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. 

10th Circuit Waiting-Period Case Paused

 

The following came this morning in an email from the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association:

10th Circuit Waiting-Period Case Paused (En Banc Petition Filed)

NMSSA Update: On August 19, 2025, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit delivered a major win for gun owners in New Mexico. The panel ruled that our state’s seven-day waiting period for firearm purchases likely violates the Second Amendment and directed the lower court to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement. This was a clear recognition that the law places an unconstitutional burden on the lawful acquisition of firearms. But the fight is not over. This week, the State of New Mexico filed a petition asking the full Tenth Circuit to rehear the case en banc. “En banc” means the case would be reconsidered by all active judges of the court, not just the original three-judge panel. When the State filed this petition, it automatically stayed the mandate — which means the panel’s decision is not currently in effect. In other words, the seven-day waiting period remains in place until the court decides what to do with the petition. What happens next If the court denies rehearing, the mandate will usually issue 7 days later. At that point, the lower court would be required to issue the injunction, blocking the waiting period. If the court grants rehearing en banc, the panel’s ruling is vacated, and the case will be reconsidered by the full court, which will issue a new decision. Until then, the status quo continues, and gun owners must remain patient and vigilant. Why this matters This case could set an important precedent not only for New Mexico but for the entire Tenth Circuit region. It is another example of how courts across the country are applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard and pushing back against laws that lack historical justification. NMSSA’s Commitment Your New Mexico Shooting Sports Association is following this case closely. We will continue to provide timely, accurate updates to keep our members informed. When major changes occur — whether the mandate issues or the full court agrees to rehear the case — you will hear about it from us first. Thank you for standing with NMSSA in defense of your Second Amendment rights. — Anthony Segura Executive Director New Mexico Shooting Sports Association

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.

Federal Law Banning Handgun Sales 18- to 20-year-olds Is Unconstitutional

Since 18 year olds are adults by law, then they should have all rights that goes along with it. 18 year olds as adults has been around since the early 1970s.

An appeals court has ruled that the federal law banning handgun sales to 18 to 20 year olds is unconstitutional.

CNN reported:

CNN - A conservative federal appeals court said Thursday that a federal law banning the sale of handguns to 18- to 20-year-olds is unconstitutional, elevating a significant question about the Second Amendment’s reach in the wake of recent major Supreme Court rulings on gun rights.

It is the latest major ruling against an age-based firearm restriction and one that comes as the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on how the Second Amendment applies to older teens.

The new ruling from the 5th US Circuit Court of Appeals pointed to the landmark 2022 Supreme Court ruling known as Bruen that established a historical test for assessing the constitutionality of gun restrictions. It also reviewed the legal challenge against the more recent decision by the Supreme Court that refined the Bruen test while upholding federal restrictions on gun possession for people accused of domestic abuse.

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. 

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

NM Gun-Grabbers Have Made Their Move

It was inevitable. The Democrats who control the legislature in Santa Fe, New Mexico have made their move. 

From Rep. Stefani Lord at 'X':

🚨They. Are. Coming. For. Your. Guns.🚨

@GovMLG is frothing at the mouth to pass this bill that bans ALL semi-auto rifles, leaving you with only bolt action, lever action, single shot, muzzleloaders, .22 caliber, and mandatory 10-round permanently fixed  (cannot be removed without a tool) magazines. 

To keep track of this insanity, they WILL need a gun registry!

Here's the bill:

It used to be that Democrats were cautious during an election year. Not anymore. The ultra-left socialists have taken over the Democrat Party and are no longer cautious. They have put ideology over common sense and the constitution.

New Mexico Governor Slammed For 'Anti-2nd Amendment' Push

New Mexico's lunatic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham's outrageous anti-Second Amendment proposals are being widely covered in the national media.

Fox News, Yahoo! News, The Gateway Pundit and Associated Press are among others covering the story. It looks like "the fit has hit the shan" over this.

From Yahoo! News:

New Mexico Republicans are accusing Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham of undermining the Second Amendment after the Democrat introduced gun control proposals on Friday.

Lujan Grisham announced that a 30-day state legislative session slated to begin Tuesday that will include "the largest and most comprehensive public safety package in our state's history."

The gun control proposals include a 14-day background check waiting period on gun purchases, prohibiting guns in polling places and parks, and a minimum age requirement of 21 years on semiautomatic firearm purchases.

The package also includes the Firearm Industry Accountability Act, which would "amend the state statue [sic] to allow gun manufacturers to be held liable for deceptive trade practices."

"The constitutionality questions are beginning to be very complicated in the arena of gun violence," Lujan Grisham said at a press conference Friday. "We are going to continue this effort, following what is going on around the country.

"There will be others who will follow in our footsteps, creating their own public safety corridors, which in effect also make New Mexicans safer."

State Sen. Greg Baca, the Republican minority floor leader, accused the two-term governor of taking "a hyper-partisan turn."

"Senate Republicans are eager to join the governor in tackling New Mexico’s crime epidemic, and to that end, we have introduced a number of commonsense solutions," Baca said in a release.

To read more, go here. 

It is the same radical left-wing crap that comes from Gov. Gavin Newsom in California.

For additional reading:

The Gateway Pundit.

Fox News.

Piñon Post.

White House Directs States To Crack Down On Second Amendment Rights

It is a given that the Biden Administration is anti-Second Amendment and is willing to do anything to curtail our rights.

Now, they are pressuring Democrat-led states to take action on the state level to further infringe on our rights where they failed on the federal level.

NRA-ILA has posted an article on what all that entails.

They start it with:

Recently, we reported on the establishment of the White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, an effort by the Biden Administration to funnel taxpayer dollars to the partisan project of gun control. Whatever else can be said of the office, it is at least trying to justify its existence by staying busy, to the detriment of law-abiding gun owners. Last week the office convened a meeting with democrat state legislators in an effort to dragoon them into enacting anti-gun policies that have failed to gain traction at the federal level. Even the U.S. Justice Department – supposedly the executive’s guarantor of civil rights – is now drafting constitutionally dubious “model legislation” that states can use to crack down on gun owners.  The effort shows Biden’s weaponization of government for political purposes continues to sink to new lows.

White House propaganda characterized this meeting as part of the “Biden-Harris Administration’s Safer States Initiative.” The details of the initiative can be found in a brochure that lists various actions the White House wants states to take to promote the administration’s goal of normalizing persecution of gun owners. The general thrust of the “initiative” seems to be that anti-gun officials can turn back the U.S. Supreme Court’s development of Second Amendment doctrine and the public’s increasing embrace of the right to keep and bear arms by mass, coordinated action in the opposite direction.

The outline of the administration’s plan for state action is follows:

1.  “Establish a State Office of Gun Violence Prevention”;
2.  “Invest in Evidence-informed Solutions to Prevent and Respond to Gun Violence”;
3.  “Strengthen Support for Survivors and Victims of Gun Violence”;
4.  “Reinforce Responsible Gun Ownership”;
5.  “Strengthen Gun Background Checks”; and
6.  “Hold the Gun Industry Accountable”.

The outline paints a picture of obvious gun control euphemisms interspersed with potential efforts at problem solving. But the details of the plan paint a different story, one replete with the same unconstitutional, failed, or – at best – unproven policies the firearm prohibition lobby has pursued for decades. Little of it has anything to do with crime or safety. Instead, most of it is squarely focused on making life more difficult for anyone who would dare own a gun or operate a firearm-related business.

To read the full article, go here. 

Grisham's Gun Ban In Public Parks Gets Preliminary Injunction

Some good news on Gov. "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham's gun "health order":

 

Jim Jordan Nails DOJ Civil Rights Official On Grisham's Gun Order

From the YouTube video posting:

At today's House Judiciary Committee hearing, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) questioned Assistant AG Kristen Clarke, chief of the DOJ's Justice Civil Rights Division.

Heinrich Sponsors Unconstitional Bill Banning Most Rifles

Above, New Mexico Sen. Martin Heinrich.

"Life is tough. It's tougher when you're stupid!" 

The above line is generally attributed to John Wayne, but there's no evidence to support this. However, New Mexico's Senator Martin Heinrich is showing that someone can be just as stupid even with an easy life.

Heinrich, Arizona's Sen. Mark Kelly and others have introduced an unconstitutional extremist anti-gun bill.

The Piñon Post reported:

In a recent move that has stirred controversy, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, along with Democrat Senators Angus King of Maine, Mark Kelly of Arizona, and Michael Bennet of Colorado, introduced the extremist Gas-Operated Semi-Automatic Firearms Exclusion (GOSAFE) Act to outlaw most firearms in the United States.

Heinrich claimed there is an urgent need for Congress to take away Americans’ right to bear arms by banning some of the most popular weapons in the country.

The proposed legislation will negatively impact law-abiding gun owners while neglecting the root causes of violence. 

The GOSAFE Act seeks to regulate gas-operated semi-automatic weapons by establishing a list of prohibited firearms, preventing unauthorized modifications, and mandating pre-approval for future designs. The bill has a few exceptions but still bans rifles with 10 rounds or more — a majority of AR-15s and other rifles. One in 20 Americans own an AR-15 rifle. 

The article then lists the exempted firearms.

The bill is clearly unconstitutional. The Heller decision by the U.S. Supreme Court held that banning the legal sale and possession entire classes of firearms is unconstitutional.

To read the full article, go here.

Gov. Lujan Grisham Defies Court... Again

The governor of New Mexico, Michelle Lujan Grisham, has proven time and again that she has no respect for the rule of law, the constitution and couldn't give a rat's ass about court orders. Again, she is defying the court in reissuing her "health orders" on guns.

Accordingly, she needs to be removed from office. She is currently facing impeachment proceedings. As of now, over 30 legislators are calling for her impeachment and removal from office. 

From the Piñon Post:

Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham has again extended her anti-gun executive orders, introducing a renewed order that includes updated measures to curb access to firearms. Her past two executive orders were stricken down by a Joe Biden-appointed judge, forcing her to rewrite them again and release them via her New Mexico Department of Health Secretary Patrick Allen.

The renewed order now mandates the Department of Public Safety to organize gun buy-backs. Within the next 30 days, buy-back events will be held in Albuquerque, Española, and Las Cruces to attempt to further disarm the populous.

Lujan Grisham continues to face impeachment calls from 31 legislators, being led by Reps. Stefani Lord (R-Sandia Park) and John Block (R-Alamogordo), who have begun a certification petition process for an extraordinary impeachment session. 

To read more, go here. 

Why Criminals Are Happy With Lujan Grisham

 

Lawsuits Pile Up Against New Mexico Governor

Lawsuits against New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham are piling up.

At present, there are four of them.

According to KRQE:

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (KRQE) – Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham is now facing four different lawsuits as gun rights advocates look to challenge the constitutionality of her new order.

All of the lawsuits are similar, arguing that the Public Health Order (PHO) goes against the United States Constitution.

“We are making sure that this never happens again,” said Luis Valdes, a spokesperson for Gun Owners of America (GOA). “We want to make sure that the right to keep and bear arms is fully protected and that there’s no further infringement upon it like what we’re seeing in New Mexico at the moment.”

GOA lawsuit suggests the Governor’s PHO violates the Second Amendment. Other lawsuits have also been filed by a former law enforcement officer and three other gun rights advocacy groups.

They all claimed the governor does not have the power to strip the right to bear arms from New Mexico residents. Further, the lawsuit argues that abiding citizens will pay the price for the health order, while criminals will continue to carry firearms.

“You have law enforcement officers who are going to follow this unconstitutional law, order, and they are then going to think anyone on the streets exercising their god-given right is a criminal,” Valdes explained.

The Bernalillo County sheriff said his department will not enforce the order. The only police agency under Grisham's control is the State Police and they haven't said anything (or maybe I missed it) yet. 

To read more, go here.

First Democrat Breaks Silence On MLG's Executive Order

For the past three days, I noticed that the New Mexico Democrat legislators have been dead silent on Gov. "Malevolent Michelle" Lujan Grisham's executive order on banning open and concealed carry of firearms in Bernalillo County. 

Thus far, none have come out supporting this unconstitutional action.

One has finally come out in opposition. 

Piñon Post reported:

The first Democrat legislator finally broke their silence, with state Sen. Joseph Cervantes (D-Doña Ana County) writing on Twitter, “Having passed key gun safety laws working with her administration, I call on the Governor to rescind her order outlawing arms.”

Meanwhile, Bernalillo County Sheriff John Allen blasted the unconstitutional order of the the governor and said he will not enforce it.

To read more, go here.