Red Flag Laws. Could This Happen To You

White House Repeals Unscientific HHS Advisory On Gun Violence Darwin Nercesian Democrats and anti-Second Amendment stooges are up in arms about your right to bear them once again, as the Trump administration has repealed former Surgeon General Vivek Murthy’s anti-gun tract, Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America, from the official Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) website. The move is part of an avalanche of actions building up in response to the President’s February 7 Executive Order, “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” claiming to seek the identification and elimination of ongoing infringements upon American gun rights. With weaponization of the federal bureaucracy against law-abiding gun owners being a staple of the former Biden-Harris administration, it is hopeful to see a refocusing of those efforts onto the actual criminals themselves under President Trump. “Illegal violence of any sort is a crime issue, and as he again made clear during his recent speech at the Department of Justice, President Trump is committed to Making America Safe Again by empowering law enforcement to uphold law and order,” the White House responded to the Guardian’s question about the removal of webpages. The NRA predicted under heavy scrutiny that the appointment of Murthy as U.S. surgeon general during the second Obama-Biden administration would lead to further politicizing of his anti-gun agenda, a position Murthy lied about under oath to Senators at his first confirmation hearing, saying he would not use his platform as a bully pulpit for gun control, and would instead focus on the obesity epidemic. During his initial term as surgeon general, Murthy’s failure to effectively address that epidemic led to his being reappointed by the Biden administration, where failing upwards is practically in the job description. With a reinvigorated sense of tenure and those promises under oath in his rearview mirror, the good doctor did what he did best, pretending to have special insight into the causes of firearm-related crime, much like his calls for gun control when he headed the advocacy group Doctors for America. In July 2024, he published his 40-page manifesto, Firearm Violence: A Public Health Crisis in America, even promoting it through media appearances like the perjurious little rock star he is. “[T]he advisory has nothing to do with treating gunshot wounds, dealing with potential lead exposure from handling firearms or ammunition, hearing loss from exposure to muzzle reports, or any other medical issue pertaining to guns. Instead, it is simply a taxpayer-funded tract that promotes the same tired slate of oppressive gun control laws that Murthy’s fellow firearm prohibitionists have wanted for decades. It also seeks to provide cover for the disastrous crime-control failures of Murthy’s Democrat party by insisting that firearm assaults and homicides are akin to a disease or contagion rather than crimes committed by predators (most with lengthy records) who too often act with impunity,” according to analysis of the document by the NRA Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). Of course, the tired effort of anti-Second Amendment groups and grifters has done nothing to reduce firearm-related deaths in the United States, but that has never really been the goal in the first place. Any literate person can pick up a book on the history of governments disarming citizens to find a clear pattern of subjugation and worse following the successful confiscation of the means to defend liberty. The revocation of this anti-Second Amendment propaganda masquerading as science is part of a series of actions that have taken place in the last week by the Trump administration and the Department of Justice that will hopefully move necessary pieces into place, further defending and more tangibly restoring American gun rights. Yes, I will remain skeptical and cautiously optimistic until something happens that feels less punitive towards the previous administration and more substantive to my life as someone who owns and purchases guns. In the meantime, I will drink from the cup of leftist tears as the meltdowns continue and pray that I’ve been wrong about America’s tipping point and our ability to restore the founding values that made this country great in the first place.

Franklin Armory Resumes Reformation Sales After Major Legal Victory Over ATF Scott Witner A firearm that defies the NFA is back and better than ever. In the wake of a pivotal court win against the ATF, Franklin Armory® has resumed production and sales of its Reformation® firearm line. Effective immediately, Reformation models featuring 7.5-inch and 11.5-inch barrels are shipping to consumers via federally licensed firearm dealers (FFLs)—and the best part? No tax stamp required. Thanks to a clearly worded ruling in the lawsuit FRAC v. Garland, the Reformation is now officially and permanently classified as a GCA-only “firearm,” not an NFA-regulated short-barreled rifle (SBR). What Makes the Reformation Different? At the core of the Reformation’s legal distinction is Franklin Armory’s patented straight cut land and groove barrel—a design that doesn’t fit the ATF’s traditional definitions of either rifled or smoothbore barrels. That means it doesn’t qualify as a rifle or a shotgun, and thus, falls outside the purview of the National Firearms Act (NFA). It’s simply a “firearm” as defined by the Gun Control Act (GCA). “Reformation was designed to be the ultimate home defense weapon,” said Jay Jacobson, President of Franklin Armory. “It provides excellent ballistic effectiveness in a short package, yet it does not trigger any NFA entanglements. The ruling made it clear that Reformation is simply just a GCA firearm.” Jacobson emphasized the broader Second Amendment implications of this legal win, calling it “an honor to secure this victory for the Second Amendment community in the face of agency overreach and tenacious litigation.” A Resounding Legal Reversal for ATF The landmark decision from U.S. District Court Judge Daniel M. Traynor pulled no punches. In granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs—Franklin Armory and the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC)—Judge Traynor concluded that the ATF had “exceeded its authority” by attempting to shoehorn the Reformation into a shotgun classification under either the GCA or NFA. Key excerpts from the ruling: • “Congress defined ‘shotgun’ specifically and said it had a ‘smooth bore.’” • “The definition of ‘smoothbore’… is unambiguous.” • “Straight grooves in a barrel would not fit the definition of ‘smoothbore’ or ‘rifle.’” • “Franklin Armory presented a square peg, and ATF shoved it into a round hole.” • “ATF exceeded its authority in defining ‘smoothbore’ as anything lacking ‘functional rifling.’” Judge Traynor ordered the ATF’s prior classification of the Reformation vacated and reaffirmed that “no further action from ATF is needed.” Legal to Own, Buy, and Transfer As of now, possession of a Reformation firearm is federally legal with no NFA tax stamp required. Just like the Mossberg Shockwave, Remington Tac-14, or Franklin’s own XO-26, FFLs can legally transfer the Reformation under GCA-only guidelines. Both 7.5-inch (RS7) and 11.5-inch (RS11) Reformation models are available immediately through Franklin Armory’s dealer network in most U.S. states. State-specific availability is listed at FranklinArmory.com/Reformation. Reformation Models and Pricing Each Reformation firearm features Franklin Armory’s patented NRS™ (Not a Rifle or Shotgun) barrel, and buyers can choose between a traditional semiauto trigger or the Binary Firing System®, which fires one round on pull and another on release. Reformation RS7™ • 7.5-inch barrel, 7-inch Franklin FST handguard • Forged aluminum receivers • Chambered in 5.56 NATO or .300 Blackout • Binary-equipped MSRP: $1,179.99 • Standard trigger MSRP: $1,099.99 • Includes: B5 Bravo stock, B5 P-Grip 23, vertical grip, salt bath nitride BCG, pistol-length gas system, and Triumvir® muzzle device. Reformation RS11™ • 11.5-inch barrel, 11.5-inch Franklin FSR handguard • Proprietary billet aluminum receivers • Chambered in 5.56 NATO or .300 Blackout • Binary-equipped MSRP: $1,669.99 • Standard trigger MSRP: $1,479.99 • Includes: Magpul SL-K stock, Ergo Ambi Sure grip, salt bath nitride BCG, carbine-length gas system, and Triumvir® muzzle device. For more details on how the Binary Firing System works, Franklin Armory has released a video titled “How Binary® Works”. About Franklin Armory® Operating out of the “Battle Born” state of Nevada, Franklin Armory is a leading innovator in American-made firearms and accessories. Their mission: to safeguard the God-given right to self-defense. Known for boundary-pushing designs and legal challenges that set precedent, Franklin Armory is proud to be Facilitators of Freedom™. Our Takeaway With the ATF’s overreach checked and the Reformation back on the shelves, this case sets a powerful precedent. Whether you’re in the market for a home defense firearm free of NFA entanglements or just want to own a piece of legal history, the Reformation® might be worth a serious look.

Gun Owner Data Leaks Expose The Danger of Registries Darwin Nercesian - Democrats in America will stop at nothing when it comes to their disarmament agenda, up to and including attempts to intimidate Americans by providing hit lists to criminals with private information regarding gun owners, where they live, and what you might be able to find if you pay them a visit. But a corrupt government that demands trust from citizens while at the same time maintaining lists of those privately armed is not an exclusive ideocracy of the United States. New Zealand and Israel, of all places, have not only maintained registries but have also allowed them to leak, putting their citizens at risk to both criminals and enemies of the state. Israel is an example of a government that demands the loyalty of its citizens but responds with authoritarian firearm restrictions and registries, should you be permitted to defend yourself and your family in an often-dangerous region plagued by terror attacks. It was only after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attacks condemning approximately 1200 people to murder, most without the means to fight back, that the country finally relaxed its firearms restrictions on civilians. But the government still made its lists. “260,000 new requests for firearm permits have been submitted… since Hamas’s October 7 attacks on Israel… My policy within the office was to permit as many people as possible to get a weapon… within a short period of time, we are [now] giving up to 3,000 approvals a day,” said National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir according to the Times of Israel. Talk about an effort “too little, too late” that should be tried for criminal negligence rather than celebrated. Now, it seems the privilege of self-defense and the defense of loved ones will come with added danger, thanks to a recent data leak initiated by Iranian-linked hackers who penetrated Israel’s databases containing sensitive gun owner information, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, that worked with U.S. cybersecurity firm, databreach.com to analyze the hack. “The documents include personal details of gun owners, including their full name, home address, photograph, military and medical background, firearm type, ammunition count and whether the weapon is stored at home… Anyone who keeps a gun at home is now at higher risk… We estimate the database contains identifying information on over 10,000 Israelis,” according to the report. Haaretz contacted several victims of the breach to confirm the accuracy of the leaked data, one of whom responded, “This is really dangerous. This puts a target on our backs.” But Israel isn’t the only country that doesn’t care about its citizens’ safety and right to privacy. New Zealand’s repeated inability to secure private gun owner information compromised more than 100 firearms owners in July of 2023 according to the New Zealand Herald. While the New Zealand Firearm Safety Authority described the data breach as an “error,” it came just a year after firearm owners’ private details were stolen during the commission of an old Auckland police station burglary, according to the Herald. Prior to that, a 2019 data breach connected to New Zealand’s mandatory gun confiscation program labeled as a “buyback” was the subject of a story in The Guardian entitled, “New Zealand’s gun buyback website ‘a shopping list for criminals.” Here in the U.S., if you think California still qualifies, the state’s Department of Injustice under Attorney General Rob Bonta launched a Firearms Dashboard Portal designed to provide firearm transaction and Concealed Carry permit holder data to anyone on the DOJ’s website. This purposeful attempt to intimidate gun owners led to the leak of personally identifying information, confirmed in a statement by the DOJ to include the names, dates of birth, gender, races, driver’s license numbers, addresses, and criminal histories of individuals who had applied for permits from 2011 through 2021. The breach also extended to dashboards detailing California’s Assault Weapon Registry, Dealer Record of Sale, Firearm Certification System, and Gun Violence Restraining Orders. Regarding the breach, Bonta feigned concern, however disingenuous and patronizing it must have seemed to gun owners throughout the state who, by now, must know that this is precisely as the state intends. “The California Department of Justice is entrusted to protect Californians and their data. We acknowledge the stress this may cause those individuals whose information was exposed. I am deeply disturbed and angered,” Bonta said in a statement. This epidemic lead too many to believe that the best way to prevent this type of sensitive data from being exposed is not to collect it. While I agree with that statement, we must hold those responsible for the leaks accountable for their actions. Data breaches are nothing new, and nobody can claim an error or accident at this point when it comes to exposing citizens to the dangers associated with publishing such a criminal hit list. These registries are meant for subjugation and nothing else, whether it be through intimidation, willful publishing for and recruitment of the criminal element to assist with disarming law-abiding citizens, or eventual confiscation plans. Always remember that these people are not the first to make lists, as they follow some of the most nefarious footsteps throughout history.

Virgina Govenor Glenn Youngkin Youngkin’s Vetoes Save Virginia’s Lawful Gun Owners From Disaster Yet Again Mark Chesnut We told you recently how anti-gun Virginia lawmakers had, for the second year in a row, passed a number of arguably unconstitutional measures related to firearms and sent them to Gov. Glenn Younkin for his consideration. It was like déjà vu all over again since those same lawmakers had passed more than 30 anti-gun schemes last year. Fortunately for Virginia gun owners, Youngkin once again made good use of his veto pen, vetoing some two dozen punitive restrictions that Democrat lawmakers wanted to force on their constituents. According to an alert from the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), the governor vetoed 30 gun-control bills, modified six other gun control bills so that they no longer pose a threat to Virginia’s lawful gun owners and signed four bills that had been modified in the General Assembly changing VCDL’s position from “oppose” to “neutral.” Among some of the worst measures vetoed were SB 848 and SB 880. The first would have raised the purchase age for certain semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols to 21, while the other would have prohibited carrying certain semi-automatic centerfire rifles or shotguns on any public street, road, alley, sidewalk, public right-of-way, or in any public park or other places open to the public. Two other measures, SB 891 and its House companion HB1607, would have imposed an arbitrary five-day delay before a law-abiding citizen could take possession of a legally purchased firearm. As we’ve mentioned many times in the past, there is no evidence that waiting periods reduce suicides, homicides, or mass shootings. Other bills vetoed would require state-mandated firearms storage and prohibit law-abiding adults and individuals under the age of 21 from owning specific semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and pistols. “The Democrats and the gun control organizations pushed this year to go easier on violent criminals, while at the same time attacking people like you and me,” VCDL said. “These vetoes are their just desserts for disrespecting the Constitution and minimizing the importance of self-defense for good, decent people.” The National Rifle Association, which has its headquarters in Virginia and spent a lot of effort lobbying at the state capital, expressed thanks to Gov. Youngkin for once again heading off what was certain to be a disaster for lawful gun owners. “On behalf of Virginia’s NRA members and Second Amendment supporters, I want to thank Governor Youngkin for standing strong in his support for the Second Amendment by vetoing the litany of gun control bills pushed through the General Assembly this year,” John Commerford, executive director of NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA), said in an alert to members. “For the second year in a row, gun control activists tried to enact dozens of radical, California-style laws that would have severely restricted the Second Amendment rights of gun owners in the Commonwealth. The NRA applauds Governor Youngkin for upholding his promise to protect our Constitutional freedoms.” As we’ve mentioned before, Virginia is a poster child for the phrase “elections matter.” Had they not elected Youngkin, and a Democrat won the governorship, gun laws would already be a disaster. This fall Virginia voters will head to the polls to elect a governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and members of the House of Delegates. When heading to the polls, gun owners should remember that it was made a great effort by Gov. Youngkin to save their butts two years in a row. This fall Virginia voters will head to the polls to elect a governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general and members of the House of Delegates. When heading to the polls, gun owners should remember that it was made a great effort by Gov. Youngkin to save their butts two years in a row.

DOJ Investigating L.A. County Sheriff’s Department Over CCW Wait Times Darwin Nercesian The Department of Justice, under Attorney General Pam Bondi, has launched an investigation into the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to determine whether the agency violates American’s gun rights via excessive fees and wait times throughout its concealed carry permitting process. The investigation, aimed at defending Californians from alleged abuse of their Second Amendment rights, was announced on Thursday, March 27, as part of an initiative sparked by President Trump’s Executive Order directing Bondi to review Second Amendment laws and infringements across the nation. In bringing this investigation to light, the DOJ cites a legal challenge to the permitting process in which plaintiffs faced an 18-month delay in receiving concealed carry licenses from the Sheriff’s Department. Referring to California as a “particularly egregious offender” concerning its irreverence and open defiance of the United States Supreme Court’s pro-Second Amendment rulings, including the state’s newly adopted anti-gun legislation further restricting the right to bear arms, the DOJ believes there is likely to be additional cases in which Californians are “experiencing similarly long delays that are unduly burdening, or effectively denying, the Second Amendment rights of the people of Los Angeles.” “This Department of Justice will not stand idly by while States and localities infringe on the Second Amendment rights of ordinary, law-abiding Americans… The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and under my watch, the Department will actively enforce the Second Amendment just like it actively enforces other fundamental Constitutional rights,” Bondi said in a statement about the investigation. Meanwhile, the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department issued its own statement on Thursday amounting to not much more than “I didn’t do anything.” “We are committed to processing all Concealed Carry Weapons (CCW) applications in compliance with state and local laws to promote responsible gun ownership… The Department is facing a significant staffing crisis, with only 14 personnel in our CCW Unit, yet we have successfully approved 15,000 CCW applications. Currently, we are diligently working through approximately 4,000 active cases, striving to meet this unfunded mandate,” according to a statement from the department. Hogwash. Let’s put this into perspective. California is one of those hammer-and-sickle states that places a waiting time between purchasing and taking possession of a firearm, regardless of instant background check approval. That waiting time is ten days. So, let’s just say a criminal decides to go through the process rather than simply buying their firearm from the back of a van on 8th and Alverado. Then, let’s say he decides he’s going to carry that gun concealed to commit a violent crime when he reaches his destination. Are we really that delusional to think he is going to apply for a permit to transport the gun to his intended target? He already has the firearm, and how much permission do you think he’ll apply for before taking an innocent life? The answer is none. If an instant NICS check is enough to turn over possession of a firearm, there is no excuse for a burdensome process that takes 18 months to determine whether that individual has the right to carry it. In fact, there is no excuse for a permitting process that takes longer than the background check itself. I’d categorize training as a necessity to defend life effectively with lethal force, but that’s not where the months are spent. If the Sheriff’s Department’s claims are correct, the state’s processing requirements are too burdensome and arbitrarily time-consuming, unduly depriving the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of self-preservation. That is not the citizen’s fault and must not be the individual’s responsibility to wait, but the state’s burden to speed up the process. There was once an idea that the government existed first to defend its people’s liberty. I’m not sure when that changed to government knows best, and what you need are fewer rights. Speaking of the types of people driving such an ugly transition to authoritarianism, Jacob Charles, associate professor at Pepperdine Caruso School of Law and self-proclaimed expert on the Second Amendment, says he has not seen this type of DOJ probe before, classified as a pattern-or-practice investigation and typically focused on police misconduct. Charles, another leftist who has lost any grasp of history, reality, and the Constitution, instead blames the Trump administration, calling the investigation “another culture war issue pitting red versus blue” while completely dismissing the daily attacks conservatives and gun owners face from the left. “This must be seen in the context of Trump attacking law firms, universities, and cities, counties and states who don’t profess fealty to him personally and to his vision… He’s not even pretending to be a president for all of America,” Charles said, likely with a straight face earned only through years of mainlining delusion. Another self-proclaimed expert on the Second Amendment, University of Chicago law professor Darrell A.H. Miller, claims the investigation is a reversal for Republicans, who have previously spoken out against other pattern-and-practice investigations into problematic police departments conducted by civil rights attorneys at the DOJ. “Republicans in particular extolled a lot of belief in local control and states’ rights,” but for the 2nd Amendment, “those priorities get reversed,” Stop conflating issues, you petulant dolt. Conservatives may not have been fans of idiotic attempts to create classes of people protected from the consequences of their actions, nor are we fans of defunding the police or kowtowing to angry mobs who demand every police action against a member of their community is driven by racism. Additionally, the issue of the Second Amendment is not one of “states’ rights,” no matter how much you want to cry about it. It is a Constitutionally protected right at the federal level, which grants no right to subversion by the state. Chuck Michel, the president of the California Rifle and Pistol Association, welcomed the investigation and took a pat on the back, telling The Times he believes it comes as a result of his group’s lawsuit challenging the matter. He also opined against violations in jurisdictions outside of Los Angeles County, as excessive fees and waiting times indicate a pattern of behavior and a strategy rather than an isolated case of understaffing. “I think the reason the DOJ is getting involved in this jurisdiction is because of the things we uncovered in this lawsuit… The primary issues that we are now facing from somewhat recalcitrant jurisdictions is excessive fees to go through an application process and excessive wait times to try to get a license — and wait times that exceed the state 120-day limit, some going out to 18 months or two years,” Michel said. Bondi says she hopes the announcement will encourage other localities to “voluntarily embrace their duty to protect Second Amendment rights” but warns that if it isn’t the case, this investigation will be one of many that could spread nationwide. Although the Supreme Court has suggested that “onerous” gun-permitting processes may be beyond the scope of Constitutionality, they have successfully kicked that can down the road for future taxpayer-funded litigation, as they do, by not delineating the amount of time or a prohibitive level of expense that should be adhered to. Well, perhaps the ATF should issue a rule. They are the regulatory body under the DOJ, and they seem to have had no qualms issuing them in the past under penalty of imprisonment against American citizens. Pam, if you’re listening…

Restoration of Second Amendment Rights After They Are Lost Darwin Nercesian There has long been a provision of federal law that allows Americans to petition the U.S. Attorney General (AG) for relief from firearm disabilities on a case-by-case basis, a little-known piece of information due to the function lying dormant since 1991. You see, it’s easier to lose the right to purchase or possess firearms than one might think, and many of the offenses and the conditions surrounding them point to the fact that the prohibited individual does not pose any enhanced risk of physical harm to themselves or the public. So why, then, and how have Americans lost this fundamental access to the restoration of a Constitutionally enumerated liberty? It began in 1991 when a Bolshevik anti-Second Amendment group, the Violence Policy Center, released a report that claimed occasions upon which some citizens who were granted relief would later go on to re-offend. It is important to note that although the AG oversees the provision, the administration process for the petitions has been handed down to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Politicians, in their ever-knee-jerking zeal to strip Americans of their right to bear arms, responded to the report in Congress by passing language in ATF funding bills that prohibited the use of any funds for this purpose. Now, if you’re thinking that Congress is passing bills contradictory to the law and circumventing both the rights of Americans and the authority of the AG, then you are right on track, but this is nothing new. Look at all the existing gun control laws, both on the federal and state side, that already circumvent Constitutional law and the politicians and activist judges that have ushered them into existence and protected them from legal challenges. It is easy, then, to determine that all branches of the government have long since been in cahoots to some extent and that the tyrannical ship sailed on the American people years ago. Last week, The Washington Post published an editorial in its opinion section by two law professors who argued that the government should resume funding the rights restoration provision on the grounds that categories of prohibited individuals include people who would not be demonstrably dangerous and whose Second Amendment prohibitions would likely not survive U.S. Supreme Court caselaw scrutiny. The professors also stipulate that the ability to seek relief itself may shield the overly broad categories of prohibition from further Constitutional challenges, which could perhaps lead to the Supreme Court striking down possession prohibitions entirely, two issues that I do not find mutually exclusive. However, I am not sure the High Court, even in its current perceived configuration, is capable of such Constitutional reverence. The issue of rights restoration recently reemerged as the Department of Justice (DOJ) under President Trump has started reviewing petitions through the Office of the Pardon Attorney, a very clever workaround to the illegal ATF funding rider issued by the Politburo, AKA Congress, which deprives Americans of not only their Second Amendment liberty but also their right to due process. Legal precedent requires the government to carry the burden of proof that an individual poses an enhanced risk of harm to self or others before prohibiting them from purchasing or possessing firearms. Those of us who live and understand that criminals intent on violent crime and murder do not give pause to their actions to follow legal protocol and procedure when obtaining firearms. Instead, they see those laws to make law-abiding citizens more vulnerable to their objectives and, in that sense, make great partners to the left and any lawmakers who follow the subversive path of the gun control agenda. Leaving Americans unprotected in this manner invites violence, which creates the opportunity for further infringements upon our rights under the guise of protecting our safety, and that cycle is designed to continue until all freedom is lost. Guess what happens next. When I hear remarks about America being a beacon of freedom, I think to myself, sure, maybe relatively speaking, depending on what state you live in, but not in any general understanding. I’m sure it was at one time, long before I was a twinkle in the eyes of my parents. I wish I could have seen it back then. But individual liberty has not survived the scrutiny of disingenuous agendas and their narratives that claim to know better what Americans need than Americans themselves. The idea that politicians and the government need to strip our freedoms to protect us is insulting and is not even original, as the same tired scheme has been used and nauseam historically to subjugate populations around the world.

How Do Red Flag Laws Work Robert Sadowski A red flag law is the common name given to Extreme Risk Protection Orders, Emergency Substantial Risk Orders, Firearm Restraining Orders, and several other official names that vary from state to state. Essentially, red flag laws allow a civil court—a judge—to temporarily remove firearms from a person who is considered a threat to themselves or others. Other items deemed dangerous weapons can also be seized depending on the state. Red flag laws were enacted to protect people as a suicide-prevention tool, a method to stop domestic violence, or averting a potential mass shooting. I think we—gun owners and non-gun owners—are all in favor of laws that protect our family, friends, and communities, but when the government, in this case, the state government, seizes our property, is that a violation of the 4th Amendment against unlawful search and seizure? What about the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms? What States Have Red Flag Laws? The following states have enacted Red Flag Laws: • California • Colorado • Connecticut • Delaware • Florida • Hawaii • Illinois • Indiana • Maine • Maryland • Massachusetts • Michigan • Minnesota • Nevada • New Jersey • New Mexico • New York • Oregon • Rhode Island • Vermont • Virginia • Washington • District of Columbia Other states are considering adopting a red flag law. The first state to enact a red flag law was Connecticut in 1999. A shooting at the Connecticut Lottery headquarters in 1998, where an employee shot and killed four of his supervisors and then killed himself, was the act that caused Connecticut to pass the law. In 2022, under the Biden administration, the federal government created the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to encourage states to adopt red flag laws. The act offers states grants if the state enacts and enforces red flag laws. How Red Flag Laws Work Each state has its own procedures on starting the process to seize a gun owner’s firearms but generally operate the same way. Law Enforcement and/or family members petition a judge for an emergency order. That order would temporarily remove firearms from a person found to be at risk of harming themselves or someone else. In all 21 states where red flag laws exist, law enforcement is allowed to petition a judge for an order. In New Mexico and Florida, law enforcement is the only one eligible to petition a judge. In states like California, Colorado, and Hawaii, family members, teachers, and medical professionals can also petition a judge. Here’s how the scenario plays out. Someone is threatening to harm themselves or another person or people. Law enforcement, family members, teachers and medical professionals know or believe that person has access to a firearm, so they submit a petition to a judge. The judge has the final word on whether the situation warrants an immediate order and evaluates it based on the specificity of the person’s threats and that person’s access to firearms. If the judge deems the risk of violence high, the judge can issue an emergency ex parte order, which goes into effect immediately without the person being present or notified in advance. An ex parte decision is one decided by a judge without requiring all of the parties to the dispute to be present. The burden of proof on which the judge bases his or her decision is remarkably low for the initial seizure hearing, especially when you consider that no crime has been committed. The length of time the guns are kept away from their owner varies by state and situation, but typically, a set time is established, and then the guns are returned unless other court hearings extend the period of confiscation. The person named on the order can request their guns back and fight the order in court, at the person’s own expense, where they can present their side to the story. When guns are returned, law enforcement may conduct a background check before returning the firearms. Do Red Flag Laws Work? There is no central database that collects information on the effectiveness of red flag laws, but states like Connecticut credit the laws with a decrease in suicide. California touts that the law prevented mass shootings targeting schools. On the other side of the coin, 42 states have declared themselves Second Amendment sanctuaries where law enforcement will not enforce gun policies that it believes violate the 2nd Amendment. Do Red Flag Laws Violate the 2nd and 4th Amendment? In recent years, red flag laws have been challenged and failed, with court's ruling that they are constitutional. We should all understand how red flag laws work in the state we live. Every law has loopholes that could potentially weaponize it against an unsuspecting person, even if the law was enacted in good faith.

Federal Measure Would Deregulate Short-Barreled Rifles, Shotguns, AOWs Mark Chesnut Spurred by the Biden Administration’s redefining braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs), placing them under the auspices of the National Firearms Act (NFA), a U.S. Congressman and a U.S. Senator have filed companion bills in Congress to remove short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and so-called “any other weapons (AOWs)” from NFA regulation. Rep. Andrew Clyde, R-Georgia, introduced the House version of the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles, or SHORT, Act, while U.S. Sen. Roger Marshall, R-Kansas, introduced the Senate companion act. The measure states: “In the case of any registration or licensing requirement under State or local law with respect to a short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or any other weapon (as defined in section 5845(e)) which is determined by reference to the National Firearms Act, any person who acquires or possesses such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon in accordance with chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, shall be treated as meeting any such registration or licensing requirement with respect to such rifle, shotgun, or other weapon.” “The Biden-Harris Administration dangerously weaponized the draconian National Firearms Act to further infringe on Americans’ Second Amendment liberties,” Clyde said in a news release announcing the measure. “Yet the American people overwhelmingly rejected the Left’s unconstitutional tactics and backdoor gun control in November. It’s now time for Congress to use this mandate to protect Americans’ unalienable, constitutional right to keep and bear arms. Deregulating SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs is the most effective way to ensure American gun owners are not subjected to unlawful and unnecessary restrictions, taxation, and registration of firearms or pistol braces. I’m proud to partner with Senator Marshall in the fight to defeat this Biden-era rule and safeguard Americans’ Second Amendment freedoms.” Sen. Marshall said he hopes the measure starts “rolling back” some of the damage the Biden Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) did during Biden’s time in office. “‘Shall not be infringed’ is crystal clear—and the Biden-era abuses of the constitutionally protected rights of gun owners across the country need to be undone,” Sen. Marshall said. “The SHORT Act takes a step toward rolling back nonsensical regulations that the National Firearms Act has placed upon gun owners. I challenge my colleagues in both chambers to pass this legislation and join me in fully restoring and protecting our God-given Second Amendment rights.” As expected, a number of gun-rights groups, including Gun Owners of America (GOA), have thrown their full support behind the measure. “The Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act will repeal elements of the archaic National Firearms Act, which the Biden ATF abused to justify their unconstitutional pistol brace ban—a policy change that affects millions of law-abiding gun owners and does nothing to curb rising crime,” said Aidan Johnston, GOA director of federal affairs. “GOA is proud to support the SHORT Act, which will repeal archaic short barrel restrictions from the National Firearms Act of 1934 and prevent them from ever being weaponized against the American people ever again.” In total, 45 House members from districts around the country co-sponsored the act, showing the widespread disdain for the Biden Administration’s actions in reinterpreting the NFA.

Key West Man Pleads Guilty in D.C. to Smuggling Firearms from Florida to Haiti Friday, April 11, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Columbia USADC.Media@usdoj.gov WASHINGTON – Jean Wiltene Eugene, 57, of Key West, Florida, pleaded guilty today in U.S. District Court to one count of smuggling for his role in a gun running operation that illegally exported firearms to Haiti. The plea was announced by U.S. Attorney Edward R. Martin, Jr., Sue J. Bai, head of the Justice Department’s National Security Division, and FBI Acting Special Agent in Charge Justin Fleck of the Miami Field Office. Sentencing is scheduled for July 22. According to court documents, Eugene is a U.S. citizen who was born in Haiti and resides in Key West, Florida. On or about September 23, 2021, Eugene knowingly exported more than two firearms from the United States to Haiti without having first obtained the required license from the Bureau of Industry and Security, located in the District of Columbia. Any person who exports a firearm without proper authorization may be fined up to $1 million and imprisoned for up to 20 years. According to court records, Eugene arranged to ship vehicles to Haiti through a Florida-based export company. Eugene signed the company’s terms and conditions of shipments, which required the shipper to affirm that the vehicles did not contain any firearms or ammunition. In a subsequent interview with law enforcement, Eugene admitted that, in 2020 and 2021, he shipped two vehicles to Haiti with firearms hidden inside. Eugene stated that he placed food and other items around the bins holding the firearms so border authorities would not find the weapons. In a later interview with federal agents Eugene stated that nine firearms he purchased in Key West under his name were currently located at his gas station in Haiti and that none of those firearms remained in the United States. He admitted that he knew it was illegal to ship weapons to Haiti when confronted by the federal agents. Pursuant to an active arrest warrant, Eugene was arrested at a traffic stop on May 4, 2024, in Key West. This case is being investigated by the FBI Miami Field Office with assistance from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Department of Commerce’s Office of Export Enforcement. It is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kimberly Paschall and Trial Attorney Beau Barnes of the National Security Division. Updated April 11, 2025