Gregory Kielma • November 23, 2023
Boy This is One Mad Judge
Federal Judge: There’s No Constitutional Right to Buy a Gun
By TTAG Contributor -November 22, 202387
From the NRA-ILA
Honest people can disagree with the Founders’ decision to enshrine the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights. They cannot, however, pretend that decision never happened. For much of the 20th Century, however, gun control activists tried to convince the public that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” had nothing to do with the right of individuals to keep and carry guns for their own self-protection.
That charade – never convincing to anyone who could read – has been debunked by the U.S. Supreme Court no less than four times in the last 15 years. But Second Amendment denialism remains an active strain of the firearm prohibition effort, as demonstrated by a federal judge in Colorado who ruled last week that whatever the provision means, it does not include the right to buy a gun
That decision came in the case of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners v. Polis, which challenged Colorado’s three day waiting period for firearm purchases. Proponents of the law undoubtedly knew it was in trouble after the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which clarified how lower courts are to analyze challenges to gun control laws under the Second Amendment.
Bruen stated: “When the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct. The government must then justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This test likely spells doom for Colorado’s waiting period, as laws of that type were completely unknown to the generation that adopted the Second Amendment.
Faced with this reality, Judge John L. Kane – appointed to the federal bench by Jimmy Carter in 1977 – decided to stretch reason to the breaking point by deciding the right to possess a firearm doesn’t include the right to acquire one.
The court began its analysis by acknowledging that the Second Amendment right articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller meant “the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” But then Judge Kane went on to insist: “purchase and delivery are one means of creating the opportunity to ‘have weapons.’ The relevant question is whether the plain text covers that specific means. It does not.”
Oregon gun store counter assault rifle AR-15
According to this “reasoning,” a state could completely ban the sale and delivery of firearms without implicating the Second Amendment. This would imply a right to have something, but not to obtain it through the most obvious and ordinary means.
Of course, it’s true that the Second Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving guns. But it’s also true the First Amendment says nothing explicitly about buying and receiving newspapers. Nevertheless, any judge insisting a ban on newspaper sales would not implicate the First Amendment prohibition on “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” would in doing so disgrace himself and ruin his professional and intellectual credibility.
Perhaps recognizing this, Judge Kane hedged his bets by offering a number of alternative theories about why Colorado’s waiting period did not infringe the Second Amendment.
First, he theorized, “Even if purchasing a firearm could be read into the terms ‘keep’ or ‘bear,’ receipt of a firearm without any delay could not be, as the Founders would not have expected instant, widespread availability of the firearm of their choice.” Judge Kane attempted to bolster this argument by pointing to “expert” testimony that indicated firearm purchases at the time of the founding were not as convenient, prompt, or accessible as they are today.
But even these “experts” acknowledged this was because technology, production, and marketing were circumstantially more primitive in those days, not because legislators made a deliberate choice to delay firearm purchases. Of course, virtually nothing that involved the delivery of a good was as efficient and accessible to the founding generation as it is in modern times. But the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear that it will not tolerate “frivolous” arguments that 18th Century technological limitations delineate the scope of constitutional rights in the present day, including in a Second Amendment case that dealt with stun guns.
Next, Judge Kane pointed to language in Heller that he claimed rendered “presumptively lawful” any regulation on “the conditions or qualifications” of the “commercial sale of firearms.” He then argued: “Colorado’s Waiting-Period Act regulates only the sale, and specifically sellers, of firearms. … The Act does not apply to anyone who does not ‘sell a firearm.’”
Putting aside the fact that the disputed issues in Heller had nothing to do with firearm sales, much less mandatory waiting periods, Judge Kane was again resorting to frivolous formalism in attempting to stake his reasoning on the distinction between sellers and purchasers. Colorado’s waiting period imposes an arbitrary and de facto impediment on the purchase of guns, thereby implicating the rights of buyers at least as much as sellers.
Dragonmans gun store range
Returning to the First Amendment, no one would take seriously an argument that a person’s First Amendment right to access information was not implicated just because a particular restraint applied to a publisher or bookseller and not the reader himself.
Meanwhile, the language Judge Kane invoked to argue the Supreme Court allows firearm sales to be regulated cuts against his primary ruling by suggesting the Supreme Court considers such sales as the default starting point under the Second Amendment.
But Judge Kane wasn’t finished, and proposed yet another reason why Colorado’s waiting period is consistent with the Second Amendment, even if he were wrong about everything else.
Again, while acknowledging – as the parties themselves agreed – that waiting periods for firearm purchases were unknown in American law until well into the 20th Century, he still found them consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. This was because, he said, “our Nation had a historical tradition of regulating the carrying and use of firearms by intoxicated individuals,” and “the Waiting-Period Act and the intoxication laws both work to prevent individuals in a temporary impulsive state from irresponsibly using a firearm.”
Judge Kane was dismissive of plaintiffs’ attempts to point out the obvious distinction that intoxication speaks to the condition of a particular individual in a particular moment, while the waiting period broadly applies to firearm sales generally, regardless of the buyer’s condition or state of mind. His response to this fundamental difference was that the intoxication laws affected all intoxicated persons, some of whom also might not have behaved irresponsibly with a firearm.
Judge Kane’s final gambit was to suggest that the Supreme Court had indicated a general openness to shall-issue licensing schemes for carrying firearms, so long as they were not directed to “abusive ends.” This, he said, was analogous to the waiting period, because both require a “defined requirement” to be met before exercise of the right, and plaintiffs had not proven the waiting period was abusive.
Judge Kane offered no limiting principles for what sorts of laws purportedly aimed at impulsive or irresponsible behavior or that imposed “defined requirements” prior to the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms might be permissible under the Second Amendment. But it’s difficult to understand how his reasoning would be distinguishable from the “interest-balancing” the Supreme Court specifically rejected in Bruen, which likewise focused on why the government purported to be acting, not on whether such actions were well-established in American history.
There is perhaps no legal rule so clear and unequivocal that it cannot be purposely misconstrued by a judge who is more interested in his preferred outcome than in actually following the law. But if the Polis case shows anything about Bruen’s historical test, it’s that it makes spotting such judges easier than ever.
This article originally appeared at nraila.org and is reprinted here with permission.
Why Every Home Should Have a Firearm for Personal Protection
3d Printed Firearms What are They and Are they Legal? Let's take a look
Being Prepared for the 2026 Hurricane Season By Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training & Firearms The 2026 Hurricane Season is shaping up to be another year where preparation isn’t optional it’s essential. Florida has seen record heat, rising insurance pressures, rapid population growth, and increasingly unpredictable storm behavior. None of that is meant to create fear. It’s meant to reinforce a simple truth: preparedness gives you control, confidence, and options when the weather turns. Whether you’re protecting a home, a business, or a family, the goal is the same build layers of readiness before the first storm forms. Start With Awareness and a Plan Storms don’t give you time to “figure it out later.” Your plan should be written, practiced, and known by everyone in the household or workplace. Key elements of a solid plan: Where will you go if evacuation becomes necessary Multiple routes out of your area A communication plan if cell networks fail A designated out‑of‑state contact A plan for pets, elderly family members, and anyone with medical needs For businesses, include: Who secures the building Who handles digital backups Who communicates closures and reopening A plan removes panic. It replaces it with action. Strengthen Your Home or Business Before the First Storm Florida structures take a beating every year. Small improvements now prevent major losses later. Exterior protection: Inspect your roof for loose shingles or soft spots Clear gutters and drainage paths Trim trees and remove dead limbs Install or test shutters Reinforce garage doors—one of the most common failure points Interior protection: Surge protection for critical electronics Elevate valuables and important documents Know how to shut off water, power, and gas If you own a business, walk your property as if you were a storm: What can break? What can blow away? What can flood? Fix those points now. Build a Realistic, Usable Supply Kit For Your Home or Business A hurricane kit isn’t about stockpiling, it’s about independence. After a major storm, help may take hours or days to reach your area. For homes and families: Water: 1 gallon per person per day (minimum 3–7 days) Non‑perishable food Medications and medical supplies Flashlights, headlamps, and batteries Battery bank for phones First aid kit Copies of important documents Cash in small bills Tools, gloves, tarps, duct tape For businesses: Backup power for essential systems Printed employee contact lists Hard copies of insurance documents A plan for securing inventory and equipment Preparedness isn’t about fear it’s about not being dependent on luck. Protect Your Digital Life In 2026, digital readiness is just as important as physical readiness. Back up important files to the cloud and an external drive Photograph your home, business, and valuables for insurance Store digital copies of IDs, insurance policies, and receipts Keep chargers, power banks, and a small solar panel if possible When the power goes out, your digital preparation keeps you moving. Understand Post‑Storm Safety Most injuries happen after the storm, not during it. Be cautious with: Downed power lines Flooded roads Carbon monoxide from generators Unstable structures Contaminated water If you evacuated, don’t rush home. Wait for official clearance. Your safety comes first. Mindset: Prepared, Not Paranoid Preparedness is a discipline, not a reaction. It’s the same mindset we teach in every Tactical K class awareness, planning, and responsible action. A hurricane is a natural event. Your response is a choice. When you prepare early, you protect: Your family Your property Your business Your peace of mind And you set an example for your community. Kielma’s Parting Shot The 2026 Hurricane Season will bring challenges, just like every season. But Floridians are resilient, and preparation is part of our way of life. Start now. Strengthen your home, your business, and your plan. Build your layers of safety before the first storm forms. If you need help building a plan, creating a checklist, or preparing your family or business, Tactical K Training is here to support you with practical, real‑world guidance.
Why You Should Never Travel Through High Water
Convicted Felon Sentenced to 87 Months in Trafficking Nine Firearms, Including to Buyer Who Said He Was ‘At War’ Thursday, April 30, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia WASHINGTON - Brandon Smith, 34, a previously convicted felon residing in the District of Columbia, was sentenced today in U.S. District Court to 87 months in prison for conspiring to traffic at least nine firearms to a prohibited buyer over the course of six months, announced U.S. Attorney Jeanine Ferris Pirro. “Brandon Smith was already on supervised probation for a violent felony when he chose to traffic firearms, and he continued even after being told the buyer intended to use them for violence,” said U.S. Attorney Pirro. “Over the course of six months, he arranged the sale of at least nine guns—including one with an obliterated serial number—to a prohibited individual. This was not a momentary lapse in judgment, but a sustained and deliberate effort to arm someone who could not legally possess firearms. My office remains committed to holding accountable those who endanger our communities by trafficking illegal guns.” On Jan. 9, 2026, Smith pleaded guilty before Judge Howell to conspiracy to commit trafficking in firearms. In addition to the 87-month prison term, Judge Howell ordered Smith to serve three years of supervised release. Federal prosecutors had requested a 108-month prison term. According to court papers, beginning in November 2023, ATF opened an investigation after a confidential source reported that Smith, then on supervised probation for a violent felony, was actively advertising firearms for sale by texting photographs of guns to prospective buyers, including individuals with prior felony convictions. During the next six months, Smith sold or arranged the sale of nine firearms to a buyer on six separate occasions. During the transactions, Smith sold his own personal carry firearm on multiple occasions when a supplier failed to deliver, then purchased a replacement for himself afterward. In early January 2024, as Smith and the buyer discussed an upcoming transaction, the buyer told Smith he needed the firearms because he was “at war” after his cousin had been killed. Smith proceeded with the sale. The buyer had also told Smith he was serving a criminal justice sentence at the time of the transactions. Smith acknowledged that he, too, was “on papers.” Smith arranged a total of six transactions from Nov. 30, 2023, through May 30, 2024, resulting in the sale of nine firearms. At least one of the firearms had its serial number obliterated. On Oct. 26, 2024, MPD officers conducted a traffic stop on the 1600 block of 16th Street SE and found Smith in the front passenger seat of a parked vehicle. Officers observed open containers of alcohol and discovered a satchel at his feet. Inside the satchel, in plain view, was a loaded Glock Model 19X 9mm handgun with a round in the chamber and 16 additional rounds in the magazine. The bag also contained a bank card and government-issued identification in Smith’s name. Smith has prior convictions for Simple Assault (2011), Attempted Robbery (2013), and Robbery and Possession of a Firearm during a Crime of Violence (2016), for which he was sentenced to five years in prison. He was serving a term of supervised probation from the 2016 conviction at the time of the firearms trafficking conspiracy. This investigation was conducted by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Washington Field Office, and the Metropolitan Police Department. The matter was prosecuted by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Brendan M. Horan. Convicted Felon Sentenced to 87 Months in Trafficking
Husband and Wife, and a Third Individual Charged with Firearms Trafficking
33 U.S. House Members Urge Trump To Restore Gun Rights, Name A Pro-2A AG
Maryland Pistol Ban Faces Backlash From Firearms Industry
Lake City Strike Enters Week Three—Here’s What It Means
