Embattled NRA CEO and executive vice-president Wayne LaPierre announced on Friday that he will be stepping down from his position. The decision comes days before a New York civil suit is set to begin against LaPierre and other NRA executives. As of January 31st, the announcement ends a decades-long career that many think should have ended long ago.

Out With the Old: Wayne LaPierre to Resign his Position with the NRA

Wayne LaPierre will be stepping down on January 31st, 2023, ending his decades-long position with the NRA. His announcement comes days before a New York City civil trial is set to begin against LaPierre and others. The trial will focus on accusations of misappropriation of the organization’s funds. Specifically, he and other executives allegedly enjoyed luxury vacations and other perks at NRA members’ expense.

In a statement on NRA’s website, LaPierre said, “With pride in all that we have accomplished, I am announcing my resignation from the NRA. I’ve been a card-carrying member of this organization for most of my adult life, and I will never stop supporting the NRA and its fight to defend Second Amendment freedom. My passion for our cause burns as deeply as ever.”

According to the National Rifle Association announcement, an interim CEO and EVP has already been selected. Following the departure of Wayne LaPierre, long-time NRA executive and Head of General Operations Andrew Arulanandam will step in temporarily.

The decision will hopefully weaken NYAG Leticia James’ attacks on the NRA, who vowed to dissolve the organization.

The NRA states, “With respect to the NYAG’s allegations, the NRA Board of Directors reports it has undertaken significant efforts to perform a self-evaluation, recommended termination of disgraced ‘insiders’ and vendors who allegedly abused the Association, and accepted reimbursement, with interest, for alleged excess benefit transactions from LaPierre, as reported in public tax filings.”

LaPierre said, “I am proud of the NRA’s advocacy in New York and, through it all, determination to defend the Second Amendment. I can assure you the NRA’s mission, programming, and fight for freedom have never been more secure.”

You Don’t Have to Go Home, But You Can’t Stay Here

In a Board of Directors meeting in Irving, Texas, today, NRA President Charles Cotton accepted LaPierre’s resignation. Reports indicate that he cited health reasons for his departure. As part of the organization’s announcement, Cotton expressed gratitude for his service:

“On behalf of the NRA Board of Directors, I thank Wayne LaPierre for his service. Wayne has done as much to protect Second Amendment freedom as anyone. Wayne is a towering figure in the fight for constitutional freedom, but one of his other talents is equally important: he built an organization that is bigger than him. Under the direction of Andrew Arulanandam, the NRA will continue to thrive – with a renewed energy in our business operations and grassroots advocacy. Our future is bright and secure.”

While the organization thanks LaPierre for his service, many members simply thank him for leaving.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Keep Reading

The Second Amendment contained within the U.S. Bill of Rights states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Understanding the verbiage of the day, along with constitutional law and modern precedent, goes a long way in understanding your Second Amendment rights.

Understanding Your Second Amendment Rights

Poor comma placement aside, the simple text of this constitutional protection seems fairly straight forward. The term “right of the people” isn’t all that confusing, and the term “shall not be infringed” seems pretty unambiguous. 

However, what constitutes “infringing” on this “right of the people to keep and bear Arms” has been roundly cussed and discussed for the past half century, and even before that. Before digging in a little deeper, let’s consider a few salient points. 

A Well Regulated Militia …

The common argument (although not as common nowadays) that the term “well regulated Militia” means that this is a right reserved only for those serving in a state militia is a relatively new one, no matter what anti-gun advocates want you to believe. In U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), Presser v. Illinois (1886), Miller v. Texas (1894) and U.S. v. Miller (1939), the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms, and the high court has never taken a different view.

The Kansas Supreme Court invented the idea that the amendment instead protected a “right” of a person to keep and bear arms only while serving in a state militia in the 1905 case Salina v. Blaksley. Later, in the 1942 case U.S. v. Tot, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit advanced the idea that the amendment protects the “right” of a state to have a militia.

Protecting an Individual Right to Arms

In 2008, however, the U.S. Supreme Court heard its first case centered specifically on whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to arms. In that case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court ruled that the amendment protects an individual right to keep arms and to bear arms “in case of confrontation,” without regard to a person’s relationship to a militia.

In another important Supreme Court case, McDonald v. Chicago in 2010, the court found that individual right as protected by the Second Amendment extends throughout the entire nation, regardless of where one might live. And in a more recent case, New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which was decided in 2022, the court ruled that the individual right to arms applies to bearing arms outside the home.

While all those court cases might sound overwhelming, the gist is that the Second Amendment protects your right to purchase, own and carry firearms. And while different states might try to pass various laws making your practice of that right more difficult, if the laws violate that right they will eventually be found unconstitutional in the courtroom.

Fear Factor

One fear of some “seasoned” gun owners, many of whom have become understandably cynical because of the constant proposed infringements on gun owner rights over the past several decades, is that new gun owners won’t be interested in the Second Amendment and the freedoms it protects. Fortunately, that doesn’t seem to be the case based on recent research.

A 2022 survey from the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago not only found that new gun owners were largely young and educated, but their thoughts on the right to keep and bear arms aren’t much different than those of longtime gun owners.

“We found that their views align really well with other gun owners even though demographically they’re so different,” said NORC senior fellow John Roman.

Blowing Up the Anti-Gun Narrative

According to a report on that study by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), the explanation for that could be quite simple—law-abiding Americans are not falling for anti-gun narrative anymore. 

“The study showed almost every gun control talking point crumbled in the past two years, while gun owners increased,” the NSSF report stated. “The data suggests that this population of consumers, the first-time gun buyers, are vastly aware of the misleading rhetoric, as reflected in more of NORC’s findings. A clear majority of first-time gun buyers, nearly 70%, believe concealed carry should be expanded. This majority also wants to shorten unconstitutional waiting periods to legally buy a gun and also supports qualified teachers being able to carry a concealed firearm in order to protect their students.”

In the end, there is a much larger discussion that we could get into on the ins and outs of the Second Amendment. But one thing’s for certain: Unless you are a prohibited person because of a past felony, a current drug addiction or a few other disqualifiers, you can proudly practice your right to keep and bear arms as protected by the Second Amendment!

In our next installment of Shooting 101, we’ll explore different kinds of guns and what roles they best fill for lawful gun owners.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Keep Reading

For all those Americans who accidentally lost their bump stocks in boating accidents over the past few years, it’s time to head to the lake and try to fish them out again!

Supreme Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban 6-3!

Earlier today, the U.S. Supreme court in a 6-3 vote struck down the bump stock ban instituted by the Department of Justice under the Trump Administration. Under that Final Rule, bump stocks were redefined as “machine guns” for the purpose of the Gun Control Act and were to be regulated in the same manner as fully-automatic firearms.

The question before the court was whether a bump stock was actually a machine gun under federal law. And six justices—John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett—concluded that the two were not the same.  

In his opinion for the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote what many gun owners have known all along.

“We hold that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock is not a ‘machine gun’ because it cannot fire more than one shot ‘by a single function of the trigger,’” Justice Thomas wrote. “And, even if it could, it would not do so ‘automatically.’ ATF therefore exceeded its statutory authority by issuing a Rule that classifies bump stocks as machineguns.”

Thomas continued: “Semi-automatic firearms, which require shooters to reengage the trigger for every shot, are not machine guns. This case asks whether a bump stock—an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly reengage the trigger (and therefore achieve a high rate of fire)—converts the rifle into a ‘machine gun.’ We hold that it does not.”

ATF Argument “Logically Inconsistent”

In the majority opinion, Thomas explained how the ATF’s argument in justifying the ban actually didn’t make any sense when closely scrutinized.

“The position that ATF and the dissent endorse is logically inconsistent,” Thomas wrote. “They reason that a semi-automatic rifle equipped with a bump stock fires more than one shot by a single function of the trigger because a shooter ‘need only pull the trigger and maintain forward pressure’ to ‘activate continuous fire.’ If that is correct, however, then the same should be true for a semi-automatic rifle without a bump stock. After all, as the dissent and ATF themselves acknowledge, a shooter manually bump firing a semi-automatic rifle can achieve continuous fire by holding his trigger finger stationary and maintaining forward pressure with his non-trigger hand.

“Yet, they agree that a semi-automatic rifle without a bump stock ‘fires only one shot each time the shooter pulls the trigger.’ Their argument is thus at odds with itself.”

Then, possibly referring to shooting superstar Jerry Miculek and a few other fast shooters known to the public, Thomas drove the final nail in the bump stock ban coffin.

“A bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun any more than a shooter with a lightning-fast trigger finger does,” he concluded.

Challenging DOJ & ATF Ban

The case, Garland v. Cargill, revolved around the bump stock ban instituted by the DOJ and ATF after a horrible mass murder in Las Vegas in 2017. While instituted by the Trump Administration, the Biden Administration has been defending the ban in court since the current president took office in January 2021. 

In his concurring opinion, Justice Samuel Alito addressed the horrible shooting in Vegas.

“I join the opinion of the Court because there is simply no other way to read the statutory language,” Alito wrote. “The horrible shooting spree in Las Vegas in 2017 did not change the statutory text or its meaning. That event demonstrated that a semi-automatic rifle with a bump stock can have the same lethal effect as a machine gun, and it thus strengthened the case for amending §5845. But an event that highlights the need to amend a law does not itself change the law’s meaning.”

Writing for the liberal minority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor criticized the majority justices for a decision that she said would lead to “deadly consequences.”

Big WIN for 2A!

“Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands,” Justice Sotomayor wrote. “To do so, it casts aside Congress’s definition of ‘machine gun’ and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose.

“When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semi-automatic rifle fires ‘automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.’ Because I, like Congress, call that a machine gun, I respectfully dissent.”

Justice Sotomayor was joined on the minority by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

On January 9, 2023, Tactical Life reported:

Following the unfortunate tragedy in Las Vegas in 2017, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Attorney General to regulate bump stocks. Following the EO, the ATF ordered that all owners destroy or turn in their bump stock within 90 days (story below). However, the U.S. Court of Appeals recently ruled that the ATF did not have that authority; only Congress does. As a result, the ban has been struck down.

Federal Court Strikes Down Bump Stock Ban

Since its inception, the bump stock ban has survived challenges at the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the Denver-based 10th Circuit, and the federal circuit court in Washington.

However, on September 13, 2022, the New Orleans-based U.S. 5^th Circuit Court of Appeals heard the arguments. Following this most recent challenge, the court struck the ban down in a 13-3 decision. But the court did not find the ban unconstitutional on the grounds of Second Amendment infringements. Instead, the court ruled on the lack of authority for the ATF to change laws.

According to Fox News, “In a 13-3 decision, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans held that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), acting under ‘tremendous’ public pressure, short-circuited the legislative process by approving a rule to define bump stocks as ‘machineguns,’ which are heavily restricted. The court said ATF did not have the authority from Congress to do so.”

Likewise, Rich Samp, attorney for the appellant, said in a statement posted to Fox News that “[t]his case is not about gun control. It is instead about who has the constitutional prerogative to change the criminal law if changes are warranted. The current statute, adopted in 1986, defines ‘machinegun’ in a manner that does not encompass non-mechanical bump stocks. It is unlawful for a prosecutorial entity like ATF to rewrite existing law without authorization from Congress. Any change in gun-control laws must emanate from Congress.”

Do Not Meet the Definition of Machinegun

The ban required the ATF to redefine bump stock-enabled firearms as “machineguns” under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968. This reverses a decades-old decision that bump stocks are not machine guns.

 Breitbart News posted a copy of the DOJ’s summary of the ban at the time, which states:

“The Department of Justice is amending the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) to clarify that bump-stock-type devices-meaning “bump fire” stocks, slide-fire devices, and devices with certain similar characteristics-are “machineguns” as defined by the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 because such devices allow a shooter of a semiautomatic firearm to initiate a continuous firing cycle with a single pull of the trigger.”

However, the appellant, Michael Cargill, successfully argued that bump stocks do not meet the definition of “machinegun” under federal law. His argument successfully illustrated that the trigger functions multiple times to fire the rifle. Federal law states that a machine gun operates with a “single function of the trigger.”

In the lead majority opinion, Judge Jennifer Walker Elrod states, “A plain reading of the statutory language, paired with close consideration of the mechanics of a semi-automatic firearm, reveals that a bump stock is excluded from the technical definition of “machinegun” set forth in the Gun Control Act and National Firearms Act.”

Gun Owners of America posted to Twitter that the ruling could set precedence for future gun rights battles as well:

But we’re not out of the woods yet, the Biden administration, which defended the law in court, may appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

On December 21, 2018, Tactical Life reported:

Bump Stock Owners: What You Need to Know After ATF Ruling

So the other shoe finally dropped. As you likely know by now, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) recently announced its amended ruling on bump stock-type devices. Following President Trump’s demands, the ATF ruled that all bump stocks now fall within the definition of “machinegun” under federal law.

In short, following the Las Vegas shooting, Trump decided these devices needed to go, so he demanded ATF change its ruling. Meanwhile, the NRA, while publicly stating its disappointment in the ban, mostly maintained support of the president.

Conversely, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), with Tim Harmsen of Military Arms Channel fame as plaintiff, filed suit. Lead counsel in this suit includes Joshua Prince and Adam Kraut, known civil rights attorneys. But only time will tell if FPC and its allies can successfully get the ruling overturned.

In the meantime, the ruling now requires all device owners to destroy their devices or abandon them at a local ATF office. If choosing to destroy the device, it is the owner’s responsibility to ensure the device is rendered incapable of being readily restored to its intended function, according to ATF.

For anyone wishing to abandon their device, you can visit Local ATF Offices to find a location near you. For those planning to destroy their device, see the list of destruction instruction links, by manufacturer, below:

ATF Bump Stock Destruction Information

All bump stock owners have 90 days from the date of publication to comply by either abandoning or destroying their device. Failure to do so would put owners in direct violation of federal law.

The ATF has compiled a lot of information regarding the new ruling; for more, visit atf.gov.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Keep Reading

The glamour and influence of Hollywood just ain’t what it used to be. That explains why Brady United for Gun Control’s recent announcement that they’re bringing on Hollywood executives and producers to help sell gun control makes perfect sense.

Hollywood Brought in to Sell Gun Control

Americans don’t want to be lectured to by out-of-touch actors who make millions and live in safe, gated communities and are protected by armed bodyguards. They don’t care what they think. They’re tired of paying good money to have “woke” movie directors bludgeon them with progressive politics in a movie theater.

The gun control industry, in the same light, continues to push an agenda that Americans aren’t buying. Recent history and polling has shown law-abiding Americans are fed up with the defund-the-police and soft-on-crime policies imposed on them in America’s biggest cities, including Los Angeles and Hollywood. 

They’re no longer remaining victims to politicians taking away their rights and letting criminals run the show. Instead, they’re taking personal safety into their own hands by embracing their Second Amendment rights.

With their announcement, Brady is joining other national gun control groups in trying to sell Americans on giving up more of their rights. That agenda is not an award-winning one.

In The Tank

The abysmal viewership numbers of the various yearly Hollywood awards shows are in the dumps. Recently, the Academy Awards, or Oscars, had just 10.1 million viewers. That’s a plunge of more than 55 percent from the year prior.

Anyone recall the 2020 Ricky Gervais monologue? (Disclosure: not safe for workplace viewing.) “So, if you do win an award tonight, don’t use it as a political platform to make a political speech. You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything,” Gervaise chastised the live audience of actors and entertainment industry suits.

The feeling is similar among Americans who see gun control groups lecture them about community safety, endorse and support prosecutors and elected officials who go soft on criminals, and then work to deny law-abiding Americans from taking lawful steps to protect themselves and their families. No amount of Hollywood dress-up will help.

Brady announced the addition of three big Hollywood names to help them sell more gun control. In a release, the gun control group touted the hires. It states they will “bolster efforts and cultivate new relationships in the entertainment industry.”

The goal is to “ignite a movement among culture leaders and creators to spark positive norm and behavior change and reshape America’s relationship with guns.”

America’s relationship with guns certainly has changed dramatically over the past three years, too. So much so that Americans have lawfully purchased more than 1 million firearms every month for 50 straight months.

This historic stretch includes large percentages of women gun buyers, minority gun buyers, and first-time gun buyers. This makes the gun-owning community the most diverse ever.

Deep Gun Control Ties

Joining the Brady gun control outfit are Christy Callahan, a former motion picture creative executive and TV writer; Jared Milrad, an “award-winning filmmaker, actor, entrepreneur and advocate for inclusion and social impact in entertainment”; and Matt Littman, who is leaving his position at the gun control group 97 percent.

Previously, he served as then-Sen. Joe Biden’s chief speechwriter and is currently a senior advisor to President Biden’s reelection campaign. President Biden, of course, continues to repeat lies about the firearm industry in his speeches and public appearances calling for more gun control.

Callahan helped spearhead an “open letter” that was signed by more than 200 Hollywood writers, producers and actors. The letter demonstrated how one-sided the effort is.

“Guns are prominently featured in TV and movies in every corner of the globe, but only America has a gun violence epidemic. The responsibility lies with lax gun laws supported by those politicians more afraid of losing power than saving lives,” the letter reads.

Among other goals, the letter states the signatories support “Limiting scenes that include children and guns, bearing in mind that guns are now the leading cause of death for children and adolescents.” 

The false statistic is repeated often by gun control groups, as well as President Biden. They knowingly ignore that most of the deaths included involve criminal firearm violence committed by persons aged 18 and 19. As such, they are legal adults.

I wonder how many acting gigs these signatories turned down because they depicted and glorified the misuse of gun violence. Let’s see them put their money where their mouth is.

Leading Real Change

The firearm industry supports safe and responsible gun ownership and has a proven track record of making a positive impact. NSSF’s Real Solutions. Safer Communities.® campaign has helped reduce unintentional firearm deaths to record low numbers since data was first tracked in 1903.

That includes supporting safe and secure firearm storage in the home and not in use. Through that effort, Project ChildSafe® has distributed more than 40 million free firearm safety kits. This includes locking devices, through partnerships with over 15,000 law enforcement agencies in all 50 states and five U.S. territories.

This campaign has been recognized by the National Safety Council’s Green Cross Awards and the Government Accountability Office for its efficacy in reducing the criminal and negligent misuse of firearms through voluntary safe storage.

Additionally, NSSF’s Operation Secure Store® and Don’t Lie for the Other Guy™ campaigns work with firearm retailers to provide educational resources and services to better secure their inventory and reduce robberies and burglaries and remind the public it is a serious crime to lie on the federal background check form to buy a firearm for someone else who cannot do so on their own. ATF data from this year confirms once again these programs help make communities safer.

Hollywood elites continue to ignore the real crime problems plaguing America’s cities. Gun control groups are no better and continue to advocate for policies that limit rights, leaving law-abiding Americans less safe. Hollywood and gun control working together won’t change anything.

Instead, the firearm industry will continue doing the hard work on safety initiatives that actually do make communities safer. All while protecting rights – not eliminating them.

Story originally posted to NSSF.org.

Didn’t find what you were looking for?

Keep Reading

Back in May, I reported that a U.S. District Judge issued a preliminary injunction against the Illinois “assault weapons” ban. However, in a recent decision, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit overturned the decision. What’s more, they indicate that AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment.

Seventh Circuit Court Overturns Injunction Against Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban

As reported below, the original injunction was issued by U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn in Barnett v. Raoul. Following his decision, an appeal was filed with the Seventh Circuit court. The three-judge panel is made up of Ronald Reagan appointee Frank Easterbook, Bill Clinton appointee Diane P. Wood, and Donald Trump appointee Michael P. Brennan.

According to Breitbart News, “Easterbrook and Wood constituted the panel majority in overturning the injunction. They noted that Heller (2008) held, ‘[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.’”

The panel noted that in Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States determined that machine guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. Specifically, because they are not “bearable” and can “be dedicated exclusively to military use.”

For this reason, Easterbrook and Wood worked to highlight the similarities between AR-15s and M16s. However, the similarities highlighted only occur when currently illegal modifications are made to the AR platform. Such as adding a “bump stock” or auto-sear. Likewise, they make the correlation between the two regarding the same ammunition and kinetic energy.

Breitbart News states, “Judge Brennan dissented from the majority decision, stressing that the Illinois ‘assault weapons’ ban fails if tested by Bruen (2022) because the ban has no historical precedent in American tradition.”

Fortunately, according to a post from the Firearms Policy Coalition on X, there is still a pathway to victory.

The post states that the court does “not rule out the possibility that the plaintiffs will find other evidence that shows a sharper distinction between AR-15s and M16s (and each one’s relatives) than the present record reveals.”

The Firearms Policy Coalition promises to fight forward.

We will continue to follow this case as it moves forward and will provide updates as they happen.

On May 2, 2023, Joshua Swanagon reported:

U.S. District Judge Stephen P. McGlynn apparently shares the views of many law-abiding American citizens. Specifically, there are already enough gun laws on the books that aren’t enforced, and there’s no need for more. For this reason, he issued a preliminary injunction against the Illinois “assault weapons” ban on Friday, April 28, 2023.

U.S. District Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Against Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban

Judge McGlynn presided over Barnett v. Raoul, which consolidated numerous suits against the Illinois “assault weapons” ban. The ban, known as the Protect Illinois Communities Act (PICA), was brought about following the attack on an Independence Day parade in Highland Park, Illinois (details below). Occurring just weeks after the SCOTUS issued its Bruen decision, Democrats used the attack to justify PICA.

In his decision, McGlynn acknowledged the attack, and the Democrats attempt to take advantage of it:

“As Americans, we have every reason to celebrate our rights and freedoms, especially on Independence Day. Can the senseless crimes of a relative few be so despicable to justify the infringement of the constitutional rights of law-abiding individuals in hopes that such crimes will then abate or, at least, not be as horrific?

“More specifically, can PICA be harmonized with the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution and with Bruen? That is the issue before this Court. The simple answer at this stage in the proceedings is ‘likely no.’”

Appropriately, McGlynn pointed to Bruen in his decision to block enforcement of PICA until a ruling on its constitutionality is finalized:

“Amongst other things, the Bruen Court reaffirmed that ‘the right to “bear arms” refers to the right to “wear, bear, or carry…upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose…of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.”’ 142 S. Ct. at 2134 (quoting D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008)).”

Likewise, he went on to say that the SCOTUS decision in Bruen states that “the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are ‘in common use at the time.’”

McGlynn Suggests Enforcing Current Laws

Concluding his decision, McGlynn called attention to the fact that there are enough gun laws on the books. However, those laws are being ignored or diminished in severity. So, he suggests that Illinois look to enforce its current laws before trying to enact more:

“The Court recognizes that the issues with which it is confronted are highly contentious and provoke strong emotions. Again, the Court’s ruling today is not a final resolution of the merits of the cases. Nothing in this order prevents the State from confronting firearm-related violence.

“There is a wide array of civil and criminal laws that permit the commitment and prosecution of those who use or may use firearms to commit crimes. Law enforcement and prosecutors should take their obligations to enforce these laws seriously.

“Families and the public at large should report concerning behavior. Judges should exercise their prudent judgment in committing individuals that pose a threat to the public and imposing sentences that punish, not just lightly inconvenience, those guilty of firearm-related crimes.”

This really gets right to the heart of the issue. Law-abiding American citizens are punished for the crimes of a few, while criminals are “lightly inconvenienced” and walk free. So, while criminals become ever more emboldened, law-abiding citizens are being stripped of their Second Amendment rights. No country can survive this kind of lopsided justice.

Injunction Leads to Surge in Gun Sales

As you might have already guessed, the injunction led to an rapid surge in gun sales. In fact, immediately following the ruling, weekend crowds filled gun shops. One gun shop owner indicated that there was a line outside the door before he could open in the morning.

According to the Chicago Tribune, “Suburban gun shop owners were swamped with weekend crowds after a federal judge in the district court for the Southern District of Illinois issued an injunction Friday, blocking enforcement of the state’s January ban on military-style firearms.”

Some were just happy to enjoy their Second Amendment freedoms again:

“I’m fairly excited that I got my rights back,” Johnson said. “We live in the United States, we should follow the Constitution and be able to do what law-abiding citizens are able to do.”

Others expressed concerns over unsafe living conditions in Chicago:

“Living in Chicago raises obvious self-defense issues,” Eldridge said. “If somebody is ready to spend $250 and 16 hours of their time on a concealed carry class, that’s a pretty good indication that they do have some concerns about personal safety.”

Instead of paying attention to his constituents, Democratic Attorney General Kwame Raoul has filed an appeal to McGlynn’s ruling. Likewise, he has filed a motion in federal court to stop the ruling from going into effect, pending the outcome of the appeal.

Until that time, the people of Illinois are taking advantage of the injunction and buying what they can now. Proving once again, Democrats make the best gun salesmen.

On January 13, 2023, PDW reported:

Well, that was fast. As it turns out, the new “assault weapons” ban in Illinois isn’t too popular among law enforcement or state representatives. The ink was barely even dry on the document before they voiced their opposition. Although this legislation mostly affects point of sale, current owners of banned firearms are supposed to register them (story below). But it doesn’t look like anyone will be enforcing it in at least two counties.

Opposition to Illinois “Assault Weapons” Ban Turning to Defiance

Quickly after the bill was signed, Edwards County Sheriff Darby Boewe issued a statement. In the statement, he makes it clear that he will not be supporting the bill at all. Specifically, he states that it is a violation of the constitution.

“Neither myself nor my office will be checking to ensure that lawful gun owners register their weapons with the State, nor will we be arresting [or] housing individuals that have been charged solely with non-compliance of this act,” a statement from Sheriff Darby issued on Wednesday and reported by WEVV News, says.

According to the WEVV report, a nearly identical statement was issued by the Wabash County Sheriff’s Office following Darby’s statement. The statement from Wabash County also opposes the bill and contains the same quote as above. Likewise, several other sheriffs in the area and around Illinois have issued similar statements.

Illinois State Representatives Chime In

The newly signed legislation did not sit well with members of the Illinois House or Senate either. Many called the legislation out for endangering Illinois citizens, highlighting that people who break the law are not going to register their firearms. However, some went on to openly defy the ban.

According to CBS News, Illinois State Rep. Blaine Wilhour (R-Beecher City) said, “We will not comply, and you’re not going to do a darn thing about it, because the law, the Constitution, and the founding principles are on our side.”

Likewise, outgoing Illinois State Sen. Darren Bailey (R-Xenia) tweeted a message of defiance: