If there is a single, consistent strategy in the modern gun-control playbook, it is this: choke off youth participation.
The thinking is simple, even if it is deeply flawed. Discourage young people from hunting, shooting sports, and firearms culture today, and it becomes easier to erode public support for the Second Amendment tomorrow. It is a long game—and Colorado has just offered one of its most counterproductive examples yet.
Beginning January 1, 2026, a new Colorado law will prohibit anyone under the age of 18 from attending a gun show unless accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. The state claims this is about “safety.” In reality, it looks far more like another attempt to stigmatize lawful gun ownership and place barriers between young people and a constitutionally protected right.
To even host a gun show under Colorado’s new regime, organizers must submit detailed security plans to local law enforcement. These plans include vendor lists, projected attendance numbers, surveillance camera coverage, and other operational details. Promoters must also carry liability insurance tailored to the event. None of this is free, and none of it is accidental.
But the restriction on unaccompanied minors stands out as particularly misguided. Most young people who attend gun shows already come with family members. Forcing them to prove that fact at the door only reinforces the message that firearms ownership is somehow suspect or dangerous. For many teenagers—especially those inclined to question authority—this kind of treatment has the opposite of its intended effect. It does not discourage interest. It fuels it.
There is also a cultural blind spot at work here. Making something forbidden or tightly controlled has long been a reliable way to make it more appealing to young people. Turning gun shows into quasi-restricted spaces risks transforming them into something perceived as edgy or “off-limits,” which is hardly a deterrent to curious teens.
Meanwhile, the restriction itself is easily bypassed. An 18-year-old friend or sibling solves the problem instantly, and anyone tasked with enforcing the rule on the ground is likely to recognize its futility.
Where the law may succeed is in raising costs. The added regulatory burdens placed on gun shows inevitably drive up admission prices. Higher entry fees discourage families from attending and make it harder for first-time visitors, young or old, to participate. That, not safety, appears to be the real objective.
This gun show restriction is only one piece of a broader legislative push in Colorado. Additional measures, including permit-to-purchase schemes and mandatory training requirements for certain semi-automatic firearms, are scheduled to take effect as well. Each layer adds cost, delay, and friction for law-abiding citizens, while doing little to address violent crime.
Legal challenges are already underway. Last fall, the Colorado State Shooting Association, the official state affiliate of the National Rifle Association, filed suit against Senate Bill 25-003, dubbed by critics the “Polis Permission Slip”, which establishes a permit-to-purchase system for firearms.
Colorado lawmakers may believe they are shaping safer communities. What they are actually doing is reinforcing the perception that government views a fundamental right as a problem to be managed rather than a liberty to be respected. History suggests that approach does not age well—and it certainly does not win hearts and minds, especially among the next generation.
Scott Witner
Scott Witner is a former Marine Corps Infantryman with 2nd Battalion, 8th Marines, and served with the 24th MEU(SOC) during a six-month deployment to the Mediterranean. He’s completed specialized training in desert warfare, mountain warfare, and jungle operations across the U.S., South Korea, and Japan.
With over a decade in the firearms and outdoor industry, Scott has helped leading brands grow their visibility and reach through strategic marketing and content development. He currently resides in Northeastern Ohio, where he enjoys hiking, shooting, and testing related gear in the environments it’s intended to be used in.
Minnesota governor and failed vice presidential candidate Tim Walz is fed up with Republican lawmakers’ opposition to all the gun control schemes he wants to see passed in the North Star State.
In fact, he’s so fed up that he’s now threatening to unilaterally make his own laws through executive action, despite the fact that such shenanigans would almost certainly run counter to the law.
At a press conference last week, Walz said he is preparing to take “incredibly aggressive executive action” on gun control proposals because of what he called “stonewalling” by Republicans in the legislature, according to a report at Fox9.com.
Of course, what he calls “stonewalling” is simply lawmakers representing their constituents, many of whom don’t believe more gun laws are the answer to any of the state’s problems.
“I’ll be rolling out a series of incredibly aggressive executive actions because of the stonewalling, and the ability to deal with this,” Walz told reporters in his usual impossible-to-understand speech pattern. “78% of people in the suburbs support an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. 60% of the people strongly support it across the state, 18% do not.
Those 18 are apparently Republican legislators and leaders who are here at the Capitol. Minnesotans are dying, literally, for us to do more around gun violence prevention.”
His B.S. statistics aside, Walz’s boast about executive action comes after anti-gun lawmakers were unable to garner enough support to get a special gun-control session of the legislature to first base.
Finally, he decided the idea of a special session was just “a waste of time”—one of the few sensible things he has said since he came into the limelight during the 2024 presidential election.
The Justice Department accuses the defendants of systematically violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional policies and practices related to firearm licensing. iStock-Mark Youso 1455889577
On December 16, 2025, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a major lawsuit in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas and St. John Division, against the Government of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD), and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks.
The Justice Department accuses the defendants of systematically violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional policies and practices related to firearm licensing. The complaint, spanning 12 pages, seeks declaratory and equitable relief under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to restore these fundamental human rights.
The lawsuit hinges on the assertion that the Second Amendment, affirmed as a “fundamental right” by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms both at home and in public for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. This right, extended to the Virgin Islands under 48 U.S.C. § 1561, has been upheld in cases such as McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller. However, the U.S. alleges that the Virgin Islands defendants have defied these rulings, rendering the constitutional right to bear arms “a virtual nullity” within the U.S. territory.
Central to the complaint are several specific grievances. The VIPD, under Commissioner Brooks’ supervision since January 23, 2025, enforces laws that require applicants to submit to warrantless home searches and to install safes bolted to their floors or walls as conditions for obtaining a firearm permit. These requirements, deemed unconstitutional by Heller, which struck down similar restrictions, impose significant financial burdens and privacy invasions. Additionally, the processing of applications is delayed by several months to a year, with no probable cause to justify home inspections. Non-compliance results in de facto denials, further obstructing citizens’ rights.
The complaint outlines three counts of violation under 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Count I addresses “Unconstitutional Conditions,” arguing that requiring warrantless searches and safe installations violates the Second Amendment by conditioning the right to bear arms on waiving constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and imposing financial expenditures. Count II, “Unreasonable Delays,” highlights excessive wait times and the lack of status updates, which deny applicants timely access to firearms and compel them to administrative exhaustion.
Finally, count III, “Unconstitutional ‘Proper Reason’ Requirement,” challenges the Virgin Islands’ law, mirroring the New York statute struck down in Bruen, which mandates applicants prove a “proper reason” for carrying a firearm, a discretion left entirely to the Commissioner.
The regulatory framework in the Virgin Islands exacerbates these issues. Possession of a firearm is a crime unless licensed, with permits valid for three years and tied to specific firearms, and permits require annual inspections.
The undefined “good moral character” and “proper reason” criteria allow arbitrary denials, while penalties for unlicensed possession include up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines of $10,000 to $15,000. These stringent measures, combined with the VIPD’s pattern of denying licenses to those with “too many” firearms, create a formidable barrier to exercising Second Amendment rights.
Factual allegations, based on accounts from multiple permit applicants, detail the arduous process. Applicants must provide a purpose for ownership, undergo mandatory home inspections without legal justification, and install costly safes even in shared households.
The VIPD’s reliance on “character vouchers” and its discretionary power to define “proper reason” further conditions rights on external approval, contradicting Bruen’s rejection of “special need” requirements.
The U.S. seeks a declaration that these practices violate federal law, a permanent injunction against implementing offending Virgin Islands statutes in this manner, and additional relief as justice requires. This action underscores a broader effort to ensure that law enforcement practices align with constitutional protections, particularly in territories where local policies may diverge from federal standards.
The lawsuit’s timing, filed on the same day as its documentation, reflects the urgency of addressing these alleged violations. Led by U.S. Attorney Adam Sleeper and Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela P. Tyson-Floyd, with support from the Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, the case pits federal authority against territorial governance. The outcome could set a precedent for the administration of Second Amendment rights across U.S. territories, potentially reshaping firearm licensing nationwide.
For residents of the Virgin Islands, this case represents a critical juncture. The alleged bureaucratic hurdles and unconstitutional conditions have long frustrated law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves, a right the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed.
As the legal battle unfolds, it will test the balance between the U.S. Virgin Islands government’s wants and individual liberties, with implications that may extend beyond the Caribbean to the mainland United States.
This lawsuit is a bold assertion of federal oversight to protect constitutional rights in the Virgin Islands.
By challenging the VIPD’s practices, the U.S. aims to dismantle what it describes as a coordinated effort to nullify Second Amendment protections through unconstitutional means.
As the case progresses, it will likely draw significant attention from legal scholars, gun rights advocates, and policymakers, offering a potential roadmap for resolving similar disputes elsewhere.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
Semi-automatic handguns are displayed at shop in New Castle, Pa., in 2020. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic, File)
MANHATTAN (CN) — A group of New York City gun buyers asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday to reinstate their Second Amendment challenge against the state’s administrative gun licensing requirements, which they claim infringe on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.
Charles Mills, Craig Sotomayor, and Braden Holliday sued New York City in 2023, claiming regulations like the city’s 90-day waiting period to purchase firearms, background checks and the ban on possessing a backup concealed handgun limit are “absolute bar — even if temporarily — to their right to have and bear arms.”
Holliday, a Bronx resident, separately challenged the city’s imposition of purportedly exorbitant application and renewal fees as a restriction on his ability to possess arms.
He says New York City’s licensing and renewal fees, at $428.50, “grossly exceed” the $10 statutory cap imposed on every other jurisdiction in state, with the exception of Nassau County on Long Island.
Their case was thrown out at the motion to dismiss stage in December 2024 by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who concluded that “none of the predominantly administrative regulations here operates to permanently deprive applicants of their right to own and carry firearms.”
Appealing to the Second Circuit, the gun owners claim Rakoff misapplied and misunderstood the text, history and tradition analysis under Bruen to be applied in Second Amendment challenges, and the viability of constitutional challenges to “exorbitant licensing fees.”
“Reversal of the district court decision is required here, because at the 12(b)(6) [motion to dismiss] stage Second Amendment challenges, the issue is only whether the law is being challenged affect the plaintiff’s right to acquire, possess and or carry arms,” attorney Amy Bellantoni told the three-judge Second Circuit panel during oral arguments on Tuesday morning.
Bellantoni told the panel New York City’s administrative constraints on gun purchasing “go right to the very heart of the plain text of the Second Amendment, which is the right to keep and bear, to have and possess, and right to acquire is necessarily wrapped up within the right to possess, because without the ability to acquire, then you have no possession and no carriage, you have no defense.”
U.S. Circuit Michael Park, a Donald Trump appointee, queried what the injury from the licensing fee and registration fees entails for gun buyers.
“We’re not at the stage right now yet where the city needs to justify requiring a permission slip, but I will say that the harm there is that without the ability to acquire at the point of purchase, my client has been harmed,” Bellantoni said. “He’s not been able to acquire the handgun and carry it and possess it for self-defense at that moment.”
Park also asked how mandatory waiting period was different from a presumptively permissible administrative delay for a background check.
Bellantoni said a waiting period of five to fifteen minutes to run the buyers’ background check would be sufficient.
“Now, 30 days, it’s not reasonable,” she said. “What are we waiting for? They’re already eligible law-abiding people, and now they have to be like children. You know, wait until they get permission to take their property out of the store. It makes it’s it makes no sense.”
Jeremy W. Shweder for the New York City Law Department meanwhile urged the panel to affirm the lower court’s dismissal, arguing the gun owners lack standing or their claims are moot.
“Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that there are no set of circumstances under which the challenge regulations would be valid,” he told the Second Circuit on Tuesday. “Plaintiffs essentially argue that they satisfy their burden at step one merely by saying that there exists a firearm regulation and then pointing to the Second Amendment.”
Shweder said the buyers had not plausibly argued that the 90-day waiting period, an anti-trafficking measure, infringes their acquisition to the point of infringing the keeping or bearing of arms for self-defense.
“Stepping back, the anti-trafficking law is not a bar on the acquisition of firearms,” the city wrote in its appellate brief. “It is not a bar on keeping or bearing firearms; and it is not a bar on where firearms can be carried. It simply regulates the pace of additional firearm acquisitions by requiring someone who has just acquired a handgun — and may already have many more — to wait 90 days before purchasing an additional one.”
The city noted the Second Circuit has already upheld the constitutionality of the $340 licensing fees in Kwong v. Bloomberg, and that Bruen specifically contemplates licensing fees as long as they are not so exorbitant as to deny the right to keep and bear arms.
U.S. Circuit Judges Debra Ann Livingston and Reena Raggi, both appointed by George W. Bush, rounded out the panel, which did not indicate how or when it would rule.
While Florida is sometimes derisively referred to as the “Gunshine State,” make no mistake, some lawmakers in the state legislature are vehemently anti-gun. A bevy of both pro-gun and anti-gun bills introduced in the legislature so far this fall proves that point quite well.
On one end of the spectrum, some Democratic lawmakers want to ban so-called “assault weapons” and firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Pro-gun lawmakers are against both proposals.
On the other side, some Republican lawmakers want to lower the age for Floridians to purchase firearms from 21 to 18 for all types of guns. Gun-ban advocates, of course, vehemently opposed that idea.
Senate Bill 345 is the measure that would restrict common semi-automatic firearms and the standard magazines sold with them. Per the bill: “ An ‘Assault weapon’ means any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic, or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following semiautomatic firearms.” The measure then listed all ARs, all AKs, and hundreds of other firearms, such as the Ruger Mini-14, by name and model.
Another anti-gun measure, House Bill 321, would prohibit law-abiding Floridians from carrying a firearm in several locations, including government buildings, police stations, courthouses, schools and some other sites. Of course, criminals, who don’t follow gun laws, will still be armed in such places.
SB 256, another anti-gun measure, would require guns in vehicles or boats to be stored locked and out of sight. And, SB 180 would expand criminal liability if minors access guns, and would require gun manufacturers to include safety warnings and demonstrate safe gun locks for buyers
These measures come on the heels of a September ruling by a state appeals court striking down Florida’s law against open carry. Then, in October, a Broward County circuit judge ruled that the state law barring 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds from carrying concealed weapons violates the Second Amendment.
Logan Edge, executive director at the Florida Gun Rights Association, has said he wants lawmakers to repeal all of the measures passed after the Parkland murder, which sparked a flurry of anti-gun measures and laws.
“I would assume most people that buy firearms are law-abiding citizens,” Edge told wusf.org. “Hundreds, millions, of people in America own firearms legally, and we are not the problem when it comes to violence, it’s criminals. I don’t really see the point of, ‘Oh, if somebody’s carrying an AR-15 on their shoulder, oh, they’re a criminal.’”
Fortunately for Florida’s lawful gun owners, anti-gun lawmakers have a tough row to hoe in trying to get more gun control passed. None of the Democratic-sponsored anti-gun measures introduced in recent weeks has been scheduled for a committee hearing by the Republican leadership. The measure that would lower the purchase age, however, is already on a committee agenda to be heard soon.
I’m a big fan of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somali congresswoman who always speaks her mind. Of course, I’m not a fan because I like her politics. But I do like the fact that nearly every time she speaks out in public, it serves as a warning for freedom-loving Americans that a true threat exists within our own federal lawmaking body.
Such was the case recently when Rep. Omar was caught on camera weighing in on a critical issue that many of us haven’t thought about for a while. In a video reposted on the Texas Gun Rights X page, Rep. Omar enthusiastically shared her views on registration and what always follows registration—confiscation.
“We have more guns in this country than we have humans,” she said in the video. “So, one of the things that is going to be important is to create a registry so we know where the guns are. We know when they go into the wrong hands when they’re stolen. And we can actually start a buyback program. I know that some of the Minnesota legislators have had that legislation, and that’s something that we should be thinking about on a federal level.”
It’s interesting that Rep. Omar would mention a “gun buyback” in the same breath as gun registration. Pro-gun advocates have warned for years that registration always leads to confiscation wherever it has been tried. Thus, anti-gun Democrats have avoided lumping the topics together.
As we’ve chronicled a number of times on TTAG, there are numerous other problems with gun “buybacks” besides the elephant in the room—eventual confiscation. First, they can’t be “buybacks” because the government never owned the firearms they are confiscating through compensation.
It won’t be passing constitutional carry anytime soon, but New York — particularly New York City — is seeing a surge in gun purchasesandjam-packed permit courses required by the state just for Gothamites to exercise their Second Amendment rights.
Retailers are working overtime to quell anxious and worried residents of the nation’s largest city, even as those customers are shocked to realize they aren’t able to walk in, purchase a firearm, and leave with their new gun that same day. Or week. Or even month.
And who can blame them?
Gun control politicians, long in control in the Empire State, have passed so many restrictions on law-abiding New Yorkers to exercise their constitutional rights that far too many simply give up out of frustration.
Those roadblocks, in essence, deny New Yorkers their ability to keep and bear arms and, at a time when many rush to licensed gun retailers, the backlogs and bottlenecks can be jarring — especially for first-time buyers. Erecting barriers to the exercise of Second Amendment rights to frustrate citizens into just giving up is the intent of this regulatory scheme.
City Residents Fearful
New York City has seen an explosion of applicants seeking to obtain the state’s required permission slip to exercise their Second Amendment rights since 2022. That’s when the U.S. Supreme Court, in its Bruen decision, struck down New York state’s restrictive and subjective “may issue” permit scheme that left most New Yorkers out of options for protecting themselves, their property and their loved ones.
Even before that SCOTUS ruling, there had been a surge in riots, looting and crime during the coronavirus pandemic, police departments were defunded, and policies like cashless bail and soft-on-crime prosecutors like Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg let criminals back out on the streets with little or no punishment for their crimes. That does not even account for rising law enforcement retirements leaving the city increasingly vulnerable to criminal violence.
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg (AP Photo/John Minchillo)
Gun permit applications are skyrocketing. Prior to the Bruen decision, on average, fewer than 100 law-abiding New York City residents each month applied for a permission slip to carry a firearm in the city for self-protection.
There was a surge during the coronavirus pandemic and a post-Bruen surge, with the monthly average reaching 600 before stabilizing at between 400 to 500 for a consistent stretch, according to data from the New York State Police Department. Following the October 7 terrorist attacks in Israel, the next month permit applications reached an all-time high at more than 1,270 — led by Jewish New Yorkers who decided to exercise their Second Amendment rights. Since then, an average of 700–800 permit applicants attempt the process each month, all just to exercise a God-given right enshrined in the Constitution.
Those millions of first-time gun owners have increasingly looked more like America, not just “old, pale and male” as previously caricatured. In New York’s case, that includes Jewish New Yorkers, African Americans, Hispanic and Asian Americans, lesbian and gay New Yorkers and more. And so long as they aren’t prohibited by law, owning a gun is their Constitutional right.
But New York still has in place restrictions that make it overly burdensome, time-consuming and difficult for law-abiding New Yorkers to purchase a firearm — a process that can take up to a year or longer.
That includes a rigorous firearm training and safety course despite the fact that “New York hasn’t standardized the classes beyond outlining a handful of topics to touch on.”
That makes it extremely difficult for would-be firearm purchasers to go to their neighborhood firearm retailer and go home with a safe and reliable self-defense tool.
In the case of Jewish New Yorkers who saw the city elect Mamdani as their next mayor, police officers choosing to retire because of it and who see a rise in antisemitic violence in the city with the world’s largest Jewish population outside of Israel, Second Amendment rights have a new appeal.
“It’s getting busy because of him,” longtime New York City gun safety instructor Lance Dashefsky recently told the New York Post, referring to Mayor-elect Mamdani. “We ain’t fleeing — we’re here to stay. We’re not victims anymore.”
“The NYPD is all retiring – we have to fight for ourselves,” added Michael Bergida, who opened a gun shop in Marine Park, Brooklyn, called Samson Armory.
Another New York City firearm instructor, Ross Den of Brooklyn, said anyone who was ever on the fence about getting a concealed carry weapon is no longer. “There are plenty of rabbis who carry – shul is where the greatest threat is,” Den told the Post, adding, “People are beginning to wake up and are now realizing they have to defend themselves and not rely on the cavalry to come save them.”
Industry Remains Top Ally
Despite the roadblocks erected to slow New Yorkers from exercising their constitutional rights, the firearm industry remains committed to ensuring those rights cannot be unconstitutionally infringed.
If New Yorkers — especially those in the city — are “gun curious,” they should visit their neighborhood firearm retailer and simply ask questions. They will find a welcoming and friendly environment with industry advocates who are there to help them learn, train and protect what matters most — their lives, their families and their homes and property.
“We are Jewish and we will protect ourselves – even if the mayor despises us,” a woman visiting a gun retailer told the Post. “We will have a say in our protection and not have to rely on others.”
The firearm industry steadfastly remains committed to being there by her side as well. The Second Amendment is there for all law-abiding Americans to protect themselves.
If there’s a big loser in Second Amendment-related court proceedings over the past few months, it has to be California Gov. Gavin Newsom.
In fact, after the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on July 24 that the state’s ammunition background check law violated the Second Amendment and affirmed a district court’s order granting a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law, Newsom shared some harsh words with the media.
“Strong gun laws save lives—and today’s decision is a slap in the face to the progress California has made in recent years to keep its communities safer from gun violence,” Newsom said in a released statement. “Californians voted to require background checks on ammunition, and their voices should matter.”
Newsom’s frustration isn’t just with the decision on ammo background checks, however. To be sure, Newsom’s and California’s anti-gun regime have seen plenty of court losses as of late, and they have been dealt with especially harshly by the 9th Circuit Court—historically a bastion of anti-gun advocacy—in recent weeks.
For one, on June 20, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court struck down the California law limiting firearm purchases to just one every 30 days. This gun-rationing scheme, the court said, not only violated the Second Amendment but had no historic precedent as required by the Bruen doctrine.
“The district court held that this law violates the Second Amendment. We affirm,” the 9th Circuit ruling stated. “California’s law is facially unconstitutional because possession of multiple firearms and the ability to acquire firearms through purchase without meaningful constraints are protected by the Second Amendment, and California’s law is not supported by our nation’s tradition of firearms regulation.”
Less than a month later, the 9th Circuit reversed a district court decision and upheld an earlier ruling that the Golden State’s law prohibiting advertising of any “firearm-related product in a manner that is designed, intended, or reasonably appears to be attractive to minors” is also unconstitutional.
“California has many tools to address unlawful firearm use and violence among the state’s youth,” the ruling stated. “But it cannot ban truthful ads about lawful firearm use among adults and minors unless it can show that such an intrusion into the First Amendment will significantly further the state’s interest in curtailing unlawful and violent use of firearms by minors.”
Note that the big losses haven’t just been in the 9th Circuit Court, but also at the district court level. On July 1, the United States District Court for the Southern District of California ruled that the state’s law banning nonresident carry permits is unconstitutional.
“Although California identifies a regulatory burden from potentially tens of thousands of new applications, the constitutional infringement pushes the balance of equities in Plaintiffs’ favor,” the ruling stated.
Ultimately, his recent court losses might have something to do with Newsom’s recent lie proclaiming he’s now a Second Amendment advocate.
“I’m not anti-gun at all,” Newsom said at the time. “I’m for just some gun safety common sense. I’m challenged by large-capacity magazine clips in urban centers, weapons of war sometimes outgunning the police. But otherwise, man, people have the right to bear arms, and I’ve got no ideological opposition to that at all.”
Hopefully, pretending not to be anti-gun made him feel a little better about all the bad beatings he’s been taking in court recently. He’s going to need it, as more lawsuits in the pipeline will continue to dismantle the state’s tangle of anti-gun laws.
I’m a big fan of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somali congresswoman who always speaks her mind. Of course, I’m not a fan because I like her politics. But I do like the fact that nearly every time she speaks out in public, it serves as a warning for freedom-loving Americans that a true threat exists within our own federal lawmaking body.
