2A NEWSLETTER WEEK OF MARCH 29TH

13 AG’s sign letter calling for complete confiscatory BAN on ALL Glock Handguns

This whole situation with the lawsuit against Glock in Chicago is more than just a legal headache for one gun manufacturer; it's a potential storm brewing for every gun owner out there. The city's argument that Glock should make their guns tamper-proof so they can't be turned into machine guns is setting a precedent that could ripple across the entire firearms industry. Think about it: if this argument holds up in court, any semi-automatic firearm could be under scrutiny because, technically, many of them can be modified into full-auto with enough know-how and determination.

The end game of this lawsuit could be a judicial ruling that essentially brands all semi-automatic firearms as unlawful machine guns. If that happens, where does it leave the average American gun owner? Suddenly, the rifle you've used responsibly for years could be classified in the same category as a machine gun.

The implications are huge. We're not just talking about a tweak to gun laws here; we're looking at a potential overhaul of what's considered legal in the gun world. This could pave the way for more stringent regulations or bans, impacting law-abiding citizens who use their firearms for sport, hunting, or home defense. Once you start redefining what constitutes a legal firearm, it's a short step to more drastic measures that could affect millions of gun owners nationwide.

This isn't a scare tactic; it's a call to pay attention. If this lawsuit against Glock sets a precedent, it could open the door to a wave of legal challenges against various types of firearms, fundamentally changing the landscape of gun ownership in America. It's a critical moment for gun rights, highlighting the need for advocacy to ensure that responsible gun ownership remains protected under the law.

Photo source: Shutterstock via Philip Yabut

Biden Fires Up New DOJ Office to Back 'Red Flag Laws

The Biden administration's renewed effort to tighten gun control, highlighted by Vice President Kamala Harris's visit to Parkland, Florida, is raising significant concerns among the Second Amendment community. The administration's focus on advancing red flag laws and pushing for an assault weapons ban, while seemingly aimed at reducing gun violence, strikes at the core principles of the Second Amendment — the right of law-abiding citizens to bear arms.

While the tragedy at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School cannot be understated, the response to such incidents should not infringe upon the rights of millions of Americans who responsibly own and use firearms. The creation of the National Extreme Risk Protection Order Resource Center, aimed at supporting red flag laws, is particularly troubling. These laws allow for the seizure of firearms without due process, based merely on accusations, potentially setting a dangerous precedent where the rights of individuals are sidelined based on unverified claims.

The allocation of $750 million towards supporting these initiatives, despite the controversial nature and effectiveness of red flag laws, signifies a substantial push towards limiting gun rights under the guise of public safety. Moreover, the focus on firearms overlooks other contributing factors to gun violence, such as the societal impacts of lockdowns and juvenile crime, suggesting a one-dimensional approach to a multifaceted issue.

Former President Trump's promise in a speech last month to roll back these measures resonates with those who view the Biden administration's actions as overreaching and a threat to constitutional rights.

Photo Source: Shutterstock via westockproductions

Taking on the ATF: Our Lawsuit's Big Impact on Frame & Receiver Rule and the Next Moves

The Biden Administration's recent push to have the Supreme Court review the lawsuit we are heavily involved in (VanDerStok v. Garland) is drawing significant attention, particularly from those who champion Second Amendment rights. Our legal battle revolves around the ATF's attempt to classify unfinished gun parts and kits as complete firearms, a policy that was struck down by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals as "unlawful." The Department of Justice's (DOJ) intervention by requesting a Supreme Court review underscores a broader intent to tighten gun control measures.

This case is not merely a legal dispute over the classification of gun parts; it's a litmus test for the future of gun ownership in America. The ATF's regulation was seen by many as an overreach, potentially setting a precedent that could limit individuals' ability to assemble firearms—a practice deeply ingrained in the American tradition of gun ownership.

The Supreme Court's decision to consider this case is noteworthy. The Court typically gives weight to petitions from the federal government, particularly when there are conflicting interpretations of the law that affect the uniform application of federal regulations. This judicial review comes at a time when the Supreme Court has shown a willingness to scrutinize the extent of regulatory authority exercised by federal agencies, making the outcome of this case even more consequential.

The implications of this case extend beyond the technicalities of firearm assembly. It touches on broader themes of federalism, individual liberty, and regulatory overreach. The outcome could influence how federal agencies interpret their regulatory powers in the future, potentially affecting various aspects of American life beyond gun ownership.

The Biden administration's push to regulate the right to privately manufacture firearms through this Supreme Court intervention is yet another encroachment on our constitutional rights, sidestepping Congressional authority. This action aimed at destroying the 80% industry and community, infringes on the freedoms of law-abiding citizens under the guise of public safety. This marks a critical pivot, moving towards increased governmental intrusion without voter approval or Congressional oversight, by using a regulatory agency to make changes to law which only Congress is allowed to do. We're diligently tracking these shifts, and adjusting our operations under the ever-changing legal landscape, as we continue to challenge the ATF in court each step of the way. We will continue to protect our customers' interests and the future of our industry while upholding the principles valued by our community.

As this case unfolds, it will undoubtedly become a focal point in the national conversation about gun rights, individual freedoms, and the role of government in regulating aspects of daily life. For gun rights supporters, it's a rallying point, a case that underscores the ongoing need to vigilantly protect the rights guaranteed under the Second Amendment from encroaching governmental powers. The outcome of this legal battle could set a precedent that will influence the direction of gun legislation and individual liberties for years to come.

ENJOY OUR NEWSLETTER?

Do you find it overwhelming, having to keep up with all the news surrounding guns and your right to own or build them? That’s what we’re here for. Obviously, we’re slightly biased but we do the digging and research across both sides of the aisle to bring you the most holistic and accurate information so that you don’t have to! Sign up for our newsletter to stay tuned and for regular updates if you haven’t already. Want breaking news even faster? Subscribe to receive urgent updates via SMS!

Have topics you would like to see us touch on or any feedback for us? Make sure to leave a comment below! We want to make sure we are putting out news relevant to our customers, and what you want to hear! Knowledge is power, and the more informed we all are about what's going on with our rights, the more effectively we can fight back.