regulate the function of an arm by arbitrarily declaring its internal timing and fire-control components to be “accessories.” The ruling stated clearly that components like a bump stock are included within the definition of “firearms.”

The mechanical truth of the 'Glock' switch

The Alsenat court pretends a machinegun conversion device is a bolt-on trinket, leaving the base pistol untouched. That’s fiction in engineering; function defines firearm components. The switch replaces the factory slide cover plate, a static cover in stock form. Once installed, it transforms that “spot” into the active sear and striker-timing mechanism.

If you extract it from a tuned setup, you are left with a gutted slide, an inert striker, and a brick. This brings us to the point that you can’t call a heart an “accessory” to a human body just because it can be transplanted. Similarly, you shouldn’t call a sear or a timing mechanism an accessory just because it can be swapped. By any “Mechanical Essentiality Test,” the part is integral: absent the part, the configured arm fails to operate as intended. If a part is necessary for the firearm to function in its current configuration, that part is the firearm.

Deconstructing the 'arm'

The heart of the Alsenat error lies in the definition of a “Fire Control Group” (FCG). In any machine, the parts that maintain synchronization, like the timing belt in an engine are internal components, not optional decorations. By labeling the component that dictates the timing and release of the striker as an “accessory,” the court suggests that a firearm’s most vital “organs” can be stripped of constitutional protection.

If the courts are permitted to redefine integral fire-control components as “accessories,” they grant the government the power to deconstruct any modern firearm into a series of “unprotected” pieces. Under this logic, a trigger assembly, a bolt carrier group, or even a barrel could be reclassified as an “accessory” to circumvent the Second Amendment.

The constitutional sleight of hand

The Eleventh Circuit used Heller’s “dangerous and unusual” idea to avoid checking the real mechanics of Glock switches. It is a convenient shortcut. Instead of engaging with the rigorous history-and-tradition test established in Bruen, the court relied on wordplay.

If the Supreme Court seeks to reverse Alsenat, it cannot rest on a faulty mechanical foundation alone. The court must ground its reasoning in Bruen’s history or Heller’s core protections, unmasking the “accessory” label as constitutional sleight of hand. Rahimi and Bruen require the government to show a historical analogue for such bans, not just a clever new vocabulary.

Conclusion

Cincinnati proved it: Parts that make a gun work aren’t add-ons; they’re the gun. Law must match how guns actually function.

When a court calls a firing mechanism an “accessory,” it isn’t just misinterpreting engineering—it is eroding the very definition of the “Arms” we have a right to keep and bear.

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.

Also from Sean Maloney

Everytown using AI to strip away our Second Amendment rights

SHummel — Fri, 22 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Lee Williams

Last year, the parents of a 16-year-old boy alleged in a lawsuit that ChatGPT encouraged their son to kill himself.

In October 2004, a New York AI system falsely told business owners they could steal tips, fire anyone who complained about sexual harassment, and serve food even after it was chewed by rats.

In August 2005, a 56-year-old man killed his 83-year-old mother in her home and then committed suicide. He believed his mother was a secret agent who was poisoning him with psychedelic drugs, and his chatbot agreed and supported his delusions.

In July 2005, an AI system told a user how to break into an attorney’s home and to bring “lock picks, gloves, a flashlight and lube.”

Now Everytown for Gun Safety is using AI in an attempt to further erode our Second Amendment rights.

What could possibly go wrong?

Election results: 90% of BFA PAC-endorsed candidates win in 2026 primary

Last month, Everytown announced it had created the Everytown Evidence Engine, or E³, an AI system they claimed would help them “harness AI policy to identify gun safety solutions.”

They made the move to AI because “efficient systems for analysis can lead to new questions and new answers in the field of gun violence prevention research.”

How reliable is Everytown’s new AI?

You can judge for yourself.

Claude

Everytown admitted its new E³ AI system was built using Claude, an AI system designed by the firm Anthropic. Both Claude and Anthropic have had significant problems.

In a recent story titled “Anthropic Admitted Claude Code Broke. We Were Right,” a reporter at Medium announced he had found issues with the system.

The reporter’s hard work forced Anthropic to admit that Claude had major problems.

In a story titled “An update on recent Claude Code quality reports,” Anthropic claimed they had fixed everything.

“Over the past month, we’ve been looking into reports that Claude’s responses have worsened for some users. We’ve traced these reports to three separate changes that affected Claude Code, the Claude Agent SDK, and Claude Cowork. The API was not impacted,” Anthropic claimed.

The firm also promised it would “do things differently to avoid these issues,” and that more of their staff would use the public version of the software.

Sky News recently released a damning YouTube video about public interactions with Claude.

The British report discusses how the chatbot tells users what they want to hear.

“What happens when AI starts pulling people away from reality and even encourages them to act on distorted beliefs?” the reporter asked.

The video discusses a recent Canadian research paper that found one of every 1,000 conversations with Claude has the “potential for severe reality distortions.”

“We don’t know why Claude responds as it does consistently,” an expert said.

The researchers also discovered that the number of potentially harmful discussions with Claude was actually growing over time. An Anthropic spokesman admitted they knew that Claude had problems, but they didn’t know why.

'Limitations'

When Everytown addresses everything that its new E³ tool cannot do, you have to wonder why anyone would use it.

Even Everytown admits E³'s limitations are simply breathtaking.

“For example, at this time, E³ does not currently weigh all of the factors that could be influencing gun violence such as gun ownership, employment and earnings, strength of policy implementation and enforcement, law-enforcement practices, and many other relevant and granular socioeconomic and demographic characteristics particularly at the county and/or neighborhood-levels,” Everytown wrote.

So despite its long list of limitations, how does Everytown intend to use its new E³ tool?

They don’t really say.

“[T]his new tool can provide users with important directions regarding policy effectiveness that can be used for critical decision-making. And it is the hope that future iterations of the E³ will incorporate these kinds of variables and, ultimately, increase its ability to conduct additional types of analyses,” Everytown wrote.

Takeaways

Thus far, all of Everytown’s critical decision-making has involved how to strip guns from the hands of gun owners. They spend millions annually trying to create more local, state and federal anti-gun laws. Whether their new E³ system will help them remains to be seen.

Alan Gottlieb founded the Second Amendment Foundation more than 50 years ago and serves as its executive vice president. He was struck but not surprised by the problems with Everytown’s new AI system.

“When you are unintelligent, you think any AI system will be better than your own brain," Gottlieb said. "But being unintelligent, odds are you will pick the wrong one. Everytown sure did.”

Lee Williams is chief editor of the Second Amendment Foundation's Investigative Journalism Project. Republished with permission.

NRA sues Virginia over 'assault firearms' and magazine bans

SHummel — Thu, 21 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

The National Rifle Association on May 14 announced the filing of a state lawsuit challenging Virginia’s newly enacted bans on “assault firearms” and magazines capable of holding more than 15 rounds.

The bans were signed into law earlier by Gov. Spanberger. The “assault firearms” ban criminalizes the purchase, sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of a wide range of commonly owned semiautomatic handguns, shotguns, and rifles—including the AR-15, the most popular rifle in America. The law also prohibits the purchase, barter, transfer, and importation of “large capacity magazines,” defined as magazines capable of holding over 15 rounds of ammunition.

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

The complaint argues that the bans violate the arms guarantee in Article 1, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. It further contends that, because the Virginia Supreme Court has interpreted that provision as coextensive with the Second Amendment, it bars prohibitions on commonly owned arms.

The plaintiffs include the Virginia Shooting Sports Association, Middletown Firearms, Middletown Training, Virginia Pride Ltd., and VSSA members Joseph Santolla, Reagan Adams, James Rowe, Robert Pride, and Stephen Bokmiller.

The case, Santolla v. Katz, will be heard by the Washington Circuit Court.

Sign up for BFA-sponsored Houses of Worship Defensive Firearms Training

SHummel — Wed, 20 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

By now, you've likely heard of the Protecting Houses of Worship training classes designed as an intro to help identify security needs, as well as organizational and team training standards. Now it's time to step it up a notch with another Buckeye Firearms Association-sponsored event.

Houses of Worship Defensive Firearms Training, scheduled for 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Saturday, Aug. 1, is a faith-based safety team training focused on responsible firearms use, threat recognition, immediate life-saving casualty care, and coordinated emergency response.

Designed specifically for houses of worship, this course helps teams protect congregations while maintaining a safe, welcoming environment. Attendees will be offered a shooting qualification standard at the end of the training.

The primary instructor is Forrest Sonewald, a veteran law enforcement professional and tactical instructor with more than 30 years of experience in patrol, SWAT operations, and law enforcement training. He currently serves with the Perry Village Police Department as a firearms and defensive tactics Instructor, where he develops and delivers advanced training programs that enhance officer proficiency and safety. Sonewald also is a Red Team instructor with the Ohio Tactical Officers Association who trains law enforcement officers all around the state of Ohio in active-killer response, among other valuable training.

The training will be held at Mushin Safety & Security Training, LLC, 10288 Amity Road, Brookville, Ohio.

We invite all dedicated safety team members serving houses of worship to join us on the range and showcase your skills in a supportive, professional environment. Whether you patrol the sanctuary, secure the parking lot, or stand ready to protect your congregation, this is your opportunity to sharpen critical marksmanship, tactical movement, and decision-making abilities alongside fellow defenders who understand the responsibility you carry. Come train with purpose, build camaraderie with other faith-based security teams, exchange best practices, and demonstrate the competence and readiness that keeps your community safe. Slots are limited, so reserve your spot today and prove that vigilance has no off day.

There will be a working lunch, so please bring your own food and beverage.

To register or for more information, check out our calendar listing or call Angela Armstrong at 614-715-4867.

BFA has several events and classes scheduled for this summer. Check out our Events page.

BFA-backed SB 392 'Freedom to Carry Act' scheduled for 1st hearing May 20

SHummel — Tue, 19 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Joe D. "Buck" Ruth

An Ohio Senate bill that would advance gun rights on multiple fronts is up for its first hearing in the Senate General Government Committee on Wednesday, May 20.

Senate Bill 392, known as the Freedom to Carry Act and supported by Buckeye Firearms Association, would, among other things, rename a concealed handgun license a concealed weapons license, allow a concealed weapons licensee to carry a concealed deadly weapon other than an exclusive deadly weapon, allow the possession or transportation of a loaded firearm while in a motor vehicle or vessel, and lower the age of "qualifying adult" from 21 to 18.

SB 392, introduced March 23 by Sens. Al Cutrona (R-Canfield) and Terry Johnson (R-McDermott) and referred to the Senate General Government Committee on March 25, proposes significant revisions to Ohio’s weapons laws by expanding the scope of lawful carry, broadening the definition and treatment of “deadly weapons,” and reinforcing statewide preemption over local regulation. The legislation renames the current concealed handgun licensing framework and substantially increases the rights of license holders and individuals generally with respect to possession, transport, and carry. For a more in-depth description of the bill, check out our April 7 article.

The committee will meet at 2:30 p.m. Live coverage will be available on the Ohio Legislature homepage and later on the committee's video webpage.

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.

Democrat strategist Carville reveals plan for one-party rule, packed anti-gun SCOTUS

SHummel — Mon, 18 May 2026 10:00:00 +0000

by Larry Keane, NSSF

The Ragin’ Cajun who once advised President Bill Clinton has spoken, giving anti-gun Democrats a roadmap of what they should do if they take control of Congress next year. James Carville didn’t go off script. He said the quiet part out loud.

The veteran Democratic strategist recently argued that if Democrats win back both chambers of Congress, they should move immediately to make Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico states to bank four more U.S. Senate seats and expand the U.S. Supreme Court to 13 justices, packing it with justices who would vote against protecting Second Amendment rights.

That wasn’t the most revealing part, though. Carville’s advice was not to persuade the public. It was to conceal the agenda until after the election: “Don’t run on it. Don’t talk about it. Just do it,” he flatly stated.

Much like U.S. House Speaker Emeritus Nancy Pelosi’s (D-California) infamous Obamacare line, “We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it,” the instinct is the same. Carville wants those same politicians that crave more gun control to keep the real agenda vague, secure power first and disclose the consequences later. Carville just updated that instinct to gain control at all costs for 2026.

Raw partisan leverage

Carville’s blunt “blueprint” was telling. It’s a list of familiar items on the wish list of the politicians that would erase Second Amendment rights altogether. That agenda already has a legislative paper trail.

Congress has the constitutional authority to admit new states under Article IV, Section 3 and Congress can approve more justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court currently consists of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Packing the court was a refrain during the last presidential election. The reason then was as it is now. Carville wants to abuse the court to wield partisan political power and negate the balance of power between the three branches of government.

Aug. 22 in Hilliard, Ohio: Register now for the 2026 Patriot Fest

That’s the real scoop. Those same politicians who fawn in front of news cameras about “norms,” “threats to democracy” and “protecting institutions” have suddenly grown an appetite for brute-force institutional rewiring when they seek to ram a political agenda that has no widespread public support.

If Carville and those politicians who listened to him truly believed this agenda was legitimate, they would make the case openly to voters. They would defend it on the merits with public discussions and debates. They would explain why changing the composition of the Senate and the Supreme Court is good for the country, not just good for their side.

Carville doesn’t dare do that. Instead, hide it. Win first. Do it later.

Gun owners, beware

The firearm industry and Second Amendment advocates can’t, and don’t, treat this as some distant parlor game.

Institutional power is policy power. If Democrats could add friendly Senate seats and recast the Supreme Court, they would clear the path for the rest of their agenda — no doubt including more crippling federal gun control, more regulatory suffocation and a more hostile judiciary for Second Amendment cases.

That is not speculation. It is already playing out at the state level.

In Virginia, Gov. Abigail Spanberger is deciding what to do next after SB 749, legislation that would ban the purchase of many Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs), semiautomatic shotguns used for hunting and home defense, many pistols and standard-capacity magazines was sent to her by the legislature. She already vowed to enact strict gun control while campaigning for the highest office in the Commonwealth. Virginians have responded exactly the way Americans always do when politicians threaten to restrict a constitutional right. Virginians are exercising their Second Amendment rights while they still can. They’re buying guns in big numbers.

The same can be expected should anti-gun politicians control Congress. Anti-gun politicians have been signaling it all along. They want bans on semi-automatic rifles and confiscation, bans on popular and common handguns, to repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), to require universal background checks and the creation of a federal gun ownership registry, banking discrimination that would suffocate the industry, traditional ammunition bans, and the list goes on and on.

Believe when they say it

Politicians claiming to be defenders of democracy are being urged by a strategist to conceal a program of statehood-for-advantage and court-packing-for-control until after voters go to the polls. That is not “small-d democratic” confidence. That is machine politics dressed up as moral urgency.

For gun owners, the warning is even clearer. Any political movement willing to quietly restructure the Senate and Supreme Court to secure durable partisan power will not hesitate to use that power against the Second Amendment.

Carville did not misspeak. He clarified.

“If the Democrats win the presidency and both houses of Congress, I think on day one, they should make Puerto Rico [and] D.C. a state, and they should expand the Supreme Court to 13. *expletive* Eat our dust,” he said.

Voters should pay attention. Democratic candidates might just take his advice.