

If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else?— Ronald Reagan
June 17, 2026
Virginia Gun Ban Lawsuit Argues Banned Arms Are Militia Arms
While four Second Amendment-based cases challenging Virginia’s semiautomatic gun and magazine ban are on hold pending a decision by a three-judge panel on whether they should be consolidated, another case, taking a different approach, is still “scheduled to be argued next Wednesday, June 17th at 9am,” Counsel for Plaintiffs Kenneth T. Cuccinelli stated in a June 10 “Non-client specific case update” email.
The Curtis v. Katz complaint, filed in the Circuit Court of the County of Spotsylvania, asks for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against SB 749 / HB 217 because the “ban provisions of the Act violate the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia.”
That’s where the important difference from the other challenges comes in:
“Plaintiffs challenge these prohibitions solely under the militia clause of Article I, Section 13 of the Constitution of Virginia. They do not rest their case on the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, nor on the individual right to keep and bear arms also embodied in Article I, Section 13.
Their argument is simpler and more fundamental: the militia clause guarantees the existence of a “well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms.” That guarantee is self-executing.
It necessarily presupposes that the body of the people may acquire and possess the arms with which they must be trained. The General Assembly cannot, consistent with that guarantee, prohibit the body of the people from acquiring the very weapons with which they must be prepared to serve as that militia.”
Simply put, as noted in the Statement of Facts, “The weapons banned by the act are the arms of the citizen militia.”
Along with the update email came a welcome bonus.
“The Commonwealth Attorney Defendant in our case, Ryan Mehaffey, filed a blockbuster brief in our case arguing that WE should get our preliminary injunction,” Cuccinelli informed. “It’s a good piece of work and a very pleasant surprise. I’ve attached it for your reading pleasure (merged in the embed below).
While Mehaffey was named in the complaint because he is the Commonwealth’s Attorney of Spotsylvania County, it should be noted he is one of the brave Virginia prosecutors who has gone on record saying he will not enforce the ban. (While his brief is, indeed, “a good piece of work” his contention that “a sawed off shotgun is not protected because it does not have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia” is historically arguable, as is what some of us might see as overreliance on limiting small arms to those that “are lawfully in common use today,” which suggests bans on machineguns and limiting developing technologies to the standing army would be consistent with Founding intent instead of potentially rendering the Second Amendment moot. That said, the brunt of Mehaffey’s brief is outstanding and educational.)
“I will let you all know if I hear anything about consolidation or our case schedule,” Cuccinelli advised his email recipients. “If you don’t hear from me, that means we’re still on the schedule above.”
Panic Setting In As Administration Moves to Bolster Americans’ Gun Rights Advance.
In the last 17 months, the Trump administration has delivered win after win for the nation’s most ardent gun-rights advocacy groups, chipping away at dozens of federal regulations. While many of these efforts target regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — the law enforcement agency within the Justice Department tasked with regulating the nation’s millions of firearms — the administration’s work stretches across the executive branch.
Supporters of tighter gun restrictions have pilloried the Trump administration, saying officials are acting recklessly and could endanger the public with a wholesale rollback of regulations. But gun rights advocates who portrayed the Biden administration as trampling on the Second Amendment have praised the current administration’s actions as a needed corrective.
Trump vowed on the campaign trail to be a pro-Second Amendment president and pledged that, under his leadership, “no one will lay a finger on your firearms.” He said he would roll back Biden-era ATF regulations and received the backing of the big gun rights groups.
Critics, however, have said that the Trump’s administration’s push to unwind gun regulations contradicts the president’s tough-on-crime political agenda. And, they say, the efforts could make it easier for potentially dangerous people to access firearms. …
[ATF general counsel Robert] Leider has been working on the regulations for more than a year. The plan had been to announce them July 4, 2025, at an Independence Day celebration, The Post previously reported.
But [Acting Attorney General Todd] Blanche has said the proposed changes took longer than expected to complete because lawyers had to scrupulously review them to ensure they passed legal muster. Justice Department officials expect them to face court challenges.
Because the Trump administration is making these changes through the regulatory process — and not by legislation passed in Congress and signed into law — the next administration could reinstate the scrapped rules. The goal, Justice Department officials said, is to ensure that the regulations do not run afoul of laws so that they can remain intact.
“We were very careful on how we did the rules,” Leider said. “Congress has decided that certain people cannot be trusted with firearms. ATF has to enforce those congressional judgments. It is not the agency’s job to amend Congress’s criteria in an effort to predict who will become violent.”
— Perry Stein in Inside the Trump administration’s rapid rollback of gun regulations
God is good. pic.twitter.com/sJnU5kHwOg
— James Woods (@RealJamesWoods) June 16, 2026
Congressional Candidate Brandon Herrera to Address GRPC in September
The Gun Rights Policy Conference (GRPC) planning committee has announced that Second Amendment advocate and Congressional candidate Brandon Herrera will address the crowd at this year’s event.
Co-hosted by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), the 41st annual GRPC is scheduled for Sept. 25 – 27 in Dallas at the Westin Dallas Fort Worth Airport hotel.
After pursuing studies in pre-law, Herrera started a small business in firearms manufacturing. Using his lifelong passion for firearms, he built his business, as well as a large social media following, accumulating over half a billion views using entertainment to promote firearm safety and Second Amendment advocacy. Herrera has become a leader in the industry and continues to work with pro-freedom groups both in the Second Amendment and America First communities and is an advocate for our military and veterans.
In addition to Herrera, other GRPC speakers include:
- Robert Cekada, Director of the ATF
- Robert Leider, ATF Chief Counsel, Office of Chief Counsel
- Jared Yanis, host of Guns & Gadgets YouTube channel
- Joseph Greenlee, Director of the Office of Litigation Counsel at the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action
- Kenyon Gleason, president of National Association of Sporting Goods Wholesalers
- Shermichael Singleton, political consultant, television anchor, CNN analyst
- Jeff Folloder, Executive Director, NFA Trade and Collectors Association
- Chris Boeck, General Counsel and Chief Legal Officer at Silencer Shop
- Fernando Nava, Second Amendment advocate and owner of Rusty Wheel Ranch
- Cam Edwards, editor of BearingArms.com and host of Cam & Company podcast
- John Petrolino, writer, firearms instructor, and author of Decoding Firearms: An Easy to Read Guide on Basic Gun Safety & Use
- And many more!
The full GRPC agenda is guaranteed to be packed with leading 2A experts, legal minds, and grassroots advocates – all working together to protect and strengthen our Second Amendment rights. In addition to GRPC, registrants also have the unique opportunity to take part in AMM-Con, Friday’s pre-conference event. Scheduled for Friday, Sept. 25, AMM-Con is a gathering of some of the top Second Amendment media who provide educational presentations about all things related to 2A media.
Visit SAF.org/grpc for registration and hotel information.
West Virginia Carry Reforms Improve 2A Rights for Young Adults
When it comes to the right to keep and bear arms, West Virginia is by far the best Virginia. While Democrats in Richmond have imposed more than a dozen anti-gun measures on residents this year, the GOP-dominated legislature in Charleston continues to advance Second Amendment rights. As of last Friday, adults under the age of 21 can now lawfully carry without the need for a permit, making West Virginia a true Constitutional Carry state.
House Bill 4106 sailed through the legislature, passing the House on an 85-8 vote and the Senate 31-3. Still, the legislation had some critics during a public hearing earlier this year.
During a Senate Judiciary Committee meeting in March, Dr. Jim McJunkin said firearms are the leading cause of death for children and adolescents in the United States. He said expanding permitless carry to younger adults creates concerns because of impulsive behavior, risk-taking and the potential for substance abuse.
Supporters of the bill argued that it applies to law-abiding adults and could help people protect themselves.
Art Thomm of the West Virginia Citizens Defense League told lawmakers that similar concerns have been raised during previous debates on the issue, but said the legislation applies to adults who follow the law.
McJunkin’s statistic is only accurate if you ignore every death of a child under the age of 1 and expand the definition of adolescent to include adults 18 and 19-years-old. In fact, as the Washington Post(!) reported last year, traffic fatalities are the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 1 and 15, not firearms.
Does that actually bolster McJunkin’s argument that young adults are too impulsive to exercise their Second Amendment rights? I don’t think so. Less than 1% of the population of adults under the age of 21 are going to be the victims or perpetrators of “gun violence,” and to me it makes no sense to strip away the Second Amendment rights of 100% of young adults in an attempt to reduce harm among 1% of them.
Targeted enforcement and educational efforts aimed at those young adults would be a much smarter option, in my opinion. I’d like to see West Virginia sheriffs offer free basic gun safety courses for new gun owners, including adults under 21. West Virginia is also a campus carry state, so offering those courses on the campuses of the state’s colleges and universities would be a good idea as well.
I’m not opposed to firearms training at all, but I don’t think that any right should come with a training mandate. Give these young adults (and other new gun owners) options to get educated and trained on the basics of responsible gun ownership and carrying, and many of them will take advantage of those opportunities. And in West Virginia, a fair number of these young adults have grown up in gun-owning households. They’ve been taught gun safety and responsible gun ownership from an early age, so they’re not just picking up a gun and deciding to carry it while remaining totally ignorant of the basic rules of gun handling.
HB 4106 is a big step forward, and one that’s all the more important given the regression in 2A rights taking place in neighboring Virginia. I applaud the West Virginia legislature and Gov. Patrick Morrisey for strengthening the right to keep and bear arms in the Volunteer State, and I hope that other states will soon follow their example.


You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you.
— Niccolo Machiavelli
June 16, 2026
U.S. District Judge Vacates the Biden ATF ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule
U.S. District Judge Vacates the Biden ATF ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule
Biden ATF’s “Engaged in the Business” rule was vacated Friday by U.S. District Court Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk in a case brought by Gun Owners of America.
Kacsmaryk noted that Gun Owners of America and their fellow plaintiffs “succeeded on the merits of their claims, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, against the challenged Final Rule: Definition of ‘Engaged in the Business’ as a Dealer in Firearms.”
He noted, “The Final Rule is therefore VACATED.”
Moreover, Kacsmaryk ruled that the ATF “may not apply the Final Rule to anyone–including individuals and organizations who are parties to…[the GOA’s] case.”
On May 14, 2023, Breitbart News reported that former President Biden asked Attorney General Merrick Garland to act where Congress had not and take the U.S. “as close as possible” to universal background checks. The ‘Engaged in the Business Rule,’ challenged in the aforementioned lawsuit by GOA, was the result.
That rule is now vacated.
Safe and sound at home again, let the waters roar, Jack.
Don’t forget yer old shipmate, faldee raldee raldee rye-eye-doe!
The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed. — Alexander Hamilton
Let us contemplate our forefathers, and posterity, and resolve to maintain the rights bequeathed to us from the former, for the sake of the latter. The necessity of the times, more than ever, calls for our utmost circumspection, deliberation, fortitude, and perseverance. Let us remember that `if we suffer tamely a lawless attack upon our liberty, we encourage it, and involve others in our doom.’ It is a very serious consideration…that millions yet unborn may be the miserable sharers of the event.
–Samuel Adams, 1771
We stand equally against government by a plutocracy and government by a mob.
– Theodore Roosevelt
June 13, 2026
Brady Hopping Mad That Feds Won’t Violate Federal Law to Further Their Name-And-Shame Campaign.
The Brady gun control group is hopping mad that their “name-and-shame” charade no longer enjoys government support. They’re so mad, in fact, the group is suing to force the Department of Justice and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to violate federal law, risk law enforcement safety and release data so they can twist a media narrative to falsely accuse firearm retailers for the criminal misuse of firearms.
Brady filed a lawsuit at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to force the DOJ and ATF to answer their Freedom of Information Act request for information surrounding the Demand Letter 2 Program. That program, begun during the antigun Clinton administration, requires firearm retailers to provide additional information to the ATF when 25 or more firearms are traced back to them subsequent to the recovery at a crime scene and the time from retail sale to trace is three years or less (what ATF calls “time-to-crime”) in a calendar year.
This information is protected from public release, and for good reason. The Tiahrt rider, which has been reauthorized by Congress since it was passed in 2003, restricts public access to sensitive, law enforcement-only firearm tracing data. This restriction is supported by Congress, ATF and law enforcement groups such as the Fraternal Order of Police because it secures sensitive tracing information which would jeopardize ongoing criminal investigations and put the lives of law enforcement officers, cooperating retailers and witnesses at risk.
Brady would rather have their media “name-and-shame” narrative instead of protecting the lives of law enforcement investigating illegal firearm trafficking cases.
Protecting Against Abuse, Law Enforcement Lives
Former ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan wrote of the importance of safeguarding firearm trace data and not using this information as a political football.
