During an appearance on ABC News, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent addressed the fatal shooting in Minneapolis yesterday.
Things got heated between Bessent and journalist Jonathan Karl over the fact that the man killed by Border Patrol, Alex Pretti, brought a gun (and two extra magazines) to the protest.
Karl argued that there is “no evidence” Pretti tried to use the gun on officers.
This prompted Bessent to respond by noting that, even if that were true, Pretti still brought a gun to a so-called ‘peaceful protest.’
Virginia Democrats have drawn up an amendment to their bill to ban “assault weapons” and standard capacity magazines, and it is designed to come down even harder on innocent gun owners.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES — The Democrat-run state of Hawaii received a brutal grilling from the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday for attempting to restrict their citizens’ Second Amendment rights.
The vigorous cross-examination came during oral arguments for Wolford v. Lopez, which centers around a legal challenge brought by Hawaii residents against a law restricting concealed carry throughout the state. As The Federalist previously reported, the statute criminalizes carrying a gun on private property open to the public unless the carrier receives “express authorization” to do so from the property’s owner, manager, or lessee.
“I want to understand how you think Black Codes should inform this Court’s decision-making. It’s quite an astonishing claim to me.”
Supreme Court justices grilled an attorney arguing on behalf of Hawaii for its law restricting the ability of gun owners to bring their firearms onto private property that is open to the public. The justices dug into Hawaii’s reliance on an 1865 Louisiana law that was part of the state’s Black Codes, which restricted the rights of formerly enslaved people, particularly the section that prohibited them from carrying guns on private property such as plantations without the owner’s consent.
SPRINGFIELD, VA — Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) have secured a major legal win following a Department of Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that declares a longstanding federal statute restricting the mailing of handguns unconstitutional under the Second Amendment.
The decision stems from the case Shreve v. U.S. Postal Service, filed in July 2025 in the Western District of Pennsylvania. GOA brought the lawsuit on behalf of its members, challenging 18 U.S.C. § 1715 — a statute that has prohibited law-abiding Americans from using the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) to ship or receive concealable firearms, such as pistols and revolvers.
Democrats in the United States repeatedly praise Australia’s 1996 gun confiscation law as a successful model to emulate, while many Australians — especially after the Bondi Beach terror attack earlier this week — argue that the confiscation helped but failed to go far enough. Yet the supposed benefits of this policy rest on deeply flawed statistical analysis.
After the Minneapolis school shooting in September, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz claimed, “When they had a school shooting in Scotland or they had an incident in Australia, they simply made changes. … And since they did those things, they don’t have them. We’re an outlier amongst nations in terms of what happens to our children.” Prominent Democrats, including Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and Joe Biden, have echoed this praise for Australia’s 1996 gun confiscation law.
SAN ANGELO, TX — A high-stakes legal battle over the constitutionality of federal gun registration is heating up in Texas, as three of the nation’s leading gun control organizations have joined forces with the U.S. Department of Justice and former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi to defend the controversial National Firearms Act (NFA).
The lawsuit, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, was brought by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Silencer Shop Foundation, and other plaintiffs. They argue that the NFA’s registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and similar items are unconstitutional — especially after Congress eliminated the $200 transfer tax on many of these items in 2025. GOA contends that without a tax in place, the government has no constitutional authority to require a national gun registry.
The entrepreneurs who are part of the booming school safety industry face a cruel irony: they are dependent on the uniquely American epidemic of school shootings.
“Every time there is a shooting, we see an uptick in business,” says one, featured in the new HBO documentary Thoughts and Prayers, who sells bulletproof wall art and skateboards. “Every time there is a tragedy, it economically benefits my family. That’s not what I wanted. We could be a $300 million company by the time this documentary airs.”
There are, as the documentary shows, bulletproof desks that can double as shields, blackout shutters to block visibility into classrooms, and video game simulations that test how teachers respond to a fake threat of a school shooter. The school safety industry has become an estimated $4 billion juggernaut, aided in part by a $1 billion infusion from Congress in 2022 to support mental health services and infrastructure upgrades, instead of meaningful gun reform.
Despite the documentary’s critique of the American gun culture that has given rise to mass shootings, political debates and depictions of gun violence are absent from the film. Instead, there are sit-down interviews with teachers reluctantly learning how to shoot guns and kids learning to live with the looming threat of mass shootings. The filmmakers were also present for lockdown drills and a highly realistic mass casualty simulation at a school district in Oregon that included volunteer students portraying gunshot victims. For co-directors Jessica Dimmock and Zackary Canepari, the goal of making the documentary was to “look at what people are trying to do” to combat mass shootings, Dimmock told me, “and ask the audience to consider whether or not this is going to work. And do we want to live like this?”
A male entered a 7-Eleven in Oklahoma City just before midnight Thursday and tried to buy burritos, beef sticks, and ice cream with a counterfeit $100 bill, according to a KOKH-TV news video.
But the female clerk wasn’t buying the con.
‘You have the right to defend yourself.’
What’s more, the clerk said she was calling police, KWTV-DT reported — and she refused the male’s demand that she give him back the counterfeit bill, Gary Knight of the Oklahoma City Police Department added to the station.
COLUMBUS, OH — A new bill introduced in the Ohio Senate aims to align state law with what could become a major shift in federal firearms policy. Senate Bill 303, sponsored by Sen. Terry Johnson and backed by the Buckeye Firearms Association (BFA), would allow adults ages 18 to 20 to legally purchase handguns from federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs).
Under current federal law, licensed dealers are prohibited from selling handguns to individuals under the age of 21. However, a growing number of legal challenges argue that this restriction is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court may soon weigh in, and Ohio lawmakers are preparing in advance.
“Sen. Johnson’s bill will not change federal law,” said BFA Executive Director Dean Rieck. “But it will prepare Ohio for the coming Supreme Court challenge to change the law regarding handgun purchases for those 18 to 20 years old.”
The Supreme Court agreed to take a case Monday over whether a federal law banning illegal drug users from owning guns violates the Second Amendment.
The law at the center of the case was also the basis for one of the three gun charges Hunter Biden, son of former President Joe Biden, was found guilty of by a jury last year. The former president pardoned his son late last year before leaving office.
The case the high court will hear is an appeal from the Justice Department seeking to uphold U.S.C. 922(g)(3), which bans anyone who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance” from owning a firearm, after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit found it violated the Second Amendment’s right for people to bear arms.
“The Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right that is essential to ordered liberty. Unjustifiable restrictions on that right present a grave threat to Americans’ most cherished freedoms,” the DOJ’s petition to the Supreme Court said.
LAFAYETTE, LA — A federal judge has issued a final judgment in the closely watched case Reese v. ATF, acknowledging that the federal prohibition on handgun sales to adults under 21 violates the Second Amendment—but limiting the practical impact of the decision to a small, narrowly defined group.
On October 7, U.S. District Judge Robert Summerhays issued a two-page ruling in compliance with a January 2025 decision from the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. That earlier ruling found that the federal law barring handgun sales by licensed dealers to adults aged 18 to 20 was unconstitutional.
Judge Summerhays’ final order declared the statute unconstitutional only as applied to three individual plaintiffs—Caleb Reese, Joseph Granich, and Emily Naquin—as well as members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Louisiana Shooting Association (LSA) who were members of those organizations on November 6, 2020 and who reside within the Fifth Circuit’s jurisdiction, which includes Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas.
The judgment blocks the federal government from enforcing the handgun sales ban against those specific individuals, but only if the buyer is between 18 and 20 years old and is covered by the limited group named in the case.
Trump Convinces Supreme Court to Review Hawaii Gun Restriction Case– slaynews.com Source Link Excerpt:
At President Donald Trump’s request, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review Hawaii’s gun law that restricts people from carrying a firearm on private property unless the owner specifically allows it.
The Trump administration encouraged the high court to rule on the Hawaii law in light of its 2022 ruling that expanded Second Amendment protections broadly.
Three Hawaii residents sued the state’s Democrat attorney general, Anne E. Lopez, and the lower courts split on the decision.
The district court blocked the law, but the appeals court reversed the decision.
Protests After School Board Suspends Football Players over Airsoft Photo– www.breitbart.com Source Link Excerpt:
Protests erupted after Idaho’s Post Falls District school board suspended several football players for ten days and kicked them off the team for a photo taken that showed an airsoft gun.
KREM reported that the photo “allegedly depicts 2 students pointing airsoft guns at another, who was dressed in Coeur d’Alene High School clothing.”
The Post Falls Police Department says they were “made aware” of the photo September 4, and “determined no laws were broken, and no criminal charges have been filed against the students.”
Judge Permanently Blocks Biden ATF Rule on Firearms Sales from Being Used Against NRA Members– conservativeroof.com Source Link Excerpt:
On Tuesday, U.S. District Court Judge Corey L. Maze “permanently [blocked] federal authorities from enforcing multiple provisions of the ATF’s [‘engaged in the business’ rule],” according to Rocket City Now.
Maze’s ruling applies to two plaintiffs — “Don Butler of Talladega and David Glidewell of Ragland” — and to members of the NRA.
ATF’s engaged in the business rule became final on April 10, 2024. The rule is designed to expand the occurrences of point-of-sale background checks by counting certain private sales as business sales, thereby requiring the transfer to be handled via a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) background check.
Judge Rules USPS Gun Bans Unconstitutional At “Ordinary” Post Offices– www.usacarry.com Source Link Excerpt:
FORT WORTH, TX — A federal judge in the Northern District of Texas has ruled that the long-standing federal ban on firearms inside United States Post Offices and on surrounding postal property is unconstitutional as applied to members of the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and two named Texas plaintiffs.
Chief District Judge Reed O’Connor granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs, striking down 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) and 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l) as applied to the prohibition on carrying firearms for self-defense at what the court defined as ‘ordinary’ post offices.” These are stand-alone post offices not located on military bases or inside multi-use federal facilities that house other government functions where firearms would otherwise be prohibited.
DOJ Sues LA County Sheriff Over Alleged CCW “Slow-Walk,” After 3,982 Applications Yield Just 2 Approvals– www.usacarry.com Source Link Excerpt:
LOS ANGELES, CA – The U.S. Department of Justice filed a civil-rights complaint against the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna, alleging a pattern and practice of effectively denying concealed carry weapon permits by imposing extraordinary delays on applicants.
According to the nine-page complaint filed September 30 in the Central District of California, LASD received 3,982 new CCW applications between January 2024 and March 2025 and approved only two during that period. The filing says applicants waited an average of 281 days just to see their files moved to the next step, with a median delay of 372 days and some waits projected to reach 1,030 days. As of May 8, 2025, 2,768 new applications remained pending, with interviews scheduled as late as November 2026.
The Justice Department argues these delays violate Californians’ Second Amendment rights recognized in Bruen and also flout California’s statutory deadlines that require an initial determination within 90 days and a final decision within 120 days or 30 days after state DOJ results, whichever is later. The lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to force timely, lawful processing of permits.
According to the DOJ complaint, by letter dated March 27, 2025, the Department notified Sheriff Luna that it was opening an investigation into LASD’s practices under 34 U.S.C. § 12601. National outlets likewise reported the department’s core statistics: only two approvals out of nearly 4,000 new applications, with waits commonly stretching many months before any progress.
LASD had not issued a detailed public response at the time of filing, according to early coverage. The complaint names LASD and Sheriff Luna in his official capacity and asks the court for a permanent injunction preventing the department from administering California’s CCW laws in a manner that violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments.
Gun Rights Groups Sue Santa Clara Over $2,000 CCW Costs and Mandatory Psych Exams– www.usacarry.com Source Link Excerpt:
SANTA CLARA, CA — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), the California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA), and several individuals have filed a lawsuit against the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, challenging what they describe as unconstitutional concealed carry permit requirements.
Filed as Blank v. Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department, the case takes aim at both the high costs and the mandatory psychological exam imposed on applicants seeking a concealed carry permit. According to the plaintiffs, the county’s fee structure effectively places the right to carry out of reach for many law-abiding citizens.
“Fees this extreme for the application of a simple permit can only be in place for one reason – to keep the peaceable citizens of Santa Clara from exercising their Second Amendment rights,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. He described the system as a “pay-to-play scheme” that discriminates against those unable to afford the costs.
The complaint alleges that Santa Clara County has created a “wealth qualification” to replace what was once a political patronage system for issuing permits, ultimately suppressing residents’ ability to exercise their constitutional rights.
President Donald Trump’s DOJ argues against Illinois gun ban– www.chicagotribune.com Source Link Excerpt:
President Donald Trump’s Department of Justice weighed in Monday against the ban on high-powered firearms that Illinois and Gov. JB Pritzker passed after the Highland Park Fourth of July mass shooting in 2022 but found itself on the defensive as an appellate court justice grilled an assistant attorney general about whether “facts matter” as she tried to justify the administration’s position.
In arguing before the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, Harmeet Dhillon, the U.S. Justice Department’s assistant attorney general for civil rights, said the nation has a “strong interest” in ensuring that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is “not relegated to a second-class right” and criticized claims from state officials that certain guns covered by the ban are suited more for military operations than routine self-defense.
But Judge Frank Easterbrook interrupted Dhillon early during the five minutes the court allowed her to speak even though the federal government is not a party to the case. Easterbrook noted the legal challenge from state officials resulted from a ruling by a district court in southern Illinois that determined the ban was unconstitutional, while a court in northern Illinois previously ruled a similar ban was legally sound.
“Suppose the (southern Illinois) district court had found every contested issue of fact in favor of the state. Would that affect your review of the statute’s constitutionality?” asked Easterbrook, who was appointed to the bench in the 1980s by Republican President Ronald Reagan.
As Dhillon began answering by saying, “It would not, your honor,” Easterbrook fired back, “So you don’t think the facts matter?”
Fried referenced rising gun violence nationwide, warning that allowing open carry could embolden criminals and cause public confusion. She urged law enforcement to hold off on recognizing the ruling until a final legal judgment is issued. “This is a moment in history when we need to promote safer environments, not embolden those who could abuse the ruling’s intent to sow seeds of terror,” Fried said.
But the argument raises an important question: why would legally allowing open carry embolden criminals? By definition, criminals do not follow the law. Whether open carry is legal or not has little bearing on those already willing to break gun laws. Instead, restrictions primarily affect law-abiding citizens, leaving them with fewer options for exercising their rights.
Florida already allows concealed carry without a permit, so there is no reason to treat open carry any differently. The vast majority of states that permit open carry have not experienced the dire consequences opponents often predict. Instead, these laws simply recognize the rights of responsible citizens and give them the choice of how they carry.
Judge decides Chicago lawsuit against gunmaker can advance– www.chicagotribune.com Source Link Excerpt:
A Cook County judge on Thursday denied motions to dismiss a lawsuit brought last year by the city of Chicago against gun manufacturer Glock and a pair of suburban gun stores.
In a 17-page order, Judge Allen P. Walker wrote, in part, that “a reasonable jury could determine that the design and manufacture of a Glock pistol by Glock Inc., its subsequent sale by Eagle Sports Range and Midwest Sporting Goods, materially contribute to a condition in the City of Chicago that endangers the safety and health of the public.”
“This ruling is a major step towards holding Glock accountable for endangering the residents of our city,” Mayor Brandon Johnson said in a statement.
The city has alleged that Glock willfully ignored design flaws in its handguns that allow for them to be easily turned to fire automatic rounds.
The spike in the use of “auto sears” or “switches” — quarter-size devices affixed to Glock pistols that allow for multiple bullets to be fired with one trigger pull — has exacerbated the city’s entrenched violence problems, city attorneys allege.
The Department of Justice under Donald Trump is floating the idea of banning guns for people who are on “gender affirming” chemical treatment. This follows another mass shooting targeting children by a transgendered person.
DOJ weighs firearm ban for transgenders after Minneapolis shooting– www.theblaze.com Source Link Excerpt:
In the aftermath of the tragic Minneapolis shooting — where two young lives were lost to a violent gunman — Trump’s Department of Justice is considering taking action to stop guns from getting in the hands of transgenders.
The move is being celebrated by conservatives, as the shooter, Robin Westman, was a 23-year-old man who identified as a woman.
One potential avenue could see Trump formally declare that those who identify as transgender are mentally ill and no longer legally allowed to possess firearms.
“Under Attorney General Bondi’s leadership, this Department of Justice is actively considering a range of options to prevent mentally unstable individuals from committing acts of violence, especially at schools,” a spokesman for the DOJ said.
However, while many conservatives believe that transgenderism is a mental illness — they’re not sure that broadly banning guns for any group of people is the right move.
“I read that headline and my knee-jerk reaction is like, good, they shouldn’t have guns. And then I’m like, ah, I don’t know how you do that with the Second Amendment,” BlazeTV host Sara Gonzales says on “Sara Gonzales Unfiltered.”
“I think everyone would agree you don’t want violent, mentally ill people to have firearms,” BlazeTV contributor Grant Stinchfield chimes in. “So we can all agree on that. The problem becomes ‘Who is the decider?’”
“So who decides who’s violently and mentally ill? Because I promise you, Nancy Pelosi is going to say, ‘Well, Stinchfield’s mentally ill because he loves freedom and God and all those things.’ So it’s all in the decider,” he continues.
“Now, transgender certainly … it’s a violent, violent section, mentally ill people, and it is a mental illness. If you think you’re a boy and you don’t have nuts hanging down below you, you’re mentally ill,” he adds.
Gonzales notes that while not all shooters are transgender, transgenders make up such a small percentage of the population and have committed several of the devastating mass shootings in recent years.
“It’s pretty skewed when you look at that,” she says, adding, “And so it’s just hard because you want to prevent this from happening.”
Want more from Sara Gonzales?
To enjoy more of Sara’s no-holds-barred take to news and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.
House Passes Removing Suppressors from NFA by One Vote in 215-214 Decision, Urge Senate to Finish the Job– www.usacarry.com Source Link Excerpt:
In a historic and tightly contested vote, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 1—the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”—by a single vote, 215-214. Included in the bill is the full removal of suppressors from the National Firearms Act (NFA), eliminating the $200 tax and federal registration process that have long restricted suppressor ownership in the United States.
The provision, based on Section 2 of the Hearing Protection Act, removes suppressors from the NFA’s definition of a firearm, and sets the transfer and making tax at $0. If signed into law, this change would make suppressors available through the standard NICS background check system—no more tax stamps, no more ATF registration, and no more months-long wait times.
Final House Vote Breakdown:
Republicans: 215 Yea, 2 Nay, 1 Present, 1 Not Voting
Permitless carry is the law, to some degree or another, in 29 states. In the South, only Virginia and North Carolina still require permits. Virginia is a state that swings harder than a screen door in a tornado, but North Carolina tends to be a little better than that.
Earlier this year, they passed permitless carry. The state’s Democratic governor, unsurprisingly, vetoed it. Now, they’re using their power to balance the authority of the executive branch to overturn that.
Gun safety advocates gathered last week to highlight the threat of constitutional carry ahead of a potential veto override of Senate Bill 50 from the state legislature, a bill allowing concealed carry without permits.
Senate Bill 50 would allow North Carolinians above the age of 18 to carry concealed, loaded handguns without a permit, a change from the current system that requires background checks, safety training, and live-fire training.
Democratic Gov. Josh Stein vetoed the measure on June 20. But when the Senate returned to Raleigh in July, lawmakers overrode Stein’s veto.
In order to override a veto, three-fifths of each chamber must approve.
Now, it’s all up to the House, where Republicans are one vote short of a supermajority. With legislators coming back to town on Tuesday, SB 50 remains on the calendar and it’s possible the lower chamber will take up the bill if Republicans think the votes are there to override Stein’s veto.
…
On Friday, North Carolinians Against Gun Violence and concerned community members spoke at Strategic Tactics Of Protection LLC (STOP) against the bill.
“More people will die in NC if the House overrides Gov. Stein’s veto. The Senate already has,” Becky Ceartas, executive director of North Carolinians Against Gun Violence, said. “We cannot let this happen. Too much is at stake. Lives are on the line.”
President Donald Trump’s sweeping law-and-order crackdown in Washington, D.C., is delivering a major win for law-abiding residents seeking the right to protect themselves.
The president’s Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful Task Force has slashed the city’s concealed carry and firearm registration wait times from months down to mere days, all without changing local gun laws.
The task force, created via Trump’s March executive order to revitalize the capital, worked directly with local officials to streamline the process for residents navigating the District’s notoriously strict firearms system.
A newly submitted Senate amendment aims to reverse a key victory for gun owners: the elimination of the $200 tax on National Firearms Act (NFA) items. Senate Amendment 2973, introduced by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), would raise the tax on NFA-regulated firearms such as suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns to $4,709 — even though Congress recently reduced the same tax to $0 in the One, Big, Beautiful Bill (OBBB).
How the NFA Tax Was Lowered to $0
The reduction was part of a carefully structured reconciliation effort that unfolded over months. Lawmakers originally intended to include the full Hearing Protection Act (HPA) and SHORT Act in the OBBB, which would have fully removed suppressors and other NFA items from regulation. However, because reconciliation rules limit what types of provisions can be included, particularly under the Senate’s Byrd Rule, much of the original repeal language was excluded.
Instead, the House and Senate agreed on a strategy to zero out the NFA tax via a tax-focused provision. This change was upheld by the Senate Parliamentarian and supported by Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD), who declined to override the Parliamentarian’s rulings throughout the process. The bill passed both chambers, and President Donald Trump signed it into law on July 4, 2025.
