The Department of Justice is suing Washington, D.C.’s police department over the city’s firearms laws, saying they incriminate legal gun owners.
The lawsuit argues that it goes against the Second Amendment for the capital city to ban AR-15 rifles and other types of firearms, according to a <a href="https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-district-columbia-unconstitutional-ban-semi-automatic-firearms">press release</a>. Specifically, the DOJ alleges that the local police department “routinely arrest[s] law-abiding citizens for possessing firearms that are protected under the Second Amendment but not registerable in D.C.”
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement that the <a href="https://www.justice.gov/crt/media/1421731/dl" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> is part of the DOJ’s new Second Amendment Section, saying it “underscores our ironclad commitment to protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.”
“Washington, DC’s ban on some of America’s most popular firearms is an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment — living in our nation’s capital should not preclude law-abiding citizens from exercising their fundamental constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
Gun owners in the district are required to register their firearms through the Metropolitan Police Department, and the lawsuit points out that people cannot register “semi-automatic rifles,” which the DOJ argues incriminates people who “possess these firearms in the home for lawful purposes.”
“If a law-abiding citizen possesses a Second Amendment-protected firearm that is not registerable in D.C. in the home for the lawful purpose of self-defense, that individual faces anything from an administrative fine to a criminal misdemeanor conviction punishable by up to one year in jail and a $2,500 fine,” the lawsuit reads.
Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division, Harmeet K. Dhillon, said in a statement that “The newly established Second Amendment Section filed this lawsuit to ensure that the very rights D.C. resident Mr. Heller secured 17 years ago are enforced today — and that all law-abiding citizens seeking to own protected firearms for lawful purposes may do so.”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible c-link--underline" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25&amp;_gl=1*vdwpap*_gcl_au*MTYzODg4ODI4OS4xNzY1ODA4NTE2*_ga*NDM4MjI1MTA1LjE3NTc5NTYzMzI.*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*czE3NjY0MTUwMTMkbzM0OSRnMSR0MTc2NjQxNTAxNiRqNTkkbDAkaDA." target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial&amp;utm_campaign=christmas&amp;utm_content=christmassale25" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Christmas Sale – Get 40% off New DailyWire+ Annual Memberships</a>
The lawsuit comes as federal agents and the National Guard continue to patrol the streets of D.C., following President Donald Trump’s August order to crack down on crime. MPD Chief Pamela Smith resigned from her position amid accusations from the Republican-led House Oversight Committee that she “deliberately manipulated crime data.”
“Let’s be really clear about one thing: Never would I, never will I ever compromise my integrity for a few crime numbers,” Smith said last week, according to <a href="https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/dc-police-chief-forgives-haters-fiery-farewell-speech/4032025/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">NBC 4 Washington</a>. Interim Police Chief Jeffrey Carroll now leads the department.
The Metropolitan Police Department told The Daily Wire it “does not comment on pending litigation.” The mayor’s office and the city attorney’s office did not respond to requests for comment.

Pamela Smith

Justice Department Sues D.C. Over ‘Unconstitutional’ Gun Laws

firearms

Guns

justice department

Second Amendment

Washington DC

Depending on the outcome of New Jersey’s gubernatorial race on Tuesday, gun owners in the state can prepare to breathe easier or bunker down for another four years of hostility. 
The race pits Republican Jack Ciattarelli, who has promised to defend the Second Amendment, against Mikie Sherrill, who is backed by a plethora of anti-gun groups. The winner will appoint New Jersey’s next attorney general, who has a considerable role in enforcing the state’s gun laws and defending the Second Amendment. 
Matthew Platkin, New Jersey’s current attorney general, has consistently pushed for gun control after his appointment four years ago by outgoing Democratic Governor Phil Murphy. In New Jersey, the attorney general is appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. 
During his time as attorney general, Platkin has sued numerous gun manufacturers, supported a wide-ranging ban on carrying guns in public places, and defended the state’s strict gun laws. 
Platkin has defended the state’s ban on AR-15s and ammunition magazines that carry more than ten rounds. The case is <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69068398/association-of-new-jersey-rifle-and-pistol-clubs-i-v-attonrey-general-new/">currently</a> before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Trump administration has filed a brief in support of the Second Amendment groups that challenged the law. 
“Although such rifles and magazines are subject to reasonable regulations that are consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, the complete bans at issue here are unconstitutional,” the Justice Department argued in a recent brief. 
Platkin has also supported bans on so-called “assault weapons” in other jurisdictions, and he co-led a brief in September <a href="https://www.mass.gov/news/ag-campbell-co-leads-coalition-to-support-assault-weapons-ban-in-cook-county-illinois">defending</a> the ban in Cook County, Illinois, on AR-15s. In May 2024, he took action to <a href="https://www.njoag.gov/ag-platkin-leads-states-in-defending-massachusetts-gun-laws/">defend</a> similar gun control laws in Massachusetts. 
The New Jersey Democrat also went on the offensive, accusing gun manufacturer Glock of making a semi-automatic pistol that can be illegally modified into being fully automatic. 
“For decades, Glock has knowingly sold weapons that anyone with a screwdriver and a YouTube video can convert into a military-grade machine gun within a matter of minutes,” Platkin <a href="https://www.nj.com/essex/2024/12/nj-sues-to-stop-sale-of-glock-handguns.html">said</a> in December 2024.
Platkin has also <a href="https://www.nj.com/news/2023/01/nj-wanted-to-be-able-to-sue-gunmakers-but-a-federal-judge-says-law-may-be-unconstitutional.html">supported</a> the suing of gun manufacturers under “public nuisance&#8221; law and laws <a href="https://x.com/NewJerseyOAG/status/1829670601574822394">banning</a> those under the age of 21 from owning guns. Additionally, he was “thrilled” after the courts <a href="https://newjerseymonitor.com/2025/09/10/federal-judges-uphold-new-jersey-law-restricting-guns-in-sensitive-places/">upheld</a> a law that banned carrying guns in almost every public place. 
Ciattarelli has <a href="https://www.jack4nj.com/issues">promised</a> to replace Platkin on his first day as governor with an attorney general “who respects all constitutional rights, including Second Amendment rights, and will review all legislation and policies for constitutional flaws to remedy or repeal them, and reevaluate the state’s position in pending lawsuits by citizens challenging state laws as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.”
Additionally, he said he will veto any legislation that infringes on the Second Amendment. 
On the other hand, Sherrill, who has been <a href="https://www.everytown.org/press/everytown-for-gun-safety-action-fund-endorses-mikie-sherrill-for-new-jersey-governor/">endorsed</a> by the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, has <a href="https://sherrill.house.gov/media/press-releases/statement-by-rep-mikie-sherrill-on-ar-15-ruling">promised</a> to fight “until we fully ban assault weapons” and “require universal background checks for gun purchases.”
While New Jersey is seen as a solid blue state, recent polls have shown the gap between Ciattarelli and Sherrill tightening.

MixCollage-04-Nov-2025-12-52-PM-2816

The Second Amendment Hangs In The Balance In The New Jersey Governor’s Race

The Second Amendment Is On The Ballot In The New Jersey Governor’s Race

Elections

Jack Ciattarelli

mikie sherrill

New Jersey

In every country where firearms have been banned, there&#8217;s been an &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; that&#8217;s been used to justify the crackdown. And very often, this &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; is either overblown, manufactured, or misconstrued in some way. In Canada back in 2022, for example, Justin Trudeau used a mass shooting in the United States — specifically, the shooting at the elementary school in Uvalde, Texas — to justify a national ban on handgun sales in Canada.
Yes, he used a shooting in a foreign country, which was committed with a rifle, to justify a ban on handguns in Canada. And of course, Canadians went along with it. They didn&#8217;t even complain because, after all, they&#8217;d been conditioned, over many years, to accept an increasing number of restrictions on their right to own firearms. Bit by bit, they allowed the government to whittle away their rights. So eventually, when it came time for Justin Trudeau to suspend handgun sales entirely, based on a pretext that was obviously ridiculous, everyone just kind of rolled over. We&#8217;ve seen similar stories all over the world, in places like Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and so on.
Every conservative — everyone who wants the United States to continue to exist as a functional country, where all of these other nations have failed — has to be mindful of similar efforts to undermine our Second Amendment rights here at home. We have to pay attention when government officials attempt to use some kind of fake &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; to suspend our right to possess firearms. And we certainly have to pay attention when these efforts gain traction — when they appear to be working.
That&#8217;s the case right now. Lawsuits and political pressure by various states — particularly California — have successfully intimidated the weapons manufacturer Glock into dismantling virtually its entire product line. One of the most popular handgun manufacturers in the world, with probably the most recognizable brand, has been beaten into submission.
This is a story that hasn&#8217;t received anywhere near the attention it should be receiving. It&#8217;s obviously the first domino among many. If Glock doesn&#8217;t reverse this decision — if Democrats win this fight — then many, many more dominoes will fall in short order. Just like we saw in Canada, once you give these people any ground whatsoever, they will walk all over you.
So let&#8217;s begin with the &#8220;inciting incident&#8221; of this particular power grab. It was the worst mass shooting in the history of Sacramento, according to the local media, and it took place in April 2022. Several shooters were involved, as part of some kind of gang warfare. Six people were fatally wounded. Twelve others were injured.
One of the men who was apprehended was named Smiley Martin (the brother of Dandrae Martin, another suspect in the case). Smiley Martin was found in possession of a Glock 19 handgun with a &#8220;switch&#8221; attached to it, which is a device that enables it to fire rapidly, like a machine gun. Switches are illegal, but they can be obtained very easily or created with a 3D printer.
And it was determined that Smiley was one of the main shooters in this particular incident. Watch: 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Downtown Sacramento" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/4FhuYdV4phc?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
You heard in that report that Smiley Martin had a very long criminal record prior to this shooting. But they don&#8217;t explain why he was allowed out of prison, if that&#8217;s the case. Nor do they provide more detail on what exactly Smiley Martin did when he committed his other crimes. 
But that&#8217;s a pretty big part of the story. So here&#8217;s <a href="https://apnews.com/article/covid-health-shootings-prisons-arrests-f713eff2a31b66e5740eb96f60392baa">The Associated Press</a>, with some more background.
<blockquote>A suspect arrested in connection with last weekend’s mass shooting outside bars in Sacramento served less than half his 10-year sentence because of voter-approved changes to state law that lessened the punishment for his felony convictions and provided a chance for earlier release. Smiley Allen Martin was freed in February after serving time for punching a girlfriend, dragging her from her home by her hair and whipping her with a belt, according to court and prison records. Those count as nonviolent offenses under California law, which considers only about two dozen crimes to be violent felonies — such as murder, rape, arson and kidnapping. &#8230; Proposition 57 credits include good behavior while behind bars, though corrections officials declined to release Martin’s disciplinary report.</blockquote>
If you follow my show or read my articles, you know this is all sounding very familiar. It&#8217;s similar to what happened in Kentucky, with the child killer Ronald Exantus. As we discussed, Exantus brutally murdered a young boy and assaulted his father (and the boy&#8217;s sister). But his crimes were deemed &#8220;nonviolent&#8221; under Kentucky law, so he was let out of prison after serving just a few years. Even though the parole board didn&#8217;t want to release Smiley Martin, they had no choice under the law — just like they had to release Ronald Exantus.
In this case, just like Ronald Exantus, Smiley Martin obviously committed violent offenses. He punched a woman and whipped her with a belt. But because these offenses are somehow considered &#8220;nonviolent&#8221; in California, under the law that was passed in 2016, Smiley Martin was allowed out of prison after serving a fraction of his sentence. And he then used that opportunity to commit a mass shooting.
So how has the government of California responded to this development? Have they suggested that maybe they should amend the law so that the word &#8220;nonviolent&#8221; doesn&#8217;t refer to crimes that are obviously violent? Have they suggested any changes whatsoever that would prevent violent felons from getting out of prison after serving less than half of their sentences?
You probably know the answer to that question. Democrats in California reacted to this mass shooting by pushing yet another law — one that will effectively ban all Glock handguns in the state. For many years, Glocks have had special restrictions in places like Canada and California. And now the government, in the wake of this mass shooting, has decided to go for a total ban. 
This is from a video posted by &#8220;<a href="https://x.com/fixingcali/status/1968266193808277561">Vince for California</a>,&#8221; the only account I&#8217;ve seen on X that has pieced all this together. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 CA Glocks" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uf-r0btKIq4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Yes, you heard that correctly. Government officials in California cited the mass shooting in Sacramento as proof that we need a new law banning Glocks. That&#8217;s not because there&#8217;s anything wrong with Glocks, by themselves. It&#8217;s because career criminals — overwhelmingly young black men who pose with their illegally modified Glocks on TikTok all the time, and who constantly commit violent felonies and then get out of jail in five seconds — might modify the Glock to make it more dangerous. Because this relatively small demographic is breaking the law, therefore the most popular handgun in the world should be outlawed in California. (Technically, you can keep your current Glock, but you can&#8217;t buy a new one.)
That&#8217;s what they&#8217;re saying. That&#8217;s their plan. And it&#8217;s working. It&#8217;s almost as if the entire reason they let these violent thugs out of prison is so that they can commit more crimes, which Democrats will then, in turn, use to justify more crackdowns on our civil liberties. This is from a local news station in California.
<blockquote>Glock handguns, among the most popular pistols on the market, will no longer be available for purchase in California starting July 1, 2026. Gov. Gavin Newsom recently signed into law AB 1127, which prohibits the sale of Glocks because a small part can be modified or replaced to convert the gun into an automatic weapon. Although illegal, this modification is becoming increasingly popular among lawbreakers. Tyler Thompson, a Glock dealer at Redding Guns, said the impending ban has left him with only one Glock in stock.</blockquote>
Along with this law (which was subsidized by Soros and Mark Zuckerberg), there have been various lawsuits filed against Glock by Democrats — including cities like Seattle and Chicago, and states like Minnesota and New Jersey — which essentially blame the manufacturer for illegal modifications that people make to their firearms. It&#8217;s like when Democrats blamed Toyota for supposedly making their cars too easy to steal.
For about a million reasons, conservatives should fight these laws (and these lawsuits) with everything they have. The NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation are doing their part, and filing lawsuits, but there needs to be a much bigger effort. For one thing, <a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1127/id/3209201">here&#8217;s the law</a> that California just passed.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-990593 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-824x576.jpg" alt="" width="824" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-824x576.jpg 824w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-300x210.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel-768x537.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Legislative-Counsel.jpg 987w" sizes=" (max-width: 824px) 100vw, 824px" /></div>
Credit: LegiScan/California Assembly Bill 1127
The bill reads:
<blockquote>This bill would prohibit a licensed firearms dealer to sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol, except as specified. For these purposes, the bill would define “machinegun-convertible pistol” as any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools into a machine gun by the installation or attachment of a pistol converter, meaning any device or instrument that, when installed in or attached to the rear of the slide of a semiautomatic pistol, replaces the backplate and interferes with the trigger mechanism and thereby enables the pistol to shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.</blockquote>
Among other problems, this law is obviously unconstitutional. 
To be clear, it doesn&#8217;t apply only to Glocks, but also to any handgun with a &#8220;cruciform trigger bar.&#8221; 
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-990597 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-1024x428.webp" alt="" width="1024" height="428" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-1024x428.webp 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-300x125.webp 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar-768x321.webp 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/Trigger-Bar.webp 1280w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></div>
Credit: us.Glock.com
Here&#8217;s what that looks like. Some Smith &amp; Wesson firearms, along with some firearms from Shadow Systems and FMK Firearms, also have &#8220;cruciform trigger bars.&#8221; And yes, it&#8217;s true that, if they revamp their entire product lineup, Glock can get rid of these.
But Glock shouldn&#8217;t have to do that. Nor should any of these other companies. The Supreme Court has already held — correctly — that under our Constitution, Americans can own handguns that aren&#8217;t unreasonably dangerous. And there&#8217;s nothing unreasonably dangerous about a Glock. It&#8217;s about as vanilla as handguns get. If a handgun suddenly becomes &#8220;unreasonably dangerous&#8221; because someone makes an illegal modification to it, then every handgun will instantly become &#8220;unreasonably dangerous.&#8221;
And of course, that&#8217;s what California has in mind. We all know that, no matter what changes Glock decides to make to its handguns, in order to comply with this law, it will never be enough. It&#8217;s possible to modify any handgun (or rifle) to shoot &#8220;full auto&#8221;, within the meaning of this law. Probably ten days after Glock changes its handguns to comply with this law, someone will come up with a switch for the new model. It&#8217;s not going to be difficult. Many firearms experts have already made that point.
This is clearly, unambiguously, the first major step in a larger effort by Democrats to ban handguns. The only appropriate response is to fight it, right now. There is no limiting principle here. It&#8217;s like saying it should be illegal to own a car, because car bombs exist. The fact that someone can come in after the fact and make a product more dangerous by committing a felony does not mean that we should ban the product.
But Glock isn&#8217;t fighting back on principle. They&#8217;re not running ads in California, pointing out that Gavin Newsom let this mass shooter out of jail early, or that California already outlaws switches, or that the mass shooter was a felon who shouldn&#8217;t have been allowed to possess a firearm in the first place, or that he had a high-capacity magazine that&#8217;s also illegal in California. Glock isn&#8217;t running 24/7 ads, which makes the extremely obvious point that California could solve its gun problem overnight by actually enforcing its existing laws and by punishing violent criminals.
Instead, Glock is caving. They&#8217;re punishing every law-abiding gun owner in the country. They just announced that they&#8217;re ditching Gen 5 and starting to make a whole new &#8220;V series&#8221; of handguns that are supposedly compliant with this new law. They just sent this marketing material around.
<div class="image"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-990599 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-460x576.jpeg" alt="" width="460" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-460x576.jpeg 460w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-240x300.jpeg 240w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi-768x961.jpeg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/10/G3z3WslXMAAcQMi.jpeg 1029w" sizes=" (max-width: 460px) 100vw, 460px" /></div>
Credit: us.Glock.com
It reads: &#8220;As part of GLOCK&#8217;s commitment to future innovations, we are making necessary updates to our product lines to align with upcoming offerings.&#8221;
So they don&#8217;t even mention why they&#8217;re doing this. They don&#8217;t demonstrate a shred of interest in defending Americans&#8217; Second Amendment rights or contesting this flagrant overreach by Democrats in California, New Jersey, Minnesota, and so on. They don&#8217;t even provide any indication as to whether this new &#8220;V series&#8221; will be compatible with Gen 5 parts, including performance triggers and so on. Nor do they explain how they can possibly make a handgun that&#8217;s impossible to turn into a machine gun, under the law passed in California. They&#8217;re just hoping for the best, I guess.
And meanwhile, where is the Republican Party on this? Has a single prominent Republican made an issue out of the fact that Democrats just strong-armed Glock into dismantling its entire product line? If so, I&#8217;m not aware of it.
This is a total capitulation. There&#8217;s no other way to understand what&#8217;s happening here. It&#8217;s capitulation on Glock&#8217;s part. And it&#8217;s capitulation on the part of our elected representatives.
That would be unforgivable in normal times. It&#8217;s especially egregious now, after we&#8217;ve seen — again and again, in country after country — where total capitulation leads. Glock&#8217;s decision is going to embolden Democrats to do exactly what Leftists have done in Canada, Australia, and so on. They didn&#8217;t release Smiley Martin from prison, or fund these massive new changes to the law, so that Glock would release slightly-altered versions of its existing handguns. They released Smiley Martin from prison, and they passed this law, so that no one can buy a handgun ever again. They want to disarm the entire country. That is their ultimate objective.
That&#8217;s always been their objective. And with this decision by Glock, without much fanfare, they&#8217;re one very important step closer to achieving it.

California Gov. Newsom Discusses State’s Economic Advancement And Growth

The Brazen Attack On Your Second Amendment Rights You Probably Haven’t Heard About

California

Gavin Newsom

Gun Laws

Matt Walsh

Opinion

Sacramento

The National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a lawsuit against California over a “first-of-its-kind” law that effectively bans one of the most popular handguns in America.
On Friday, Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law a new bill that bans the sale and transfer of Glock and Glock-style handguns in the state beginning January 1. In a suit filed on Monday, the NRA argues that the law blatantly violates the Second Amendment rights of Californians.
“Our message to Governor Newsom is simple: we will see you in court,” NRA Institute for Legislative Action Executive Director John Commerford said. “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”
“Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America. This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked,” he added.
California’s <a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1127&amp;showamends=false">law</a> says that gun sellers “shall not sell, offer for sale, exchange, give, transfer, or deliver any semiautomatic machinegun-convertible pistol.” That kind of pistol is defined as “any semiautomatic pistol with a cruciform trigger bar that can be readily converted by hand or with common household tools,” which applies to Glock and Glock-style pistols.
Democrats say the law is intended to crack down on the conversion of Glock-style handguns for use as a machine gun. That action is already illegal under federal law and carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison.
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" data-sk="tooltip_parent">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a> 
The suit, against California Attorney General Rob Bonta, was joined by two members of the NRA, the Firearms Policy Coalition, and the Second Amendment Foundation. It noted that Glocks were among the “most popular firearms in the nation.”
Commerford told The Daily Wire that the lawsuit shows that the NRA “will not stand by while a rabid anti-gun governor dictates from their office how individuals can exercise their Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court has opined that you cannot wholesale ban handguns, and that&#8217;s exactly what Governor Gavin Newsom just did.”
The Supreme Court ruling referred to by Commerford is the District of Columbia v. Heller case, where the court ruled that the right to own a handgun for self-defense was protected.

US-POLITICS-HEALTH-CHILDREN-NEWSOM

California Challenged Over Ban On One Of The Most Popular Guns In America

National Rifle Association (NRA)

Social Issues

U.S.

Pro-gun organizations are suing the federal government to challenge regulations on silencers and short-barreled firearms in an attempt to parlay a legal change in the Big Beautiful Bill into a complete overhaul of longstanding restrictions on guns.
Dubbed the “Big Beautiful Lawsuit,” the suit from the <a href="https://ssf.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Silencer Shop Foundation</a>, Gun Owners of America, Palmetto State Armory, and other pro-gun organizations argues that the regulation of the items by the 1934 National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional in the wake of a legislative change.
The lawsuit against the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms comes in the wake of the passage of the Big Beautiful Bill, which will eliminate the $200 tax on silencers, short-barreled rifles, and other firearms regulated through the National Firearms Act beginning in 2026.
The suit contends that the elimination of the tax on silencers, short barreled rifles and shotguns, and a third category referred to as “any other weapon,” removes the Constitutional justification for their inclusion in the act.
The NFA has allowed the federal government to maintain a registry of those purchasing items covered by the 1934 law for the purposes of ensuring tax compliance, but now with the tax set to be sunsetted, the justification for the federal list becomes increasingly legally flimsy.
“This lawsuit isn’t about picking a fight — it’s about ending one that started in 1934. For nearly a century, Americans have been told they need to beg for permission to protect their own hearing,&#8221; asserts Dave Matheny, the CEO and founder of Silencer Shop. “That’s not safety. That’s government inertia. We’re fighting to restore the kind of common sense our grandparents took for granted — where you could enjoy your rights without a calendar and a checkbook standing in the way.”
The <a href="https://ssf.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Silencer Shop Foundation</a>, the legal advocacy arm of the Silencer Shop, says that a win against the ATF would not only remove a deterrent that Americans face when they attempt to exercise their rights, but that would also guard against politicians attempting to impose even greater costs on suppressor purchases.
Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America Erich Pratt highlighted the monumental opportunity presented by the elimination of the tax.
“This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to dismantle one of the most abusive federal gun control laws on the books. With the tax struck down by Congress, the rest of the NFA is standing on air,” Pratt <a href="https://www.gunowners.org/goa-to-file-one-big-beautiful-lawsuit-against-nfa-registry-as-one-big-beautiful-bill-heads-to-presidents-desk/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">contends</a>. “We’re ready to take this fight to the courts and finally end the federal registry once and for all.”

SSF-Legal-Photos-5-a

Gun Rights Advocates Launch ‘Big Beautiful Lawsuit’ To Gut National Firearms Act

Congress

Donald Trump

Plenty of ink has been spilled on the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the sweeping piece of budget reconciliation legislation that cuts taxes, creates “Trump accounts” for newborns, and grants an unprecedented new surge of funding in support of mass deportation and border security efforts.
But one of the law&#8217;s biggest impacts may be its unfurling of a longstanding gun law that firearms enthusiasts and Second Amendment advocates have long had in their sights.
The government has imposed a tax on suppressors, tools that are used to dampen the sound of a gunshot, ever<a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-republican-budget-proposal-has-removal-gun-silencer-tax-its-sights-2025-05-14/"> since</a> 1934, when the National Firearms Act was passed. Thanks to the Big Beautiful Bill, that tax will be dropped in January, and its elimination could tee up massive victories for Second Amendment supporters.
The Daily Wire team had the chance to learn from firearms experts and gun rights advocates during a day at the range, firing both suppressed and unsuppressed AR-15s. Their utility became clear as the day went on, and as thousands of rounds were fired.
“Millions of Americans use them to protect their hearing,” Knox Williams, Executive Director of the <a href="https://americansuppressorassociation.com/">American Suppressor Association</a>, said of suppressors. “Gunshots are loud to the point that when you don’t have hearing protection, any exposure to an unsuppressed gunshot can and will lead to permanent and irreversible hearing damage … if you lose it, there is no coming back.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="YouTube video player" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ybRNYFVBSY4?si=9Spl_fUZhMME-dSp" width="560" height="315" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
Suppressors, often referred to colloquially as silencers, work in the same way as a muffler on a car — with a tube that traps, cools, and dissipates the hot gas that comes out of a barrel after a round is fired. In fact, the suppressor and the muffler were developed by the same American inventor in the early 1900s. Both inventions prevent the rapid contact of the hot gas with the cooler surrounding atmosphere, which is one of the main causes of the noise that is generated when a gun is fired.
Suppressors reduce the noise of a gunshot by anywhere from 20 to 35 decibels, making their effect roughly equivalent to earplugs and earmuffs in their ability to protect one’s hearing.
Americans’ impression of suppressors comes primarily from James Bond films and video games, where the devices are used to sneakily assassinate a target in a crowded setting, allowing the shooter to escape undetected.
The reality, as was apparent after a day at the range, is that even a suppressed firearm is still loud enough to cause hearing damage if used without hearing protection, and far too noisy to allow one to pull off a Bond-style operation, especially when used indoors. Instead, a silencer is a valuable tool to protect your hearing, and it works best when used in conjunction with earplugs or earmuffs.
The removal of the tax on suppressors, Williams says, is a victory that could build momentum in the service of a broader goal.
“The primary thing that we want is to remove these things from the National Firearms Act entirely. In the House version of the Big Beautiful Bill, that actually passed. It was full removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act, which meant no tax and no registration requirement,” the American Suppressor Association Executive Director explained.
That version of the bill did not pass in the Senate, but the removal of the tax is an initial victory for Second Amendment advocates, and one that could beget bigger wins.
Williams explained that the tax wasn’t just an added financial burden to those looking to buy suppressors, but also created a registry of Americans who paid the tax, in effect resulting in a federal registry of Americans owning suppressors.
The removal of the tax, Williams says, has “set us up for being able to challenge the constitutionality of these items in the National Firearms Act in court.”
A new lawsuit from the American Suppressor Association, the National Rifle Association, and other pro-Second Amendment organizations aims to do just that. The suit contends that the registry is no longer Constitutional, given that the tax that justified its existence is being eliminated.
“The National Firearms Act has been a weight around the neck of law-abiding gun owners for nearly a century,” Williams charged. “Our lawsuit challenges the NFA as an unconstitutional registry of now untaxed firearms. Common sense and the law are on our side, and we look forward to fighting on behalf of all Americans in Federal Court.”

Suppressed AR-15

The Big Beautiful Bill Quietly Shot Down One Of America’s Dumbest Gun Laws

Gun Rights

In movies like Enemy of the State, Americans are shown a dystopian world where government surveillance turns ordinary citizens into targets, with shadowy agencies tracking their every move without oversight or accountability. Sadly, this Hollywood nightmare is now reality.
During the Biden administration, federal agencies like the FBI were secretly monitoring law-abiding gun owners through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) — tracking their lawful firearm purchases without a warrant and without ever informing those being monitored. Even Congress was kept in the dark. What once seemed like fiction is now a troubling truth, as the federal government turns its surveillance powers inward against its own people, eroding the freedoms it was meant to protect.
For years, the FBI has been surveilling the gun purchases of thousands of law-abiding citizens using the NICS system. This daily NICS Monitoring program operates without the requirement of a warrant or probable cause, and entirely outside the purview of any court. It enables federal agents to select a target for surveillance and receive a notification every time the victim purchases a firearm. Surveilled Americans have no way of ever knowing they are being tracked.
None of this information is new. Gun Owners of America has reported on the FBI’s NICS Monitoring abuses <a href="https://www.ammoland.com/2024/12/foia-shows-the-extent-of-atf-monitoring-americans-through-fbis-nics-system/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">at length</a>, and the FBI’s warrantless surveillance program has been the subject of a years-long Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) lawsuit pitting GOA against a <a href="https://www.gunowners.org/atf-attempts-to-silence-gun-owners-of-america/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">belligerent</a> and uncooperative Department of Justice.
<h3>Ongoing NICS Monitoring Abuses</h3>
Naturally, being free to operate entirely without legal standards or judicial oversight, federal agents have rampantly abused NICS Monitoring, surveilling individuals engaged in all manner of innocuous activities. Without any accountability, agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) requested NICS Monitoring of individuals who purchased firearms in response to social unrest, those whose firearm expenditures appeared disproportionate to their income, and even persons who bought and sold firearms as a hobby.
During the Biden administration, federal agents even directed their surveillance toward ordinary Californians — like a modern-day Panopticon, where prison inmates can be secretly watched without knowing when. In a recent <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fbi-weaponizes-background-checks-enforce-california-gun-ban" target="_blank" rel="noopener">FOIA production</a>, GOA discovered that the FBI had been assisting in the enforcement of anti-gun states’ “assault weapons” bans. The FBI actually used NICS Monitoring on one individual for suspected violations of California’s unconstitutional gun regime — despite there being no evidence of any federal wrongdoing.
Thankfully, Pam Bondi’s DOJ recently <a href="https://x.com/GunOwners/status/1915855957927616648" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ordered the FBI</a> to end the Biden-era practice of using NICS monitoring to help enforce state gun laws. But who knows how long this practice has been occurring? Because with such a low bar for monitoring, perhaps you have also been NICS Monitored, maybe for nothing more than a Facebook comment or a bumper sticker, or attendance at a political rally. Of course, you would never know either way.
<h3>FBI Weaponization Against January 6 Protesters</h3>
Now, GOA has discovered that the FBI’s surveillance program goes further than previously thought. Recently obtained FOIA documents reveal the NICS Monitoring of a person suspected of being present at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.
In fact, in one June 6, 2023 NICS Monitoring submission, an unnamed FBI agent requested NICS Monitoring of an individual’s lawful gun purchases for a period of six months, for several “violations or potential violations” that are common J6 charges:
<ul>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3) &#8211; Civil Disorder; </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1) and (2) &#8211; Restricted Building or Grounds; </li>
<li style="font-weight: 400;" aria-level="1">40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(E) &#8211; Impeding Passage through the Capitol Grounds or Buildings.</li>
</ul>
Of course, this should come as no surprise. After all, the Biden-era FBI was no stranger to victimizing thousands of Trump supporters associated with January 6. On January 6 itself, the U.S. Capitol was crawling with <a href="https://www.zerohedge.com/political/legal-scholar-raises-concerns-over-doj-hiding-fbi-informants-jan-6">FBI informants</a>, seemingly directed to frame those attending the President’s “Save America” rally.
In the days that followed, the FBI <a href="https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/540721-intercept-reporter-fbis-rapid-collection-of-phone-records-after-capitol-riot/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">aggressively collected</a> cell phone data of those who had been present in Washington, DC, often without a warrant. The FBI even improperly <a href="https://apnews.com/article/justice-department-fbi-surveillance-75c466a64e838ab12eaef96f6335f3cd" target="_blank" rel="noopener">accessed</a> information collected under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to target purely domestic persons and activities. And in the twilight hours of the Biden regime, the Department of Justice <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/fbi-searches-alleged-jan-6-rioters-home-ahead-donald-trumps-return-pre-rcna137787" target="_blank" rel="noopener">continued to raid</a> suspected January 6ers’ homes, with FBI operations extending well into December of 2024.
But now, the United States has a new Attorney General. And when Pam Bondi took her oath of office, she <a href="https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bondi-sworn-attorney-general-mission-end-weaponization-justice-department" target="_blank" rel="noopener">promised</a> to end the rampant “weaponization” of the FBI and to close Biden’s chapter of hyper-partisanship and two-tiered justice for good.
That promise will ring hollow if NICS Monitoring is not dismantled. So long as the mechanism remains in place to surveil gun owners’ lawful purchases — especially with no judicial approval or oversight — there is little stopping a future administration from resuming the abuses of Biden’s FBI.
What once seemed like the stuff of Hollywood thrillers has become a sobering fact of American life. The secret surveillance of lawful gun owners through NICS Monitoring is not just a bureaucratic overreach — it’s a direct assault on the freedoms that define our nation.
To restore trust in our institutions, Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel must act swiftly to end warrantless spying on law-abiding gun owners. Americans should not have to live in fear that exercising their rights will land them on a secret government watchlist. We are not characters in a movie — we are citizens of a free republic, and it’s time our government remembered that.
* * *
Erich Pratt is the Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, a national grassroots organization representing more than two million gun owners, and can be followed on X  <a href="https://twitter.com/erichmpratt">@erichmpratt.</a>
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

U.S. Special Operations Command Host Hostage Rescue Demonstration In Tampa

Gun Owners Aren’t Criminals: It’s Time To Dismantle NICS Monitoring

Gun Sales

January 6

U.S. Capitol

A federal judge overturned <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/illinois" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Illinois</a>’ unconstitutional ban on semiautomatic weapons on Friday, triggering the state&#8217;s top Democrats.
The law, which went into effect at the start of 2023, came in response to the shooting in Highland Park on July 4, 2022.
The Protect Illinois Communities Act banned semi-automatic rifles, commonly used magazines, and numerous attachments that firearms can be equipped with.
“Sadly, there are those who seek to usher in a sort of post-Constitution era where the citizens’ individual rights are only as important as they are convenient to a ruling class,” said U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn in his ruling.
He added, “The oft-quoted phrase that ‘no right is absolute’ does not mean that fundamental rights precariously subsist subject to the whims, caprice, or appetite of government officials or judges.”
McGlynn added that it was &#8220;particularly disturbing&#8221; that Democrats had sought to ban weapons that were already widely used by Americans, which would deprive them &#8220;of a principal means to defend themselves and their property in situations where a handgun or shotgun alone would not be the citizen&#8217;s preferred arm.&#8221;
The Illinois State Rifle Association <a href="https://isra.org/pritzker-ban-on-firearms-found-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">celebrated</a> the law being overturned in a statement posted on their website.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/?_gl=1*jtghwp*_gcl_au*ODQ1NjYzNTg2LjE3Mjg5MDk3OTE.*_ga*MTc2NzM0NDQ2NS4xNzI4OTA5Nzkx*_ga_CZKR9ZYKJP*MTczMDEyMDgwOS40OS4xLjE3MzAxMjA4MzkuMzAuMC4w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">MATT WALSH’S ‘AM I RACIST?’ NOW STREAMING ON DAILYWIRE+</a>
&#8220;Our legislative team tried to warn lawmakers about the unconstitutionality of Pritzker’s scheme,&#8221; the group said. &#8220;After the Governor put his signature on this affront to citizen’s rights, the ISRA partnered with the Second Amendment Foundation to file suit in Federal Court with a promise to see this through to the US Supreme Court if necessary.&#8221;
&#8220;Today’s ruling affirms our legislative position and shows our dedication to fighting on behalf of the millions of law-abiding Illinois firearms owners,&#8221; they added. &#8220;Barring any further court action, the ISRA looks forward to restoration of 2nd Amendment rights to Illinois firearms owners just in time for the holidays and winter hunting seasons.&#8221;
CNN <a href="https://www.cnn.com/illinois-ban-semiautomatic-gun-supremecourt/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reported</a> that Illinois Governor JB Pritzker and Democrat Attorney General Kwame Raoul pledged to immediately appeal the ruling.

Gun Enthusiasts Gather For Machine Gun Rally In Pennsylvania

Federal Judge Tosses Illinois’ Unconstitutional Semi-Automatic Gun Ban

Courts

Illinois

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/missouri" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Missouri</a> Democratic Senate candidate Lucas Kunce is under fire after a bullet fragment from his gun struck a nearby reporter, who had to be provided first aid.
KSHB-TV’s Ryan Gamboa was hit with the bullet fragment at a shooting range event on Tuesday, which was held at a private residence for the Democrat’s campaign, The Kansas City Star <a href="https://x.com/kcstar/status/1848855839790272648?s=46&amp;t=o-U3qwC25WnWaylJ0oeG7Q">reported</a>.
Kunce was firing rounds at a target when a piece of the bullet from the gun the Democrat was using ricocheted off the target and hit the reporter, who&#8217;s arm began to bleed before Kunce administered first aid.
In pictures that have surfaced from the event, Kunce can be seen wrapping gauze bandages around the reporter’s arm and using his own belt to stem the bleeding. The two were able to remain at the range and finish the event.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
It’s too on the nose: Democrat Senate candidate Lucas Kunce shot a reporter at an event with Adam Kinzinger. <a href="https://t.co/FzcPXb811r">pic.twitter.com/FzcPXb811r</a>
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1848886575603544453?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2024</a></blockquote>
“You never know what’s going to happen—shrapnel can ricochet off anything, and you’ve got to be prepared,” Kunce said in a written statement. “We were able to handle the situation, and I’m grateful Ryan is okay and could continue reporting.”
Missouri Republican Sen. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/josh-hawley">Josh Hawley</a> — Kunce’s incumbent opponent — reacted to the news that Kunce accidentally hit a TV reporter with his bullet fragment during a campaign event.
“I condemn all acts of violence against reporters and call on Kunce never to shoot another one,” Senator Hawley wrote on X on Tuesday. His post included three laughing emojis.
I condemn all acts of violence against reporters and call on Kunce never to shoot another one 😂😂😂
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1848884106077127065?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2024</a>
Hawley also noted that his grandmother was a better shot than his Democratic opponent:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
My grandma is a better shot than Lucas Kunce <a href="https://t.co/rSjnBTlWeh">pic.twitter.com/rSjnBTlWeh</a>
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) <a href="https://twitter.com/HawleyMO/status/1848891356942344506?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">October 23, 2024</a></blockquote>
The shooting comes more than a week after Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate and self-described &#8220;gun guy&#8221; Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz struggled to <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/24-year-military-veteran-and-self-described-gun-guy-tim-walz-struggles-to-wrangle-his-own-firearm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">load his firearm</a> during a pheasant hunting event that was covered by reporters.
Images and clips of the event were roundly mocked by many who suggested Walz did not have as much experience with guns and hunting as he has claimed. In one video, Walz is shown with a firearm — his own personal Beretta &#8212; as he appeared to struggle to operate it.
CBS campaign reporter Shawna Mizelle posted, “@Tim_Walz is out hunting pheasants for the season opener in MN. The Harris Walz campaign recently announced the hunters, gun owners &amp; anglers coalition. Walz often says he supports the 2nd Amndmt but advocates for ‘common sense’ legislation. &amp; we know Harris owns a Glock.”
Mizelle followed several photos with video of Walz attempting to operate his firearm and complaining, “It never fits quite right, it’s not quite right.”
“Watch Tim Walz struggle to load his shotgun and then complain that the kick usually hurts his shoulder. Men everywhere are in awe,” Amber Duke commented.
Virginia Kruta contributed to this piece.
Related: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/harrison-butker-endorses-josh-hawley-for-senate" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Harrison Butker Endorses Josh Hawley For Senate</a>

Lucas Kunce

Dem Candidate Under Fire After Reporter Injured At Shooting Range Campaign Event

Josh Hawley

Missouri

Politics

Tim Walz

A clip of Vice President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/kamala-harris" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kamala Harris</a> went viral this week that showed remarks she made as San Francisco&#8217;s district attorney in which she said that police had the right to &#8220;walk into&#8221; people&#8217;s homes and inspect their legally-owned firearms.
The Democrat presidential nominee made the remarks while speaking to reporters during a press conference in 2007 about a law that was being introduced that she helped write.
Harris said, &#8220;We&#8217;re going to require responsible behaviors among everybody in the community, and just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn&#8217;t mean that we&#8217;re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you&#8217;re being responsible and safe in the way you conduct your affairs.&#8221;
Fox News reported that the anti-gun bill was ultimately signed into law by then-San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom.
&#8220;It was bundled with other gun control provisions, including a new requirement for legal gun distributors to submit an inventory to the chief of police every six months, and a ban on possessing guns – even legally – in public housing,&#8221; the report said.
The NRA said in a post that included the video: &#8220;Kamala Harris wants mass gun confiscation, and she’s willing to weaponize the government to enter your home and seize your legally owned guns.&#8221;
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1726313279401000&amp;usg=AOvVaw115_qPFFEePDP86-Fvo-Vd">Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!</a>
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
🚨Kamala Harris wants mass gun confiscation, and she’s willing to weaponize the government to enter your home and seize your legally owned guns:
“Just because you LEGALLY possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn&#8217;t mean that we&#8217;re not going to walk into that home… <a href="https://t.co/4ET5m7ToSx">pic.twitter.com/4ET5m7ToSx</a>
— NRA (@NRA) <a href="https://twitter.com/NRA/status/1836422943644983481?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
The Trump campaign called her an &#8220;anti-gun RADICAL.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Kamala: “Just because you legally possess a gun in the sanctity of your locked home doesn&#8217;t mean that we&#8217;re not going to walk into that home and check to see if you&#8217;re being responsible.”
She’s an anti-gun RADICAL. <a href="https://t.co/CTcyGgrJEf">pic.twitter.com/CTcyGgrJEf</a>
— Trump War Room (@TrumpWarRoom) <a href="https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1836411228710662355?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 18, 2024</a></blockquote>

US-VOTE-POLITICS-HARRIS

Harris Says Authorities Can ‘Walk Into’ Homes And Inspect Guns In Resurfaced Clip

Gun Control

Kamala Harris

Vice President <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/kamala-harris" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Kamala Harris</a> claimed during an interview that aired on Friday that she would not confiscate people&#8217;s firearms, but she would ban so-called &#8220;assault weapons,&#8221; which are nothing more than semi-automatic long guns.
Harris made the remarks during an interview with 6abc Action News when the interviewer brought up Harris&#8217; claim during the debate earlier this week that she owned a firearm.
&#8220;Where do you draw the line in America on gun ownership and gun use?&#8221; the interviewer asked.
&#8220;I am a gun owner,&#8221; she claimed. &#8220;And Tim Walz, my running mate, is also a gun owner. We&#8217;re not taking anybody&#8217;s guns away. I support the Second Amendment and I support reasonable gun safety laws. Part of my approach to this is, I was a career prosecutor for most of my career. I have personally prosecuted homicide cases. I have personally looked at autopsies. I have personally seen what assault weapons do to the human body.&#8221;
&#8220;And so I feel very strongly that it is consistent with the Second Amendment and your right to own a gun to also say we need an assault weapons ban,&#8221; she continued. &#8220;They’re literally tools of war. They were literally designed to kill a lot of human beings quickly.&#8221;
Harris&#8217; claim that so-called &#8220;assault weapons&#8221; are &#8220;literally tools of war&#8221; is false.
<a href="https://www.amiracist.com/" target="_blank" rel="noopener" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://www.amiracist.com/&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1726313279401000&amp;usg=AOvVaw115_qPFFEePDP86-Fvo-Vd">Am I Racist? Is In Theaters NOW — Get Your Tickets Here!</a>
The weapons that she is referring to are the civilian versions of weapons that militaries and law enforcement agencies use. They do not have the ability to burst fire, which is typically 3 rounds per each pull of the trigger, nor do they have the ability to fire full-auto, which allows the weapon to repeatedly fire until it runs out of ammunition with a single pull of the trigger as long as the operator does not release the trigger.
&#8220;I say we need universal background checks,&#8221; she claimed, even though people already have to undergo a background check to purchase a firearm from an FFL. &#8220;The majority of NRA members support that. Why? Because it&#8217;s just reasonable. You just might want to know before someone can buy a lethal weapon if they&#8217;ve been found by a court to be a danger to themselves or others. You just might want to know.&#8221;
WATCH:
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
WATCH: Kamala Harris claims that she doesn’t want to take anyone’s guns, she just wants to ban them.
NARRATOR: Kamala Harris would try to take our guns too. 
<a href="https://t.co/w1FRYC9iRp">pic.twitter.com/w1FRYC9iRp</a>
— Steve Guest (@SteveGuest) <a href="https://twitter.com/SteveGuest/status/1835019073434140909?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">September 14, 2024</a></blockquote>

Kamala Harris kicks off her New Way Forward Tour in Charlotte

Kamala Harris Claims She Won’t Take Guns, But Signals She Wants A Ban

A federal judge struck down a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/new-jersey" target="_blank" rel="noopener">New Jersey</a> ban on AR-15 rifles on Tuesday, ruling that the prohibition violates the U.S. Constitution.
U.S. District Judge Peter Sheridan wrote in a 69-page <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/new-jersey-ar-15-ban-unconstitutional.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">decision</a> that a provision in New Jersey’s “Assault Firearms Law” banning the possession and sale of AR-15s violated the Second Amendment. The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs and the Firearms Policy Coalition sued the state over the restriction and another provision banning higher-capacity magazines. 
In his decision, Sheridan pointed to Supreme Court decisions on gun regulations, including the recent Bruen decision, in which the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-scotus-strikes-down-new-york-concealed-carry-restrictions-restrictions" target="_blank" rel="noopener">court </a>struck down New York&#8217;s restrictions on concealed carry, ruling that judges must consider gun control laws in the “historical tradition of firearm regulation” in the United States. 
“That is, where the Supreme Court has set forth the law of our Nation, as a lower court, I am bound to follow it,” Sheridan wrote. “This principle — combined with the reckless inaction of our governmental leaders to address the mass shooting tragedy afflicting our Nation — necessitates the Court&#8217;s decision. For these reasons and those below, the AR-15 Provision of Assault Firearms Law is unconstitutional.”
Sheridan wrote that the possession of AR-15s for self-defense purposes was protected under the Second Amendment and was “inconsistent with our Nation&#8217;s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
His decision did not strike down a ban on similar guns, like the Beretta AR-70 or the Springfield Armory BM59, that were included in the same law, saying he only heard arguments on the AR-15. 
Association of New Jersey Rifle &amp; Pistol Clubs Executive Director Scott Bach <a href="https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-greenlights-ar-15-sales-in-new-jersey-finding-ban-unconstitutional/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">indicated</a> his group would appeal the ruling. 
&#8220;While the decision is mixed and certain to be appealed by both sides, it is groundbreaking in that it invalidates part of New Jersey&#8217;s &#8216;assault firearms&#8217; ban — a misguided hardware ban destined to be overturned in its entirety,” he said.
The judge also ruled that a prohibition on higher capacity magazines was constitutional, rejecting the plaintiffs&#8217; challenge on that front. He pointed to mass shootings as one reason for his decision. 
“Second, that large capacity ammunition magazines have been used in most of these mass shooting events in recent years. This relationship is impossible to ignore,” he wrote. 
Democrat New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin accused the court of weaponizing the Second Amendment to “undermine public safety” and promised to appeal the decision to strike down the AR-15 ban.

2nd Amendment Advocates Gather At The Rod Of Iron Freedom Festival

Federal Judge Rules New Jersey’s AR-15 Ban Unconstitutional

Supreme Court

U.S. Politics

Menu