Photograph via snooOG

This is a place for discussion and debate of Second Amendment related topics, with a Pro-2A emphasis.

Civil debate is welcome and encouraged. Even if you're completely opposed to 2A, you're welcome to share your thoughts here, as long as you maintain civility.

Announcement: Get Yourself Flair!

Wiki Page

Reddit Gun Network Subreddit List

Second Amendment Foundation Amazon Link


1: Debate and civil discussion is allowed and encouraged. Insults, trolling, and brigading will be removed and may result in a ban at moderator discretion.

2: It shouldn't have to be said, but racism, anti-semitism, homophobia, etc of any kind is not allowed.

3: No Memes. No low quality image/meme submission that don't contribute in a meaningful/intellectual way towards gun politics. Do not post screenshots of tweets, Facebook, instagram, articles - post the actual link.

4: This is a pro gun subreddit. All posts must related to gun politics, and civil discussion is encouraged.

5: Any threats or intimations of violence will result in an immediate and permanent ban.

6: No discussing of the private sales of firearms or any other reddit banned items.

7: No reposts within 1 year. No crossposting.

8: Follow all Reddit-wide rules (i.e. DO NOT post personal information of any user, obscure usernames, etc.). We actively discourage linking to reddit threads, but if you do - please be sure to utilize the "np." prefix to discourage participation in the linked thread. Brigading will be answered with bans.

All rules subject to moderator discretion

See also:

State/regional subreddits

/r/ALGuns /r/KYGuns /r/NCGuns
/r/AKGuns /r/LAGuns /r/NDGuns
/r/AZGuns /r/ArizonaGuns /r/MEGuns /r/OHGuns
/r/ARGuns /r/MDGuns /r/OKShooters
/r/CAGuns /r/MAGuns /r/OregonGuns
/r/COGuns /r/MIGuns /r/PAGuns
/r/CTGuns /r/MNGuns /r/RIGuns
/r/DEGuns /r/MSGuns /r/SCGuns
/r/DCGuns /r/MOGuns /r/SDGuns
/r/FLGuns /r/MTGuns /r/TNGuns
/r/GAGuns /r/NEGuns /r/TexasGuns
/r/HIGuns /r/NJGuns /r/UTGuns
/r/IDGuns /r/NVGuns /r/VAGuns
/r/ILGuns /r/NHGuns /r/VTGuns
/r/INGuns /r/NJGuns /r/WA_Guns /r/WAGuns
/r/IAGuns /r/NMGuns /r/WVGuns
/r/KSGuns /r/NYGuns /r/WIGuns

Other regional/international gun subreddits

/r/pdxgunnuts (OR) /r/PhillyGuns (PA)
/r/TxGuns (TX) /r/austinguns (TX)
/r/DFWGuns (TX) /r/HoustonGuns (TX)
/r/SanAntonioGuns (TX) /r/BayAreaGunMeetups (CA)
/r/northeastguns /r/CanadaGuns
/r/SwissGuns /r/aussieshooters


182,169 Subscribers


Previously unreleased details reveal sniper was using optics and an auto range finder

08:16 UTC


“We’re going to be bold”: Candidate for Missouri Governor Will Keep Campaign Ads Featuring Flamethrower and Guns

Eigel's political ads are still rolling, and some show him using a flamethrower and a gun. Several viewers reached out to 5 On Your Side, calling some of the ads violent. 

Eigel responded. "The feedback I'm getting from the Republicans that I'm talking to is they love the message that I have about protecting our communities," he said. "I feel like the swamp in Washington D.C. has done everything they could to silence Donald J. Trump, they've done things to silence the more conservative elements here in the state of Missouri. We're not going to be afraid of that, we're going to be bold about the Missouri we're talking about."

[NBC analyst] Anita Manion weighed in. "I suspect that Eigel and others will probably leave those (ads) up. They want to continue to paint themselves as strong proponents of the Second Amendment and as fighters. Trump and that very iconic picture after the assassination attempt, had his fist up and instructed his followers to fight and I think that that message of fighting back will continue throughout this campaign," Manion shared. "On the Republican side, we're likely to see, this has been a unifying event."


07:02 UTC


Gun Rights Advocates Convention Spells Out Plans If GOP Gains Control in November

“I think what we’ll see is a continuation of supporting and defending the Second Amendment and where that really comes into play is the judiciary, the appointment of judges,”

“One deranged individual, who clearly needed help, he is not going to change the United States Constitution and our right as Americans to bear arms. Absolutely not.”

“In this case, I have gone through and seen the messaging of some of my colleagues, and I don’t see those same calls for gun control in the aftermath of this incident. So it makes me think that there’s a bit of a disingenuous attitude on some of the remarks that they’ve been making.”

Wisconsin U.S. Rep. Scott Fitzgerald said during the panel that gun rights advocates must pay close attention to lawmakers at the state and federal level, since changes to gun ownership laws are generally incremental and not sweeping.

“I think that, you know, we have to be diligent as legislators that protect the Second Amendment to say, ‘No, wait a minute, you know, this is a constitutional guarantee right,’” Fitzgerald said. “So you can continue to pass bill after bill after bill with some cute type of name that would lead people to believe that it’s about security. But we have to be diligent.”

Would have liked to have heard anything about proactively rolling back existing unconstitutional legislation and regulation.


06:29 UTC


Youtube-Google removing gun videos...

02:15 UTC


The View RUSHES To Push Gun Control After Trump Attempted Assassination... These People Are CRAZY...

08:48 UTC


Will Attempt To Take Out Trump Cause Republicans To Push Gun Control?

08:45 UTC


If Trumps shooter just believed he would have been a tyrannical dictator (speculation). How can 2A supporters refute his actions?

There is no explicit definition of the proper time to implement the purpose of the 2A, or a standard of who decides if an actor is dangerous enough to take up arms against them. One person might argue Joe Biden is a tyrant, another might argue Trump, or Clinton etc.

It seems 2A implies that there would be a collective action and that would be the force regulating when that threshold would be reached because you would have enough opinion to have the power behind you in the population to fight off the tyrant. Many assassinations and this attempt illustrate that this isn’t the case a a lone actor and take up their arms against a perceived tyrant.

This is the biggest reason I am a gun owner but don’t support the popular interpretation of 2A meaning everyone owns guns incase the militia (general population of men in a certain age according to popular interpretation) needs to uprise against them. I think heller and bruen were stretching 2A to a specific desired outcome and not in good faith thinking it was a second amendment issue. This would be more under a general right to self defense to me.


Edit: I don’t think people are actually reading this before typing so here is a summary of my point.

Each side left and right will believe they are right and the other side is dangerous and tyrannical. If 2A is in place to stop a tyrannical government, then what says either side acting on their beliefs is outside the bounds of 2A?

02:53 UTC


Should the law to carry and own arms be restricted?

As a Brit it’s a fascinating idea for us, though I have always wondered on the limitation and restriction on what you are allowed to own. If it’s to protect yourself why stop at just guns? Why can’t you have missle or large projectile systems to protect your home? I guess the argument would be to protect you from a tyrannical government that commands an army? What does legality and limitations have to do with the type of gun, if it’s for the protection from the government that have no limitations?

10:06 UTC


Non-US Anti-Gun proponents use US Anti-Gun movement's typical rhetoric as "fact" in support of banning guns. Are there any easy "all-in-one" sources of statistics / information to rebut them with?

I'm a US citizen and I live in Costa Rica. Here we do not have a constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms. At the moment we are effectively a "shall-issue state". After a horrific home invasion that my grandparents suffered a few months ago, I went through the local process and obtained my first firearm and CCW permit.

Since then I've realized the importance of advocacy, especially in a place where it's considered a "privilege". If you think your fight is hard with the 2A, just imagine it without the 2A.

It's so frustrating to see law makers here slowly moving the country towards prohibition for civilians, despite the fact that we have a gun registry that clearly shows the legal firearms registered to the honest civilians are involved in practically none of the crimes. Gun control... sigh...

It's particularly frustrating to see the same talking points that get brought up by US anti-gun groups. Everything from suicides, defining "mass shooting", throwing the term "assault" weapons around, DGU statistics, Kleck vs Hemenway research etc.

People outside the US literally think that there are Ak47 bearing teenagers blowing up schools on a daily basis, and that we'll become a "war zone" like "them" unless we ban everything here.

So as the title asks, any good resources out there that "cover all bases" in terms of firearms? My idea is to translate and share the info in local CCW permit and gun rights groups so that others here have solid info to rebut ridiculous fears.

Thanks !

TL;DR read title.

06:28 UTC


Regarding the Trump assassination attempt.

I don't care where you stand on him or feel about him, this was a heinous act and will be condemned here.

#Zero tolerance for any praise, support, etc for the shooter.

Clarification: This includes expressing any individual as "evil"/"threat to democracy"/"danger to the country" or any of the associated rhetoric. That is what got us into this mess in the first place.

This works both ways - I don't want to see/hear it expressed about Trump, nor do I wish to hear it about Biden or any other democrat, republican, independent, etc... Are their ideas a threat to the 2A? Is their candidacy a threat to the 2A? That may be true, but do not espouse the same rhetoric that generates this vitriol.

Bans are already being handed out.

You wanna joke about his accuracy being shite. Fine. You wanna lament that he missed? Not fine. B&

Additionally - you may see a lot of [Removed by Reddit] - which means the admins have struck the comment, not the mod team. This is not a good sign and is considered a black mark on our community.

I know the mod team is pretty hands off in general here because y'all behave like adults ^^^most ^^^of ^^^the ^^^time. This will be enforced with an iron fist.

As usual - please report any offending comments.

If you wanna treat this like a megathread for the news - have at it. I will leave this open for comments.

16:18 UTC


Since the assassination attempt on Trump; I’d like to bring rational thought and critical thinking using accredited data gathered and put together by groups such as the FBI, JAMA, Pew Research, etc. Guns are not the problem-media, culture and people are. Important Info in post-long read.

First and foremost, we need to know trumps stance on guns after this event (yes he leans anti 2A as we know). We need a statement of trump confirming he is pro 2A and will not advocate further gun control. Have your reps press him on this issue.

Since the assassination attempt on Trump; I’d like to bring rational thought and critical thinking using accredited data gathered and put together by groups such as the FBI, JAMA, Pew Research, etc. Guns are not the problem-media, culture and people are. Important Info in post-long read.

It’s imperative now to keep house and senate (R)’s in line and not let them vote for anti 2A bs now and if Trump is in office again. Make your stance known to your reps. Trump isn’t pro 2A as he stated “take the guns first due process later” and bumpstock ban. Biden we all know is also anti 2A.

Why you should go out and vote this election; the issue is 3 of the conservative justices will be in their 70s and whoever is in office next term could have a huge impact on the law of the land/landscape with Supreme Court appointments. This upcoming election is actually very important for pro 2A.

Especially since the Supreme Court didn’t weigh in on the Illinois all weapons ban case yet because they want it to work its way through the whole court system (which was expected for them to do honestly). The Supreme Court did sum up though and heavily implied that the AWB was unconstitutional but no ruling until the lower courts are done. Additionally marijuana users and gun rights were also punted for next president.

Do not trade your rights in for political pandering and feel good speeches. You have every right to own a firearm and every right to protect yourself, family and friends.

Banning guns such as “dangerous” or “scary looking” ones from the 1990s and early 2000s assault weapons ban-A recent study published this year in the Journal of General Internal Medicine examined state gun control policies and found no statistically significant relationship between assault weapon or large-capacity magazine bans and homicide rates. A Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) study came to the same conclusion.

By trying to include gang shootings in the mass shootings media is skewing numbers. Cultural relation and black on black crime coupled with gang violence should be center stage if you want to reduce the number of homicides. The analysis, titled "A Public Health Crisis in the Making," found that although Black men and boys ages 15 to 34 make up just 2% of the nation's population, they were among 37% of gun homicides that year. That's 20 times higher than white males of the same age group. Of all reported firearm homicides in 2019, more than half of victims were Black men, according to the study spearheaded by the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence and the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. Sixty-three percent of male victims were Black. The contrast is even more stark when the rates were compared with white people: Across all ages, Black men were nearly 14 times more likely to die in a firearm homicide than white men, and eight times more likely to die in a firearm homicide than the general population, including women.

Suicides and murders committed by a firearm are vastly more than mass shootings and are still well below levels from the past- The gun murder and gun suicide rates in the U.S. are both lower today than in the mid-1970s. There were 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 people in 2017, far below the 7.2 per 100,000 people recorded in 1974. And the rate of gun suicides – 6.9 per 100,000 people in 2017 – remained below the 7.7 per 100,000 measured in 1977.Black on black crime (also gangs) are a huge part of the overall homicide percentage making up

The Gun Violence Archive, an online database of gun violence incidents in the U.S., defines mass shootings as incidents in which four or more people – excluding the shooter – are shot or killed. Using this definition, 373 people died in these incidents in 2018. Regardless of the definition being used, fatalities in mass shooting incidents in the U.S. account for a small fraction of all gun murders that occur nationwide each year.

In 2017, handguns were involved in the majority (64%) of the 10,982 U.S. gun murders and non-negligent manslaughters for which data is available, according to the FBI. Rifles – the category that includes many guns that are sometimes referred to as “assault weapons”– were involved in 4%. Shotguns were involved in 2%. The remainder of gun homicides and non-negligent manslaughters (30%) involved firearms that were classified as “other guns or type not stated.”

13:57 UTC


Seems to be odd that anyone could get 130 yards of Trump 3 days after GOP ditches 2A gun rights 🧐 NFA threatened by bruen decision, now seems like the Regan play is being used to keep gun restrictions intact. Really weird 😬

Make sure you message your constituents for your state to make sure they don’t abandon 2A. The deep state government loves this. Remember operation northwoods smh.

03:50 UTC


After the recent assassination attempt on Trump; It’s imperative now to keep house (R)’s in line and not let them vote for anti 2A bs now and if he’s in office again. Make your stance known to your reps. Trump isn’t pro 2A as he stated “take the guns first due process later” and bumpstock ban.

After the recent assassination attempt on Trump; It’s imperative now to keep house (R)’s in line and not let them vote for anti 2A bs now and if he’s in office again. Make your stance known to your reps. Trump isn’t pro 2A as he stated “take the guns first due process later” and bumpstock ban.

02:34 UTC


Tinfoil hat on; coincidence 2A was removed from the RNC platform list and Trump assassination attempt via rifle shot? Are we screwed in the 2A community now for gun rights?

It’s imperative now to keep house republicans in line and not let them vote for anti 2A bs. Make your stance known to your representatives.

Trumps statement after shooting: “I want to thank The United States Secret Service, and all of Law Enforcement, for their rapid response on the shooting that just took place in Butler, Pennsylvania. Most importantly, I want to extend my condolences to the family of the person at the Rally who was killed, and also to the family of another person that was badly injured. It is incredible that such an act can take place in our Country. Nothing is known at this time about the shooter, who is now dead. I was shot with a bullet that pierced the upper part of my right ear. I knew immediately that something was wrong in that I heard a whizzing sound, shots, and immediately felt the bullet ripping through the skin. Much bleeding took place, so l realized then what was happening. GOD BLESS AMERICA!”

01:54 UTC


Will this assassination attempt lead to Republicans supporting an assault weapons ban?

First I am happy Trump wasn't seriously wounded and my hearts go out to the family of the dead and injured spectators.

I am currently watching the news and they're now reporting the rifle used was an "AR style rifle". Democrats are already firmly behind banning our rights. Do you all on the right side of the political spectrum think this assassination attempt will result in some Republicans supporting such legislation now?

God save our country.

01:24 UTC


Ammo.com Publishes Anti-Gun Control Facts for 2024

Including 18 source citations and 25 graphics with sources, ammo.com provides facts organized into five categories for 2024 …

economic costs of gun controls and economic benefits of the Second Amedment

ineffectiveness of gun control legislation on crime and death rates in the U.S. and other countries

oppressive history of gun control

Second Amendment intent and related Supreme Court cases, and

ethical arguments against gun control


08:14 UTC


US v. Gould: Appellant's Opening Brief

Opening brief here.


In the denial of dismissal, James Gould (who got convicted under 18 USC § 922(g)(4)) got involuntarily committed for his mental health issues four separate times.

  1. May 12, 2016
  2. February 14, 2018
  3. June 28, 2019
  4. June 30, 2019

Due to those involuntary commitments, he was prohibited from firearm possession under federal and state law.

James Gould also got the following against him:

  1. June 4, 2019: His wife and children filed a domestic violence emergency protection order (DVEPO) shortly before is 3rd involuntary commitment.
  2. October 16, 2021: Gould was charged with 2 counts of domestic battery and one count for brandishing a deadly weapon. Those counts were later dropped.
  3. October 22, 2021: His wife and children filed another DVEPO against him.
  4. April 13, 2022: Wife filed final DVEPO against him.
  5. April 20, 2022: Gould got arrested for 4 violations of the protective order. He pleaded to one count, and the other three were dismissed.


18 USC § 922(g)(4) reads as follows:

It shall be unlawful for any person[] who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution ... to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

As for this ongoing criminal appeal, James Gould was discovered to be in possession of a Remington 11-87 12-gauge shotgun inside his home with a box of turkey shells in his home at Ravenswood, West Virginia on February 18, 2022.

Also, although he got multiple involuntary commitments and restraining orders, the opening brief claims that

[t]here is nothing in the record suggesting that at the time [on February 18, 2022,] Gould was suffering from any mental disease or defect, nor was he behaving in any manner to suggest otherwise. There likewise is nothing in the record indicating that Gould was doing anything with the shotgun to suggest he was a danger to himself or anyone else. Gould has never been adjudged mentally incompetent or as a mental defective, and was not subject to any pending mental institution commitment order at the time he possessed the shotgun.

As a result, he mainly challenges the commitment clause of § 922(g)(4), not the adjudication clause. It points out that in the denial of dismissal,

the district court initially equated James Gould to John Hinckley, Jr., under § 922(g)(4). JA120. The district court then discussed Heller’s dicta about presumptively lawful “longstanding regulatory measures” disarming the mentally ill. This was relative to the United States’ argument that Second Amendment protections only apply to “law-abiding, responsible citizens.” Ultimately, however, the district court acknowledged Fourth Circuit precedent suggesting reliance on Heller’s dicta might be “a potentially faulty practice.” JA129. The district court then by-passed making any finding on Bruen’s step one, assuming without deciding that Second Amendment protections applied to Gould’s conduct. JA131.

On step 2, the judge found that § 922(g)(4) (which was enacted to address gun violence by the mentally ill) was sufficiently disconnected from actual mental illness to be more broadly intended to disarm persons considered a danger to themselves or others.

Here are the reasons why the district judge erred:

  1. Although a factual error, "that court equated Gould with John Hinckley, Jr. JA120. This was hardly an effective comparison because Hinckley (1) had previously actually been adjudged to be a mental incompetent; (2) been found not guilty for trying to assassinate President Reagan in 1981 by reason of insanity; and (3) had been committed to a mental institution and remained under mental health supervision until June 2022. Id. Unlike Hinckley, Gould had only previously been involuntarily committed to a mental institution for evaluation, never adjudged a mental defective, never adjudged not guilty in a criminal proceeding by reason of insanity, and – out of the three of four involuntary commitments attempted – had been only briefly committed, observed and released three times without further court or medical supervision. Whereas Hinckley’s firearm disability arose out the operation of both clauses under 922(g)(4) (using the ATF’s definitions), Gould’s only arose under one – the commitment to a mental institution clause." The brief also notes that per ATF's definition of "committed to a mental institution" in 27 C.F.R. § 478.11, "mentally ill individuals admitted just for observation or who voluntarily enter such a facility" don't trigger 922(g)(4).
  2. On step 1, the district court didn't find that Bruen standard displaced Heller's presumptively lawful dicta, and didn't find that Gould was part of the "people", but still went with the pre-Bruen intermediate scrutiny practice of assuming without deciding that the plain text covers the situation (i.e. winging it).
  3. On step 2, the district court "declined to decide the precise historical standard to apply" and set the bar really low for analogues. While the judge correctly noted that was no Founding-era regulation that permanently the mentally ill, the judge accepted "the United States’ reliance upon the 1689 English Declarations of Rights, the Minority Dissent of the State of Pennsylvania", and other authorities cited by US v. Nutter, which challenges 18 USC § 922(g)(9). "Nutter, in turn, had relied on civil surety laws; pre-Colonial laws requiring gun registration; required citizen attendance at militia trainings; fire codes regulating firearm and gun powder storage; and purported gun bans for slaves, free blacks, Native Americans, Catholics, and citizens refusing to sign loyalty oaths to find a well-established and representative historical tradition of firearm regulation to sustain the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). Nutter, 624 F. Supp. 3d at 641-643. The district court then erroneously treated that broad basket of historical regulation as one allowing persons deemed a potential danger to themselves or others to be disarmed by Section 922(g)(4)’s mental institution commitment clause. JA140-143." Regarding the analogues specifically brought in this case, the "English Bill of Rights did not disarm anyone, and its text guaranteed Protestants rights to arms 'suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.' While that original guarantee only applied to the Crown and not Parliament in 1689, it was not a limit similarly adopted by the Second Amendment in this country a century later." The Minority Dissent, on the other hand, is not a good analogue because the proposals were rejected and never enacted.

Personal Take

Rahimi's holding says:

When an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

The date when he got discovered possessing the shotgun is a few months before the final DVEPO. Let's call this an "incident." Regarding the credible threat finding, it supposed to pertain to that "incident." The biggest problem with relying on the proximity, frequency, and pattern of findings, DVROs, or commitments while bringing up charges against statutorily illegal firearm possession is that we would get arbitrary results when looking at the constitutionality of the laws at issue, especially in as-applied challenges.

22:44 UTC


An Explosive Case (well, not really)... In the Fourth Circuit

The case name is US v. Robert King. Robert King got indicted on the following:

  1. 18 USC § 922(g)(1)
  2. 26 USC §§ 5841, 5861(d), and 5871 (Unregistered SBS)
  3. 18 USC §§ 842(i) & 844(a) (explosive statutes; here, King was caught for possessing electronic blasting caps)

Specifically, for Count 3, 18 USC § 842(i)(1) is the issue from what I read:

It shall be unlawful for any person[] who is under indictment for, or who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... to ship or transport any explosive in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce or to receive or possess any explosive which has been shipped or transported in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce.

Compare this with 18 USC § 922(g)(1):

It shall be unlawful for any person[] who has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year ... to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Robert King became a prohibited person because of his 3 felony convictions. Regarding the first 2, he plead nolo contendere and signed an Alford plea (which means that they plead guilty while maintaining innocence) for allegedly committing 2 robberies at the time when President Bill Clinton was in office. The last one was just a traffic violation, which used to be a Virginia felony, but no longer an active statute. One may say that he's a violent person based on his criminal history, but in reality, when the ATF arresting officers interacted with Robert King, the former have repeatedly said that he's not a violent person at the time.

In his motion to dismiss, King said that per this document signed by former Governor Northam and Secretary he can execute some political activities like voting, hold public office (i.e. run for President like Donald Trump), serve on a jury, and be a notary public, yet can't possess a firearm. As for blasting caps, the counsel claims that they are firearms. Here's why:

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3):

The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(4)(A):

The term “destructive device” means[] any explosive, incendiary, or poison gas...

Electric blasting caps are explosives → destructive devices → firearms → arms. The defender analogizes them to percussion caps which are used to fire muskets, as both blasting and percussion caps are "starters." The defender anticipates the government to say that they aren't firearms (which it does, and from my understanding, the government seems to trample on itself in its response), and if so, he should be allowed to own them. The "not arms" argument is somewhat shaky imo, but this reminds me of fireworks. Fireworks are by definition explosives, but I wonder if anybody has been prosecuted under 18 USC § 842(i). On another note, people have used fireworks to assail others.

The government denied the MTD mainly because Robert King is not "law-abiding". It doesn't do the textual and historical analysis of the laws at issue. Robert King then pled guilty to the first 2 counts while preserving his right to appeal the denial and dismissing Count 3. However, in his notice of appeal, he is appealing the judgment besides the denial.

As for blast caps, here's my take: they receive at least indirect protection because those components are part of explosives, which are arms. In other words, if blast caps don't receive indirect protection, then arms components like triggers and even suppressors don't receive indirect protection as well. For those wondering:

Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The 18th-century meaning is no different from the meaning today. The 1773 edition of Samuel Johnson's dictionary defined “arms” as “weapons of offence, or armour of defence.” 1 Dictionary of the English Language 106 (4th ed.) (reprinted 1978) (hereinafter Johnson). Timothy Cunningham's important 1771 legal dictionary defined “arms” as “any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.” 1 A New and Complete Law Dictionary; see also N. Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language (1828) (reprinted 1989) (hereinafter Webster) (similar).

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 581 (2008).

19:48 UTC


This Court Ruled Against Us, Here's What We're Gonna Do

17:23 UTC


Gun Law Ignorance/ Horrible Weapons Handling by Police

I hate to rag on police, but this video perfectly demonstrates how ignorant some of them are of actual gun laws, and how horrendous some of their firearms handling is. I just felt like I had to share this.

20:45 UTC


ATF Attempts to Reclassify Glocks as Machine Guns

Fuck the ATF and fuck President Brandon

20:33 UTC

Back To Top