SCOTUS Tackles Marijuana Use & Gun Rights

Currently under federal statute, a person who regularly uses marijuana cannot possess a firearm.

This goes against the Second Amendment's rights afforded to people. 

The Supreme Court will hear a case calling to question the constitutionality of the statute. 

Pew Pew Tactical posted:

More than 90 petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court for consideration, with the justices only agreeing to hear three – one of which will settle the debate on marijuana use and gun possession.

In a six-page orders list, the Supreme Court said it would hear United States v. Hemani – the only gun-related issue to be argued in front of justices this term.

The case aims to get to the bottom of whether federal statute 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(3) violates the Second Amendment. The statute currently prohibits the possession of firearms by a person who ‘is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.’

To read more, go here. 

California's Glock Ban Catches Immediate Lawsuit

Just as soon as California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law AB1127, which bans some Glock handguns, gun rights groups challenged the law's constitutionality and immediately filed suit.

As I am no longer a resident of California and don't own Glock pistols, I personally have no dog in this fight. But many people do own Glocks and reside in California.

Guns.com posted the following on the lawsuit:

Describing the state's wacky new ban on Glock and Glock-like pistols as "flagrantly unconstitutional," gun rights groups filed a federal lawsuit against the state of California on Monday. 

The legal challenge, Jaymes v. Bonta, was brought by the Firearms Policy Coalition, the National Rifle Association, the Second Amendment Foundation, a licensed firearms retailer, and two individuals, against California Attorney General Rob Bonta in his official capacity. 

The suit takes aim at AB 1127, which was passed by the Democrat-controlled state legislature and signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Oct. 10. The new law, which becomes effective in July 2026 as California Penal Code § 27595(a), bans the sale or transfer of semi-automatic Glock and Glock-style handguns with cruciform trigger bars under the pretext that they can be illegally converted to full-auto machine pistols. 

The groups challenge the ban on the contention that semiautomatic handguns with cruciform trigger bars are not different from any other type of semiautomatic handgun in a constitutionally relevant way, and that Glocks and Glock clones are among the most popular designs in modern firearms history, with millions in circulation since the 1980s. 

To read more, go here. 

NRA-ILA Lauds New Mexico Waiting Period Victory

Above, your truly taking possession of the Winchester Model
 12 shotgun a month before the waiting period law took effect.

 

The NRA-ILA lauded almost immediately the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that the seven-day waiting period for gun purchases is unconstitutional and halted it.

The ruling is a major poke-in-the-eye at New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. 

The NRA-ILA wrote:

Today, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals held New Mexico’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases unconstitutional in Ortega v. Grisham, a case brought by the National Rifle Association and Mountain States Legal Foundation, with the support of the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

“In courtrooms across America, the NRA is successfully leading the charge to protect law-abiding Americans’ Second Amendment rights,” said NRA-ILA Executive Director, John Commerford. “The 10th Circuit has sided with the NRA and held that radical waiting period laws are indeed unconstitutional. This decision not only impacts gun owners in New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kansas, and Oklahoma, but serves as a key piece in dismantling similar gun control laws across the country.” 

New Mexico’s law requires purchasers of firearms to “cool off” for seven days before taking possession of a newly purchased firearm—even after passing a background check and demonstrating that they are not prohibited from owning firearms.

The Tenth Circuit held that New Mexico’s law violates the Second Amendment. Judge Tymkovich, writing for the court, determined that the right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the lawful acquisition of firearms and, therefore, “cooling off” waiting periods infringe on Second Amendment-protected conduct. Next, the court concluded that waiting periods are a modern invention that are unsupported by our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

I had to contend with California's 10-day waiting period when I lived there. Should the U.S. Supreme Court uphold this ruling, that would effectively end California's waiting period.

To read more, go here. 

NRA Victory!

From the NRA: 

 

🚨 NRA Victory! 10th Circuit holds New Mexico's 7-day waiting period unconstitutional in Ortega v. Grisham, a case brought by NRA and @MSLF, with the support of @NSSF. pic.twitter.com/u9tniwJd5t

— NRA (@NRA) August 19, 2025

NRA Files Amicus Brief In Challenge To Maine’s Waiting Period Law

The National Rifle Association (NRA) filed an amicus brief in a court case challenging the constitutionality of Maine's 72-hour waiting period for gun purchases. 

Other states have implemented in recent years waiting periods. Last year, for example, New Mexico implemented a seven-day waiting period for gun purchases.

The NRA reported:

On June 5, NRA filed an amicus brief in Beckwith v. Frey, a case challenging Maine’s 72-hour waiting period on firearm purchases.

In March, a federal district court ruled that the waiting-period law likely violates the Second Amendment and enjoined its enforcement. The government then appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. NRA filed its brief in the First Circuit, arguing that the waiting-period law is unconstitutional and that the plaintiffs should ultimately prevail on the merits of the case.

NRA’s brief argues that the Second Amendment’s plain text protects the right to possess arms, and that the right to possess arms necessarily includes the right to acquire them. Therefore, under Supreme Court precedent, the government must justify the law by proving that it is consistent with our nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

If the Supreme Court should rule (if the case reaches them) that the waiting period law is unconstitutional, that would effectively wipe out similar (and worse) laws in other states.

To read more, go here.

Ninth Circuit Strikes Down CA’s One-Gun-A-Month Law

It looks like the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals got one right for a change.

It struck down California's one gun a month (30 days) law first enacted back in 1999.  It said it violates the Second Amendment.

According to the NRA-ILA:

Today, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that California’s law prohibiting people from buying more than one firearm in a 30-day period violates the Second Amendment.

California enacted its one-gun-a-month law in 1999, at which point it applied only to concealable firearms. By 2024, it applied to all firearms. Several plaintiffs—including six individuals, PWGG, LP, North County Shooting Center, Firearms Policy Coalition, San Diego County Gun Owners Political Action Committee, and Second Amendment Foundation—challenged the law in the Southern District of California. After the district court held the law unconstitutional, the state appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

To read more, go here.

Gun Ownership By State

I don't know how accurate the following map is, but it is interesting to view. 

This map shows gun ownership rates of people by state.

Ninth Circuit Upholds California Ammo Magazine Ban

The old "Ninth Circus" is up to their old tricks.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the California ban on high capacity gun magazines is not unconstitutional and does not count as an "arm" under the Second Amendment.  

According to The Reload:

The court split 7-4, with the majority holding that the types of magazines covered under the ban do not count as “arms” under the Second Amendment.

“Large-capacity magazines are optional accessories to firearms, and firearms operate as intended without a large-capacity magazine,” Judge Susan Graber wrote in Duncan v. Bonta. “A large-capacity magazine is thus an accessory or accoutrement, not an ‘Arm’ in itself. Possession of a large-capacity magazine therefore falls outside the text of the Second Amendment.”

The ruling is a setback for gun-rights activists. It establishes a binding precedent in the country’s largest appellate circuit—which contains multiple states with similar bans—blessing magazine restrictions under the Second Amendment. That precedent will stand permanently unless the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) intervenes. Whether it will choose to remains an open question.

To read more, go here. 

Young Adults Have Constitutional Rights

Do 18 to 20-year-olds have constitutional rights?

They do, according to a unanimous ruling by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.

America's 1st Freedom posted:

A panel of judges at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, in a unanimous ruling, found that the federal ban on federal firearms licensees (FFLs) selling handguns to 18-to-20-year-old adults violates the Second Amendment.

In this ruling, the court noted that the “government argues that a limited ban on the purchase of handguns from FFLs is not an infringement on the Second Amendment rights, and in any event eighteen-to-twenty-year-olds are not among ‘the people.’” This panel of judges rejected this claim. The court next considered whether the government met its burden of historical analogues (under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision). The court then found that the government had not found historical precedents to make this ban constitutional.

To read more, go here. 

AG Nominee Pam Bondi and the 2nd Amendment

Pam Bondi, President-Elect Trump's pick for attorney general, has a mixed record on gun rights. That has caused concern with Second Amendment groups.

The Reload has posted an article on her confirmation hearings in the U.S. Senate and her stance on the Second Amendment.

The article begins with:

President-elect Donald Trump’s Attorney General nominee defended her record on gun policy during her confirmation hearing.

On Wednesday, Pam Bondi told the Senate she stood by her record on guns. When Senator Alex Padilla (D., Calif.) questioned her, Bondi emphasized that she has “always been pro-Second Amendment.” However, she also said she’d follow applicable laws.

“I am an advocate for the Second Amendment, but I will enforce the laws of the land,” Bondi said.

When Senator Padilla asked if she’d support raising the minimum age for firearm purchases, implementing “Red Flag” laws, and passing universal background checks, she didn’t commit one way or the other. Instead, she offered to follow up with him after the hearing.

“I would be glad to meet with you and review any legislation you have, Senator,” Bondi responded.

To read more, go here. 

Court: Nonviolent Felon Protected By 2nd Amendment

Generally, the law had been that if someone commits a felony and is convicted of it, he/she would be stripped of their Second Amendment constitutional rights.

All that appears to be changing.

Courts have been coming down on the side of non-violent felons that they still have Second Amendment rights and protections. I agree with this.

The latest is from the 3rd Circuit Court.

The Tucson Sentinel reported:

A nonviolent conviction from the mid-1990s shouldn't interfere with a Delaware man's right to arm himself, the Third Circuit ruled en banc, doubling down on a previous finding that was vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We are pleased that the en banc Third Circuit has once again held that it is unconstitutional to disarm Bryan Range on the basis of a decades-old, nonviolent offense," Peter Patterson, Range's attorney, told Courthouse News Tuesday following the opinion’s late Monday evening release.

In its 13-2 ruling, the appellate court reversed a federal court decision that barred a Range from gun ownership after he fraudulently obtained $2,458 in food stamps approximately three decades ago. The circuit court was in favor of reinstating Second Amendment rights to Range, who pleaded guilty to welfare fraud in 1995, was sentenced to probation and was unknowingly stripped of those rights by federal law because the crime was punishable by over a year in prison.

“In sum, we reject the government’s contention that ‘felons are not among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment,’” U.S. Circuit Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, a George W. Bush appointee, wrote in his opinion.

“Because the government has not shown that our Republic has a longstanding history and tradition of depriving people like Range of their firearms, [18 U.S. Code] §922(g)(1) cannot constitutionally strip him of his Second Amendment rights,” he added.

To read more, go here. 

Democrats Seek To Abolish The First Amendment

The Democrats and their media and social media toadies (think Mark Zuckerberg) have been hell-bent on censoring or "fact-checking" viewpoints contrary to theirs.

They are not even trying to hide it.

They are determined to undermine or, perhaps, destroy the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  

The Washington Examiner has posted an article on how the radical Left is seeking to abolish the First Amendment.

It begins with:

When a political movement’s only guiding principle is an insatiable lust for power, the free exchange of ideas becomes public enemy No. 1. It should come as no surprise that the party that booed God at its national convention and has largely replaced faith with the perverse worship of the state feels that the ends always justify the means.

From author Fran Lebowitz suggesting that President Joe Biden should dissolve the Supreme Court to regime journalists openly calling for the destruction of the U.S. Constitution, Democrats have become increasingly comfortable with publicly displaying their radicalism. In their minds, the enemy is not poverty, inflation, or threats by foreign enemies but freedom itself. As the Left attempts to remake America into a totalitarian, multicultural nightmare, the first two amendments to the Constitution are the only bulwarks standing in its way.

Democrats have been thoroughly defeated on the Second Amendment front. A majority of people can now legally defend their families without a permission slip from the state, and the tens of millions of AR-15, AR-10, and AK-47-style rifles in civilian hands all but guarantee that the gun confiscation plans of authoritarian Democrats are doomed to fail. 

For a variety of reasons, the First Amendment is more difficult to defend. The public has grown accustomed to censorship by the state. Democrats successfully used a coordinated, unconstitutional censorship campaign to win the 2020 presidential election, and they view the continued perversion of the First Amendment, or its outright elimination, as the path forward toward achieving their communistic goals. 

It is imperative that the voters must vote out of office as many radical Democrats as they can and defeat Kamala Harris this November.

To read more, go here. 

9th Circuit Blocks CA Law Limiting Gun Purchases To One Per Month

Some good news for California gun owners came from, of all places, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

The law limiting gun purchases to one every 30 days has been blocked.

The Desert Sun reported:

A 9th Circuit Court of Appeals panel has blocked enforcement of a longstanding California law limiting residents to one firearm purchase every 30 days.

In March, a federal district court previously struck down the law as unconstitutional under the Second Amendment, but the government sought and obtained a stay on the ruling from the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals pending further legal review.

But on Thursday, a three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit reversed the stay, barring law enforcement without a court's further order.

To read more, go here. 

NRA Files Lawsuit On 7-Day Waiting Period in New Mexico!

Above, a card I picked up at Loeffler's Guns in April.

Yesterday, the 7-day waiting period law on gun purchases in New Mexico went into effect.

It was passed by the New Mexico legislature during the 2024 legislative session and signed by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Yesterday, the National Rifle Association filed suit against this law.

The NRA-ILA posted:

Today, the NRA filed a lawsuit in federal court challenging New Mexico's recently enacted waiting period requirement on firearm purchases.  NRA-ILA Executive Director Randy Kozuch stated:

“The NRA fights every day in Washington, DC, state capitals, and when necessary, the legal arena, to protect the constitutional freedoms of law-abiding Americans and NRA members,” said Randy Kozuch, Executive Director of the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). “The State of New Mexico’s waiting period law is a clear violation of its citizens' Second Amendment rights – needlessly delaying their ability to acquire a firearm for self-defense or sporting purposes. With this legal challenge, NRA is committed to seeing that this unconstitutional law be wiped from the state statutes.”

To read more, go here. 

Newsom's Gun Constitutional Amendment Going Nowhere

Commiefornia Gov. Gavin Newsom's proposed gun constitutional amendment is going nowhere among other blue (Democrat) states.   

This is not too surprising since this year is an election year and the Democrats (at least the ones with some sense) don't want pro-Second Amendment people panicked enough to go to the polls in November.

According to the Mercury News:

Recent ads from Gov. Gavin Newsom’s political action committee continue to push his effort to shake up the national gun debate with a constitutional amendment that would nationalize key California firearm restrictions.

“If Congress and the courts will not take action to help make our communities safer from gun violence, then we — the people — must do it ourselves,” say the ads on social media from Newsom’s Campaign for Democracy.

The California Legislature in September approved a resolution in support, and Newsom said 33 other states must do likewise to call a constitutional convention and consider the amendment. But even among the 18 other U.S. states with legislatures led by Newsom’s Democratic Party, none has done so.

Political observers aren’t surprised, noting the nation’s political landscape, amendment rules and the risks that could come with Newsom’s proposed path of calling a constitutional convention.

 To read the full article, go here.

19 Attorneys General Opposing DOJ Gun Confiscation Program

19 attorneys general are opposing the Biden Administration's "red flag" gun confiscation program and are urging the DOJ to scrap it. 

I have personal experience with California's "red flag" law brought on through a restraining order by a vindictive ex-girlfriend. It was dismissed during a court hearing as I had proof that there was no basis for the restraining order.

According to the Highland County Press:

COLUMBUS – Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost and 18 other state attorneys general are opposing a new federal program that promotes aggressive enforcement of “red flag” gun-confiscation laws.

Yost and his counterparts argue in a letter to U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland that the National Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO) Resource Center, launched in March by the Department of Justice, undermines the Second Amendment and other fundamental rights in a flawed attempt to reduce gun violence.

“The solution to gun violence is not more bureaucracy, and it is certainly not parting otherwise law-abiding men and women from their right to self-defense,” Yost said.

The state attorneys general raise several concerns with the ERPO Resource Center, most notably how the program advocates for laws that allow government officials to “suspend fundamental rights under the Second Amendment with no genuine due process."

So-called “red flag” laws permit authorities to seek court orders authorizing the confiscation of firearms from people thought to pose a danger. Twenty-one states have enacted such laws; Ohio is not among them.

Another issue is whether the DOJ had authority to create the program in the first place. The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, cited by the department as the impetus for the ERPO Resource Center, makes no mention of such a program. In fact, the letter says, that funding from the 2022 federal law was supposed to go to states and local governments.

To read more, go here. 

NMSSA Legislative Update 2/14

 

The clock on the 2024 New Mexico Legislative Session is quickly counting down to sine die. Here is the latest on where anti-gun bills stand. Late Monday night, the concurrence vote for HB129, the 7-day firearm purchase waiting period bill, passed on the same lines as the original vote in the House. The bill contains an exception for New Mexico concealed carry permit holders who will not have to wait 7 days to take their firearm home with them. The bill now heads to the governor's desk. Last night, SB5, the polling place gun ban, was debated on the House Floor. Representative Rehm proposed an amendment to exempt New Mexico concealed carry permit holders with their lawfully concealed firearms from the ban. After much debate, the amendment was adopted by a vote of 35-34. After further debate, the bill was passed by the same margin of 35-34. One Democrat voted for both the amendment and the final passage of the bill. You can see the final vote here. Because it was amended, it now heads back to the Senate side for concurrence. The bill's author, Senator Wirth, was previously adamant that he didn't want an exemption for concealed carry in the bill. Whether the bill is concurred by the Senate, or amended back to its original form is something we will be carefully watching in the closing hours of this session. No other gun control bills have moved since this weekend. It is always possible they could try to ram something through right at the end, but there isn't a lot of time to do it. Nevertheless, we will keep fighting these bills until the end.

Video: Second Amendment Rally In Santa Fe

 

California Ammo Background Checks Tossed By Federal Judge

2024 is starting out good for California gun owners.

A federal judge has ruled that Californians don't need to pay for and pass a background check every time they buy ammunition.

According to KRCR News:

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — California residents don't have to pay for and pass a background check every time they buy bullets, a federal judge has ruled.

The Tuesday ruling by U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez took effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta asked Benitez on Wednesday to delay the ruling to give him time to appeal the decision. It's unclear if Benitez will grant that request.

Many states, including California, make people pass a background check before they can buy a gun. California goes a step further by making people pass a background check, which cost either $1 or $19 depending on eligibility, every time they buy bullets. A few other states also require background checks for buying ammunition, but most let people buy a license that is good for a few years.

Benitez said California's law violates the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution because if people can't buy bullets for their guns, they can't use their guns for self-defense. He criticized the state's automated background check system, which he said rejected about 11% of applicants, or 58,087 requests, in the first half of 2023.

To read more, go here. 

NMSSA Legislative Update 1/27

 

On Monday 1/29, the House Judiciary Committee will be hearing both HB27, the red-flag law expansion, and HB129, the house version of a 14 business-day waiting period. The meeting is scheduled for 1:30pm in Room 309 (zoom link). On Tuesday the 30th, the House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee will be hearing HB144. The bill would allow the state to funnel taxpayer dollars to gun control organizations. That meeting is scheduled for 1:30pm in Room 317 (zoom link). Yesterday, HB114, the bill that would make the firearms industry an easy target for litigation that could put them out of business, passed the House Judiciary Committee on a party-line vote. The bill now heads for the House Floor. We need everyone to contact their representative and ask them to oppose the bill. The next vote on it is likely our best shot if we are going to stop this from becoming law. Here is a link to a pre-written email to Oppose HB114. SB69, the senate version of a 14 business day waiting period bill, passed out of the Senate Health and Public Affairs Committee on a party-line vote yesterday. The bill now heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee. Bizarrely, the bill's sponsor Senator Cervantes, who is also chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, claimed that the Bruen decision from the Supreme Court will be overturned soon and "won't last six months" during the committee hearing. The bill now heads to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday, SB5, the polling place gun ban passed out of the committee on a party-line vote. The bill now heads to the Senate Floor. Here is a link to a pre-written email to Oppose SB5. While it is frustrating to see gun control bills seemingly roll right through committees, participation from gun owners and Second-Amendment supporters has been noticeably lighter this year. If we are going to stop bad legislation in Santa Fe, we are all need to step up and advocate for our rights. HB81, the gun safe tax credit bill, was unanimously passed in House Commerce and Economic Development Committee on Friday. The bill now heads to the House Taxation and Revenue Committee. Here are links to pre-written emails to send to legislators asking them to oppose gun control bills. Oppose HB27, Oppose HB 127, Oppose HB129, Oppose HB137, Oppose SB69, Oppose SB90, and Oppose SJR12. We put these together with our partners at Better Together NM. House Judiciary Committee Christine Chandler - (D) christine.chandler@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4411 Andrea Romero - (D) andrea@andrearomero.com 505-986-4243 William "Bill" R. Rehm - (R) bill.rehm@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4214 Eliseo Lee Alcon - (D) eliseo.alcon@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4416 Gail Chasey - (D) gail@gailchasey.com 505-986-4777 Ryan Lane - (R) RYAN@LANEFORLIBERTY.COM 505-986-4758 Javier Martínez - (D) javier.martinez@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4782 Matthew McQueen - (D) matthew.mcqueen@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4423 Representative Jared Hembree - (R) jared.hembree@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4758 Andrea Reeb - (R) Andrea.Reeb@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4215 Reena Szczepanski - (D) reena.szczepanski@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4777 Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Joseph Cervantes - (D) joseph.cervantes@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4861 Senator Katy M. Duhigg - (D) katy.duhigg@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4270 Senator Cliff R. Pirtle - (R) cliff.pirtle@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4369  Senator Gregory A. Baca - (R) greg.baca@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4877 Senator Daniel A. Ivey-Soto - (D) daniel.ivey-soto@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4267 Senator Mark Moores - (R) mark.moores@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4877 Senator Bill B. O'Neill - (D) BILL@BILLONEILL4NM.COM 505-986-4260 Senator Mimi Stewart - (D) mimi.stewart@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4734 Senator Peter Wirth - (D) peter.wirth@nmlegis.gov 505-986-4727 House Consumer and Public Affairs Committee Representative Joanne J. Ferrary - (D) 505-986-4844 joanne.ferrary@nmlegis.gov Representative Angelica Rubio - (D) 505-986-4210 angelica.rubio@nmlegis.gov Representative Stefani Lord - (R) 505-986-4453 info@lord2020.com Representative John Block - (R) 505-986-4453 John.Block@nmlegis.gov Representative Andrea Romero - (D) 505-986-4243 andrea@andrearomero.com Representative Elizabeth Thomson - (D) 505-986-4425 liz.thomson@nmlegis.gov