‘Stand Your Ground,’ Self-Defense and the Rhetoric That Emboldened Recent Shooters Pro-gun groups on the right have for years promoted the right to armed self-defense and warned of pervasive threats.
Gregory Kielma • June 18, 2023
Armed self-defense Good Read Tale a look
Pro-gun groups on the right have for years promoted the right to armed self-defense and warned of pervasive threats. Experts and critics say the recent shootings of innocent people are the consequence.
Ringing the wrong doorbell, pulling into the wrong driveway, accidentally getting in the wrong car: Mundane, everyday mistakes ended in the shootings of several young people – and the death of one of them – last month when the men on the receiving end of the errors reached for their firearms and decided to shoot.
The shootings captured public attention nationwide, breaking through the unfortunate white noise of pervasive gun violence for their brazenness and similarities. They have reignited the fight over so-called “stand your ground” laws expanding the legal protections around self-defense. And critics, too, have pointed to the incidents as the natural end result of a society flooded with firearms.
But experts and gun control advocates say the shootings are a symptom of a much broader cause: the proliferation of rhetoric on the pro-gun right and among conservatives in general about persistent, pervasive threats, danger and crime, and also of guns as the only means of personal safety against the criminals that lurk around every corner.
“For seven years, all of us here today have been engaged in an epic struggle against the corrupt forces and communist maniacs – and they’re all over the place – that are absolutely trying to destroy our country,” former President Donald Trump said this month in a speech at the National Rifle Association’s annual meeting. “They want to take away your guns while throwing open the jailhouse doors and releasing bloodthirsty criminals into your communities.”
Wayne LaPierre, the embattled chief executive officer of the pro-gun organization, expressed similar sentiments.
“You don’t need the government to tell you the sky is blue, water’s wet or that you have the God-given right to self-defense,” he said.
‘This Could Happen to Anybody’
In Kansas City, Missouri, Ralph Yarl, a Black teenager, rang the wrong doorbell on April 13 while trying to pick up his siblings from a friend’s house. The octogenarian homeowner inside the house shot Yarl in the head in what he said was self-defense, in an action prosecutors say had a “racial component.” Two days later in upstate New York, a car full of young people pulled into the wrong driveway while looking for another friend’s house. The homeowner shot at the car from the porch. Twenty-year-old Kaylin Gillis died. And just days after that, a man shot two teenage cheerleaders in Elgin, Texas, after one of them tried to get into his car by accident, thinking it was her ride. She realized her mistake, exited the car and tried to apologize. But the man opened fire. Yarl’s shooting made headlines in part because it highlighted issues relating to race, and public attention quickly turned to the other shootings in the days after. Though the U.S. experiences gun violence at the highest rate of any developed nation, the shootings broke through the news cycle in part because they easily inspired empathy.
Gun Control and Gun Rights Cartoons
“This could happen to anybody. I mean, there was a racial factor involved in at least one of these. But beyond that, it's just like, this could happen to me or this could happen to my kid,” says Michael Lawlor, an associate professor of criminal justice at the University of New Haven and a former member of the Connecticut House of Representatives. Lawlor, a Democrat, also served as the state’s undersecretary for criminal justice policy.
Focus turned, then, on Missouri’s “stand your ground” law, which is like a law of the same name that is in place in Texas. Gun rights advocates have pushed for years to enact the measures, which expand protections around the use of force when acting in self-defense. Under the law, a person has the right to use deadly force when acting in self-defense anywhere they have a legal right to be, and without first retreating – in other words, using force does not have to be a last resort. The laws burst onto the public debate stage in 2012, when Florida police noted it as the reason they refused to arrest George Zimmerman, who fatally shot Trayvon Martin, a Black unarmed teenager. Zimmerman was later charged and then acquitted.
New York has a similar, albeit more limited, law called the “castle doctrine” that allows for use of force by a person defending their own home – or castle, so to speak. And the passage of “stand your ground” laws has happened in concert with a focused emphasis by the pro-gun right on crime, threats, and self-defense. While promoting firearms as a tool for self-defense is not a new idea, the expansion of laws allowing for use of deadly force may contribute to a climate where gun owners are more ready to do so, says Matthew Lacombe, an associate professor of political science at Case Western University who specializes in gun politics, the NRA and political ideology.
“The NRA narrative that you might use guns for armed self-defense is not new. What is newer is liberalization of particularly state-level laws pertaining to how, when and why you can use lethal force to defend yourself,” Lacombe says.
The men who perpetrated the recent shootings will likely not be covered under such laws, Lacombe notes. But in a wider context, “it's probably the case that the general shift legally has encouraged more and more people to think about self-defense in these terms, encouraged more people to buy guns specifically for self-defense purposes, and in some ways emboldened them in terms of what they see as a reasonable use of them,” he says. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action, which has championed the laws, did not respond to a request for comment about the recent shootings and self-defense laws.
Politicians and advocates for more restrictive gun control laws have pointed the finger at “stand your ground” laws for such an embodiment.
“I think we now have a shoot-first, ask-later policy in this state – or at least that is what people have interpreted it to be,” Missouri state Rep. Maggie Nurrenbern, a Democrat, was quoted by The Kansas City Star as saying in the wake of Yarl’s shooting. Nurrenbern introduced a measure in the legislature earlier this year to limit the state’s law, but the bill went nowhere. The context around the laws, including a focus on firearms as a means for self-defense as opposed to other uses, Lacombe says, is critical for understanding what effect they may have on society.
“It's not just the laws, it's also the sort of marketing campaigns and rhetoric surrounding the laws, which I think have increasingly turned the gun-rights space into one focused on armed self-defense specifically, as opposed to other uses of guns,” Lacombe says.
Part of that context also includes a pervasive narrative pushed by pro-gun advocates and the NRA that has intertwined gun rights and core values like freedom, making expansive gun rights a core part of the conservative ideology – even identity. “Owning a gun isn't just having an object that you might use for recreation or self-defense, but it's more of a sort of symbol of who you are and what you stand for. And part of that relates to self-sufficiency,” Lacombe says of the narrative. “We think of self-sufficiency as being politically coded – you know, ‘I don't need handouts’ – but it's also in recent years come to even involve notions of protection.”
Fear and Freedom
Republicans have in recent years emphasized crime and threats in their electoral messaging around – a threat they say is posed by an “invasion” of illegal immigration, the threat posed by criminals emboldened by Democrats’ soft-on-crime policies, the threat of eroding rights and norms.
“The sinister forces trying to kill America have done everything they can to stop me, to silence you, and to turn this nation into a socialist dumping ground for criminals, junkies, Marxists, thugs, radicals and dangerous refugees that no other country wants,” Trump told the crowd at the Conservative Political Action Conference earlier this year. “If those opposing us succeed, our once-beautiful USA will be a failed country that no one will even recognize – a lawless, open-borders, crime-ridden, filthy, communist nightmare.”
Trump is considered the current front-runner for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination. His comments echo narratives threaded through many right-leaning news and commentary shows and other forms of media, as well as the electoral strategies of other candidates.
Fear is an old and effective political motivator, experts say, and that motivation was also on display at the NRA’s annual meeting earlier this month, with speeches replete with warnings about self-defense, crime and protecting freedoms from those who want to take it away by force.
“Threat is a pretty powerful motivator, so associating support for gun rights with addressing different types of threats is something that historically has worked pretty well for the NRA,” Lacombe says.
Lawlor, the criminal justice professor, and former state legislator, describes fear and threat as a “political business model” that shifts and changes in topic over the years but remains a pervasive strategy.
“In 2004, the presidential election was all about gay marriage. Right now, it’s all about drag queens. A couple of cycles ago, it was all about immigrant caravans. There is always something that can be that thing that everyone should fear,” Lawlor says. “And so, we're back to crime now. That's where we are now – that you should be scared that someone's going to steal your car or break into your house.”
Though crime rates vary by city, the violent crime rate in the U.S. overall has plummeted since the 1990s, when gang violence associated with an epidemic of crack cocaine fueled urban homicide rates. In fact, violent crime rates have been slashed by more than half – though polling shows that Americans believe the number has gone up, despite the data.
The result of threat-based rhetoric, Lawlor argues, can be what happened in Missouri – a senior citizen “who's watching Fox News all day with the volume all the way on max, has a gun, of course, to protect themselves, and he's been told that sooner or later, some Black guy is going to show and try and kill you or break into your house or whatever.”
‘There's a 16-year-old kid knocking on his door by mistake, and – boom, right? So this outcome is predictable,” he says.
Brazilian National Sentenced for Selling Firearms Without a License and Conspiracy Thursday, November 13, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Massachusetts BOSTON – A Brazilian national unlawfully living in Milford was sentenced on Oct. 24, 2025 in federal court in Worcester for conspiracy and engaging in the business of selling firearms without a license. Rafaell Martins Ferreira, 28, was sentenced by U.S. District Judge Margaret R. Guzman to time-served (approximately 13 months) followed by two years of supervised release. The defendant is subject to deportation upon completion of the imposed sentence. In July 2025, Martins Ferreira pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to engage in the business of dealing firearms without a license and one count of engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license. Between February and March 2024, Martins Ferreira sold two firearms to cooperating witnesses without the required license. In addition, Martins Ferreira indicated he had access to additional firearms. One of these firearms included a large capacity magazine (capable of holding more than 15 rounds of ammunition). United States Attorney Leah B. Foley; Thomas Greco, Special Agent in Charge of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Boston Field Division; Michael J. Krol, Special Agent in Charge of Homeland Security Investigations in New England; Patricia H. Hyde, Field Office Director, Boston, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations; and Ketty Larco-Ward, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service’s Boston Division made the announcement. Valuable assistance was provided by the Massachusetts State Police and the Milford Police Department. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Michael J. Crowley and John Reynolds of the Organized Crime & Gang Unit prosecuted the case. Updated November 13, 2025
FEDERAL JURY CONVICTS PENSACOLA MAN FOR SHOOTING AT DEA SPECIAL AGENT Thursday, November 13, 2025 U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of Florida PENSACOLA, FLORIDA – Austin James McCastler II, 36, was convicted by a federal jury on two counts of distribution of methamphetamine, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl and marijuana, possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, attempted prevention of the government’s authority to take property during an authorized search and seizure, assault with a deadly weapon of a Special Agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration, and discharging a firearm during a violent crime. John Heekin, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Florida, announced the verdict today. US Attorney Heekin said: “This case exemplified the extreme dangers faced by the brave men and women of law enforcement who put their lives on the line every day to keep our communities safe from violent criminals. I am incredibly proud of the outstanding trial work by the talented prosecutors in my office that resulted in this successful verdict.” Trial testimony and evidence revealed that, after undercover law enforcement purchased methamphetamine from McCastler’s Pensacola residence on two occasions, a search warrant was obtained to search for and seize illicit narcotics from his home. On March 7, 2025, law enforcement attempted to execute the lawful warrant. McCastler would not comply with orders to surrender to law enforcement, and he armed himself with his American Tactical Imports assault rifle. As law enforcement surrounded the residence, McCastler opened fire, including one shot intended for the DEA Special Agent. McCastler then fled from the residence, jumped in his vehicle, and a high-speed chase ensued. The Escambia County Sheriff’s Office was immediately on the tail of McCastler and eventually immobilized his vehicle in traffic. McCastler then tried to flee on foot, but law enforcement captured him. A search of his residence ultimately revealed the loaded assault rifle, a second firearm, dozens of rounds of ammunition, fentanyl, and marijuana, amongst other things. McCastler is scheduled for sentencing on February 10, 2026, before United States District Judge M. Casey Rodgers. McCastler, who has more than five prior state felony convictions, faces up to life imprisonment. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, the Escambia County Sheriff’s Office, the Pensacola Police Department, and the Santa Rosa County Sheriff’s Office investigated the case. Assistant United States Attorneys David L. Goldberg and Jessica S. Etherton prosecuted the case. This case is part of Operation Take Back America (https://www.justice.gov/dag/media/1393746/dl?inline ) a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETFs) and Project Safe Neighborhood (PSN). The United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of Florida is one of 94 offices that serve as the nation’s principal litigators under the direction of the Attorney General. To access available public court documents online, please visit the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida website. For more information about the United States Attorney’s Office, Northern District of Florida, visit http://www.justice.gov/usao/fln/index.html. Contact United States Attorney’s Office Northern District of Florida USAFLN.Press.Office@usdoj.gov X: @USAO_NDFL Updated November 13, 2025
Parrish Man Sentenced To More Than Eleven Years For Firearms Offense U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Tampa, Florida – U.S. District Judge Mary S. Scriven has sentenced Jason Peterson (29, Parrish) to 11 years and 5 months in federal prison for possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. The court also ordered Peterson to forfeit the firearms possessed in connection with the offense. Peterson pleaded guilty on June 11, 2025. According to court records, on November 16, 2024, deputies from the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office responded to a 911 call from a residence in Parrish. The caller stated that Peterson had previously battered her and was in possession of a firearm. Deputies arrested Peterson and recovered a Smith & Wesson handgun and a Bauer handgun from the residence. ATF agents interviewed Peterson after his arrest. Peterson admitted to possessing the Smith & Wesson handgun and knowing that he could not possess a firearm as a convicted felon. During the same interview, Peterson also discussed a Rossi shotgun that his wife had purchased for him at a gun store in Sarasota, which he subsequently sold to another felon. ATF agents subsequently recovered surveillance video showing Peterson in possession of the shotgun in October 2024. Prior to possessing the firearms, Peterson knew he had been convicted of multiple felonies, including battery on a law enforcement officer, resisting an officer with violence, and delivery of a controlled substance. As a convicted felon, Peterson is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition under federal law. This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Jeff Chang. This case is part of Operation Take Back America, a nationwide initiative that marshals the full resources of the Department of Justice to repel the invasion of illegal immigration, achieve the total elimination of cartels and transnational criminal organizations and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Operation Take Back America streamlines efforts and resources from the Department’s Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and Project Safe Neighborhoods. NOTE: This matter occurred on a previous date but not published at that time due to government shutdown. Press release posted and made available following the return to normal operations. Updated November 14, 2025
Gun Range, Let's Be Safe Gregg Kielma I observed a gentleman show up with his son and his son’s girlfriend. The son and girlfriend looked like they were in their mid-20’s. The dad then tried to teach the girlfriend how to shoot for the first time….. Very poor instruction to say the least. I continued to watch the “training” and immediately called a “Cease Fire” I could tell this wasn’t going to end well. I offered some assistance and was rejected. As a range safety officer, (this incident was not at my outdoor range) I stopped the fire line and asked that both be removed from the range until they had the proper training form a certified instructor. The indoor ranged operator agreed with me and asked them to leave until they had proper training. I offered all three of them training at my outdoor range. I told them this is the training that they will need to move forward if interested- 11/08/2025 still no answer: MY RULES for Safety at My Outdoor Range: • Tactical K Training and Firearms Safety Class (Must be taken before shooting at my outdoor range). The range is controlled by me and my team. No exceptions. • Liability Form Signed. • Safety is and will always BE #1... ALWAYS. • You can take the CCW class in lieu of the safety training before entering my outdoor range. • Range Day: have firearms ready to present to the RSO for inspection before use. • Follow all Range Rules. • The Range Safety Officer has the “Last Word”. • Any conflicts will be reviewed by Gregg Kielma and the RSO and a final decision will be rendered. If asked to leave, do it. Tactical K Training and Firearms Gregg Kielma
If my client purchases a .22 revolver, is there ammunition I can use to still make it an effective home defense weapon? Gregg Kielma Says Gregg Kielma, FFL, Firearms Instructor, Gunsmith, First Aid Fundamentals Instructor and ERT Captain, that's a great question and can be answered easily. The best ammo you can use for a .22 revolver to make it an effective home defense weapon is .22 ammo. Let's Take a Look My wife has a Ruger LCR 8 round .22 revolver among may other firearms to protect herself at home and out in public. Some people call her Ruger .22 a “pea shooter” but in my opinion it's a great home defense weapon coupled with her .410 Bullpup. Both are small, easy to handle, the Ruger holds 8 rounds, the Bull Pup 6 rounds and has virtually no recoil or very low recoil depending on her firearm use. If someone is breaking in and they hear someone say, “I'm armed and will defend myself if you don't leave immediately!” there are two ways it can go. First, the easy way. They hear that you're armed and get the hell out. They avoid risk staying safe. Second, the scarier way is they don't care and come in anyway. If they come at you and you start shooting, that's usually enough to scare them off. If not, you could put 8 rounds in them. Even .22 rounds are enough to cause pain and, if you hit them right or hit them multiple times, they won't want more and will either flee or drop. Do I, Gregg Kielma, prefer my 9mm or .45 semi auto to her .22 revolver? Yes, I do. Do I want her to be unarmed and defenseless? No, I don't. I'd much rather she has something she's comfortable with and confident enough to use. Side Note: My wife is deadly accurate with all her weapons. She trains with me we and has become an excellent shooter. Practice, Practice, Practice. She learned from one of the best...me. Says Kielma. Let’s Take A LOOK Further Choosing .22 Ammunition for Home Defense The question of whether a .22 revolver can serve as an effective home defense weapon often arises. The most suitable ammunition for this purpose is .22 caliber ammo, which is specifically designed for these firearms. Advantages of the .22 Revolver for Home Defense As an example, the Ruger LCR 8-round .22 revolver stands out as a capable option. While some may dismiss it as a “pea shooter,” it offers several benefits for home defense. Its compact size makes it easy to handle, it holds eight rounds, and it has virtually no recoil, allowing for more comfortable and controlled shooting. Potential Scenarios in a Home Defense Situation In the event of a break-in, announcing that you are armed and willing to defend yourself can often deter an intruder. There are two possible outcomes in this scenario: the intruder may hear your warning and choose to leave, avoiding unnecessary risk; or, in a more dangerous situation, they may ignore your warning and proceed. If this happens, firing the .22 revolver is usually enough to scare off the intruder. If that does not work, the revolver’s eight rounds can still inflict significant pain. Multiple well-placed shots with .22 ammunition can be effective at deterring or incapacitating an assailant, causing them to flee or stop their advance. Comfort and Confidence with Firearms While some may prefer a 9mm semi-automatic over a .22 revolver, the most important factor is being armed with a weapon you are comfortable and confident using. For example, the .22 revolver may be the best choice for someone who finds larger calibers uncomfortable or difficult to handle. Prioritizing familiarity and confidence with your firearm is essential for effective self-defense. Personal Preferences and Opinions Many people may have differing opinions about the effectiveness of the .22 caliber for home defense. However, the choice ultimately depends on individual comfort and capability. If someone feels more secure and capable with a .22 revolver, that is what matters most. Others are encouraged to choose what works best for them and share their perspectives if they wish.
How long does it take to walk into a gun store and come out with a semi-automatic, if I have a clean record in America? Gregg Kielma Let's Take a LOOK. It depends on the state; however, I wanted to share a client's personal experience for a couple reasons. 1. It may surprise some people - especially non-gun owners. 2. I feel it illustrates that gun control and gun laws are two different things and before jumping to the conclusion that we need more (or fewer) laws pertaining to guns, everyone should take a few minutes to educate themselves and use common sense. From a Client: This is my first time gun buying experience from about 4–5 years ago. His Thoughts I’d done quite a bit of research online, pretty much settled on what I wanted and decided it was time to walk into a gun store to look and make the final decision in person. After about 15 minutes I’d settled on a Gen 4 Glock 19. The store was running a special on the Gen 4s and I received a free box of ammunition, as well as an extra magazine. Next up it was time to go through the background check and pay. I had to wait, because there was an older guy and his son in front of me. He was purchasing the gun for his son (because he wasn’t 21) - apparently his son was joining a junior police academy and needed a handgun. Well, his background check came back - he had some kind of domestic abuse charge - no gun for you, no gun for your son. The owner of the gun shop chastised him for even wasting her time since he clearly knew that was on his record. Clients Turn. They ran my details; everything came back clean and it was time to pay. Something people may not realize is that guns aren’t cheap. Mine was close to $500. That’s a decent chunk of change and puts them out of many people’s reach economically. Of course, I’d imagine criminals acquiring weapons for much less - but then again, they don’t go through the proper process or channels. Great, background check cleared, I’ve paid and ready to go. The guy behind the counter bags things up and hands it to me - then the owner starts berating him. Apparently by putting the newly purchased gun (still in the case) and the box of ammunition, into the same bag they were setting me up to get a felony when I walked out of the store. They also gave me specific instructions about putting the gun and/or ammo in the trunk of my car - NOT the passenger compartment. Again, throwing the now two separate shopping bags into my back seat would have potentially been criminal (felony). This is where things get crazy. In Ohio, you can load up a gun - put it in a holster (on the outside of your clothes) and walk around in most public places. But, as soon as you cover up the gun - or get into a car with it - you’re breaking the law (felony) unless you’ve gotten a special license/permit. This requires more background checks, fingerprinting, attending a class, paying more money, etc. Now, let’s say you’re all about following the letter of the law and you go through all these steps so that you can carry your gun in your car. Things don’t get easier - because each state can be different. Despite having a permit, passing the background checks, etc - if you happen to drive into Chicago, you could be in a lot of trouble. Apparently, you can drive right through with no problems, but if you step foot outside of your car (even to get gas, even if you leave the gun in the car) you’re now in a world of trouble (felony). It makes you wonder why Chicago has so much gun violence when the gun laws there are so strict. The laws are very strict for gun owners, they can be very confusing, and it seems, by definition, only followed by law abiding citizens. Kielma's final thought. 1.) Know the gun laws in your state. Not knowing is not an excuse, ever. 2.) Take a CCW Class 3.) Be the reasonable person. 4.) Stay in condition yellow when an armed citizen. 5.) Always treat the firearm as loaded. 6.) Never point it at anything you do not want to destroy. 7.) Never us alcohol/or drugs when armed. 8.) Do not [put yourself in bad situations. 9.) Avoid-escape-Defend 10.) Always deescalate never escalate and situation when armed.
Second Amendment Groups Challenge Vermont Gun Waiting Period In Second Circuit Story by Mike Jenkins The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and a coalition of prominent gun rights organizations have filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, urging the court to strike down Vermont's 72-hour waiting period for firearm purchases. The brief supports the plaintiffs-appellants in the case, Vt. Fed. of Sportsmen’s Clubs, Inc. v. Birmingham, arguing that the district court’s previous ruling upholding the waiting period misapplied the historical test established by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. Bruen and Rahimi by misapplying the Second Amendment’s historical test and creating a false ‘fork’ in the analysis for so-called ‘ancillary’ rights, and by relying on unserious analogues like laws disarming intoxicated persons." Moros emphasized the lack of historical tradition for such restrictions, noting, “History shows no tradition of waiting periods, even as mass production made guns widely available in the 19th century.” The groups are urging the Second Circuit to "reverse and restore the proper Bruen framework." The 2nd Amendment: History, Controversy, and Constitutional Debate The brief leverages recent legal victories and historical context to bolster its claim. It notes that the Tenth Circuit recently struck down a similar waiting period in Ortega v. Grisham, and points out that several other challenges to waiting periods are currently pending nationwide. Furthermore, the brief relies on primary historical sources, including newspaper advertisements offering firearms for sale as far back as 1745, to demonstrate a long-standing tradition of immediate access to arms. Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and Executive Vice President, characterized the waiting period as an unconstitutional infringement. “The right to keep and bear arms doesn’t have a timestamp and should be afforded to anyone wishing to legally purchase a firearm,” Gottlieb said. He concluded that "waiting periods to exercise a constitutional right are impermissible and are a direct infringement on the Second Amendment rights of peaceable citizens.”
Second Amendment Foundation Urges Supreme Court To Hear Assault Weapons Ban Case Story by Billy Adams The legal battle over "assault weapons" bans is inching closer to the U.S. Supreme Court, as the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) filed a reply brief on Wednesday, November 12, 2025, pressing the High Court to take up its challenge to the Cook County, Illinois, ban. The case, Viramontes v. Cook County, has been distributed for a conference among the Justices scheduled for Friday, December 5th. The reply brief was submitted following an attempt by Cook County to persuade the Supreme Court not to hear the case. Viramontes is a suitable vehicle for the Court to settle the assault weapons ban issue," said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. He expressed hope that the case would provide the opportunity for the Court to "put an end to these pernicious hardware bans." The brief contends that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ban, "is not alone in deeply misunderstanding the application of the Second Amendment in challenges to firearm bans," and that "the time has come for this Court to address the AR-15 issue." Seeking Constitutional Clarity SAF, along with the Firearms Policy Coalition and two private citizens, is challenging the county's prohibition on certain semi-automatic firearms. The organization argues that the Supreme Court needs to intervene to settle the constitutionality of such bans "once and for all." "Despite Cook County’s attempt to avoid constitutional accountability, we think Viramontes is a suitable vehicle for the Court to settle the assault weapons ban issue," said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. He expressed hope that the case would provide the opportunity for the Court to "put an end to these pernicious hardware bans." The brief contends that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the ban, "is not alone in deeply misunderstanding the application of the Second Amendment in challenges to firearm bans," and that "the time has come for this Court to address the AR-15 issue." Rights of Millions at Stake SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb emphasized the urgency of the matter, stating, "The assault weapons issue has percolated long enough." He stressed that the bans subject "the fundamental rights of millions of Americans... to constitutional injury." The case originated in 2021, and its petition for a writ of certiorari was filed in August. The Justices will consider the petition at their December conference, which could result in the Court granting review, denying review, or taking no immediate action. A decision to grant review would put the constitutionality of widely adopted "assault weapons" bans—which typically target popular semi-automatic rifles—squarely before the nation's highest court. The Supreme Court has faced numerous appeals concerning firearm bans since its 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, which established a historical-tradition test for Second Amendment challenges.
Oral Arguments Begin In Oregon Supreme Court Over Restrictive Gun Law Challenge Mark Chesnut Oral arguments begin before the Oregon Supreme Court in the challenge to Measure 114—the restrictive gun-control law passed by voters three years ago. For background, Measure 114 was voted on in November 2022 and passed by a narrow margin of 50.65% to 49.35%. The law includes a very restrictive permit-to-purchase scheme, so-called “universal” background checks, and a 10-round magazine capacity limit. The permit-to-purchase provision is extremely problematic in that even if Oregon citizens jump through all the required hoops, receiving the permit doesn’t mean they’ll be able to purchase a firearm. The law actually states: “A permit-to-purchase issued under this section does not create any right of the permit holder to receive a firearm.” As for so-called “high-capacity” magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, such magazines are commonly owned by millions of Americans for all manner of lawful purposes, including self-defense, sporting and hunting. In fact, Americans owned approximately 115 million such magazines as of November 2022, with millions more purchased since then. In December 2022, just before the measure was set to take effect, a district court judge blocked the law from being enforced. Shortly after, then-state Attorney General Ellen Rosenblum asked the Oregon Supreme Court to step in and allow the law to take effect, but that court declined to overturn the lower court’s decision. Then, on March 12, 2025, the Oregon Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling that declared the law unconstitutional. The law remains on hold and has not yet taken effect due to the ongoing legal battle.
How Gun-Banners Bought A Red-Flag Law Mark Chesnut - After a terrible mass murder in Lewiston, Maine, back in October 2023, gun-ban advocates began to push all manners of new gun control laws, despite the fact that few if any would actually make anyone safer. One such was a so-called “red-flag” law, which would allow the state to confiscate firearms from lawful owners without due process, the same as most such laws. Gun grabbers didn’t get everything they wanted, though, as the legislature instead passed a “yellow-flag” law that sought to protect due process rights of Pine Tree State gun owners. That law required law enforcement to request emergency restraining protective orders, and there was also a requirement for mental health consultation. That, however, wasn’t enough restrictions for gun-ban advocates, who wanted to make it where family members can turn in their gun-owning kin, without due process of law, of course. Fast forward to Nov. 4 of this year, and gun-ban advocates finally got what they wanted. Despite that fact that important voices across the political spectrum, from Governor Janet Mills to Governor Paul LePage, advised voters to oppose Question 2, the problematic measure passed with nearly 63% approval. About 306,000 people voted for the measure, compared to 180,000 who voted against it. If you wonder exactly how that happened, look no further than the money trail. According to a report at ammoland.com, anti-gun groups spent 12-times more money to get the scheme passed than pro-gun groups spent trying to defeat the proposal.
