The fact that governments have become accustomed to violating the rights of citizens does not bootstrap those violations into Constitutionality.
-Alan Gottlieb in an amicus brief to SCOTUS
November 9, 2026
The question in 1788 was not whether Americans needed arms. It was who would hold them.
At Virginia’s ratifying convention, Patrick Henry refused to treat congressional management as the same thing as the people keeping their own arms:
“Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
— Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788 (3 Elliot’s Debates 386)
If defense is the reason, the people’s own hands are the safest place for those arms.
“The wise and the good never form the majority of any large society and it seldom happens that their measures are uniformly adopted…”
– John Jay
November 8, 2026
Liberal Gun Owner Worries Politicians He Just Elected Might Enact New Gun Control Laws.
I was wondering if anybody that’s more politically savvy than I am knows of any upcoming or planned gun restrictions either state or federally because of our massive win yesterday?
Are there any states that you expect to have a stricter gun control now that the Republicans are out? Do you think the numbers exist to push federal gun control measures?
Do you think the NFA windfall a few months ago will be repealed? Are there any specific gun control measures that you hear people talking about a lot that you think will be pushed?
Thank you. I’m just a little concerned that this might end up being a bittersweet victory as far as our second amendment rights are concerned.
— u/chooseausername69251 in Should we expect new gun control?
Brady Claims Midterm Gun Control Mandate. Voter Polling Tells a Different Story.
The Brady Campaign wasted little time claiming the Nov. 3 midterm elections as a gun control victory. In a Nov. 4 social media post, the organization proclaimed that Americans across party lines want leaders who prioritize public safety and reject the Trump administration’s so-called “guns everywhere” agenda.
With Democrats winning control of both chambers of Congress, Brady celebrated what it described as “gun violence prevention majorities” and called for action. The problem with that claim is there’s no evidence to show that’s what voters wanted.
Voter Priorities
An October Pew Research Center survey found that 84 percent of registered voters considered the economy very important to their congressional vote. The future of democracy followed at 73 percent, healthcare at 68 percent and education at 62 percent.
Gun policy (as a broad category) ranked 10th among 16 issues surveyed, with 45 percent calling it very important. That was down from 57 percent in a comparable October 2022 survey.
The contrast was particularly revealing among voters supporting Democrat congressional candidates. Just 40 percent considered gun control very important, compared with 88 percent for the economy and 82 percent for healthcare.
An NPR/PBS News/Marist poll reinforced those priorities. Asked to identify their most pressing election issue, 34 percent of likely voters selected the cost of living and 33 percent chose preserving democracy.
And when registered voters were asked whether protecting gun ownership rights or passing stricter gun control laws should take priority, the results were closely divided. Of those surveyed, 46 percent favored protecting gun ownership rights and 49 percent favored stricter laws.
Those findings complicate Brady’s assertion that election results demonstrate a broad, bipartisan demand for its policy agenda.
NSSF recently reported that organizations — including Everytown for Gun Safety — invested heavily in the midterms. Their involvement demonstrates political influence, but campaign spending, voter contacts and endorsements alone cannot establish why individual voters cast their ballots.
Campaign Threats
Michigan offers an especially consequential example of why election victories should not be confused with endorsements of every position held by a successful candidate.
Democrat Abdul El-Sayed defeated former Republican U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers for Michigan’s open U.S. Senate seat. His campaign focused heavily on healthcare, affordability and corporate influence.
But in an April 2023 video, El-Sayed proposed replacing the Second Amendment with a constitutional right to healthcare.
The video was subsequently removed from public view. When the remarks resurfaced, El-Sayed’s spokesperson said he respected the Second Amendment. Yet when asked in August whether he still favored replacing the constitutional protection, El-Sayed instead argued that more Americans were concerned about seeing a doctor than owning a firearm.
That response presents healthcare and the Second Amendment as competing priorities. They are not mutually exclusive. Americans can advocate expanded healthcare access while maintaining constitutional protections for lawful firearm ownership.
The U.S. Supreme Court’s Heller decision affirmed that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. Replacing that protection would require a constitutional amendment, including ratification by three-fourths of the states. A single senator cannot amend the U.S. Constitution.
Nevertheless, El-Sayed’s election gives him a future vote on firearm legislation and federal judicial confirmations. His previous statements are relevant to understanding how he may approach those responsibilities.
NSSF detailed the stakes in Michigan before Election Day, including proposed restrictions affecting lawful firearm owners, retailers and manufacturers.
Gun Ownership Up, Crime Down
Firearm ownership and crime statistics present another important distinction between gun control messaging and measurable public safety outcomes.
According to NSSF’s January 2026 firearm production report, an estimated 506.1 million firearms were in civilian possession based on historical data through 2023. NSSF also estimates that 26.2 million Americans became first-time firearm owners between 2020 and 2024. Those estimates reflect the enormous scale of lawful civilian firearm ownership in the United States.
Meanwhile, the FBI’s 2025 national crime statistics recorded the largest annual decline in the violent crime rate since national estimates began in 1936. Violent crime fell 9.3 percent from 2024 to 2025. Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter declined 18.1 percent, while robbery dropped 18.5 percent. The murder rate fell to 4.1 per 100,000 residents, tying the lowest rate recorded by the FBI.
Those figures do not prove that firearm ownership caused crime to decline, just as a national decline cannot establish that any particular gun control law produced the improvement. Firearms do not independently commit crimes. Criminals who misuse them bear responsibility for their actions, and effective public safety policy must account for the conduct of violent offenders. That includes examining how criminals illegally acquire firearms, enforcing laws against straw purchasing and trafficking and addressing the causes of violent crime.
NSSF’s Real Solutions. Safer Communities® campaign, which includes Don’t Lie for the Other GuyTM, FixNICS® and Operation Secure Store®, addresses specific public safety concerns through illegal-purchase prevention, improved background-check records and firearm retailer security.
Brady’s blustering about a gun control mandate is not much more than hot air. The available polling establishes a more complicated picture of the electorate than a single-issue mandate. Election victories establish who will govern. They do not, by themselves, establish why Americans voted or which firearm restrictions they want enacted.
The sad and tragic fact is that the civil rights movement, despite its honorable and courageous past, has over the years degenerated into a demagogic hustle, promoting the mindless racism they once fought against.
-Thomas Sowell
November 7, 2026
Marine veteran working security hailed as hero after stopping active shooter at Florida Citibank campus
John Fraley took a tactical position and shot Jacob Pearson five times after Pearson killed a worker at the Brandon, Florida, campus
A Florida Marine veteran was credited Thursday as a hero for fatally shooting a gunman who drove onto a Citibank Center campus and began hunting down workers in anger over a delinquent $2,500 credit card bill, officials said.
During a press briefing detailing the tragedy, Hillsborough County Sheriff Chad Chronister identified the security officer as John Fraley, who confronted 35-year-old Jacob Pearson inside the corporate setting just after he shot and killed a female Citibank employee.
“He is an individual that’s afforded an opportunity to carry a firearm because the ones who were either previous law enforcement or military and have that training. Citibank empowers them to carry a handgun,” Chronister said.
“He didn’t have to stop. He could have run and protected his own life, too. He took up a tactical position when he saw the suspect coming and made a decision.”
Newly released body camera footage shows Hillsborough County deputies responding to a deadly shooting at a Citibank campus in Brandon, Fla., Wednesday. (The Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office)
“That decision put his own life at risk to stop that shooter from harming anyone else,” he added.
Pearson was married and had a 7-year-old child, the sheriff said.
He became violent upon receiving a court summons regarding a $2,500 delinquent debt owed to Citibank, the sheriff said. Furious over the court notice, Pearson called an attorney’s office contracted by the bank for collections around 9 a.m. Wednesday.
He allegedly made violent threats to the attorney’s office over the phone before leaving his Orlando home.
SOP for demoncraps
The Democrat-Controlled Congress Is Gunning for the Second Amendment
Democrat Jamie Raskin is vowing that his party will push a universal gun registry as a “top priority” for the new Congress. So much for affordability, folks.
An upbeat Jamie Raskin moved closer Tuesday to becoming the first Marylander in nearly 200 years to chair the U.S. House Judiciary Committee.
From that perch, he said, he would try to close gun-sale loopholes, scrutinize antitrust deals and — perhaps — pursue another impeachment of President Donald Trump….
As chair, Raskin said his priorities would include legislation requiring background checks on private gun sales, not just purchases from licensed dealers. Republicans have argued that such bills are unnecessarily restrictive on hobbyists and people selling firearms to their friends or from their personal collections.
It’s not constitutional, of course, but Democrats do not care.
They sure are.
A registry — which is what would happen by requiring background checks on private sales — is the first step to wholesale gun confiscation.
Our grocery bills are lower.
As many as you can afford.
“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is a force, like fire: a dangerous servant and a terrible master.”
– George Washington
November 6, 2026
BREAKING: Harmeet Dhillon Reportedly Leaving DOJ’s Civil Rights Division
Today, I accepted the resignation of Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon, who led the Civil Rights Division with conviction the past 18 months. She has defended the civil liberties of every American and enforced the law without fear or favor. The Department is grateful for her dedicated public service, and we wish her every success in her future endeavors.
— Attorney General Todd Blanche (@AGToddBlanche) November 5, 2026
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who heads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division and oversees its Second Amendment Section, is reportedly leaving her position.
According to Fox News, Dhillon’s resignation has already taken place, while Reuters reports her departure is “imminent.” Either way, her exit could have a huge impact on the number of pattern and practice lawsuits that the Civil Rights Division has brought against state and local governments alleging violations of the Second Amendment.
So far there’s no word if any of the attorneys in the Second Amendment Section will be departing as well. The chief of the division is attorney Barry Arrington, who worked extensively with National Association for Gun Rights before accepting a position at DOJ earlier this year. Second Amendment litigator Stephen Stamboulieh also joined the section in recent months, and if the one or both of these attorneys head for the exits as well it would leave an even bigger hole in the DOJ’s efforts to defend the right to keep and bear arms.
The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division never brought any legal challenges against gun control laws until Dhillon was appointed to lead it last year. It’s unclear who Attorney General Todd Blanche will appoint to head up the division on an interim basis, but there’s no guarantee they’ll view Second Amendment litigation as a top priority, as Dhillon has done.