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.”
Why Do People Enjoy “The Firearm Sports” and why "Do People Want to Take Our Firearms Away From Law Abiding, Responsible People" Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/26/2026 Kielma states, "This debate has lasted for years. The gun control community wants to end our sport and hobby because, in their view: • We're bad people for owning guns. • We're irresponsible. • They don't want anyone armed. • They're afraid of what they don't understand. • They don't appreciate shooting as a sport." I do know this, people enjoy firearm sports because they offer a rare combination of discipline, focus, and personal growth that few activities can match. Whether it’s precision rifle, trap, or action shooting, these sports demand calm breathing, steady hands, and clear mind skills that build confidence and carry over into everyday life. The community is another major draw: responsible gun owners tend to be safety driven, respectful, and eager to help newcomers succeed. For many, the range becomes a place of mentorship, family bonding, and lifelong learning. At the same time, debates about firearms often create tension, and some lawmakers and advocacy groups argue for stricter regulations because they believe it will reduce crime or increase public safety. Others, however, feel these efforts unfairly target the very people who follow the law, train regularly, and store their firearms responsibly. From that perspective, it can feel as though responsible owners are being lumped together with criminals, even though their behavior, mindset, and values are completely different. This disconnects between those who see firearms as a disciplined sport and personal responsibility, and those who view them primarily through the lens of risk drives much of the ongoing debate. Gregg Kielma
Ammunition Quality and Why It Matters: Let’s Take a LOOK! Gregg Kielma Tactical K Training and Firearms 4/26/2026 Ammunition matters because it is the heart of every firearm’s performance, safety, and purpose. It determines how reliably a firearm functions, how accurately it shoots, and how responsibly we use it in training, hunting, or self-defense. Ammunition is far more than a simple component it is a complete system made up of the bullet, casing, primer, and propellant, each playing a critical role in how a round ignites, burns, seals the chamber, and ultimately sends a projectile downrange. When the primer ignites the propellant, rapidly expanding gases push the bullet through the barrel at high velocity, and the design of each component influences accuracy, recoil, and terminal performance. From a practical standpoint, choosing the right ammunition is essential for safety and effectiveness. Different tasks demand different types of rounds: full metal jackets for training, hollow points for self-defense due to controlled expansion, soft points for hunting, and specialized loads for shotguns depending on the game or purpose. Using the wrong ammunition can damage a firearm, cause malfunctions, or create dangerous over penetration risks. Matching ammunition to the firearm’s caliber and intended use is a foundational responsibility for every gun owner. Ammunition also matters because it directly affects ethical and responsible shooting. Hunters rely on rounds that deliver clean, humane results. Instructors and competitors depend on consistent, reliable ammunition to build skill and confidence. Law abiding citizens who carry for protection choose ammunition designed to stop a threat while reducing unintended harm. Every one of these decisions reflects a commitment to safety, discipline, and respect for the power we hold. Beyond performance, ammunition carries legal and regulatory significance. Caliber classifications, bullet types, and even certain expanding rounds are regulated in various jurisdictions. Proper identification and understanding of ammunition types support compliance, safe storage, and responsible ownership. Kielma’s Parting Shot: Ammunition matters because it represents the evolution of firearms themselves. From ancient projectiles to modern engineered cartridges, advancements in ammunition have shaped accuracy, reliability, and capability across civilian, sporting, and military contexts. Understanding ammunition isn’t just technical knowledge it’s part of being a responsible, informed firearm owner who values safety, precision, and the discipline that comes with training. Gregg Kielma
My Private 150 Yd Range Base is Down! The Plan Comes Together! Gregg Kielma 4/25/1016 Friday afternoon, 4/24/2026, I put in a solid 6 hours leveling and laying down the base that will support the shooting platform for my 150‑yard range. It was one of those jobs that looks simple, until you’re knee‑deep in it, but the base is in and ready for the next step. The plywood deck goes in on May 9th, along with the outdoor carpet that will be applied to the decking, and once that’s done, the platform will finally be completed. Note to self: sugar sand will absolutely get your truck stuck—ask me how I know. LOL Gregg Kielma
Macon Offenders Guilty in ATF Firearms Trafficking Investigation Friday, April 24, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Georgia Thirty Firearms Seized, Including a Machinegun and Conversion Devices, Plus Illegal Drugs MACON, Ga. – Three Macon offenders, two with prior felony convictions, have been held accountable at the federal level for their roles in an illegal firearms and drug trafficking network as part of a larger Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigation in the community. Brandon Thorpe, 32, of Macon, pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon on April 23. Thorpe faces a maximum sentence of 15 years in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release and a maximum $250,000 fine. His sentencing hearing will be scheduled by the Court. Lonnie Alexander, 44, of Macon, pleaded guilty to one count of distribution of 50 grams or more of methamphetamine on April 21. Alexander faces a mandatory minimum of ten years in prison and a maximum sentence of life in prison to be followed by at least five years of supervised release and a maximum $10,000,000 fine. His sentencing is scheduled for July 9. John Cato, 25, of Macon, was sentenced to serve 15 years in prison to be followed by three years of supervised release on Feb. 5, 2026, after he pleaded guilty to firearms trafficking on Nov. 19, 2025. U.S. District Judge Marc Treadwell is presiding over the cases. There is no parole in the federal system. “High-capacity firearms and ammunition, including a machinegun, were removed from the streets of Macon and the defendants were held accountable for their crimes as a result of this ATF-led investigation,” said U.S. Attorney William R. “Will” Keyes. “Our office is working in close partnership with local, state and federal authorities to uphold the law and make every community we serve safer.” “ATF remains committed to identifying and dismantling criminal networks trafficking firearms that fuel violent crime in our communities,” said ATF Resident Agent in Charge Robert W. Davis. “This case underscores our relentless focus on repeat offenders who illegally sell guns and narcotics, putting lives at risk. We will continue working alongside our law enforcement partners to ensure those who threaten public safety are held accountable.” According to court documents and statements in court, ATF agents learned in March 2024 that Alexander, a convicted felon, was illegally selling firearms and narcotics in Macon and opened an investigation. Between April 2024 and April 2025, Alexander was recorded carrying out multiple illegal sales of guns and drugs at locations around Macon, including within 1,000 feet of Mercer University’s campus on April 23, 2024. During that transaction, Alexander distributed over 27 grams of cocaine to an individual in the parking lot of Towne Place Suites, near Mercer University’s campus. Alexander sold over 40 grams of cocaine at different times earlier that month. On May 22, 2024, an individual who had previously told Alexander that he was a convicted felon and that he wanted a gun for drug trafficking, purchased a 9mm pistol with a magazine and three rounds of ammunition during a transaction arranged by Alexander at his Macon home. The following day, an individual bought a loaded 9mm pistol from an associate of Alexander’s, with Alexander receiving a “finder’s fee” for arranging the sale. On September 12, 2024, an individual bought a 9mm pistol in a transaction arranged by Alexander at a gas station in Macon. Later that day, the individual bought a .38 special revolver and over 15 grams of methamphetamine from Alexander at an apartment complex in Macon. On April 23, 2025, Alexander arranged a sale of firearms and methamphetamine to an individual in a restaurant parking lot in Macon. During the transaction, Alexander sold over 80 grams of methamphetamine, and Cato sold three firearms to the individual, including a machinegun. On May 20, 2025, Cato sold seven firearms and a 50-round drum magazine to an individual in a restaurant parking lot in Macon. On June 26, 2025, Thorpe drove Cato to a parking lot in Macon, carrying a dozen firearms, including a Glock switch, which converts a semi-automatic pistol into a machinegun. Cato intended to sell the firearms to an individual. The individual purchased all the firearms from Cato. On July 9, 2025, Cato arrived at a parking lot in Macon to sell a convicted felon firearms and promethazine, a sedative. As ATF agents surrounded Cato’s car, Cato ran into oncoming traffic on Riverside Drive. The agents soon caught and arrested him. Inside Cato’s car were four firearms, two of which had been reported stolen, and 192 ounces of promethazine. In all, ATF seized 30 firearms. Cato is responsible for trafficking 26 firearms; of those 26 firearms, Thorpe is responsible for possessing 12 of them. ATF seized four illegal firearms from Alexander. The firearms included a machinegun, conversion devices, and stolen guns. In addition, ATF seized more than 67 grams of cocaine and more than 100 grams of methamphetamine from Alexander, and 192 ounces of promethazine from Cato. Alexander and Thorpe each have previous felony convictions. Thorpe also had an active warrant from another county at the time of his arrest. It is illegal for a convicted felon to possess a firearm. 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 case was investigated by ATF. Assistant U.S. Attorney Hannah Couch is prosecuting these cases for the Government. Updated April 24, 2026
Leader of Gun Dealing Ring Sentenced to over 17 Years in Prison for Selling More Than 500 Guns in California Thursday, April 23, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Eastern District of California SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Jerrell Lawson, 35, of Sacramento, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Daniel J. Calabretta to 17 years and five months in prison for his convictions for conspiracy to unlawfully deal in firearms, unlawfully dealing in firearms, transferring a firearm to an out-of-state resident, unlawful mailing of a firearm, and being a felon in possession of a firearm, U.S. Attorney Eric Grant announced. According to court documents, between November 2019 and March 2022, Lawson arranged to buy more than 500 firearms in Georgia and ship them into California, where his sub-distributors sold them on the streets. In total, Lawson and his co-conspirators paid more than $300,000 to purchase those firearms. Lawson would broker firearms transactions in Georgia over the internet, and co-defendant Malek Williams, a Georgia resident with a license to carry a concealed firearm, would pick up firearms in person and mail the firearms to various locations in California at Lawson’s direction. Some of the firearms went to individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms due to prior felony convictions. Some of the guns were also particularly dangerous: machine guns and guns with “drums” designed to hold dozens of rounds of ammunition. The investigation began when a firearm used in a violent shooting in California was traced to Georgia, then to Lawson’s organization. Law enforcement learned Lawson and his co-conspirators used coded language to traffic firearms and moved money using a variety of financial institutions. During the investigation, interdicted packages destined for Lawson and other co-conspirators were found to contain firearms, ammunition, knives, and brass knuckles, among other things. In August 2023, a grand jury charged Lawson and nine co-defendants with various firearms offenses relating to this interstate firearm dealing ring. All of Lawson’s co-defendants have pleaded guilty and been sentenced. This case is the product of an investigation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the San Francisco Bay Area/Sacramento Region Cross-Jurisdictional Firearms Trafficking Strike Force Initiative and a number of other state, local, and federal agencies. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Ross Pearson and Justin Lee are prosecuting the case. This case is part of the Homeland Security Task Force (HSTF) initiative established by Executive Order 14159, Protecting the American People Against Invasion. The HSTF is a whole-of-government partnership dedicated to eliminating criminal cartels, foreign gangs, transnational criminal organizations, and human smuggling and trafficking rings operating in the United States and abroad. Through historic interagency collaboration, the HSTF directs the full might of United States law enforcement towards identifying, investigating, and prosecuting the full spectrum of crimes committed by these organizations, which have long fueled violence and instability within our borders. In performing this work, the HSTF places special emphasis on investigating and prosecuting those engaged in child trafficking or other crimes involving children. The HSTF further utilizes all available tools to prosecute and remove the most violent criminal aliens from the United States. HSTF Sacramento is composed of agents and officers from Homeland Security Investigations, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Northern California High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, Central Valley High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area, and the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office with the prosecution being led by the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of California. Updated April 23, 2026
Palmetto Man on Federal Supervised Release Indicted for Possessing Ammunition as a Convicted Felon Wednesday, April 22, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Tampa, Florida – Brandon Bernard Williams (41, Palmetto, Florida) has been charged by federal indictment for possession of ammunition by a convicted felon. If convicted, Williams faces a maximum penalty of 15 years in federal prison. U.S. Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe made the announcement. According to the indictment, on March 5, 2026, Williams was in possession of ammunition after having been previously convicted of multiple felony offenses, including a prior firearms offense. At the time of the offense, Williams was serving a term of supervised release for his prior federal convictions. As a convicted felon, Williams is prohibited from possessing firearms and ammunition under federal law. An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed one or more violations of federal criminal law, and every defendant is presumed innocent unless, and until, proven guilty. This case was investigated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Manatee County Sheriff’s Office. It will be 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 (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). Updated April 22, 2026
Seven Individuals Sentenced In Central Florida Gun Trafficking Scheme Wednesday, April 22, 2026 U.S. Attorney's Office, Middle District of Florida Orlando, Florida – Seven members of a gun trafficking scheme have been sentenced by Senior U.S. District Judge Roy. B. Dalton. Six of the individuals pleaded guilty. Jincheng Shi was convicted by a jury. U.S. Attorney Gregory W. Kehoe made the announcement. The convictions and sentences are listed below: Name (Age, City of Residence) Convictions Sentence Date Sentence Imposed Victor Manuel LaFontaine Ruiz (32, Poinciana) Gun trafficking conspiracy Brandishing a firearm during and in relation to a crime of violence 2/6/2026 17 years, 4 months Jose Emanuel Maldonado Rodriguez (33, Kissimmee) Gun trafficking conspiracy Possession of machinegun 1/21/2026 5 years, 6 months Freddie Geovani Cruz Batiz (37, Kissimmee) Gun trafficking conspiracy Possession of machinegun 10/28/2025 7 years, 3 months Jomar Manuel Lopez Montanez (31, Kissimmee) Gun trafficking conspiracy Felon in possession of a firearm 8/11/2025 7 years, 8 months Derrick Yamil Rivera Robles (30, Kissimmee) Gun trafficking conspiracy Unlicensed gun dealing, aiding and abetting Possession of machinegun 12/4/2025 3 years, 10 months Leonardo David Joseph Guerra (24, Orlando) Gun trafficking conspiracy Possession of a firearm by an illegal alien 2/23/2026 4 years Jincheng Shi (28, St. Cloud), Unlicensed gun dealing, aiding and abetting Possession of a firearm as an alien admitted under a non-immigrant visa 4/21/2026 7 years According to court documents, from at least as early as September 2023 onward, Lafontaine and Maldonado operated a gun trafficking ring involving hundreds of firearms, machineguns, machinegun conversion devices, and high-capacity magazines needed for fully automatic weapons. This operation did not involve any federally licensed firearms dealers. Instead, Lafontaine and Maldonado obtained firearms parts, including from Shi, a Chinese national who was admitted to the United States under a non-immigrant visa in 2022, which places him in a prohibited class of persons not legally allowed to possess firearms. Lafontaine and Maldonado assembled, manufactured, and modified semi-automatic and automatic firearms using a “ghost gunner” machine and specialized “endmill” drilling devices at a workspace on Maldonado’s property in Kissimmee. This case was investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, with assistance from the Metropolitan Bureau of Investigation, the Orange County Sheriff’s Office, the Orlando Police Department, the Winter Garden Police Department, the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office, the Apopka Police Department, the Seminole County Sheriff’s Office, and the Florida Highway Patrol. It was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Michael Felicetta and Dana Hill. 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 (TCOs), and protect our communities from the perpetrators of violent crime. Updated April 22, 2026
Firearms: Always be Prepared From a reader of my blog with my comment. 4/21/2026 Gregg, my brother-in-law was on the couch when my sister arrived home, so he helped her and my niece’s boyfriend with groceries. A car blocked them in at the end of the driveway. Three people got out, one fired a gun in the air and threatened him. Two watched him while the third searched the house; after leaving, they returned, again, to search the basement. He finally grabbed his gun as they drove off. Since I live nearby and police response is slow, we now believe it’s safer to keep a gun within reach. I even carry when grilling—times have changed and being prepared matters. Kielma’s Thought: “A gun holstered properly, and always on your hip, is better than a gun 5 feet away.”
Ruger vs Beretta Mike Hardy 4/20/2026 Drama in the firearms industry is not unheard of, but it is fairly rare. Given the industry’s relatively smaller size, there just usually aren’t a lot of eyebrow-raising events that happen. However, that has changed recently with interactions between Ruger and Beretta. These two stalwart bastions of gun design and manufacture have not exactly come to blows, but there are developments raising some eyebrows. Let’s take a quick look at the situation. In September of 2025, Beretta – the oldest gun manufacturer in the world, since 1526 – acquired 7.7% of Sturm, Ruger & Co. stock and then bought more to up its total holdings to 9.95%. That number makes Beretta the largest single shareholder of Ruger stock. The “Poison Pill” In October 2025, Beretta purchased the extra shares as recounted above. That led Ruger to issue a “poison-pill defense”… there are different forms of that strategy, but they all boil down to making a hostile takeover more difficult and costly for the acquirer. In its initial federal disclosure, Beretta Holding said that it: Did not have a present intention of seeking control” of Ruger, but instead they claim that they simply want a “strategic minority interest” in order to reverse what it calls Ruger’s “deteriorating financial performance.” I’m not sure Ruger believed that, after they contended that “Beretta’s Chair “indicated a long-term plan to combine Ruger with Beretta, but made no formal proposal” at a December meeting. Earlier this year, negotiations between the two companies fell apart, and Ruger went public with details of what it called a “creeping takeover” by Beretta Holding. In a March 9 statement, Ruger stated that: “Beretta repeatedly demanded terms that would transfer value from other Ruger stockholders to Beretta and undermine Ruger’s status as an independent public company,” That statement included: “Specific demands like 25 percent of the company, discounted shares, a board appointee that could violate antitrust laws, and more. Beretta repeatedly advanced extreme demands and threatened to ‘go to war’ if those demands were not met. “Beretta’s scathing reply on March 10 addressed what it called Ruger’s breach of confidentiality by issuing “blatantly false and misleading statements.” Beretta insists it wants only to help Ruger as a minority investor.
Colorado Democrats Want to Regulate Gun Barrels Like Firearms — And It May Be Coming to Your State Next Scott Witner 4/20/2026 Colorado Senate Bill 26-043 would require background checks, dealer transfers, and five-year recordkeeping for the sale of a simple metal tube — a move critics say is a textbook step toward de facto disarmament. Colorado Democrats are pushing legislation that would regulate firearm barrels — the metal tube the bullet travels through — as if they were complete firearms. Under Senate Bill 26-043, selling or transferring a barrel to a fellow gun owner without routing it through a federally licensed dealer would be a crime, carrying up to 30 days in jail and a $500 fine on the first offense. This isn’t about suppressors, which are already federally regulated as NFA items. This isn’t about receivers. This is a barrel. A spare part that countless Colorado gun owners buy, sell, and swap without a second thought — and now legislators want the same paper trail you’d generate buying a complete firearm. The bill would require dealers to log the buyer’s name, address, phone number, date of birth, driver’s license number, the barrel’s make, model, and caliber, the transaction date, and the name of the employee who handled the sale — the same paper trail created when purchasing a complete gun. “The regulatory solution creates compliance burdens for 100% of law-abiding gun owners who make up the entire legitimate market for firearm barrels in the state.” The stated justification is ghost guns. Colorado banned so-called ghost guns in 2023, but legislators say criminals are now 3D-printing frames and other components and purchasing legal metal barrels online to build untraceable firearms. The problem with that logic? By the bill sponsor’s own account, ghost guns account for approximately 3% or less of firearms recovered from Colorado crime scenes. A 3% problem is being used to justify 100% compliance burdens on law-abiding residents. The Wyoming Loophole Denver resident Keith Emerson told the committee what anyone with a map already knows: a criminal who wants a barrel can simply drive a couple of hours to Wyoming and buy one without any Colorado paperwork whatsoever. The bill creates zero barrier for anyone willing to cross a state line, while creating new criminal exposure for every honest Coloradan who doesn’t. Anti-gunners’ answer to that argument, as always, is that Wyoming should be doing this too. It’s never the law that’s the problem — it’s everyone else’s freedom that needs to be curtailed. Perhaps the most troubling procedural detail: the bill contains a “safety clause” that designates it as emergency legislation. In Colorado, that designation exempts the bill from the citizen ballot initiative process. If SB 26-043 passes and Governor Polis signs it, there is no referendum — no direct democratic challenge by the people it would affect. It’s locked in. Death by a thousand regulations Colorado has added a new layer of gun control in every legislative session since 2019 — waiting periods, age restrictions raised to 21, ammunition purchase age requirements, extreme risk protection order expansions, detachable magazine permitting requirements, and now barrel regulation, alongside a companion bill that would ban 3D printing of gun parts and criminalize possession of even the digital instructions to print them. No single bill bans guns outright. But each year the regulatory web gets tighter, the cost of compliance grows, and the risk of innocent mistakes steepens. Map it across seven years, and the picture is unmistakable: this is how you disarm a population without ever using the word “ban.” You regulate. You criminalize transfers. You decide what counts as a gun. You do it one small, “common sense” step at a time until eventually, a lot of people just give up. “Colorado and the other 49 states are all policy laboratories — and the experiments that succeed, or fail depending on your perspective, will get exported to other states, as they always have.” Colorado gun owners should be contacting their state legislators now. And gun owners in every other state should be paying close attention, because what starts in one purple state rarely stays there.
