Reps. Kweisi Mfume (D-MD) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) announced Friday their re-introduction of legislation to limit the online sale of ammunition.
A press release from Mfume’s office indicates the bill, called the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act, “would require federally licensed ammunition dealers to confirm the identity of individuals who arrange to purchase ammunition over the internet by verifying a photo I.D. in person.”
The legislation would “also require ammunition vendors to report any sales of more than 1,000 rounds within five consecutive days to the U.S. Attorney General, if the person purchasing ammunition is not a licensed dealer.”
Rep. Mfume commented on the legislation, saying, “Since we last introduced this bill, the crisis of mass shootings has continued unabated. We’ve been living with this scourge of violence for so many years as assault weapons and enormous amounts of ammunition continue to fall into the hands of diabolical people.”
By subscribing, you agree to our terms of use & privacy policy. You will receive email marketing messages from Breitbart News Network to the email you provide. You may unsubscribe at any time.
He added, “Mass shootings are not going to stop on their own, and we cannot keep waiting for the next one to occur.”
Rep. Coleman said:
Regulating online ammunition sales is a commonsense step to countering the number of mass shootings we see every year.
This legislation closes the loophole that makes tragedies like these so unfortunately common. Public safety must come before convenience for an unregulated market: Americans send us to Washington because it is our job to protect them, not mourn them.
The online ammo sales gun control bill has 17 co-sponsors.
TheGunBlog.ca — Canada’s Liberal Party-led administration said today that gun owners targeted by its mass confiscation fantasy will soon be able to register the goods they want seized and destroyed, possibly without compensation.
Unworkable, Unenforceable
The Liberals published a statement and hosted a “technical briefing” for media including TheGunBlog.ca. They were unable to provide any specifics on their failing confiscation effort.
They couldn’t say how they will enforce the seizures, given that they don’t know who owns most of the rifles and shotguns they want to confiscate. (The so-called “Non-Restricted” models.)
They couldn’t say how they will enforce seizures that owners oppose.
They couldn’t say how they will execute a program that most provinces oppose.
They couldn’t say how they will execute a program that most police oppose.
They couldn’t say if confiscation agents will visit homes, or if/when police will be involved.
They reiterated their idea of “mobile-collection units,” without more details.
They couldn’t provide a timeline for payment in case anyone does actually get paid.
Confiscation Without Compensation
The Liberals did confirm that you might be denied compensation, even if you register your firearms for confiscation and destruction by the new deadline of March 31.
“Please note that submitting a declaration does not guarantee you will receive compensation,” they say on several of the new webpages for the crackdown. The bold text is in the original.
Last year, the Liberals broke their promise to offer payment to everyone who participated. They expect a maximum of 136,000 gun owners to opt-in, far below industry estimates of the number of affected owners.
Most Provinces Oppose Confiscation
Quebec is the only province that publicly supports the attacks unleashed by the Liberals in May 2020.
Winnipeg, Halifax, and Cape Breton are the only municipalities that have said they support the seizures against government-licensed firearm owners.
Alberta, Manitoba, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Ontario, Saskatchewan, and Yukon have said they won’t participate, or are actively working to block the crackdown.
No Surrender
TheGunBlog.ca isn’t aware of any individual who intends to surrender their gear, and is aware of many who intend to keep their gear.
It doesn’t matter at this point, because thankfully, the confiscation program is still only a confiscation fantasy.
So I see that America does not have a corner on having some real idiots in their Ruling Class! But I REALLY feel sorry for the average Canadian. As I seen myself, they are a really decent bunch of folks and some GREAT Allies! Grumpy
Canada’s long-promised gun “buyback” is already collapsing under the weight of its own bad assumptions, and the early numbers make that painfully obvious.
After years of buildup, bureaucracy, and political chest-thumping, the federal government’s test run managed to recover 25 firearms out of an expected 200. That’s not a hiccup. That’s a face-plant. And it perfectly illustrates why this entire program was doomed from the start.
Would you comply with a gov’t “buyback” program?
According to Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), this so-called buyback is nothing more than compensated confiscation. The government didn’t own these firearms. It didn’t manufacture them. It didn’t sell them. Yet it now demands lawful owners surrender them or face criminal penalties because a bureaucrat slapped an “assault-style” label on more than 2,500 models.
Calling that a “buyback” isn’t just misleading. It’s dishonest.
CBC’s reporting confirms what gun owners have been saying all along. The program only targets legally owned, registered firearms. Not smuggled guns, not gang weapons, not black-market pistols driving violent crime in Montreal or Toronto.
In fact, the CBCreport openly acknowledges the central flaw: to believe this program improves public safety, you’d have to believe licensed Canadian gun owners are responsible for rising gang violence.
They’re not.
Even worse, enforcement appears optional in practice. A leaked recording caught the federal minister responsible admitting municipal police don’t have the resources to enforce the program. And that it was pushed largely to appease Quebec voters. That’s not public safety policy. That’s political theater.
And the logistics? A nightmare. Provinces are refusing to participate. Police agencies don’t want the job. The Nova Scotia pilot already failed. Yet Ottawa insists everything just needs “clarification,” as if Canadians didn’t understand the instructions well enough to surrender property they lawfully own.
The real message here isn’t subtle. Law-abiding gun owners saw the program for what it was and refused to play along. Twenty-five guns turned in wasn’t apathy. It was rejection.
Canada’s buyback isn’t failing because it hasn’t been explained well enough. It’s failing because it targets the wrong people, ignores real crime drivers, and treats a fundamental right like a government-issued privilege that can be bought back at a discount.
And that’s not a “step in the right direction.” It’s an expensive, embarrassing dead end.
When anti-gun Democrat Abigail Spanberger was elected Virginia’s new governor back in November, it was a victory that many believed would embolden gun-ban advocates in the state legislature. Judging from a new measure now under consideration by lawmakers, “embolden” might have been too mild a word.
House Bill 217 is a sweeping gun and magazine ban with a few other restrictions thrown in for good measure. According to a state alert to Virginia members distributed by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the measure is a “damaging” one.
“As the Virginia Legislature’s starting date rapidly approaches, anti-gunners are already preparing to axe your gun rights by firing off new bills during the bill pre-filing period,” GOA wrote in the alert. “HB 217 is especially damaging, and it aims to do a sweeping number of infringements on your rights if passed.”
According to GOA, the measure would ban the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase and transfer of a wide range of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns by classifying them as “assault firearms” based on features such as pistol grips, threaded barrels, folding or adjustable stocks, muzzle devices or the ability to accept detachable magazines.
Additionally, it specifically targets semi-automatic pistols and shotguns commonly used for lawful purposes, including pistols with threaded barrels and semi-automatic shotguns with detachable magazines or fixed magazine capacities exceeding seven rounds.
Other provisions in the bill would ban the sale and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds if manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, outlawing standard-capacity magazines that are factory-issued with many popular firearms, along with making the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase or transfer of a prohibited firearm a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.
The bill would even criminalize possession, purchase or transport of a so-called “assault firearm” by anyone under the age of 21, even if the firearm was lawfully owned and manufactured before the ban date.
“In addition,HB207 could obliterate the gains we made on the federal level by convincing Congress to lower the National Firearms Act tax on suppressors from $200 to $0, thanks to your persistence and advocacy,” GOA wrote.
“HB207 hopes to impose a new $500 Virginia tax on suppressors, in addition to the existing federal tax and registration requirements.”
To battle the measure, GOA asked members to do two things in the immediate future. First, use the form provided in the state alert to inform their state delegates that they oppose HB 217, HB 207, SB 28, and SB 38.
The second request is to join the Virginia Citizens Defense League Lobby Day at the state capital on January 19. VCDL’s lobby day is an opportunity for gun owners’ message to be heard and amplified, and a massive attendance of gun owners there can make a serious impact on how these bills move forward.
Ultimately, Republicans losing the governorship in Virginia has created a situation where gun-ban legislation will be pushed harder than ever before. It’s up to gun owners to make their voices heard and fight to kill these restrictive measures.
As the Virginia Legislature’s starting date rapidly approaches, anti-gunners are already preparing to axe your gun rights by firing off new bills during the bill pre-filing period.
HB 217 is especially damaging, and it aims to do a sweeping number of infringements on your rights if passed. The bill:
Bans the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, and transfer of a wide range of commonly owned semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns by classifying them as “assault firearms” based on features such as pistol grips, threaded barrels, folding or adjustable stocks, muzzle devices, or the ability to accept detachable magazines.
Targets specifically semi-automatic pistols and shotguns commonly used for lawful purposes, including pistols with threaded barrels and semi-automatic shotguns with detachable magazines or fixed magazine capacities exceeding seven rounds.
Bans the sale and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds if manufactured on or after July 1, 2026, outlawing standard-capacity magazines that are factory-issued with many popular firearms.
Makes the importation, sale, manufacture, purchase, or transfer of a prohibited firearm a Class 1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.
Imposes a three-year prohibition on possessing, purchasing, or transporting any firearm for anyone convicted under the bill, expanding firearm prohibitions through misdemeanor offenses.
Criminalizes possession, purchase, or transport of an “assault firearm” by anyone under the age of 21, even when the firearm was lawfully owned and manufactured before the ban date.
Authorizes seizure and forfeiture of firearms, magazines, and accessories involved in violations, even when the underlying offense is a misdemeanor rather than a felony.
Expands concealed handgun permit disqualifications by tying permit eligibility to the new “assault firearm” misdemeanor convictions.
In addition, HB207 could obliterate the gains we made on the federal level by convincing Congress to lower the National Firearms Act tax on suppressors from $200 to $0 thanks to your persistence and advocacy. HB207 hopes to:
Impose a new $500 Virginia tax on suppressors, in addition to the existing federal tax and registration requirements.
To recap, the Virginia Legislature has already also introduced SB 27 which holds manufacturers and dealers liable and susceptible to potentially multimillion dollar lawsuits for things out of their control and SB 38, seeks to grow the already stringent regulations regarding the confiscation or transfer of firearms from a “prohibited person.”
How can we fight back against these egregious policies that threaten our inalienable Second Amendment rights? There are currently two essential and immediate options that we need your help with.
1. Use the form at the top of this post to contact your state delegate and senator, and tell them that you oppose HB 217, HB 207, SB 27, and SB 38 for the reasons outlined above. We need to flood Richmond politicians with calls and emails to make it clear that Virginians will not tolerate and stand by when our constitutional rights are under attack.
2. Join us for the The Virginia Citizens Defense League Lobby Day on January 19, 2026. VCDL’s lobby day is an opportunity for our message to be heard and amplified; with a massive attendance of gun owners at the state capitol, we can make a serious impact on how these bills perform. Click here to learn more
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.
For months, CBS News Chicago has been pulling on a thread that many lawful gun owners, especially Black gun owners, have lived with for years. Now, an inside source has said the quiet part out loud.
According to the exclusive report, some Chicago police officers are arresting law-abiding gun owners with valid FOID cards and concealed carry licenses anyway. And there may be career and financial incentives to do it.
The source, a decorated veteran officer who spoke under the condition of anonymity, said bluntly that race plays a role and that arrests tied to firearms can boost an officer’s numbers, visibility, and chances for promotion.
“If you have really high numbers in terms of firearms recovered,” the source told CBS. “You will get the attention of supervisors. If you get promoted, then yeah—you’re financially better off.”
The station documented multiple cases where Black gun owners followed the law perfectly, disclosed their firearms during traffic stops, presented valid licenses, and were still arrested and charged with felonies.
One of those cases involved Curtis Tarver, an Illinois state lawmaker. After being stopped for a minor traffic issue, Tarver immediately disclosed his firearm and showed police his FOID and concealed carry license.
Officers even acknowledged that everything appeared in order. Then they arrested him anyway after claiming his license was revoked in the system.
It wasn’t.
Tarver’s case was eventually dismissed. But not before he was booked, photographed, and publicly labeled a criminal. That mugshot still exists. The damage didn’t disappear when the charges did.
CBS Chicago also highlighted Louis McWilliams, a business owner who took the required classes, paid the fees, obtained his license, and carried legally. When police couldn’t immediately verify his CCL in the state database, he was arrested and charged with two felonies. Months later, prosecutors dropped the charges after confirming his license was valid all along.
And here’s the kicker: no one is tracking how often this happens.
Neither the Chicago Police Department nor the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office tracks how many lawful gun owners are wrongly charged and later cleared. Yet CPD provided a database showing more than 52,000 firearms seized as “illegal” since 2019. That includes guns belonging to people whose cases were dismissed.
Legal experts said Illinois law is clear: if a license holder presents valid credentials, disclosure requirements are met. Period.
But as one expert warned, the “no harm, no foul” mindset ignores the real consequences: arrest, jail, legal bills, lost jobs, public shaming, and permanent records that don’t magically vanish.
For gun owners watching from the outside, the message is unsettling. Follow the law, do everything right, and you still might get cuffed.
As CBS Chicago’s reporting shows, the issue isn’t public safety. It’s accountability. And until the system starts tracking these cases, the scope of the problem may be far bigger than anyone wants to admit.
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.
