That America is an exceptional nation is unclear only to one who has not been taught its true history. It ceases to be exceptional only when its representative leaders cease to be exceptional. America, it has been said, is a nation of laws, not of men. The more it becomes a nation of men, the less it remains America.
-Ron Brackin

On Building Guns, Difficulty or Ease is Irrelevant, Only Our Rights Matter

There’s been a push this year, especially, to try and step in the way of people who want to use a 3D printer to make their own firearms. Some states have banned so-called ghost guns entirely, but others are also trying to tell printer manufacturers that they can’t sell their products in those states unless they include software in the printers that bars it from making certain shaped parts entirely.

And, there’s a problem with that. Being able to make your own firearm is something Americans have been able to do since well before the Boston Massacre. It’s something we continued to be able to do until very recently. It wasn’t until a politician stood up before the press, panicking because “ghost guns” were a thing, and we just couldn’t have that.

A recent story I came across that was looking at the state-level restrictions on printers, though, started off by really kind of highlighting what the issue really does seem to boil down to.

For decades, making an untraceable firearm required specialized tools, technical expertise and hours of work.

Today, it can start with a downloaded file and a consumer-grade 3D printer.

As advances in additive manufacturing, commonly known as 3D printing, make it easier to produce firearms at home, lawmakers in a growing number of states are pursuing new restrictions specifically for 3D-printed guns. That rapidly evolving category of weapons can be manufactured from digital blueprints and often lack serial numbers used by law enforcement to trace firearms.

The implication here is clear: these guns are way too easy to make for them to be permitted.

First, let’s understand something. Nearly a decade ago, I wrote about P.A. Luty and his wonderful little book that took fairly common tools and hardware store parts to build a submachine gun. It never required specialized tools or particular expertise. Hell, making an “untraceable” gun was as simple as scratching out the serial number, if we’re being honest.

Still, let’s also understand something else. At no point in time did the ease or difficulty in building a gun have any bearing at all on whether someone has the right to build a gun on their own.

As noted already, we had this right and the legal ability to exercise it for centuries. Many of the guns on Revolutionary War battlefields two and a half centuries ago were made in someone’s home workshop. They bought parts from gunsmiths, the ones they couldn’t replicate, then did much of the other work themselves to build rifles that were not just functional, but some are works of art.

While the skills to do so might not be as common today as they were then, it wasn’t considered some esoteric skillset, either. Many farmers and others in rural communities know how to work the wood, do some metalworking, and build themselves a functional gun with a few parts from the big city.

Over time, things get easier. At the time of the nation’s founding, farming was a small operation. Farms didn’t tend to have more cultivated land than the farmer and his family and/or farmhands could work. Weavers used small looms and made cloth by hand. Blacksmiths made tools and hardware like nails one piece at a time, taking up valuable time to produce products. Gunsmiths had to do much of the work for a single firearm one piece at a time, as well.

When the Industrial Revolution came about, it changed all of that. Suddenly, nails could be made in massive lots. Cloth could be woven by the mile. Farms saw mechanization that allowed a single farmer to handle much more acreage than he could have dreamed before. Things got easier.

The 3D printer has taken the concept of an individual being able to make his own firearm and, like the advancements of years gone by, made it easier for everyday people to take advantage of something that was always legal for them to do, and that is what really bothers the anti-gunners.

On the same token, though, that shouldn’t matter.

Do we suddenly decide that free speech is irrelevant now that we can easily communicate with millions with a few strokes on a keyboard? Does freedom of the press stop working because someone can create a blog or Substack at home in their underwear and become a journalist? Obviously not, and in that same spirit, the difficulty or ease of making a gun isn’t relevant, either.

And considering how few are used in crimes even today, that there’s no evidence that they increase crime, and that the Founding Fathers thought nothing at all negative about people making firearms for themselves, it’s well past time for these states to step the hell off and accept that our rights don’t stop existing just because they don’t like them.

At the end of the day, our rights are what they are. It’s up to states like California to learn to accept this as fact and move on.

Jonathan Goldstein: The facts we’re ignoring that can combat gun crime

“There were never any signs.”

“We never saw this coming.”

“No one thought he would do something like this.”

Oftentimes when we hear news of a shooting, it’s accompanied by reflections of those who believed the shooter never showed any signs of violence.

And while there certainly are some cases in which this holds true, in many — many — instances, the signs were there all along.

As the firearms debate continues to rage, with anti-gun politicians working to increase gun restrictions while pro-Second Amendment advocates labor to preserve constitutional rights, looking beyond soundbites to the facts is critical.

And the fact is that when it comes to gun violence, data show us that we actually largely know who kills and assaults with firearms.

The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy provided a staggering snapshot: Even though only 15 percent of Americans over 15 years old have arrest records, approximately 90 percent of those who kill as adults have adult arrest records, “with an average adult criminal career [involving crimes committed as an adult rather than a child] of six or more years, including four major adult felony arrests.

In other words, murder is rarely — rarely — a first criminal offense. And nearly all perpetrators are already having significant interactions with the criminal justice system before they kill.

Put more pointedly, we have our hands on those who kill on average four or more times for a major felony of some sort before they murder.

Here’s something else we know from the same Harvard journal piece: “Insofar as studies focus on perpetrators, they show that neither a majority, nor many, nor virtually any murderers are ordinary ‘law abiding citizens.’”

And yet, in the name of reducing gun violence, anti-gun pundits and politicians often advocate for regulations targeting law abiding citizens. And then when these don’t work, they advocate for more restrictions targeting law abiding citizens.

Here’s something even more that we know—this from an article in the University of Chicago Journal of Law and Economics: “Shooters … tend to demonstrate ‘poor aggression control, impulsiveness, alcoholism, willingness to take risks, and sensation seeking.” Further, “Shooters tend to be between the ages of 15–24 and from low-income families.”

And in many cases, shooters have past experiences being placed outside the home in child welfare settings.

Now let me be clear, this is not to impugn low-income families or our child welfare system or the children impacted by it. To the contrary, these are our fellow Americans who are facing or have faced trials and suffering that we as a society should want to alleviate and work to alleviate.

Instead, what this information does — if we will pay attention — is offer a roadmap for addressing gun violence before it happens.

Here’s what actually works:

First, we must be willing to identify factors exhibited by individuals that suggest they might commit gun violence. These include individuals with multiple prior felony arrests or individuals demonstrating poor aggression control and with a history of police interactions.

And second, we must properly resource the intervention modalities that help our fellow Americans who are suffering and display predictive behaviors before they commit gun crimes.

Contrary to ineffective efforts to make illegal that which already is illegal, policymakers must focus on what actually works.

This would not only protect the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, but it would also redirect those who may choose violent crime toward a better path and deliver effective solutions that ultimately protect lives.

Jonathan Goldstein is a founding partner of Goldstein Law Partners and also owns a number of small manufacturing companies across Pennsylvania. He is a Board Member of the National Rifle Association but wrote this piece in his individual capacity. 

Sometimes it makes you wonder if the DOJ’s Right hand knows what the Left hand is doing.

Supreme Court shrugs off DOJ appeal over gun rights for nonviolent felon

The Supreme Court refused Monday to step into a high-stakes battle over whether nonviolent felons can be banned from owning guns for life, letting a lower court victory stand for a Mississippi man who lost his firearm rights over back child support.

By declining to hear the Department of Justice’s appeal, the high court left intact a ruling by the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court had overturned the conviction of Edwardham Cockerham, who pleaded guilty to violating a federal law that prohibits felons from possessing firearms.

Cockerham challenged the law after his conviction, arguing that a lifetime ban for a nonviolent offense violated his Second Amendment rights. U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho agreed, drawing a sharp distinction between violent criminals and debtors based on historical context.

“The Government analogizes failure to pay child support to theft. But during the Founding era, thieves were treated differently from debtors,” Ho wrote in the 5th Circuit’s opinion. “Thieves were subject to permanent disarmament. Debtors were not. Debtors could be imprisoned, and thus temporarily disarmed.”

Ho noted that debtors were released from prison once their debts were paid, adding that the government acknowledged Cockerham was no longer delinquent on his child support when he was caught with a firearm. “Cockerham’s conviction under §922(g)(1) violates the Second Amendment,” Ho concluded.

The Justice Department routinely defends existing federal laws regardless of internal policy views, a standard practice highlighted by officials. Harmeet Dhillon, Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, noted in an interview with the Daily Caller News Foundation that policy debates belong in the legislature.

“I understand people have policy differences with DOJ’s enforcement of federal laws, but, in my opinion, and I’ve said this to many gun groups, the appropriate place to launch those policy discussions is in Congress, not with us,” Dhillon said. “We have, I mean, not me, but other people in this building regularly respond to all kinds of litigation on behalf of the United States where I don’t necessarily agree with what we’re defending.”

Legal experts tracking gun rights cases viewed the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case as a potential signal of its current legal direction, particularly following its 2024 ruling in United States v. Rahimi.

“SAF was happy to hear the Supreme Court declined to review this case, as the Fifth Circuit reached the correct ruling: dangerousness must be the standard for disarmament, and many nonviolent felons are not dangerous,” Konstadinos Moros, Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation, told the DCNF. “That includes Mr. Cockerham, whose crime was failing to pay child support.”

However, Moros cautioned against reading too much into the Supreme Court’s procedural move.

“To be clear, the Supreme Court refusing to review a particular case does not necessarily mean the Court agrees with the lower court’s decision, so we should not treat this as definitive,” Moros said. “Still, it is a possible sign that the high court is sticking closely to what it decided in Rahimi — actual dangerousness is required to deny a citizen their Second Amendment rights. The upcoming ruling in US v. Hemani should shed more light on this.”

More clarity on the court’s stance may emerge soon. The Supreme Court is currently weighing United States v. Hemani, a separate case out of the 5th Circuit involving a federal ban on firearm possession by drug users or addicts. The justices heard oral arguments in that case in March, and a decision is expected shortly.

Virginia judge shuts down universal gun background checks bill

A judge has shot down Democrats’ attempt to implement universal background checks for gun purchases in Virginia.

Virginia’s battle over gun violence prevention and gun control laws is as heated as it’s ever been now that the courts are hearing challenges to new laws passed by Democrats.

“It was a historical session for gun violence prevention,” said Del. Garrett McGuire, a Democrat from Fairfax County.

McGuire just had his universal background checks bill shot down by a judge in Lynchburg.

The bill required Virginia State Police to conduct background checks and provide criminal history records for private gun sales as well as restricting handgun purchases by teenagers.

Two gun rights groups, Gun Owners of America and Virginia Citizens Defense League, sued and won.

“One of the key reasons that the universal background checks law was unconstitutional is that it denied 18 to 20 year olds the ability to buy a handgun. Period,” said Philip Van Cleave with the Virginia Citizens Defense League.

More than 20 states and D.C. currently have some form of universal background check requirement in place, according to the Giffords Center for Violence Prevention. Virginia passed a similar law in 2020. A judge ruled against it in October.

Then the General Assembly passed a new version of the law this year. But last week, the same judge upheld their previous ruling, striking down the law.

McGuire said he championed this bill, in part, because he was a student at Virginia Tech during the campus shooting in 2007.

“Nineteen years later, I find myself in the House of Delegates still asking some of the same questions that we asked right after that shooting, including why is there a loophole in our code that allows criminals to purchase firearms?” he said.

Following the court’s ruling last week, Virginia State Police issued a notice saying the department was “prohibited from administering, enforcing, or otherwise imposing” universal background checks and that VSP “currently cannot provide criminal history background checks for the private sale of firearms.”

More than 90% of Americans support universal background checks, according to gun violence prevention group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Chris Stone with Gun Owners of America said they’re unconstitutional.

“There’s instances where people need a firearm, and they get held up in a waiting period program,” he said. “Or even if there isn’t a waiting period, their name comes back as a false positive in the NICS system.”

When asked how can people with past violent offences or mental health conditions be prevented from buying guns if there’s no background check, Stone said, “Well, ironically what that shows is that the system itself doesn’t work.”

This likely isn’t the last legal action on Virginia’s universal background checks, and gun rights groups have more gun safety laws in their sights, with additional legal challenges on the way.

Virginia’s Democratic majority also passed an assault weapons ban that goes into effect next month. This Friday, gun rights groups are challenging that law in court, too.

Justice Department investigating Philadelphia for possible Second Amendment violations in gun permitting process

The City of Philadelphia and its police department are under a federal investigation for possible violations of the Second Amendment, the Justice Department announced Tuesday.

The investigation is focused on the Philadelphia Police Department’s policies and practices for issuing and revoking gun permits, and the standards used to cancel permits to carry firearms, DOJ said in a news release. The investigation is being handled by the Second Amendment Section of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

DOJ said Philadelphia police may be using a “good cause” standard — which the department called “vague, personal discretion” — when deciding whether or not to issue or revoke someone’s gun permit.

Where the investigation stands

Harmeet Dhillon, the assistant attorney general in charge of the Civil Rights Division, sent a letter to Mayor Cherelle Parker and other city officials, including Police Commissioner Kevin Bethel on Tuesday announcing the investigation.

The Second Amendment Section will seek to interview city and PPD officials, and people who have interacted with PPD in the past.

If the investigation finds the city committed Second Amendment violations, the city could then make a deal with the DOJ and establish a plan to remedy the violations, Dhillon wrote. If there’s no resolution, the city could face litigation in federal court.

CBS News Philadelphia has reached out to Parker’s office for comment, and we will update this story when we hear back.

What is the “good cause” standard?

The terms “good cause” or “proper cause” refer to gun laws across the nation that require applicants for gun permits to prove or demonstrate a need to protect themselves.

In 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the “proper cause” standard when it ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen — a case commonly abbreviated as “Bruen.”

The Problem with California’s Proposed Training Requirement for Gun Purchases

The first bit of advice any new gun owner is likely to receive is that they should go out and seek training on how to handle their firearm safely. It’s not about tactical excellence or anything like that; it’s about making sure they don’t hurt themselves or someone else because they didn’t know what they were doing with the weapon in their hands. That’s avoidable, and we absolutely should continue to tell people to get proper training.

But, as with most things involving firearms, there’s a difference between good advice and the government deciding to mandate something.

There’s a bill under consideration in California that would mandate training prior to gun purchases.

Buying a gun in California could soon require more than passing a written test.

State lawmakers are advancing a bill, Senate Bill 948, that would require firearm buyers to complete a four-hour safety training course, including live-fire exercises at a shooting range.

California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Before buying a firearm, gun owners must pass a written safety test to obtain a firearm safety certificate.

Luis Lopez, a new gun owner, said the proposed law would add another hurdle for people trying to legally purchase a firearm.

“There’s more fees. When you purchase ammo, every year it’s a little bit more, so I feel like they’re just making it a little bit more difficult,” Lopez said.

He said the four-hour training requirement feels unnecessary.

“Those four hours to take that is just a countermeasure, just to make it harder for people to own a gun,” Lopez said.

Supporters argue more training could help prevent accidents involving children and inexperienced gun owners. State Sen. Jesse Arreguin, who is spearheading the bill, said California has strong gun safety laws but does not currently require firearm training for buyers.

“We have some of the strongest firearm safety laws in California, but unlike other states, including Maryland and Hawaii, we don’t have any requirements on training,” Arreguin said.

It would also require gun owners moving into the state to undergo the training course, too.

Now, the original plan was an eight-hour course, which has now been reduced, but that’s not really germane in and of itself. No, what’s germane are the issues with any training mandate handed down by a governmental authority.

First, owning a firearm is a constitutionally protected right. In no other case is it considered acceptable to mandate training prior to people exercising a right protected in the Constitution. You don’t have to undergo training or testing to become a member of the press. The state does not get to mandate a particular training course in order to become a member of the clergy. You don’t have to take a class in California before you can register to vote or to hold a protest.

Nowhere else is a right limited to those who have completed a state-required course of instruction.

Plus, does anyone not see how this could be abused? Right now, the bill calls for a four-hour class. Originally, it required eight hours. That tells me that this is being discussed not as the amount of time needed to convey a particular set of information, but based on how much of an inconvenience they figure they can get away with.

Once the state has mandated training, it’s trivial to increase the length of time that training should take. Both four- and eight-hour classes are inconvenient enough, but it’s still something most people can manage. They might have to take a day off from work to attend the class, but there’s a way to make it work. No, you shouldn’t have to, but it’s still possible.

So then it becomes 16 hours, then 32 hours, then 40, then 80. Then they put a live fire qualification in, where you have to hit a particular score at a particular range, only to raise the score and move the range backward until you’re having to hit something stupidly high at a farther range than you’ll ever actually need, all so they can limit who can buy a gun.

They haven’t banned anything new, and your right to own a gun still exists in theory, but because it’s not realistic for you to meet the qualifications, it’s been essentially stripped in practice.

“But Hawaii and Maryland haven’t done that.”

No, they haven’t done it yet. They haven’t done it because they don’t think they could get away with it. The fact of the matter is that if there’s a training mandate on the books, and it’s acceptable to have it, then where would the line be drawn between an acceptable level of training and too much?

Plus, again, it’s not something we mandate for any other right protected by the Constitution, so why would it ever be acceptable here? Unless, of course, one wants to concede that the Second Amendment really is a second-class right.

Do that, though, and I’ll tell you to show your work that it was intended to be any such thing.