Every Supreme Court term produces headlines. This one produced structural change — the kind that will shape how power works in Washington, D.C., in statehouses, and in your own community for years to come.
Start with the case that mattered most: Trump v. Slaughter. For 90 years, Congress could shield the heads of “independent” agencies — the Federal Trade Commission, and by extension dozens of similar bodies — from being fired by the president except for cause. The Court ended that, ruling that if an official exercises the president’s executive power, the president can remove him. In practice, that means voters who elect a president now have more say over the sprawling bureaucracy that regulates everything from consumer products to labor disputes, rather than leaving that power with unelected commissioners serving staggered terms.
A companion case, Trump v. Cook, carved out an exception for the Federal Reserve — Fed governors can be fired only for cause, a 5-4 compromise that Justice Barrett, in dissent, called out as arbitrary and going beyond what the Court needed to decide the case.
Women’s sports had one of their best days ever at the Court. In cases out of West Virginia and Idaho, all nine justices agreed that Title IX — the law that opened the door to girls’ athletics in the first place — doesn’t force states to let biological males compete on girls’ teams. A narrower 6-3 majority held that constitutional equal protection likewise allows states to protect female athletes. That means the 27 states that already protect single-sex sports are on solid legal ground, and cases are already wending their way to the Supreme Court asking whether equal protection and Title IX actually require the other 23 states to do so.
The Second Amendment kept winning, too. In Wolford v. Lopez, the Court struck down a Hawaii law that weaponized trespass law against concealed-carry permit holders: Instead of assuming that a valid permit holder could enter a business with his weapon unless told otherwise, Hawaii required businesses to explicitly invite him in first. The Court said that the law effectively criminalized ordinary daily life for lawful gun owners — a ruling that should also doom copycat laws in California and other blue states. In a separate case, the justices unanimously held that the government can’t strip someone’s gun rights merely because he’s an occasional marijuana user, absent any sign he’s actually dangerous.
The First Amendment had an outstanding term as well. The Court struck down Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” counseling, ruling that a state can’t let therapists affirm a client’s gender identity while banning them from helping a client move the other direction — that’s the government picking sides on a viewpoint, not regulating conduct.
Elsewhere, the Court protected a New Jersey pregnancy center’s right to keep its donor list private from a hostile state subpoena, and struck down limits on how much political parties can coordinate spending with their own candidates. The campaign finance ruling is the latest in a series of cases reaffirming that free speech includes the right to political speech, and it will likely shift fundraising and election spending back to the parties and away from outside groups and Super PACs.
The term also delivered a landmark election law decision: Louisiana v. Callais. The Court held that a Voting Rights Act lawsuit can’t succeed just by pointing to a correlation between race and party in a district — plaintiffs now need real evidence of intentional discrimination. The Court put that reasoning to work almost immediately in an emergency order reinstating Alabama’s congressional map, an order that invoked the “colorblind Constitution” — language borrowed from the first Justice Harlan’s dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, and now, for the first time, adopted by a majority. In practice, this makes it harder to scurrilously repackage partisan gerrymandering claims with racial language. One disappointment: the Court left in place the counting of late-arriving mail ballots, though it noted Congress could set a firmer national rule if it chose to.
Immigration cases mostly went the government’s way, with the Court reading several statutes in commonsense, textualist terms — including a ruling that someone who is stopped at the border hasn’t yet “arrived in” the country, reaffirming that courts can’t second-guess the president’s determination not to exempt Haitian and Syrian immigrants from removal, and another making it easier to remove green-card holders who commit serious crimes. The exception was the birthright citizenship case, where the majority applied the traditional, broad meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Citizenship Clause to cover the U.S.-born children of both illegal immigrants and temporary visitors. As an originalist matter, it was a difficult case, with both sides grappling with the historical evidence. Justice Thomas’s 91-page dissent masterfully presented a narrower view of the Clause, but even the dissenters concluded that the president’s executive order likely went further than the Constitution permits.
On the business side, the Court made it harder for trial lawyers to drag oil companies into friendly state courts over decades-old wartime production, ruling that those suits belong in federal court — a real check on the climate-litigation industry that’s grown up around this kind of lawsuit.
Not every case broke along predictable lines. In a dispute over the president’s tariff powers, originalist justices ended up on both sides — a useful reminder that originalism is a method, not a rubber stamp, and methods sometimes produce results conservatives don’t love.
The term produced a few decisions that disappointed the president or conservatives, but, taken as a whole, it stands as one of the most significant terms in memory for bringing the Court back to an originalist understanding of the Constitution. Presidential removal power, women’s sports, the First and Second Amendments, immigration enforcement, climate and election litigation abuse — the Court engaged all of it and got the lion’s share right. That’s not a disappointing term. That’s a historic one.
***
Carrie Severino is the president of the Judicial Crisis Network. Follow her on X <a href="https://www.twitter.com/@JCNSeverino">@JCNSeverino</a>

US-JUSTICE-SUPREME-COURT-GROUP-PHOTO

The Supreme Court Term That Handed Originalists One Of Their Best Years Yet

birthright citizenship

DW Opinion

Election Laws

executive power

First Amendment

Louisiana v. Callais

Second Amendment

Supreme Court

Title IX

Transgender Athletes

Trump v. Cook

Trump v. Slaughter

Wolford v. Lopez

The Supreme Court handed gun-rights advocates a major victory Thursday, striking down Hawaii&#8217;s controversial &#8220;vampire rule&#8221; that effectively banned lawful concealed carry on most private property unless owners explicitly granted permission.
In a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines, the court ruled that Hawaii&#8217;s law violated the Second Amendment, with Justice Samuel Alito writing for the conservative majority.
The law struck down by the court created a default rule prohibiting concealed carry permit holders from bringing firearms onto private property open to the public unless the property owner affirmatively authorized firearms or posted signage allowing them. The measure effectively transformed vast swaths of public life into gun-free zones and forced lawful gun owners to obtain permission before exercising their constitutional right.
The law was dubbed the &#8220;vampire rule&#8221; by Second Amendment advocates based on classic lore that describes how vampires only enter someone&#8217;s home if they&#8217;re invited.
The case, Wolford v. Lopez, became one of the most closely watched Second Amendment disputes since the Court&#8217;s landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that modern firearms regulations must be consistent with the nation&#8217;s historical tradition of gun laws.
The National Rifle Association quickly hailed the ruling as a major step forward for gun rights. 
&#8220;Today, the United States Supreme Court delivered a major victory for the Second Amendment in Wolford v. Lopez,&#8221; NRA Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director John Commerford said in a <a href="https://x.com/NRA/status/2070151466623386023">statement</a>.
&#8220;Building on the NRA&#8217;s historic NYSRPA v. Bruen decision, the court struck down Hawaii&#8217;s unconstitutional restriction that treated concealed carry permit holders as second-class citizens on publicly accessible private property. Law-abiding gun owners will no longer be forced to beg for special permission simply to exercise their constitutional right to bear arms in public places.&#8221;
Commerford added that the organization views the ruling as part of a broader effort to restore Second Amendment protections nationwide. &#8220;The NRA celebrates this important win, but it is only another steppingstone in our unrelenting fight to fully restore the Second Amendment rights of all Americans nationwide,&#8221; he said.
The court&#8217;s liberal justices dissented. Justice Elena Kagan argued that Hawaii&#8217;s law closely resembled colonial and founding-era regulations that restricted carrying firearms onto private property without a landowner&#8217;s consent. &#8220;I would uphold the challenged Hawaii law,&#8221; Kagan <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1046_nmio.pdf">wrote</a>, arguing that the modern statute was a valid analogue to historical restrictions.
According to Kagan, both the historical laws and Hawaii&#8217;s modern law operated in the same way by establishing a default prohibition that property owners could reverse. 
&#8220;The &#8216;how&#8217; is identical,&#8221; she wrote. &#8220;The new law, just like the old ones, sets a default rule against gun carry that a private landowner may reverse.&#8221;
Kagan further argued that while some colonial-era laws were focused on concerns such as poaching, they were rooted in the broader principle that armed individuals could create dangers and inconveniences on another person&#8217;s property.
The majority disagreed, concluding that Hawaii&#8217;s law lacked a sufficiently analogous historical tradition and imposed an unconstitutional burden on lawful gun owners seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The ruling is expected to have implications beyond Hawaii, as several states enacted similar post-Bruen restrictions designed to limit where concealed carry permit holders could legally carry firearms.
The decision marks another significant victory for gun-rights advocates and continues the Supreme Court&#8217;s effort to apply the history-and-tradition test established in Bruen to modern firearms regulations.

Supreme Court Strikes Down ‘Vampire Rule’ In Major Win For Gun Rights

Guns

Hawaii

The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled Thursday that the federal government unconstitutionally applied a gun restriction law to a Texas man who regularly used marijuana, narrowing the reach of the same <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/supreme-court-unanimously-limits-use-gun-law-used-prosecute-hunter-biden">federal statute</a> that was used in the prosecution of Hunter Biden.
In <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-1234_g2bh.pdf">United States v. Hemani</a>, the Court held that prosecutors violated the Second Amendment when they charged Ali Hemani under a federal law prohibiting firearm possession by unlawful users of controlled substances.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized that the ruling was limited and did not eliminate the government’s ability to disarm dangerous individuals, addicts, or people actively under the influence.
“We do not address efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm,” Gorsuch wrote.
Hunter Biden was convicted in June 2024 before his father, President Joe Biden, pardoned him. &#8220;Those prosecuted under the law can face up to 15 years in prison and a permanent ban on owning firearms,&#8221; per <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-backs-marijuana-users-challenge-restriction-gun-ownershi-rcna266931">NBC News</a>.
The case centered on Hemani, a 27-year-old man who admitted to smoking marijuana approximately every other day. FBI agents later found a handgun in his home that he said he kept for self-defense.
Prosecutors argued that historical restrictions on so-called “habitual drunkards” justified modern restrictions on firearm ownership by illegal drug users. The Court disagreed.
“The government’s analogy fails under every measure it asks us to consider,” Gorsuch wrote. “The historical laws on which it relies targeted different kinds of people, did so for different reasons, and operated in different ways.”
According to the Court, historical laws focused on people whose substance abuse rendered them incapable of managing their lives. The modern federal statute broadly covers regular drug users regardless of whether they pose a threat or not.
Gorsuch also warned that the government’s interpretation could surpass marijuana users.
Under the government’s theory, he wrote, the law could apply to “a college student who routinely uses a friend’s Adderall to cram for exams” or “a husband who regularly takes his wife’s prescription Ambien to sleep.”
The Court noted that prosecutors never alleged Hemani was addicted to marijuana, used a firearm while intoxicated, threatened anyone, or posed a danger to himself or others.
The ruling drew praise from Second Amendment advocates.
<a href="https://judicialnetwork.com/">Judicial Crisis Network</a> President Carrie Severino <a href="https://x.com/JCNSeverino/status/2067611106579718494">called the decision</a> a significant affirmation of constitutional protections.
“Can habitual drug users be disarmed? The Supreme Court, looking to history and tradition *unanimously* says no in United States v. Hemani,” Severino wrote on X. “This case inspired strange bedfellows like pro-drug organizations allying with gun rights groups — and so perhaps it’s not surprising that it’s also a case where Justices Thomas and Jackson can agree.”
Severino also noted that the Court’s decision relied heavily on the historical tradition framework that has become central to recent Second Amendment cases.
The ruling carries additional significance because the same federal statute, <a href="https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF13195">18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)</a>, played a central role in the prosecution of Hunter Biden, who was convicted in 2024 of illegally possessing a firearm while using illegal drugs.
However, the Court stressed that Thursday’s decision was narrowly focused on Hemani’s circumstances and did not invalidate the statute altogether.
In a separate opinion, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, agreed with the outcome and argued that the government simply failed to demonstrate that Hemani resembled the severely impaired individuals historically subject to firearm restrictions.
The justices repeatedly emphasized that the ruling does not prevent the government from restricting firearm possession by dangerous individuals, addicts, felons, or people shown to pose a genuine threat.
Still, the unanimous ruling marks another major Second Amendment decision from a Court that continues to require the government to justify firearm restrictions through the nation’s historical tradition of gun regulation.

SCOTUS/Hunter Biden

Supreme Court Delivers Unanimous Blow To Gun Law Used In Hunter Biden Case

Gun Laws

Hunter Biden

Neil Gorsuch

Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger is reportedly “<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/5881257-virginia-gov-blasts-supreme-court-redistricting/">fuming</a>” this week after the state failed to get a single justice on the Supreme Court to support her after she violated the state constitution in her attempted gerrymandering of the state. However, Spanberger may have just guaranteed another trip to the Supreme Court when she said the quiet part out loud about the new state gun ban.
After the Democrats took power recently, they went on a frenzy of tax and liberal legislative measures. The sharp move to the far left is out of sync with a purple state that remains roughly evenly divided. While Spanberger (who ran on being a moderate) has pushed forward many of these measures, she sought to moderate one bill banning so-called “assault firearms.”
Spanberger released the following statement:
<blockquote>
I am signing this bill into law because firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets. We are taking this step to protect families and support the law enforcement officers who work every day to keep our communities safe. While the General Assembly chose not to adopt my amendment that specifically carves out certain firearms frequently used for hunting, I will work with the patrons to clarify this language. [Emphasis added]
</blockquote>
The governor’s acknowledgment that the law covers common hunting models will likely be cited in Second Amendment challenges. If the law is not amended, she could prove the main witness against her own signed legislation.
Even with such an amendment, the bill is problematic. I have previously written about my skepticism over bans on AR-15s and other so-called “assault weapons,” though <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2023/11/04/the-seventh-circuit-rules-for-illinois-ar-15-assault-ban/">some courts have upheld such bans</a>.
We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2007/07-290">District of Columbia v. Heller</a>, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle &amp; Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
The AR-15 is the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/america-s-rifle-why-so-many-people-love-ar-15-n831171">most popular gun in America</a> and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with <a href="http://www.nysrpa.org/files/SAFE/NSSF-amicus2.pdf">one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales</a>. There are an estimated 32 million currently in private hands in the United States, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
AR-15s are purchased for home protection as well as target shooting and hunting. Many gun <a href="https://www.wired.com/2013/02/ar-15/">owners like the AR-15 because it is modular</a>; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts, and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; <a href="https://www.nssf.org/msr/#:~:text=AR%2D15%2Dstyle%20rifles%20are%20no%20more%20powerful%20than%20other,30%2D06%20Springfield%20and%20.">many guns have equal or greater caliber</a>.
Not only are they commonly used for hunting, but they remain statistically uncommon choices in homicides. Rifles are used in only about 3% of such cases, <a href="https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/05/15/virginia-governor-admits-she-just-banned-guns-frequently-used-for-hunting-n1232550">according to experts</a>.
Again, lower courts are divided on both the bans on semiautomatic weapons and the magazine bans. Eventually, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the question. If the Virginia law remains unchanged, Spanberger may find that her signing statement will feature greatly in the appeal.
***
This is republished with permission from the author. The original can be found at <a href="https://jonathanturley.org/2026/05/17/locked-and-loaded-spanberger-inadvertently-makes-case-for-striking-down-new-gun-ban/">JonathanTurley.org</a>.
Professor Jonathan Turley is a nationally recognized legal scholar who has written extensively in areas ranging from constitutional law to legal theory to tort law. He is a New York Times best-selling author of <a href="https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1668047047?tag=simonsayscom">The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage</a> and <a href="https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0FCDSN1KR/ref=sr_1_5?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.RRwQP-jxib6FGPIATmKf_-qZ54EqdtHH96MILgFFNEu2d_chUIjFQbBNWZj6-YWIsRTxEeuGYCTw-gDvcdUE1puVoYeX2uBJyqcXA64EqxaA3kXW04dbyRE6t7mOEnrcSOf8BIA7KP47sQttP-6j4qWXwt_gUgP9AJ6jJ1HWnqU62QYxnVkcOQhwCaeyp8o8.-FQ90bYCtRhnfQk9vLhvb1kV2q0kmzaKPZqwWwUateA&amp;dib_tag=se&amp;qid=1749518291&amp;refinements=p_27%3AJonathan+Turley&amp;s=books&amp;sr=1-5">Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution</a>.

Early Voting Begins In Virginia Gubernatorial Race

Spanberger Shoots Herself In The Foot Over Proposed State Gun Ban

abigail spanberger

Gun Rights

In a direct assault on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Virginians, Democratic Governor Abigail Spanberger signed a sweeping package of gun control measures, including a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms and standard-capacity magazines.
Spanberger signed the legislation into law on Thursday, criminalizing the purchase, sale, manufacture, and importation of the AR-15 — the most popular rifle in America — along with a wide range of semi-automatic handguns and shotguns. The National Rifle Association responded immediately, filing a state lawsuit to block these unconstitutional mandates before the ink could even dry.
“Governor Spanberger has once again proven she has no concern for the right to keep and bear arms,” the NRA <a href="https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260514/virginia-spanberger-doubles-down-on-semi-auto-ban-nra-doubles-down-on-lawsuits">stated</a>.
While the governor attempted to frame her last-minute amendments as &#8220;technical changes,&#8221; the NRA has denounced them as a transparent attempt to rebrand blatant violations of the Second Amendment.
When she campaigned for governor, Spanberger <a href="https://virginiaindependentnews.com/elections/virginia-governor-2025-spanberger-earle-sears-gun-violence-safety-legislation/#:~:text=We%20need%20to%20strengthen%20Virginia's,officers%20safe%2C”%20Spanberger%20said.">studiously avoided</a> calling for the kind of ban she just signed, saying instead, &#8220;We need to strengthen Virginia’s safe storage laws, prevent the sale of large-capacity magazines, and crack down on criminals who manufacture and possess illegal, untraceable ghost guns — efforts that would keep Virginia’s kids, families, and law enforcement officers safe.&#8221;
The NRA’s lawsuit, Santolla v. Katz, filed in the Washington County Circuit Court, argues that the bans violate the arms guarantee in Article I, Section 13 of the Virginia Constitution. Because the Virginia Supreme Court has historically interpreted this provision as parallel with the Second Amendment, the NRA contends the state is barred from prohibiting firearms and magazines that are in common use for lawful purposes.
Joining the NRA as plaintiffs are the Virginia Shooting Sports Association (VSSA), local firearm dealers, and several Virginia citizens.
In addition to the firearm and magazine bans, Spanberger signed measures that prohibit the possession of weapons in hospitals providing mental health services, raise the age to purchase certain firearms to 21, and implement restrictive &#8220;safe storage&#8221; requirements that dictate how citizens must keep arms in their own homes.
The governor’s office cited &#8220;combat use&#8221; as a justification for the ban, but the NRA reminded the commonwealth that these firearms are used daily by millions of Americans for self-defense, hunting, and competitive shooting.
As the law is set to take effect on July 1, 2026, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action said it is prepared to pursue every legal avenue to ensure that the fundamental rights of Virginians are not trampled by a hostile executive.
Along with the state lawsuit, the NRA also filed a federal lawsuit, McDonald v. Katz, with the Firearms Policy Coalition, the Second Amendment Foundation, and other individuals.

Abigail Spanberger Is Sworn In As First Female Virginia Governor

Democrat Governor Signs Sweeping Ban That Targets America’s Favorite Firearms

National Rifle Association (NRA)

Virginia

President Donald Trump survived yet another serious assassination attempt, this time at the White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Anti-gun advocates have wasted no time framing this as a gun control issue. Again.
It’s a particularly unserious blame shift this time, given that the would-be assassin, Cole Allen, legally purchased his firearms in California and attempted to kill the president in Washington, D.C. — two places awash with the very types of “commonsense” gun laws that advocates demand be imposed on a national scale.
The problem isn’t a lack of gun laws. The problem is that those laws, as we so often see, are incapable of stopping people like Allen from simply ignoring or sidestepping them.
Federal law required Allen to declare his firearms in his checked luggage when transporting them interstate as a passenger on a common or contract carrier, such as Amtrak. California state law separately prohibited Allen from possessing his firearms in a public transit facility unless he complied with the appropriate policies for declaring them in checked baggage. He violated both laws when he failed to declare his firearms and transported them in his carry-on.
Both California and D.C. make it a crime to transport guns outside the home unless certain conditions are met, including that the guns are transported for a lawful purpose and to a place where the person can legally possess them. “Attempting to assassinate the president” is not a lawful purpose. Although Allen may have lawfully owned his guns in California, he lacked valid D.C. firearm registration certifications, which are required to legally possess firearms in the nation’s capital. Moreover, because Allen didn’t have a valid D.C. gun registration certificate, merely possessing ammunition was a crime.
It’s a felony in D.C. to carry a handgun in public without a D.C. concealed carry permit, something Allen didn’t possess. It’s another felony to carry any long gun in public in D.C. under any circumstance — and while federal prosecutors have a non-enforcement policy with respect to people carrying validly registered long guns, that wouldn’t apply to Allen. Yet, neither provision deterred him from charging through a D.C. hotel with both an unregistered shotgun and an illegally concealed handgun.
Another provision of the D.C. Code prohibits the carrying of concealed handguns within 1,000 feet (roughly 3 football fields) of a government dignitary or high-ranking official moving under the protection of law enforcement, at least when signs, law enforcement perimeters, or other means make it obvious that there’s a designated area of protection. Not only was the security perimeter at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner obvious to everyone, but Allen knew the nature of the security perimeter and attempted to breach it for the purpose of shooting high-ranking officials within it.
The number of “commonsense gun laws” that Allen simply ignored or sidestepped with ease is devastating to the narrative that such laws are necessary for public safety.
But even more devastating is the shocking number of “commonsense gun laws” with which Allen actually complied.
He didn’t just skip down to his nearest convenience store and buy a gun from a vending machine. The caricature of “easy access to firearms” exists apart from reality in any state, but particularly so in California, the Mecca of American gun control that virtually every activist group praises as the high-water mark of Second Amendment restrictions, whose policies they believe ought to be emulated nationwide.
California not only prohibits residents from owning standard capacity magazines and semiautomatic long guns arbitrarily deemed to be “assault weapons,” but limits them to a state-maintained roster of handguns that the government pre-approves as “safe.” Prospective gun buyers must first obtain a Firearms Safety Certificate by passing a 30-question written exam covering the basics of gun handling, safe storage, and state and federal gun laws, and then pass an in-person “safe handling demonstration” with the firearm in front of the dealer. They cannot leave the store with a gun unless they purchase a state-approved firearm safety device or sign an affidavit stating they already own a state-approved lock box or gun safe (and provide proof of ownership).
Californians don’t need an ID to vote, but they need one to buy a gun. Many of the state’s most populous counties require concealed carry permit applicants to provide proof of citizenship or lawful permanent residency. Handgun purchasers must also provide secondary evidence of their California residency that matches their driver’s license address.
The state has universal background check laws (including for ammunition sales). It imposes a 10-day waiting period on all gun purchases. It has virtually eliminated the right of law-abiding young adults to keep and bear arms. It punishes lawful gun sales with an 11 percent state excise tax on top of the existing 10-11 percent federal gun sales tax. It has de facto point-of-sale universal gun registration requirements.
Short of completely banning guns, California and D.C. already had in place virtually all the burdens on the right to keep and bear arms that advocates insist are necessary for public safety. None of these “commonsense” gun laws protected the president of the United States from a man bent on murdering him — that credit belongs to the well-armed members of the president’s taxpayer-funded security detail.
Perhaps it’s time that gun control advocates find another boogeyman for political violence.
***
Amy Swearer is a senior legal fellow at the Edwin Meese III Institute for the Rule of Law at Advancing American Freedom Foundation.

Florida, Miami Beach, Colllins Park, March for Our Lives, youth gun control rally, Parent holding Gun Control Now sign

The ‘Commonsense Gun Laws’ That Didn’t Stop Trump Assassination Attempt

assassination attempt

Gun Control

There are approximately 25 states in the nation that can reliably be called red, but not all red states were created equally. Some big red states have frustrating blue stains that make them appear purple. Some red lawmakers cater to those blue voters way too much.
But, there are also red states behaving in beautifully red ways, blue stains be damned.
Now you’re talking about Tennessee.
In an incredible win for law-abiding citizens everywhere, Tennessee lawmakers just passed HB 1802, a bill headed straight to Governor Bill Lee&#8217;s desk that would allow property owners to use deadly force to protect their personal property. Lee is expected to sign the legislation.
Yes, fellow 2A proponents, that means would-be burglars, arsonists, trespassers, rapists, and all other manner of criminal characters could legally be confronted with the business end of a bedside Glock.
These Tennessee-based lawbreakers will now be thinking twice before coming onto someone else’s property with bad intentions. Because when bad intentions meet common sense laws, well, it’s time to meet a little something known as consequences for your actions.
Rep. Kip Capley (R), one of the bill&#8217;s sponsors, <a href="https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-politics/bill-deadly-force-property-defense/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">put it plainly</a>, &#8220;Right now under current law, if someone is breaking into your property, if they&#8217;re stealing from you, if they&#8217;re destroying what you&#8217;ve worked your entire life to build, you&#8217;re expected to wait. You&#8217;re expected to hesitate. You&#8217;re expected to second-guess and take a calculated risk at defending what&#8217;s yours.&#8221;
Democrats, predictably, were vehemently opposed, stopping just short of saying home invasions should be handled by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/socialism-in-a-designer-suit-nyc-is-in-for-a-hard-lesson-if-mamdani-is-elected" target="_blank" rel="noopener">soft spoken social workers</a>.
&#8220;I do not think we should give people license to kill people over property,&#8221; one opponent said. That’s a perfectly reasonable opinion to have, if you’ve never had someone steal your truck, torch your barn, or raid your home with your sleeping family inside at 2 a.m. while the police are forty minutes away.
The Senate passed SB 1847 on April 21st. The House followed with HB 1807 on April 23rd. If the governor signs it, property owners will be able to use deadly force to prevent trespass, arson, damage to property including livestock, burglary, theft, robbery, or aggravated cruelty to animals as soon as July 1, 2026.
America, take notes.
This is the exact moment that the <a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/make-america-tennessee-hat" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Make America Tennessee Hat</a> was made for. Crisp white. Blaze orange lettering. Adjustable snapback. Embroidered flag. It&#8217;s more than a fashion statement. This hat tells the rest of those red states, and even the blue ones, that it’s time to take the plunge and act red for once.
It&#8217;s made for the people who believe you shouldn&#8217;t have to cower in the closet as thieves ransack your hard-earned property, wondering if you’d be the one getting prosecuted for confronting them.
Tennessee is doing what the rest of the country is too scared to do: trusting law-abiding citizens over the criminals who prey on them. Low taxes, strong faith, Second Amendment freedom, “Nuclear Family Month,” and now a strong stand for self-defense.
Wear it loud and proud, no matter what state you call home. Make America Tennessee indeed.
<a href="https://store.dailywire.com/products/make-america-tennessee-hat?_pos=1&amp;_sid=bd555dcf0&amp;_ss=r"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-1084073 size-large" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image-1-461x576.png" alt="" width="461" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image-1-461x576.png 461w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image-1-240x300.png 240w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image-1-768x960.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/04/image-1.png 1230w" sizes=" (max-width: 461px) 100vw, 461px" /></a>

America’s Most Conservative State Just Gave Property Owners The Right To Shoot Invaders

Daily Wire Shop

Tennessee

Washingtonians just notched a landmark Second Amendment victory as the <a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Benson%2520v%2520US%2520et%2520al%252023-CV-0541%2520FINAL.pdf">D.C. Court of Appeals</a> held the District’s 10-round limit on magazine sizes unconstitutional. Why is U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro — who <a href="https://www.mediaite.com/politics/jeanine-pirro-attempts-damage-control-after-being-shredded-by-the-right-over-her-gun-comments/">insists</a> that she is “a proud supporter of the Second Amendment” and who may be <a href="https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/09/trump-attorney-general-blanche-dhillion-pirro-00864988">in the running</a> to be the next Attorney General — asking the court to second-guess itself?
After decades of struggling under one of the strictest gun-control schemes in the country, residents of the nation’s capital might have expected to breathe a sigh of relief when President Donald Trump was reelected. After all, he <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-is-protecting-americans-second-amendment-rights/">boasts</a> of “standing up for” the right to keep and bear arms, and his Department of Justice is taking some <a href="https://www.cato.org/commentary/getting-gun-permit-la-county-shouldnt-be-rarer-nolan-ryan-no-hitter">bold steps</a> in that direction — including filing <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-administration-lawsuit-washington-dc-guns-661b8f71c9ee6c28883fe726f17230dc">a lawsuit</a> against D.C.’s ban on many semiautomatic weapons.
The Department should also be joining locals in celebrating the recent court decision in <a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Benson%2520v%2520US%2520et%2520al%252023-CV-0541%2520FINAL.pdf">Benson v. District of Columbia</a>. The case began when Tyree Benson was arrested for possessing a gun with a detachable, 30-round magazine. That was illegal because Benson had not registered the gun or obtained a carry license. But Benson had a compelling defense: the District would not have let him register the gun because it bans magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds — and that restriction is itself unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
D.C.’s highest court agreed and, on March 5, a three-judge panel struck down the ban. A two-judge majority observed that “about half of the magazines in the hands of our citizenry” hold more than 10 rounds and “come standard with the most popular firearms sold in America today.” The Constitution does not let a locale ban such “arms in common and ubiquitous use by law-abiding citizens across this country.” The Benson decision now stands as a monument to common sense, protecting magazines that many Americans rely on.
Surprisingly, the court reached this decision with the encouragement of Pirro’s office. Though she had initially prosecuted Benson, she ultimately agreed that the District’s law violated his rights.
Then something even less expected happened: Pirro <a href="https://efile.dcappeals.gov/document/view.do?documentID=410696&amp;csIID=67629">asked the court</a> to press rewind. It backed the District’s request for the court to rehear the case en banc, meaning <a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals/court-of-appeals-judges">all seven of its judges</a> would participate in the decision.
It is anyone’s guess whether Washington gunowners will manage to run the court’s gauntlet a second time. One of the three judges who heard the case the first time <a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/2026-03/Benson%2520v%2520US%2520et%2520al%252023-CV-0541%2520FINAL.pdf">dissented</a> from the decision. <a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals/court-of-appeals-judges/shanker-vijay">All</a> <a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals/court-of-appeals-judges/beckwith-corinne">four</a> <a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals/court-of-appeals-judges/howard-iii-john-p">of</a> <a href="https://www.dccourts.gov/court-of-appeals/court-of-appeals-judges/mcleese-iii-roy-w">the</a> judges who would join the case, if reheard, were appointed by Democratic presidents. Letting the decision stand would vindicate the Second Amendment — rehearing would roll the dice with virtually no chance of achieving a better constitutional ruling.
Pirro <a href="https://efile.dcappeals.gov/document/view.do?documentID=410696&amp;csIID=67629">attempted to explain</a> her stance. While noting that she continued to believe the District law is unconstitutional, she fretted that the court’s decision went too far, saying it should have merely limited the law’s application to extremely high-capacity magazines. (Never mind that the law the court invalidated is far broader than that.) Further, she argued that the law wasn’t what kept Benson from registering his gun. Had he gone down to the station, the police could have “confiscate[d] the prohibited large-capacity magazine while registering the firearm itself.” Judge Deahl, the author of the majority opinion, deemed this poppycock, <a href="https://efile.dcappeals.gov/document/view.do?documentID=409666&amp;csIID=67629">writing</a> that the District could “with a snap of its fingers” comply with the Constitution by “no longer conditioning the registration and licensure of firearms upon their firing capacity.”
Setting aside the technicalities of D.C.’s gun-registration laws, Second Amendment advocates are <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/apr/9/second-amendment-groups-rip-dc-us-attorney-pirro-hurting-gun-rights/">wondering</a> why Pirro is working overtime to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The National Association for Gun Rights said her support for rehearing “risks undermining” the Benson decision. Gun Owners of America warned: “Stop adopting anti-gun positions, DOJ!” <a href="https://thereload.com/analysis-jeanine-pirro-may-have-just-fumbled-a-long-sought-hardware-ban-circuit-split-for-gun-rights-activists/">The Reload</a> noted that Pirro’s brief “did not even need to exist.”
This is not the first time Pirro has shown hostility toward the Second Amendment. Back in 2004, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/01/us/politics/dc-crime-trump-guns.html">she said</a>, “There is no legitimate purpose in possessing an assault weapon other than to kill as many people as quickly as possible.” Two months ago, she <a href="https://www.cato.org/blog/us-attorney-jeanine-pirro-threatens-jail-anyone-who-brings-gun-dc">threatened</a>: “I don’t care if you have a license in another district, and I don’t care if you’re a law-abiding gun owner somewhere else. You bring a gun into this District, count on going to jail, and hope you get the gun back.” Following backlash, Pirro put out a <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/jeanine-pirro-attempts-damage-control-164555079.html?guccounter=1&amp;guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuY2F0by5vcmcv&amp;guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAA3ENxYwnYqPOo0a93nk_CqihxFuUJ10_yU3jpWSW7vNBU-XniEKTZVyHxIAtFLqBREbSUodAqEqdTklh7Vr9b8llOAbnogh68VN4iBm0dT0PZsF1TzOsqCg_d4aTEs3USGIr63_pX99cw3kGbsEYoW5qF2nxcZ6eaRzrGI0FGcd">social media video</a> casting herself as “a proud high-heeled gun owner.”
Those heels are doing quite the dance on the Second Amendment. Should President Trump nominate her to lead the DOJ, every American gun owner will get to know the dangers of Pirro’s pirouettes, facing an attorney general who voices support for their rights while undermining them at every turn.
***
Matthew Cavedon is the director of the Cato Institute’s Project on Criminal Justice.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro Announces Take Down of D.C. Fentanyl And PCP Drug Trafficking Crew

Jeanine Pirro’s Second Amendment Two-Step 

Washington D.C.

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Virginia gun culture is in danger thanks to <a href="https://reason.com/2026/03/11/here-are-12-bills-democrats-just-passed-to-trample-gun-rights-in-virginia/">a wave of gun control legislation</a> just passed by the state legislature. Among other bills awaiting Governor Abigail Spanberger’s signature is a so-called <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB749">assault</a> <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB217">weapons</a> ban that, according to the <a href="https://www.nraila.org/articles/20260315/virginia-legislature-adjourns-from-2026-session-anti-gun-bills-on-governors-desk">National Rifle Association</a>, would “prohibit the future sale and transfer of virtually all modern firearms.”
While a provocative statement, it’s not incorrect. The crown jewel bill of Virginia Democrats’ crown jewel cause would ban the sale and importation of “assault firearms,” which is broadly defined as encompassing any centerfire rifle with a detachable magazine and one of several common features, such as a pistol grip, a collapsible stock, or a threaded barrel. Effectively, this covers all modern rifles chambered in something larger than 22LR, including commonly owned civilian rifles like the AR-15 and AK-47. It also bans the sale and importation of so-called high-capacity magazines — defined as having a capacity of over 15 rounds.
Other bills awaiting Spanberger’s assent include <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB115">restrictions on concealed carry permit reciprocity</a> with other states and legislation banning adults aged 18-21 from <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/SB643">possessing certain firearms</a>. Notably, there’s no grandfather clause, so any such young adults who legally purchased such firearms would become criminals overnight.
Collectively, these laws are “some of the nation’s most stringent restrictions on guns,” <a href="https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2026/mar/16/ten-gun-control-bills-waiting-virginia-gov-abigail-spanbergers/">as the Washington Times put it</a>, and are a massive change from Virginia’s status quo. It goes without saying that these laws are unlikely to be effective at addressing crime, namely because the vast majority of gun violence, <a href="https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/?srsltid=AfmBOooQWQ_9IS1yoXa4ENpmtwkxXZ6BqcKM5kZKHpMMOrcyHgqqYrq1">including mass shootings</a>, is <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/05/what-the-data-says-about-gun-deaths-in-the-us/">committed with handguns</a>.
While Spanberger has not commented on these bills specifically, she openly <a href="https://abigailspanberger.com/issue/keeping-virginias-communities-safe/">supported similar measures</a> during her campaign and is widely expected to sign them. Assuming she does, the new laws will take effect on July 1, 2026. Predictably, Virginians (including yours truly) <a href="https://wset.com/news/local/gun-stores-see-sales-surge-as-assault-weapons-ban-heads-to-governor-march-2026">have reacted</a> with <a href="https://www.wdbj7.com/2026/03/12/virginia-gun-shop-sees-sales-surge-ahead-possible-assault-firearms-sales-ban/">a spending spree</a>, since any firearms purchased before then will be “grandfathered” in, as the proposed legislation doesn’t ban possession. Absent a major surprise, in several months, Virginia’s gun laws will look much more like my home state of Connecticut than they will like the commonwealth I moved to several years ago.
There is speculation that the assault weapons ban in particular <a href="https://reason.com/2026/03/11/virginias-impending-assault-firearm-ban-is-logically-and-constitutionally-dubious/">may be legally suspect</a>; I’ll leave brighter minds than mine to consider that. I’m concerned with another question: Why are Democrats going through the trouble of doing this? After all, <a href="https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/gun-ownership-by-state">nearly 45% of Virginians</a> live in a household with a gun, slightly higher than the 42% of Americans overall <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/08/16/for-most-u-s-gun-owners-protection-is-the-main-reason-they-own-a-gun/">who do so</a> and much higher than in most of the 10 states that have already passed bans on so-called assault weapons. Polling among Virginians <a href="https://www.roanoke.edu/news/rc_poll_politics_february_2026">has found</a> that the new gun control laws <a href="https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/02/26/virginia-poll-shows-widespread-disapproval-of-dems-gun-control-agenda-n1231708#google_vignette">are controversial</a>.
<a href="https://www.everytown.org/press/everytown-for-gun-safety-endorses-abigail-spanberger-former-moms-demand-action-volunteer-for-governor-of-virginia-announces-1-million-investment-in-virginia-governors-race/">Special interest groups</a> are a common answer, and not entirely the wrong one. But while the new laws might seem senseless, they do have a real purpose beyond making liberals feel better. Being a gun owner isn’t just about owning a gun: There is a distinctive set of norms and values that come along with it.
While it was <a href="http://www.americanheritage.com/content/america-gun-culture">first coined</a> in a pejorative way by the liberal historian Richard Hofstadter, this “gun culture” is very real. It <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0520-6#">revolves around the reasons</a> people buy guns in the first place — be it target shooting, hunting, self-defense, or a belief in the necessity of an armed citizenry. Like with anything else, guns are often a vector for community <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-awkward-habit-that-pulled-me-out-of-the-loneliness-epidemic">in real life</a> and <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/05/us/gun-youtube-firearm-videos.html">online</a>.
While gun owners are not a political monolith, it’s easy to see why they’re disproportionately conservative. Gun ownership isn’t necessarily partisan, but it does necessarily invoke principles such as self-sufficiency and individualism that tend to point people in that direction.
That is what Virginia Democrats really have a problem with. Gun ownership carries along with it a set of norms and values that are, in their view, icky and low-class. It’s no wonder, then, that <a href="https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/08/16/for-most-u-s-gun-owners-protection-is-the-main-reason-they-own-a-gun/">Pew Research found</a> that 60% of Democrats who don’t currently own a gun could never see themselves having one; among Republicans, that figure was just 38%. And even among those who owned guns, Democrats consistently expressed more negative feelings about them than Republicans.
While the growth of Northern Virginia and the Richmond suburbs has given the state a blue tint, there are still a lot of conservatives and a lot of gun owners in Virginia. Slamming the door shut on potential future firearm enthusiasts minimizes the chance <a href="https://www.nssf.org/articles/since-2020-election-new-gun-owners-equal-population-of-florida/">too many more people</a> are introduced to and get passionate about their Second Amendment rights.
Democrats did back off on some of the more outlandish parts of the bill. Among other things, these included a <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB207">$500 tax on suppressors</a>, a <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB700">mandatory 5-day waiting period</a> after purchasing a firearm, <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB919">an 11% tax on ammo</a>, and a <a href="https://x.com/lyndseyfifield/status/2033611994222236061?s=46">widely publicized</a> provision that <a href="https://www.pilotonline.com/2026/03/17/virginia-general-assembly-sends-more-than-1200-bills-to-governor-heres-what-passed/">would have exempted themselves</a> from new <a href="https://lis.virginia.gov/bill-details/20261/HB110">vehicle storage requirements</a>.
Still, absent a court ex machina, the Old Dominion is set to shift decisively to the blue state model of gun ownership. For those of us who have already gotten our guns, we’ll still have them. But for those Virginians who might wish to exercise their gun rights after July 1, well, too bad.
***
Stephan Kapustka is a writer at the American Spectator. Follow him on X <a href="https://x.com/SteveKapustka">@SteveKapustka</a>.

GettyImages-1331155684

How New Gun Laws Could Shut The Door On Future Gun Owners

Upstream

A convicted ISIS terrorist walked into a gun-free school zone and murdered a United States Army officer. This was a targeted attack on an educator of our future military service members. But Soros-backed Commonwealth&#8217;s Attorney Ramin Fatehi just stood at a microphone and blamed lawmakers for gun violence.
Now, I sit on the Virginia House of Delegates Criminal Subcommittee of the Courts of Justice Committee. I have watched Fatehi advocate year after year for soft-on-crime policies that lead to tragedies just like this.
The real question is why was Mohamed Bailor Jalloh, a felon convicted of supporting ISIS, in possession of a firearm, especially in a gun free school zone? And why was Jalloh released 3 years early on an 11-year prison stint? These are the failures of soft-on-crime politicians more interested in policing federal ICE agents that protect their own citizens.
<div id="attachment_1058949" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1058949" class="size-large wp-image-1058949" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-3.57.15-PM-1024x447.png" alt="" width="1024" height="447" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-3.57.15-PM-1024x447.png 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-3.57.15-PM-300x131.png 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-3.57.15-PM-768x335.png 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-3.57.15-PM-1536x671.png 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/03/Screenshot-2026-03-12-at-3.57.15-PM.png 1576w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" />Screenshot: LiveNOW from FOX on YouTube</div>
That failure raises a larger question about what Virginia’s lawmakers are doing right now in Richmond.
<h3>Strangling The Second Amendment</h3>
The 2026 Virginia General Assembly session ends this week. When the gavel falls, Governor Abigail Spanberger will have on her desk a stack of gun bills unlike anything this Commonwealth has ever produced — not a single sweeping law, but a coordinated layering of restrictions designed to strangle the Second Amendment from every direction at once. Which gun you can buy. Where you can carry it. Whether the industry that makes it can survive being sued into submission. How you pass it on when you&#8217;re gone.
No single bill tells the whole story. The story is the stack — and what that stack adds up to is the systematic dismantling of our Second Amendment rights in Virginia.
<div id="attachment_548003" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-548003" class="size-large wp-image-548003" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/05/GettyImages-1347535587-864x576.jpg" alt="Semi-automatic pistols for sale on display at a gun shop." width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/05/GettyImages-1347535587-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/05/GettyImages-1347535587-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/05/GettyImages-1347535587-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/05/GettyImages-1347535587-1536x1024.jpg 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/05/GettyImages-1347535587-2048x1365.jpg 2048w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/05/GettyImages-1347535587-1800x1200.jpg 1800w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2023/05/GettyImages-1347535587-1200x800.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />Zocha_K. Getty Images.</div>
<h3>What They Banned</h3>
Start with SB 749, the centerpiece. 
It criminalizes the import, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of so-called &#8220;assault firearms&#8221; — semi-automatic centerfire rifles, pistols, and shotguns identified not by how they function, but by how they look. A folding stock. A pistol grip. A threaded barrel. Cosmetic features that have no bearing on rate of fire. The identical firearm with a wooden stock is legal. The one with a synthetic pistol grip is contraband after July 1. Firearms you already own before that date are grandfathered for possession — but you cannot sell them to another Virginian. You can sell to a dealer or transfer them out of state (but that’s a federal Class 5 Felony). And how does a family who wishes to move to Virginia with their firearms – are they not “importing” assault firearms? You can pass them by inheritance to family. Beyond that, your grandfathered rifle is a dead-end asset.
The magazine provision is worse.
SB 749 also bans the import, sale, transfer, or purchase of any magazine capable of holding more than 15 rounds. Possession of magazines you already own is not criminalized — but you cannot sell them or transfer them to any other Virginian under any circumstances. The only lawful exits for a grandfathered magazine are surrender to a federally licensed dealer or transfer out of state. Notably, while the bill creates an explicit inheritance exception for grandfathered firearms, it creates no parallel exception for grandfathered magazines. A son can inherit his father&#8217;s rifle under this bill. The 15+ round magazines that feed it are a different matter — there is no provision in the final enrolled text that permits passing them to an heir within Virginia. What you own today is frozen in place, and the law has made no arrangement for what happens to it when you are gone.
Background check data tells you what Virginians think about this: adjusted NICS checks in February 2026 jumped 55 percent over February 2025 as gun owners raced to the counters before the deadline.
<div id="attachment_65181" style="width: 973px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-65181" class="size-full wp-image-65181" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/11/Remington.jpg" alt="STOKESDALE, NC - MARCH 26: A Remington 700 hunting rifle, a Remington 1100 shotgun and a Remington R1 Enhanced model 1911 pistol are seen for sale at Atlantic Outdoors gun shop on March 26, 2018 in Stokesdale, North Carolina. Founded in 1816, Remington is one of America's oldest gun and ammunition manufacturers which now has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection partially due to an estimated $950 million in debt." width="963" height="645" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/11/Remington.jpg 963w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/11/Remington-300x201.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2019/11/Remington-768x514.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 963px) 100vw, 963px" />Photo by Brian Blanco/Getty Images</div>
<h3>What They Banned You From Carrying</h3>
The ban on future purchases was not enough. SB 727 — passed both chambers and headed to the Governor — prohibits carrying these same broadly defined &#8220;assault firearms&#8221; on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, right-of-way, or park. The bill strips concealed handgun permit holders of any exemption, even though those permit holders have carried legally for years without incident.
The practical effect in much of Virginia — in the rural Southwest, in the Shenandoah Valley, in communities where the nearest deputy might be thirty minutes away — is that the firearm most commonly chosen for home and property defense can no longer lawfully accompany you beyond your front door.
<h3>What They Did to the Industry</h3>
SB 27 and HB 21 gut the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act at the state level. They create a Virginia cause of action against firearms manufacturers, distributors, and retailers based on a vague &#8220;responsible conduct&#8221; standard. There is no clear definition of what responsible conduct requires — which is the point. Ambiguity is the weapon. The goal is not to compensate real victims. It is to make the cost of doing business in Virginia high enough that manufacturers and dealers either comply with whatever standard the next attorney general invents or exit the market entirely. You cannot exercise a right the industry has been sued out of existence.
<h3>What They Did to Home Gunsmiths</h3>
HB 40 makes building, importing, selling, transferring, or possessing an unserialized firearm, including pieces of an unassembled build, a Class 5 felony — punishable by up to ten years in prison. The bill reaches unfinished frames and receivers. Home gunsmithing has a tradition in this country as old as the Republic itself. Under HB 40, it would now be a felony in Virginia.
<h3>The Layer They Almost Added</h3>
Several additional bills survived crossover before stalling or being amended in the final days. A permit-to-purchase scheme would have required Virginians to obtain a government-issued license from the State Police before buying a handgun. Who knows what kind of barriers they could create in the name of “safety.” A vehicle storage bill would have criminalized a firearm left in a car under vague standards. A public carry ban on the House side mirrored SB 727 with even broader definitions. An age prohibition would have barred adults under 21 from purchasing handguns or assault firearms entirely.
Some of these did not survive in their original form. Others will return. The direction of travel is not ambiguous. I’ve been here long enough to see them again and again from the relentless Left.
<div id="attachment_372227" style="width: 1000px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-372227" class="size-large wp-image-372227" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/04/Gun-Shop-990x576.jpg" alt="WASHINGTON, USA - MARCH 17: Weapons on display at a gun shop in Washington, DC, United States as gun and ammunition sales in the U.S. have skyrocketed as the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic spread across the country." width="990" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/04/Gun-Shop-990x576.jpg 990w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/04/Gun-Shop-300x175.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/04/Gun-Shop-768x447.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2022/04/Gun-Shop.jpg 1012w" sizes=" (max-width: 990px) 100vw, 990px" />Yasin Ozturk / Anadolu Agency via Getty Images</div>
<h3>What This Actually Is</h3>
Consider the cumulative picture. You cannot purchase the most popular class of semi-automatic firearms in America after July 1. Magazines over 15 rounds are contraband — you can keep what you have, but can barely use what is now monetarily valueless. You cannot carry these firearms publicly even with a concealed handgun permit. The dealer who sells them faces open-ended civil liability under a standard no one can define. The manufacturer who builds them faces the same. Home building is a felony. It is a complete dismantling of the firearms industry. Death by a thousand tiny, deceitful infringements on our constitutional rights.
At what point does regulation become intentionally burdensome to the detriment of an industry the controlling party despises? Take fossil fuels, for example. How many green energy policies can you put on a coal-fired power generation plant before it’s no longer economically feasible to continue operation? At what point does the layering of burden after burden, and infringement after infringement, become a weaponized strategy rather than a policy choice?
House Minority Leader Terry Kilgore warned on the floor that banning firearms in common use among millions of law-abiding Americans invites a constitutional reckoning. He is right. Gun rights organizations have already promised litigation the moment Spanberger signs the bill into law.
In the meantime, Virginians who did nothing wrong — they bought their rifles legally, they hold concealed handgun permits, they have never committed a crime in their lives — are watching their God-given constitutional rights be stripped away layer by layer by a majority that answers to Northern Virginia.
That is the arithmetic of 2025&#8217;s election results. Governor Spanberger is expected to sign. When she does, every Virginian in every competitive district — every community that believed a Democratic majority in the House, Senate, and the Governor’s Mansion would exercise any restraint — should ask a simple question: Is this what you voted for?
Sure, Democrats aren’t “coming for your guns.”
They’re just making sure they are rendered completely useless under the law.
* * *
Del. Wren Williams represents Virginia&#8217;s 47th House District (Patrick County and surrounding area). He is an attorney and a member of the House Republican Caucus.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Abigail Spanberger Sworn In As Virginia Governor

Virginia’s Gun Crackdown Ignores The Real Failure: Releasing An ISIS-Linked Felon

Democrats

Shooting

Multiple gun rights groups, which are typically supportive of President Donald Trump and his policies, are enraged over the administration&#8217;s response to the deadly shooting of an armed protester in Minneapolis over the weekend.
In the hours after anti-ICE protester Alex Pretti was shot and killed by Border Patrol agents on a Minneapolis street, multiple officials in the Trump administration suggested that anyone who carries a firearm at a protest is breaking the law and inflaming tensions.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=4zRMVdGYgBw">said</a> on Saturday, &#8220;I don&#8217;t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign. This is a violent riot when you have someone showing up with weapons and are using them to assault law enforcement officers.&#8221; FBI Director Kash Patel referred to Noem&#8217;s comments during an interview on Fox News on Sunday, <a href="https://x.com/mtracey/status/2015515877249040840">adding</a>, &#8220;As Kristi said, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It&#8217;s that simple. You don&#8217;t have that right to break the law and incite violence.&#8221;
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, which focuses on defending &#8220;the right to keep and bear arms&#8221; for Minnesotans, <a href="https://x.com/mnguncaucus/status/2015454381953396888">said</a> that Patel&#8217;s comments were &#8220;completely incorrect on Minnesota law.&#8221;
&#8220;There is no prohibition on a permit holder carrying a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines at a protest or rally in Minnesota,&#8221; the gun owners caucus added.
Other gun rights groups criticized Bill Essayli, the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California, after he said, &#8220;If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.&#8221;
&#8220;This sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong,&#8221; the National Rifle Association <a href="https://x.com/NRA/status/2015227627464728661?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2015227627464728661%7Ctwgr%5E0002a021af82c8c202fed9086b877f0f2c2c5307%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.wsj.com%2Fus-news%2Fgun-rights-groups-clash-with-trump-officials-over-fatal-shooting-of-armed-protester-acf5e433">said</a>. &#8220;Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.&#8221;
Gun Owners of America <a href="https://x.com/GunOwners/status/2015178191715893725">condemned</a> &#8220;the untoward comments of [Essayli],&#8221; adding, &#8220;Federal agents are not &#8216;highly likely&#8217; to be &#8216;legally justified&#8217; in &#8216;shooting&#8217; concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. The Second Amendment protects Americans&#8217; right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon.&#8221;
Gun Owners of America then called on the Left to &#8220;stop antagonizing&#8221; federal immigration agents on the streets. After Pretti was shot, hundreds of people descended on the scene. According to the Department of Homeland Security, one leftist agitator bit off the finger of a federal officer. The NRA released another statement on Saturday condemning Minnesota Democrats over their refusal to work with federal immigration officers.
&#8220;For months, radical progressive politicians like Tim Walz have incited violence against law enforcement officers who are simply trying to do their jobs,&#8221; the NRA said. &#8220;Unsurprisingly, these calls to dangerously interject oneself into legitimate law-enforcement activities have ended in violence, tragically resulting in injuries and fatalities.&#8221;
At least one member of the Trump administration had an acceptable response to the shooting in the eyes of gun rights activists. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche was praised by Gun Owners of America when he told NBC, &#8220;There&#8217;s nothing wrong with anybody lawfully carrying firearms.&#8221;
&#8220;But whether he was disarmed, or whether he pulled the gun on law enforcement, or whether law enforcement saw him go for the gun —what they have to do is protect themselves. They have to protect the public around them. And we&#8217;ll see what happens,&#8221; Blanche added.
The Daily Wire reached out to the Justice Department and the DHS for comment.
President Donald Trump <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115951636521315703">mentioned</a> the fact that Pretti was carrying a firearm at the protest, asking, &#8220;What is that all about? Where are the local Police? Why weren’t they allowed to protect ICE Officers? The Mayor and the Governor called them off?&#8221;
Pretti was licensed to carry a firearm when he was shot and killed. DHS said on Saturday that a Border Patrol agent fired &#8220;defensive shots&#8221; as Pretti was &#8220;violently&#8221; resisting arrest. Pretti appeared to be shot ten times in about five seconds.
&#8220;The suspect also had 2 magazines and no ID—this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement,&#8221; Homeland Security added. Video shows that Pretti was filming federal immigration officers with his phone as they conducted an operation. A group of federal agents then wrestled Pretti to the ground in an attempt to arrest him. One video angle appears to show an officer disarming Pretti before gunfire erupted. The investigation remains ongoing, but so far, the Trump administration has defended Border Patrol&#8217;s actions.
The Trump administration has urged Minnesota Democratic leaders to cooperate with federal immigration officers, but Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, both Democrats, have continued to oppose Trump&#8217;s immigration operations in the state and have demanded that ICE and Border Patrol leave.
Trump has doubled down on the federal immigration operations in Minnesota following the deadly shooting over the weekend. On Sunday, the president also <a href="https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/115958123338296139">called</a> on Congress to pass legislation to &#8220;END Sanctuary Cities,&#8221; which he called &#8220;the root cause of all these problems.&#8221;

US-POLITICS-TRUMP

Gun Rights Groups Slam Trump Officials For ‘Demonizing’ Law-Abiding Armed Citizens

Gun Rights Advocates Rip Trump Officials

kash patel

Kristi Noem

Minneapolis

Minnesota

Trump Administration

On Tuesday, there was a hearing at the Supreme Court regarding a law in Hawaii that bans guns from being carried into supermarkets, gas stations, and other public locations without the property owner’s permission.
Instead of property owners issuing a statement saying, “You can&#8217;t come in here with a gun,” the idea would be that you wouldn&#8217;t be able to walk in with a gun unless the shop owner gives you explicit permission.  
This is the opposite of how the Second Amendment is supposed to work. It is quite possible under the Second Amendment for people to say, “You can&#8217;t come into my establishment carrying a gun,” but this argument would reverse that presumption.
Justice Samuel Alito said the state was relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status.
The Supreme Court ruled that people have a constitutional right to carry outside the home for self-defense in 2022, but now lawmakers are attempting some sort of back door to prevent people from doing that. The law is similar to restrictions that already exist in California, Maryland, New York, and New Jersey as well.  
A truly bizarre moment in the hearing came when Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson — who&#8217;s become infamous for making dumb comments in the middle of oral arguments — decided that she was going to talk about the “Black Codes.” The codes were legitimately created by racists in order to prevent black people from owning guns. She was talking about them as precedent.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-974957" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp" alt="DailyWire+" width="1024" height="171" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1024x171.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-300x50.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-768x128.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-1536x256.webp 1536w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/09/511983dad25841c8b1ec058d75769bbe-2048x341.webp 2048w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
SCOTUSBlog <a href="https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/court-to-hear-oral-argument-on-law-banning-guns-on-private-property/">noted</a> the argument against the law made by its opponents:
<blockquote>In upholding Hawaii’s ban, they say, the court of appeals relied on two laws, neither of which is analogous. The first was a 1771 New Jersey law that barred poaching on lands that were closed to the public. But that law, the challengers wrote, “simply codified the American rule that hunters could hunt on unimproved lands not their own, while improved lands remained off limits. That is a trespass law,” they concluded, rather than a law that – like Hawaii’s – generally prohibits “carrying firearms on any and all private property without advance express consent.” 
And the second, the challengers continue, was an 1865 Louisiana law, enacted as part of that state’s Black Codes to restrict the rights of formerly enslaved people, that barred the carrying of guns on “premises or plantations” – that is, private property – without the owner’s consent.</blockquote>
Jackson said, “The fact that the Black Codes were, at some later point, determined, themselves, to be unconstitutional, doesn&#8217;t seem to me to be relevant to the assessment that Bruen is asking us to make. So, can you say more about that?”
Sarah Harris, the U.S. Principal Deputy Solicitor General, responded, “Absolutely. Black Codes were unconstitutional from the moment of their inception, because they are pretextual laws that are designed to ensure that newly-freed slaves are returned to a condition of sharecropping.”
Jackson: “Okay, let me stop you there. They were not deemed unconstitutional at the time that they were enacted. They were part of the history and tradition of the country. And when we have a test now that&#8217;s asking us to look at what people were doing back then, I don&#8217;t understand why they should be excluded.”
Harris: “Because they are outliers. They are, by definition, unconstitutional.”
Jackson: “Afterwards, not at the time. And if the test says what is happening at the time tells us what’s constitutional for this purpose, why aren’t they in?”
Harris: “Respectfully, a law is always unconstitutional from its inception.”
Jackson: “So the history doesn&#8217;t matter. We shouldn’t care about the history, then.”
Jackson seems to be making the argument that when Dred Scott was ruled unconstitutional, the reversal of the decision doesn’t mean that Dred Scott was ever wrong.
This is a truly bizarre agreement she’s making.
She’s implying that Plessy v. Ferguson, which said that segregation under the Equal Protection laws was fully legal, was good constitutional law, and only later was reversed. That means that if there was a subtextual or secondary part of that law, we should look to it as good law even though the Supreme Court’s ruling was a bad decision.
This is absolutely incoherent and nonsensical.

Menu