Gregory Kielma • August 5, 2024
Courts Attack Second Amendment, Right to Buy Firearms
Courts Attack Second Amendment, Right to Buy Firearms
By
Larry Keane
There’s an interesting – if not devious – trend emerging in some Second Amendment cases. The first step of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruentest is to ask whether the conduct at issue is covered by the text of the Second Amendment which protects a pre-existing “right to keep and bear arms.” Some lower courts in purporting to apply the Bruen test are upholding gun control laws by holding that you do not have a Second Amendment right to buy a firearm.
That’s intellectually dishonest, to say the least. The ability to freely approach the gun counter to legally purchase a firearm is paramount to exercising the Second Amendment rights to keep and bear arms. There is no “keeping” of firearms if there is no legal right to lawfully acquire those same firearms. The ramifications of this flawed legal reasoning are self-evident. The government could simply ban the buying (and selling) of firearms and therefore eviscerate the Second Amendment all without infringing upon the right.
Right to Buy
The most recent example comes from New Mexico, where a federal district court judge refused to preliminarily enjoin the state’s seven-day waiting period for purchasing a firearm. There were several serious concerns with this decision, including the judge’s determination that the lengthy waiting period doesn’t constrain the rights to keep and bear arms. The judge contended that the waiting period only minimally burdens the “ancillary right to acquire firearms.”
That might come as news to an individual facing imminent threat to their safety or even their life. A woman who is the victim of domestic violence who considers purchasing a firearm to protect herself and her family could argue that the state’s seven-day waiting period is a seven-day ban on her ability to lawfully keep and bear arms when she knows there’s a threat to her life.
That wasn’t the worst of it. The same judge concluded that the waiting-period law is presumptively constitutional” given that the first waiting period laws were enacted in the 1920s – long after U.S. Constitution was ratified, and the 14th Amendment adopted. The judge even pointed to past, discriminatory laws that restricted the sale of firearms to slaves, freedmen and Native Americans. It is astonishing that a federal judge relied on racist laws that have been repudiated by the courts and American society to justify a gun control law.
However, that’s not what the Supreme Court held in the Bruen decision. That test, the Court said, is that gun control laws must have a “history and tradition” consistent with when the Second Amendment was signed into law in 1791 at the nation’s founding.
Court Concerns
It would be tempting to dismiss this judge’s decision as a “one-off” aberration. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. A 2024 decision by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York explicitly said that there is no Second Amendment right to purchase a second handgun within a 90-day window of purchasing a previous handgun.
“The question thus becomes whether a waiting period before the purchase of a second handgun is conduct covered by the text of the Second Amendment. It is not,” the court ruled in its opinion of Knight v. City of New York.
What the court is saying is that the government can ration the exercise of a Constitutionally protected right, in this case, to just once every 90 days. This would be unthinkable if a court ruled that a law-abiding American could only exercise their rights to free speech or attend a church, mosque of synagogue of their choosing every three months. The federal court here is relegating the Second Amendment to a second-class right, that Justice Clarence Thomas has warned about.
That line of thinking wasn’t limited to New York. The U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont upheld the state’s waiting-period law, in Vermont Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs v. Birmingham this year, by claiming there’s no Second Amendment right to legally purchasing a firearm.
“The Court finds that the relevant conduct – acquiring a firearm through a commercial transaction on-demand – is not covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment,” wrote Judge William Sessions III. He quizzically added, “Plaintiffs may keep and bear arms without immediately acquiring them.”
That defies logic. It is impossible to legally keep and bear anything without the ability to lawfully purchase it first.
In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled against Rocky Mountain Gun Owners seeking to enjoin a three-day-waiting period law signed by Gov. Jared Polis. In this decision, the federal court ruled that the Second Amendment doesn’t explicitly say anything about legally acquiring a firearm.
“From this reading of the plain text, it is clear the relevant conduct impacted by the waiting period – the receipt of a paid-for firearm without delay – is not covered,” the decision reads, adding, “To ‘keep,’ under the definitions provided in Heller, meant to retain an object one already possessed. It did not mean to receive a newly paid-for item, and it certainly did not mean to receive that item without delay. Likewise, ‘having weapons’ indicates the weapons are already in one’s possession, not that one is receiving them.”
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania ruled in 2023 in U.S. v. King that there is no right to buy and sell firearms. In fact, Judge Joseph Leeson Jr. clearly states that it is a factor he didn’t – and wouldn’t – consider, writing, “…the Court looks at the Second Amendment’s plain text; it does not consider ‘implicit’ rights that may be lurking beneath the surface of the plain text.”
“Even if the Court assumed that there is an implicit right in the Second Amendment to buy and sell firearms in order to keep and bear arms, that is not the same thing as a right to buy and sell firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms,” Judge Leeson wrote. “In other words, the Second Amendment does not protect the commercial dealing of firearms.” Of course, while Heller said commercial regulations could be presumptively valid, it never suggested that the buying and selling of commonly used “arms” could be banned.
Governors Knew in 2020
Juxtapose that with governors who, just four years ago, quickly reversed their policies to order firearm retailers to close their doors during the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic. New Jersey’s Gov. Phil Murphy reversed course from his initial ordering of gun stores to be closed. He recognized that denying the ability of law-abiding citizens to legally obtain a firearm is denying them the ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Pennsylvania’s former Gov. Tom Wolf did the same, even after Pennsylvania’s Supreme Court denied a challenge to the order. The quiet about-face was in light of what could have become a U.S. Supreme Court challenge.
A federal judge ordered former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker to allow firearm retailers there to reopen. The judge ordering the injunction wrote, “The exigencies surrounding this viral pandemic both justify and necessitate changes in the manner in which people live their lives and conduct their daily business. However, this emergency – like any other emergency – has its constitutional limits. It would not justify a prior restraint on speech, nor a suspension of the right to vote. Just the same, it does not justify a ban on obtaining guns and ammunition.”
Divorcing the right to freely approach the gun counter at a firearm retailer and the right to keep and bear arms is a dangerous slope. Firearms are legal products, available for anyone to freely purchase who is over the age of 18 for long guns or 21 for handguns, provided that individual is purchasing the firearm for him or herself and can pass the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). Conditioning that right – whether through waiting periods which are an attempt to delay the exercise of that right – or by unmooring the right to legally purchase a firearm is a violation of the rights that belong to the people.
Imagine a court ruling that the First Amendment doesn’t include the right to buy a book. Or a law that said you can only buy a newspaper after waiting seven days. Or a law that limits how many books you can buy in a month. Or a law in which the government decides which books you are allowed to buy and read? Obviously, no one would tolerate such laws. So why is it acceptable for Second Amendment rights? The answer, sadly, is that despite the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions, because some legislative bodies and judges treat the Second Amendment as a “second class right.”
Man breaks into Parrish home, attacks woman in garage By Danielle Zulkosky Published March 12, 2026 6:12am EDT Manatee County FOX 13 News Husband protects wife from intruder A Parrish couple is trying to put a dangerous situation behind them after a brazen home invasion. A man attacked the wife in her garage, but the couple fought back. FOX 13's Danielle Zulkosky reports. The Brief • Eric Shea is accused of breaking into a Parrish home and attacking a woman inside the garage. • Doris and Eric Brust say they were in their garage when Shea got inside. Eric ended up saving Doris from the attack. • Doris said Shea lives in a neighboring subdivision and warns her neighbors to always be aware of their surroundings. PARRISH, Fla. - A Parrish couple faced an attack at home after a man broke into their garage on Sunday night. Eric and Dorris Brust said it was a freak attack on Sunday night in their Parrish home. "We started to come down our block, and we saw a gentleman on the road that was kind of staggering," Dorris said. "And then all of a sudden, this gentleman kind of runs up our driveway yelling things we just didn't really understand." That man was Edward Shea. Things took a turn when he got into their garage. "My husband, Eric, ran into the house to get a weapon because he had warned him, you need to get off my property," Dorris said. "And in that short amount of time, he ran into me, grabbed me, and started choking me." Instincts then kicked in for her husband. "I've never heard her scream like that before and when I came out here, and I saw him pushing her against the car, it took everything in my body not to severely hurt him," Eric said. The Manatee County Sheriff's Office said the two worked together to restrain Shea until deputies arrived at their home. "I'm grateful I didn't get our gun because I think I might have used it on him and I wouldn't want to live with that," Eric said. After the attack, Doris went to the hospital and only had a few bruises. She calls her husband ‘superman’ to come to her rescue. "It humbled me because I consider myself a pretty strong individual as a woman," Dorris said. "And it just, the reality was that I was easily overpowered and that part was scary." She said Shea lives in a neighboring subdivision and warns her neighbors to always be aware of their surroundings. "Be more aware of who's around you, who's acting strange, to keep your distance from somebody who might be acting strange," Dorris said. But hopes that Shea gets the help he needs. Th e Source: Information in this story comes from interviews done by FOX 13's Danielle Zulkosky.
Dennis Rader: The People Who Suffered Because Of This Bastard. Paula Dietz's Unsettling Tale of Her Marriage to Dennis Rader Gregg Kielma Says Gregg Kielma, Firearms Instructor, Safety Instructor, First Aid Fundamentals Instructor and Gunsmith: Friends, this is why I carry a firearm and teach firearm use and situational awareness. Bastards like Rader can be stopped. It should have never taken 17 years to get this bastard. Please let me show you how to stay safe. Please protect yourself and family. Paula Dietz lived with the BTK killer for 34 years without knowing who he was. Dennis Lynn Rader is an American serial killer who goes by the nickname "BTK," which stands for "bind, torture, kill." Between 1974 and 1991, he killed ten people in Wichita and Park City, Kansas, and then sent letters to the police and the media, bragging about what he had done. Rader stopped sending letters for ten years, but he started again in 2004, which led to his arrest in 2005 and his guilty plea. Paula Dietz Paula Dietz had known her husband for 34 years as a loving husband, church council president, and Cub Scout leader. Nevertheless, she was shocked to discover that he was also a serial killer. On February 25, 2005, Dietz's husband was taken into custody, shattering everything she had previously believed to be true. Authorities abruptly identified the man who had been her children's adoring father and the head of their church council as the BTK Killer, The cognitive whiplash that Dennis Rader's wife went through was undoubtedly indescribable. In 1970, she fell in love with the retired US Air Force officer, and a few months later they were married. After they settled into their Park City, Kansas, house, Dietz took care of their two kids, and Rader went to work as an electrician. Dietz had no idea that he was using his electrical skills to break into homes at night and murder innocent people while wearing a mask. Despite a trail of clues left in her husband's wake, Dietz only learned Rader's true identity when he was apprehended. Paul Dietz Love Story Paula Dietz was born in Park City, Kansas, on May 5, 1948. Most of what is known about her came to light after her husband was arrested, as she lived a relatively quiet life with her family until the BTK Killer was exposed for his crimes. Dietz, on the other hand, was raised in a religious household by devout parents. Her father worked as an engineer, and her mother as a librarian. Paula Dietz attended the National American University of Wichita after graduating from her local high school in 1966 and earned a bachelor's degree in accounting in 1970. That same year, she met Rader at church, and the two fell in love quickly. Living With The BTK Killer On the surface, Rader appeared to be a kind U.S. Air Force veteran. But Rader had grown up torturing helpless women and killing small animals, and Dietz had no idea that side of him existed. Dietz married Dennis Rader on May 22, 1971, unaware that he liked to photograph himself in women's underwear or engage in autoerotic asphyxiation. When Paula Dietz discovered she was pregnant in 1973, she was overjoyed, and on November 30, she gave birth to her and Rader's son Brian. Six weeks later, her husband committed his first murders. He broke into the home of Joseph Otero, 38, and his wife Julie on January 15, 1974, and strangled them in front of their children. He then dragged Josephine, 11, and her brother Joseph, 9, into the basement. He suffocated young Joseph before hanging her and masturbating as she died. Before fleeing, Rader took gruesome photos of the scene, which he kept in a lockbox filled with mementos from his victims, including Josephine's underwear. Over the next 17 years, Rader murdered six more women while portraying the ideal family man by day. In 1978, Dietz gave birth to her second child, a girl named Kerri. Rader enjoyed taking his kids fishing and even led his son's Cub Scout troop. Dietz was completely unaware of her husband's secret double life. The Shocking Discovery Rader was finally caught in 2005, almost 15 years after his last murder. He sent letters to local news outlets with photos and information about his past crimes. He kept the photos, the underwear, and the IDs of the women he had killed in a lockbox at home, and Paula Dietz had never thought to open it. When the FBI searched Rader's home after he was arrested on February 25, 2005, they found these strange items. Dietz had no idea what was going on. She told police that her husband was "a good man and a great father." But after he admitted to killing 10 people and pleaded guilty on June 27, 2005, Dennis Rader's wife stopped talking to him. She never wrote him another letter, and she never went to see him in jail or to any of his court hearings. Kielma's Parting Shot: Rader you two-bit piece of shit....rot in hell you deranged bastard. Gregg Kielma
Welcome to My New Outdoor Firearms Range: A Place Built for Learning, Safety, and Confidence Gregg Kielma 03/087/2026 Opening a new firearms range isn’t just about building a place to shoot—it’s about creating an environment where people feel safe, supported, and genuinely empowered. That’s exactly what I set out to do with my outdoor range here in Parrish, Florida. Set on a quiet stretch of farm pasture, the private range offers a calm, rural backdrop that helps students focus, breathe, and learn without pressure or distraction. This space was designed with purpose. Every lane, every berm, every piece of equipment reflects my commitment to responsible firearm ownership and high quality instruction. Whether someone is touching a firearm for the first time or refining advanced skills, the range gives them room to grow at their own pace. What makes this range special isn’t just the setting—it’s the philosophy behind it. My teaching approach centers on safety, avoidance, and sound decision making. Students learn not only how to shoot, but how to think, evaluate, and stay in control. The goal is always the same: build confidence through competence. The outdoor environment also allows for more realistic, practical training. Students experience natural light, real-world conditions, and the kind of spatial awareness that simply can’t be replicated indoors. It’s a place where people can slow down, ask questions, and get hands on guidance tailored to their needs. Most importantly, this range is personal. It’s built on my belief that education saves lives, that responsible ownership matters, and that every student deserves a safe, welcoming place to learn. I’m proud to open these gates to the community and look forward to helping more people become confident, capable, and responsible firearm owners. If you’re ready to train in a supportive environment that puts safety and skill first, I’d be honored to work with you. Gregg Kielma
Florida Marijuana Laws & Firearm Ownership (2026) Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training & Firearms 03/08/2026 As a firearms instructor in Florida, I spend a lot of time helping people understand the law—not the rumors, not the social media myths, but the real legal landscape. One of the most confusing areas today is the intersection of marijuana use and firearm ownership. Florida allows medical marijuana, and recreational legalization efforts continue to gain traction, but federal law has not caught up. That creates a legal conflict every responsible gun owner needs to understand. Florida Law vs. Federal Law: The Core Conflict Florida’s medical marijuana program is fully legal under state law. Nothing in Florida statutes prohibits a medical marijuana patient from owning or possessing a firearm. But federal law is a different story. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), anyone who is an “unlawful user of a controlled substance” is prohibited from possessing or purchasing a firearm. Marijuana—whether medical or recreational—remains illegal federally, even with recent federal discussions about rescheduling. A January 2026 legal analysis confirms that even if marijuana is moved from Schedule I to Schedule III, the federal firearm prohibition still applies unless Congress changes the law. Recent Court Rulings: Progress, But Not Final Florida saw major movement in 2025 when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that medical marijuana patients may have a valid Second Amendment claim to own firearms. This was a significant step forward for patients’ rights. However, the ruling did not eliminate the federal prohibition. The case may still reach the Supreme Court, and until a final nationwide decision is issued, the federal ban technically remains in place. What This Means for Florida Gun Owners in 2026 1. Purchasing a Firearm Anyone buying a firearm from an FFL must complete ATF Form 4473. The form directly asks whether the buyer uses marijuana. • Answering “yes” results in a denied purchase. • Answering “no” while using marijuana is a federal felony. • The form explicitly states that marijuana is illegal federally regardless of state law. 2. Possessing a Firearm Florida law does not prohibit medical marijuana patients from possessing firearms. Federal law still technically does. In practice, §922(g)(3) is usually enforced when another crime is involved, but the risk remains. 3. Recreational Marijuana Efforts Florida’s push for recreational legalization continues, with a revised initiative aimed at the 2026 ballot. Even if recreational marijuana becomes legal in Florida, federal firearm restrictions would still apply unless federal law changes. My Professional Guidance as a Firearms Instructor At Tactical K Training and Firearms I teach that responsible ownership starts with understanding the law as it exists today—not how we wish it worked. Here’s my advice to students and clients: • Do not lie on Form 4473. • Understand that state legality does not override federal firearm law. • Stay informed—the legal landscape is shifting, and court decisions in the next few years may finally resolve this conflict. • If you are a medical marijuana patient, be cautious about purchasing or possessing firearms until federal law or the courts provide clear, final guidance. Kielma's Parting Shot • Florida allows medical marijuana and does not restrict firearm ownership for patients. • Federal law still prohibits marijuana users from possessing or purchasing firearms. • Court rulings in 2025–2026 show momentum toward restoring gun rights for medical marijuana patients, but nothing is final yet. • Recreational legalization efforts for 2026 do not change federal firearm rules. • Responsible gun owners should stay informed and avoid federal violations. Gregg Kielma
Domestic Violence and Firearms in Florida By Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training & Firearms 03/08/2026 Domestic violence is one of the most dangerous and unpredictable situations a family can face. As a firearms instructor, I emphasize that responsible gun ownership is rooted in safety, legality, and prevention. Understanding how Florida and federal law treat firearms in domestic violence cases is essential for every gun owner in our state. Why Domestic Violence and Firearms Matter Domestic violence incidents are emotionally charged, fast moving, and often escalate without warning. When firearms are present, the risk of serious injury or death increases dramatically. Florida lawmakers have recognized this reality, and in recent years the state has moved toward stronger protections for victims — including clearer rules on firearm surrender when a court issues a protective injunction. Federal Law: Firearm Prohibitions in Domestic Violence Cases Under 18 U.S.C. §922(g)(8), a person is prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition if they are subject to a qualifying protection order. This applies when: • The order was issued after a hearing with notice and opportunity to be heard • The protected party is an intimate partner (spouse, former spouse, co parent, or cohabitant) • The order includes language restraining threats, harassment, or violence Federal law also prohibits possession after a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence conviction. These federal restrictions apply in Florida regardless of state statutes. Florida Law Today Florida historically did not require officers to remove firearms at the scene of a domestic violence incident, nor did it have a state level prohibition for misdemeanor domestic violence convictions. Instead, Florida relied heavily on federal law and background checks to prevent prohibited persons from purchasing firearms. However, the landscape is changing. New for 2026: HB 729 — Mandatory Firearm Surrender After a Final Injunction Florida’s 2026 legislative session introduced HB 729, a major step toward strengthening victim safety. Under this bill: • When a final judgment of injunction for protection against domestic violence is issued, the respondent must surrender all firearms, ammunition, and concealed carry licenses to local law enforcement. • Law enforcement agencies must create standardized procedures for collecting, documenting, storing, and returning firearms. • Firearms may be transferred to a third party if the respondent chooses. • Firearms are returned only when the injunction is vacated or expires. • Penalties increase for repeat violations of protective injunctions. This bill was filed in response to real tragedies where abusers ignored court orders to surrender firearms, with deadly consequences. HB 729 aims to close that enforcement gap. Other Domestic Violence Reform Efforts in Florida Florida’s 2026 legislative session has seen a surge of domestic violence–related bills, reflecting rising concern statewide. Lawmakers are considering: • Electronic monitoring for high risk offenders • Enhanced penalties for violating injunctions • Address confidentiality protections for victims • Improved enforcement mechanisms for protective orders Advocates describe domestic violence in Florida as a “deadly epidemic,” and these reforms aim to reduce repeat victimization and improve early intervention. What This Means for Florida Gun Owners As responsible firearm owners, we must understand: 1. A domestic violence injunction can immediately affect firearm rights. Even temporary orders may restrict possession under federal law. 2. Final injunctions now trigger mandatory firearm surrender under HB 729. This is a major shift in Florida’s enforcement structure. 3. Violating an injunction — including firearm possession — carries serious criminal penalties. 4. Firearm rights may be restored only after the injunction is lifted and all legal conditions are met. 🔹 My Perspective as an Instructor At Tactical K Training and Firearms, I teach that firearms are tools of defense — not intimidation, anger, or control. Domestic violence is never a “private matter.” It’s a public safety issue, and the law reflects that. If you or someone you know is navigating a domestic violence situation, firearms must be handled with extreme caution and full legal compliance. Safety comes first, always. Kielma’s Parting Shot Domestic violence and firearms intersect at one of the most critical points of personal safety. Florida’s evolving laws — especially HB 729 — show a clear trend toward stronger protections and clearer enforcement. As gun owners, we have a responsibility to stay informed, stay compliant, and promote a culture of safety and respect.
Why a Convicted Felon Cannot Legally Own a Firearm By Gregory Kielma, Tactical K Training and Firearms 03/08/2026 Firearm ownership in the United States is both a constitutional right and a serious personal responsibility. With that responsibility comes a clear legal framework designed to keep firearms in the hands of safe, lawful, and responsible citizens. One of the most important parts of that framework is the federal prohibition on firearm possession by individuals convicted of certain crimes—most commonly, felonies. Understanding why a convicted felon cannot legally own or possess a firearm helps every gun owner appreciate the balance between individual rights and public safety. The Legal Foundation: Federal Law Is Clear Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year in prison—what we commonly call a felony—is prohibited from: • Possessing a firearm • Purchasing a firearm • Receiving a firearm • Transporting a firearm This applies to all firearms, whether modern or antique, and includes ammunition as well. The law is strict, and violations are aggressively prosecuted. A felon found in possession of a firearm can face up to 10 years in federal prison, with even harsher penalties if the offense involves violence, drugs, or prior convictions. Why the Law Exists The purpose of this prohibition is straightforward: to reduce the risk of future violence and protect the public. Felony convictions typically involve conduct that demonstrates a disregard for the law or a threat to community safety. By restricting firearm access, federal law aims to: • Prevent repeat violent offenses • Reduce gun-related crime • Maintain safer communities • Ensure firearms remain in responsible hands This isn’t about punishing someone forever—it’s about preventing foreseeable harm. Firearm Ownership Requires Trust Owning a firearm is not just a right; it’s a privilege earned through responsible behavior. Lawful gun owners demonstrate: • Respect for the law • Safe handling and storage • Sound judgment under stress • A commitment to protecting—not endangering—others A felony conviction breaks that trust in the eyes of the law. Until that trust is restored through legal channels, firearm possession remains off-limits. Restoration of Rights: It Is Possible While federal law prohibits felons from possessing firearms, some individuals can have their rights restored through: • A full pardon • Expungement • Restoration of civil rights by the state where the conviction occurred However, this process is complex, varies by state, and must be completed before any firearm possession becomes legal. Attempting to “guess” or assume rights have been restored is dangerous—one mistake can lead to a federal felony. Anyone seeking restoration should consult a qualified attorney who specializes in firearms law. Why This Matters for Responsible Gun Owners Understanding these laws protects you as well. As a lawful gun owner, you must avoid: • Transferring a firearm to a prohibited person • Allowing a prohibited person access to your firearms • Storing firearms in a way that a prohibited person could reasonably access them Even accidental violations can carry serious consequences. Kielma’s Parting Shot: A Commitment to Safety and Responsibility At Tactical K Training and Firearms, we emphasize that responsible ownership begins with knowledge. Knowing who can—and cannot—legally possess a firearm is part of that responsibility. These laws aren’t meant to punish; they’re meant to protect. They help ensure that firearms remain tools of defense, sport, and personal empowerment—not instruments of further harm. Responsible gun owners stay informed, stay compliant, and stay committed to safety. That’s the standard we uphold, and the standard we teach. Gregg Kielma
Plains man sentenced to 7 years in prison for illegal firearm possession Thursday, March 5, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, District of Montana MISSOULA – A Plains man who was prohibited from owning firearms was sentenced today to 84 months in prison, followed by 3 years of supervised release, Acting U.S. Attorney Tim Racicot said. Graham Anthony Bowden, 49, pleaded guilty in November 2025 to one count of prohibited person in possession of a firearm and two counts of possession of an unregistered silencer. U.S. District Judge Donald W. Molloy presided. The government alleged in court documents that in the fall of 2024, law enforcement officers encountered Bowden in several instances in which they either observed him to be armed with a firearm or with firearms accessories. Based in part on those incidents, a federal search warrant was obtained to search Bowden’s residence, which was a camper parked on the property of Bowden’s friend. Also on the property was a freestanding home belonging to Bowden’s friend. Agents located eight firearms belonging to Bowden, along with two silencers and assorted ammunition. Law enforcement interviewed Bowden and he admitted he owned the firearms had been meaning to register them. Bowden acknowledged he had signed paperwork related to his California convictions that prohibited him from possessing firearms but said he thought his rights had been automatically restored at some point. Bowden produced no paperwork to support that assertion. Bowden also admitted to possessing the two silencers, saying one came with a firearm he purchased and that the other was a blank. Bowden said he didn’t know suppressors were federally controlled and needed to be registered. The silencers were not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. On January 6, 2012, Bowden was convicted of six counts of robbery in the second degree with a firearms enhancement in Orange County Superior Court of California and sentenced to 12 years in prison. He was paroled from custody in 2020. Assistant U.S. Attorney Brian Lowney prosecuted the case. The ATF, Plains Police Department, and Sanders County Sheriff’s Department conducted the investigation. Contact Keri Leggett Acting Public Affairs Officer keri.leggett@usdoj.gov
Convicted Felon with a Machinegun and Fentanyl Pleads Guilty Wednesday, March 4, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Georgia MACON, Ga. – A Georgia man with prior drug convictions admitted he was intending to distribute fentanyl and other drugs when officers found him illegally in possession of three firearms, including a machinegun. Rodricas Montreal Jacks, 39, of Sparta, Georgia, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon before U.S. District Judge Marc Treadwell on March 3. Jacks is facing a maximum of 15 years in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and a $250,000 fine. The sentencing hearing is scheduled for June 2. There is no parole in the federal system. “Repeat felony offenders possessing the most dangerous weapons and distributing the deadliest drugs in our communities will be held accountable at the federal level, where there is no parole,” said U.S. Attorney William R. “Will” Keyes. “We appreciate the dedication of our law enforcement partners to make our communities safer for all residents and working with us to ensure justice.” According to court documents and statements referenced in court, Jacks was on probation for a felony drug distribution conviction when he failed to comply with his community service as directed by the Court and failed two drug tests. As a result, law enforcement conducted a search of his residence on Nov. 3, 2022, and found a machinegun plus two firearms in the house, including a firearm that was stolen. Officers also located fentanyl and marijuana, which he intended to distribute, along with multiple digital scales, small plastic bags and a large amount of cash. Officers also discovered suspected crack inside his car. 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. The Georgia Department of Community Supervision investigated the case with assistance from the Ocmulgee Drug Task Force and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). Assistant U.S. Attorney Hannah Couch is prosecuting the case for the Government.
Want a machine gun? These states might soon make buying one easier Joseph MacKinnon March 06, 2026 Lawmakers in West Virginia and Kentucky have introduced bills that would enable state police departments to procure and sell machine guns. Republican lawmakers in West Virginia and Kentucky are working on making it easier for Americans to acquire fully automatic firearms — a move that might catch on in other red states. Machine guns — defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives as a firearm that can fire "automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" — are heavily regulated in the United States. While such weapons can be privately owned, Americans are greatly limited in what they can buy and must jump through numerous hoops to seal the deal. 'This is our constitutional right.' Per the Firearm Owners' Protection Act, civilians are barred from possessing a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986. Limited supply means a higher price — Silencer Central says that prospective buyers should expect to spend a minimum of $6,000 to $10,000. Interested American buyers at least 21 years of age, neither a felon nor a fugitive, and living in a state without a machine gun ban must pass an AFT background check, pay a one-time $200 transfer tax, and get approval from the government in order to take possession. Once those hurdles are cleared, they can take the machine gun home but fire it only on closed target ranges. In West Virginia, Republican state Sens. Chris Rose and Zack Maynard recently introduced legislation that would establish within the West Virginia State Police an office of public defense that would oversee the procurement and sale of machine guns to "qualified members of the public," namely any citizen presently eligible to purchase and possess firearms under West Virginia and federal law. The Cowboy State Daily reported that the new office would be authorized to transfer newer machine guns to state residents. Blaze News and Tactical K Training and Firearms has reached out to state Sen. Rose for clarification about whether out-of-state American citizens would be able to acquire a machine gun from the proposed authority.
DOJ Pam Bondi Scranton Man Sentenced To 12 Years For Possession Of A Machine Gun Tuesday, February 24, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Pennsylvania SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that Naim Mustafa House, age 28, of Scranton, Pennsylvania, was sentenced on February 24, 2026, to 144 months’ imprisonment by United States District Judge Karoline Mehalchick for possession with intent to distribute marijuana and possession of a machine gun. According to United States Attorney Brian D. Miller, on July 8, 2024, Scranton Police Officers initiated a traffic stop on a vehicle that House was a passenger. House fled on foot and was found hiding under a rear porch of a residence. During a search incident to arrest, police found marijuana packed for resale on his person and inside his backpack found 30 additional grams of marijuana and a Glock 7, 9mm handgun equipped with a device to transition the firearm from a semiautomatic firearm into a fully automatic firearm. The firearm also had an extended magazine containing 10 rounds of ammunition. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Scranton Police Department investigated the case. Assistant United States Attorney Jenny P. Roberts prosecuted the case.
