BELLEVUE, WA – Anti-gun-rights President Joe Biden has once again taken advantage of two high-profile shooting incidents this week in Texas and Nevada to push for a ban on so-called “assault weapons” when published reports indicate such firearms were not used in either case.

The Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms says Biden is “remaining true to form, dishing out the same gun control rhetoric he has used in the past, whether it matches up with the specific facts of a crime or not.” It is not the first time Biden has called for a ban on semi-auto rifles.

The New York Post, in its coverage of the Texas mayhem, reported that at least some of the victims suffered gunshot wounds from a “large caliber handgun.” Several news agencies covering the campus shooting at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas reported the killer there was armed with a handgun.

Yet in his prepared White House statement, Biden demanded that, “Republican lawmakers must join with Democrats in Congress to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.” Read more

.

GW: Another Democrat politician decides to violate his oath of office.

BELLEVUE, WA – The Second Amendment Foundation will definitely challenge a federal ban on so-called “assault weapons” if legislation resurrected by anti-gun Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) somehow becomes law.

The bill, S. 25, was introduced by the late Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). An attempt to move it via unanimous consent failed when Republicans objected. “Still,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb, “if Schumer tries to run it as an amendment to another bill, or move it via the regular process, we will take action.”

“We have eight pending challenges to state laws banning modern semiautomatic rifles, and we absolutely will challenge a federal ban should one pass,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “Aside from the fact that such a ban would be unconstitutional, there is no conclusive research showing that such a ban would actually prevent violent crimes, including mass shootings.” Read more

Now on A1F.com: Check out this exclusive video interview with Montana Attorney General Austin Knudsen explaining why NRA v. Vullo is a critical U.S. Supreme Court case—one in which the state of New York attacked the NRA’s First Amendment rights.

Find this and other stories related to your right to keep and bear arms at A1F.com.

The ultimate goal of anti-gunners is to confiscate guns, which would require a comprehensive database of firearm owners.

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) filed public comments against the proposed rule from the Biden ATF which could require anyone who sells a single gun to register as a dealer and conduct background checks. The Tennessee Firearms Association and the Virginia Citizens Defense League joined in the brief.

As argued by GOA in the full comment, this rule is nothing more than an attempt to “subvert, circumvent, and effectively repeal” a major provision of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, which bars federal agencies from maintaining records or a system of registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions.

Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:

“We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: The ultimate goal of anti-gunners is to confiscate guns, which would require a comprehensive database of firearm owners. Under this rule, the private sale of firearms would now almost always require a background check, and because of GOA research, we know that the records of those sales will eventually end up in the hands of the ATF and be added to their illegal gun registry. This cannot stand.” Read more

Now on A1F.com: Too often, the U.S. government skews statistics on gun use to push false narratives. Manipulating such statistics doesn’t create a fair debate; it is a political stunt that threatens to take away our freedom.

Find this and other stories related to your right to keep and bear arms at A1F.com. Read more

Today, Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF) joined Gun Owners of California (GOC) and several other plaintiffs in filing a second lawsuit challenging California’s concealed carry statutes.

The state’s latest revisions to their unconstitutional concealed carry policies were passed in response to the Bruen decision (which ended the state’s draconian “may-issue” policy). Among other provisions, SB 2 would:

• Enact highly restrictive “sensitive locations” where concealed carrying would be prohibited, including all private property unless expressly permitted by the owner;
• Require 16 hours of training;
• Allow local authorities to require a psychiatric evaluation;
• And significantly increase the costs associated with securing a permit.

In September, GOA and GOF filed their first suit against the law, which specifically challenged the draconian “sensitive location” prohibitions. Today’s lawsuit challenges the psychiatric evaluation, excessive fees, and extensive wait times currently imposed by several local police departments on Californians trying to secure a permit. Read more

BELLEVUE, WA – A federal district court judge in West Virginia has ruled that a federal law prohibiting handgun sales to 18-20-year-olds is “facially unconstitutional,” and granted a summary judgment in a case brought by the Second Amendment Foundation.

In a 40-page decision, U.S. District Chief Judge Thomas S. Kleeh with the Northern District of West Virginia wrote, “(B)ecause Plaintiffs’ conduct – the purchase of handguns – ‘fall[s] [within] the Second Amendment’s ‘unqualified command’ and the challenged statutes and regulations are not ‘consistent with the Nation’s historic tradition of firearm regulation,’ the Court FINDS 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) facially unconstitutional and as applied to Plaintiffs.” Read more