Feed aggregator

PHILADELPHIA (December 11, 2025) – Today, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals granted full-court review in Firearms Policy Coalition’s (FPC) Koons v. Platkin challenge to New Jersey’s sweeping post-Bruen carry restrictions. This significant development ensures that the entire court will evaluate the state’s unconstitutional scheme under the proper historical and constitutional framework. The prior panel’s flawed decision—upholding key elements of the law—has been vacated, restoring the case to a posture where New Jersey’s unlawful policies can be fully and fairly scrutinized. FPC remains steadfast in pursuing meaningful relief for all who seek to exercise their right to bear arms in New Jersey and nationwide.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 26, 2025) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today welcomed reports that the Trump Administration will establish a dedicated Second Amendment rights section within the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice—an action that directly reflects FPC’s top executive-branch recommendation and a priority first proposed by FPC during the previous Trump Administration. The new office is expected to officially ramp up in early December.

Download the official letter here.

To: The Honorable Mike Johnson
Speaker
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515  From: Tim Macy
President and Chairman of the Board
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 202
Springfield, Virginia, 22151 

 

RE: Dispelling Common Law Enforcement Misconceptions About Constitutional Concealed Carry and Our Second Amendment Rights 

25 November 2025 

Dear Speaker Mike Johnson, 

I write to you today on behalf of more than two million members and supporters of Gun Owners of America to support Representative Richard Hudson’s H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025, against the unwarranted and ill-considered criticisms of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP).1 

After decades of unconstitutional attacks, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act is necessary to restore the Second Amendment right to carry a firearm for self-defense nationwide and without fear of harassment by law enforcement in anti-gun states.2 The FOP supports nearly identical protections for law enforcement to carry firearms nationwide, yet it opposes those same protections for ordinary Americans here.3 That smacks of hypocrisy and elitism. “Shall not be infringed” does not just apply to law enforcement – it is the God-given, constitutionally protected right of the People!4  

Gun Owners of America has always supported Constitutional Carry.5 As we fought to expand permitless carry from Vermont to the present 29 Constitutional Carry states, we have consistently dealt with the same law enforcement “concerns” as are being raised by the FOP now. Historically, anti-gun law enforcement organizations have almost always raised “public safety” concerns with permitless concealed carry. In reality, those concerns have never panned out in states that have enacted GOA-backed Constitutional Carry legislation.6 Permitless carry did not make any of the 29 Constitutional Carry states any more dangerous, and neither will H.R. 38 decrease public safety nationwide.  

It must be understood that the FOP has taken a minority position among law enforcement officers, who overwhelmingly support the Second Amendment right to carry. A 2021 survey of chiefs of police and sheriffs nationwide showed almost 90% of respondents supporting concealed carry reciprocity.7 Furthermore, a survey of more than 14,000 police officers proved that the majority of rank-and-file law enforcement believe that “armed citizens” are the most effective way to stop mass shootings.8 On behalf of the millions of gun owners and law enforcement officials who support the Second Amendment, we will address and correct each of the Fraternal Order of Police’s concerns.  

States Do Not Have a Right to Infringe on the Second Amendment 

First, the FOP claims that H.R. 38 would “strip states of their ability to set and enforce their own standards for concealed carry” such as unconstitutional gun, magazine, and ammunition bans.9 But, those states never had constitutional authority to set those restrictions in the first place. This bill restores the right to carry firearms nationwide, which “shall not be infringed” even by the states.10 Hypocritically, the FOP has also endorsed a bill that would override unconstitutional state gun control laws in a nearly identical manner to H.R. 38—but only for law enforcement.  

In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee earlier this year, FOP President Patrick Yoes praised the LEOSA Reform Act for exempting law enforcement officers from state and local restrictions on concealed-carry firearms and magazine capacities, stating it would remove conflict and confusion for those constituents. Going even further, the LEOSA Reform Act allows eligible persons to carry within federal buildings, a step beyond what H.R. 38 would allow. But the Second Amendment does not grant special privileges to law enforcement. Congress should protect and restore the right to carry handguns free from local gun, magazine, and ammunition bans for all the People—not just police. 

H.R. 38 Does Not Prevent Police from Conducting Lawful Investigations 

Next, the FOP misleadingly asserts that H.R. 38 “prohibits law enforcement officers from making any arrest or detaining a suspect for any violation of state or local laws pertaining to the possession, transportation or carriage of a firearm.”11 But nothing in H.R. 38 will prohibit officers (1) from making lawful arrests of criminals and prohibited persons who are carrying firearms illegally or (2) from enforcing the many local firearms laws that are not preempted by the bill.12  

FOP further misleadingly states that H.R. 38 prevents the “securing of a firearm from a person” while investigating “other criminal activity unrelated to the firearm.”13 This is also incorrect, as H.R. 38 only prohibits the detention or arrest of those engaged in the lawful possession, transportation, or carrying of a firearm. Officers may still, consistent with the Second and Fourth Amendments, secure firearms during the lawful investigation of “other suspected criminal activity” that is unrelated to firearm possession, transportation, or carrying.14 To use the FOP’s example, if police pull a driver over or determine that a “driver is impaired,” nothing will prohibit the police from investigating or making a lawful arrest for driving under the influence. 

H.R. 38 Does Not Override the Gun Free School Zones Act 

The FOP also misstates that H.R. 38 would override “laws such as carriage in school zones.”15 This is blatantly false. In no way does this language prohibit law enforcement from arresting persons with a firearm in a school zone in accordance with state and federal law. H.R. 38 makes no changes to the federal regulatory scheme prohibiting the possession of a firearm in a school zone, which categorically excludes out-of-state permit holders and permitless carry from its exemption.16 Further, as H.R. 38 states, “[t]his section shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that … prohibit(s) or restrict(s) the possession of firearms on any State or Local government property, installation, building, or base.”17 Hypocritically, the FOP does support overriding the Gun Free School Zones Act, but only for its own members.18 

Identifying Lawful Concealed Carry Is No More Difficult than Identifying Valid Driver’s Licenses Under H.R. 38 

The FOP complains that “law enforcement [will be] unable to confirm lawful possession during encounters [with gun owners], creating confusion.”19 HowHowever, verification of nonresident concealed carry permits is not a problem in the 39 states that have some degree of concealed carry reciprocity already.20 Officers will be able to confirm the lawful permitless carry of a firearm as quickly as they are able to confirm the validity of an out-of-state driver’s license, something law enforcement does nationwide almost a million times per day.21 

For example, FOP specifically raises concerns about a hypothetical scenario where “a driver from Vermont… is stopped by a Virginia State Trooper.” In Virginia, it is lawful to openly carry a firearm without a permit. So, respecting the permitless concealed carry law of the Vermont resident is as easy as applying Virginia’s open carry policy.  

H.R. 38 Will Not Decrease Officer Safety; It Will Increase Public Safety 

The FOP unnecessarily worries about the “impact on officer safety” that might be caused by increased “encounter[s with] armed citizens when responding to a disturbance call or making a traffic stop.”22 Ironically, a recent study in Texas and Florida revealed that “concealed carry permit holders are convicted of misdemeanors and felonies at less than one-sixth the rate for police officers.”23 Furthermore, there has been no demonstrable decrease in officer safety in any of the 29 states that have enacted permitless concealed carry regimes.24  

The FOP also fails to take into consideration any of the benefits of an armed citizenry to law enforcement. In fact, there are several instances in which police officers’ lives have been saved by good Samaritans carrying concealed firearms: 

• Cody Deeter of Whatcom County, Washington stepped in to assist Deputies Jason Thompson and Ryan Rathbun after both were shot responding to a neighborhood dispute. Deeter engaged Deputy Thompson and Deputy Rathbun’s attacker and then dragged the first officer to cover until backup arrived.25  

• In Youngtown, Arizona, State Trooper Ed Andersson was struck by a bullet on Interstate 10 at 4:30 AM. He was then charged and pinned down by the perpetrator, who attempted to take his gun. He was saved by Thomas Yoxall, a good Samaritan who pulled over to assist by shooting Trooper Andersson’s attacker. Trooper Andersson would have had no way to call for backup fighting with the man, and he states that while the encounter only lasted minutes, he “probably wouldn’t be here (if not for him).”26  

• Deputy Bardes of Fort Myers, Florida was attacked by a man on Interstate 75 when a Concealed Weapons Permit holder pulled over and assisted the Deputy by shooting the assailant. Sheriff Scott of Fort Myers publicly praised the anonymous individual for saving the Deputy’s life.27  

For police officers working in expansive jurisdictions such as rural areas, highways, or large counties, police backup may be miles and minutes away, but armed private citizens can be much nearer. In fact, the 2021 National Firearms Survey estimates that there were 1,670,000 instances of defensive gun uses (DGUs), with 65% of DGUs being with handguns. 28 The reality is police officers would not be able to respond to a fraction of these instances of defensive gun usage. Nor would they be able to respond at the same time to prevent any potential loss of life.  

Eli Dicken is a perfect example of a concealed carrier who responded to and ended a mass shooting in an Indiana mall within two minutes.29 Greenwood Police Chief James Ison credited Dicken with saving lives by quickly taking action. Chief Ison’s belief is not an isolated one either. This is why a nationwide survey of chiefs of police and sheriffs showed that 83% of respondents believe qualified, law-abiding armed citizens can help law enforcement reduce violent crime.30 

H.R. 38 Will Not Affect Officers Unless They Infringe on the Second Amendment 

Finally, the FOP opposes H.R. 38 because it “seems to cancel any qualified immunity for the officer.” The FOP acknowledges that qualified immunity does not protect officers if “they violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights,” yet is concerned that H.R. 38 might put officers “in very real legal peril.”31 

The Second Amendment is a clearly established constitutional right. Depriving any person of that right SHOULD be met with “very real legal peril.” This exemption for gun owners does not end qualified immunity for police officers. Rather, it protects gun owners from overzealous anti-gun states that wish to hide behind blanket immunity to harass citizens and infringe on their rights.32 

In conclusion, Congress should reject the Fraternal Order of Police’s ill-considered “concerns.” The vast majority of law enforcement officers support the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense in public—a right that H.R. 38 seeks to restore for interstate travel. Therefore, we urge you to stand with gun owners and the majority of law enforcement in support of Representative Richard Hudson’s GOA-backed Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act of 2025.  

In Liberty, 

Tim Macy
President and Chairman of the Board
Gun Owners of America 

Download the official letter here.

WASHINGTON, D.C. (November 24, 2025) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced the filing of a critically important, merits-stage brief with the United States Supreme Court in Wolford v. Lopez, a case challenging Hawaii’s authoritarian “default-ban” on the right to carry in public places. The brief dismantles the Ninth Circuit’s historical distortions and exposes how anti-rights states are resurrecting racist, post–Civil War “Black Codes” in an attempt to bypass the Constitution and disarm peaceable Americans. The brief can be viewed here.

Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation Declare DOJ Brief an Open Attack on the Second Amendment and the Constitution

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
November 21, 2025

Springfield, VA — Late last night, the Department of Justice filed an outrageous brief that embraces an alarmingly expansive theory of federal authority. In responding to GOA and GOF’s “One, Big, Beautiful Lawsuit,” the DOJ treats Congress’ removal of the historic $200 tax as a pretext to rewrite the limits of congressional power, advancing an argument that would open the door to federal regulation far beyond anything the Framers intended.

GOA and GOF condemn Attorney General Pam Bondi and President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) for doubling down on enforcement of an archaic and unconstitutional law while simultaneously offering legal theories that would expand federal power to historic levels. This is especially striking from an administration that had promised to respect the Second Amendment and review burdensome agency rules.

The implications of DOJ’s stance are immediate and ominous. If the brief’s logic is accepted, courts could bless a framework under which Congress and federal agencies regulate—or effectively ban—common firearms and accessories by treating formalistic features (like a $0 tax) as sufficient legal cover. That outcome would run contrary to recent Supreme Court statements that the Second Amendment protects private arms possession.

GOA and our partners are demanding the Department of Justice to publicly explain and retract all portions of the brief that advance a limitless theory of federal power. We are also calling on members of Congress who claim fidelity to constitutional limits to demand the DOJ abandon this dangerous theory. The coalition that GOA and GOF have created will vigorously press our case in court and before the public, as we will not allow this administration to normalize a theory of unlimited and unchecked federal power that threatens the right to keep and bear arms.

GOA, GOF, Palmetto State Armory, the Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Silencer Shop, and B & T USA brought this challenge to vindicate the Second Amendment and end the continued enforcement of an antiquated regulatory scheme. Our original lawsuit was joined by a coalition of 15 states including Texas, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Montana, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, issued the following statement:

“This brief is federal overreach on steroids. If courts accept the government’s argument, Congress could claim the power to regulate virtually anything, including firearms, on the thinnest of statutory pretexts. That’s not conservative jurisprudence. This is authoritarianism cloaked in legalese. Make no mistake, this reads exactly like something the Biden administration would have produced.”

John Velleco, Executive Vice President of Gun Owners Foundation, issued the following statement:

“We weren’t exactly optimistic about the Department of Justice’s reply in our One, Big, Beautiful Lawsuit, but the brief they filed was far worse than anything we anticipated. We had hoped Attorney General Pam Bondi and the Trump Administration would seize this moment to become the most pro–Second Amendment presidency in history, but so far they’ve fumbled the ball. We will continue to fight to gut the National Firearms Act, and we’re confident our legal arguments will stand.”

GOA spokesmen are available for interviews. Gun Owners of America is a nonprofit grassroots lobbying organization representing over two million members and activists. For more information, visit GOA’s Press Center.

-GOA-

BOSTON (November 20, 2025) — Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today announced that it has filed a motion for summary judgment in Escher v. Noble, its federal constitutional challenge to Massachusetts’ sweeping ban on the possession and carry of semiautomatic firearms and handguns by law-abiding adults under 21. The motion urges the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts to strike down the Commonwealth’s age-based prohibitions, arguing that the Second Amendment protects these adults and that the state cannot point to any historical tradition supporting its categorical disarmament scheme.

Will Republicans ask him? How about Ranking Member Chuck Grassley? [More]

I'm going to end up sending questions about infringements by "AFT" to Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans to put to the nominee while he's under oath, so feel free to leave your own in the article's "Comments" section.

I have two articles in this month's issue, on sale now at discerning newsstands throughout the Republic. [More]

I'm not resuming regular blogging because of the unresolved censorship issue but will continue to promote my work here as I prepare a new landing site.

Two recent appearances:

• The Michael Dukes Show, April 8.
• Armed American Radio's Daily Defense, April 12.

I'm not resuming regular blogging because of the unresolved censorship issue but will continue to promote my work here as I prepare a new landing site.

I'll be joining host Mark Walters at 4 pm Eastern to talk Biden and more.  Listen, watch or find a station near you at the Armed American Radio website.

Perhaps if he was better at picking them in the first place, he wouldn’t need to end up angrily attacking so many he had nothing but high praise for in the beginning. [More]What does "winning" mean if you end up losing?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/russia-airs-its-ultimate-revenge-plan-for-america/ar-AAW5HB1

In other words, police should be “Les Seules” armed and authorized to use force to stop criminal attacks, even in the home. [More]

You have to wonder at what point some of these people will get tired of surrendering and start rolling out the tumbrels again...

I'll be joining up with Michael Dukes this morning to talk about the Google leviathan "unpublishing" my work.  Hopefully, this notice won't be taken down as a "community standards" violation before then.

Go to the show website to find an Alaska station or to listen online. They'll be calling me at 10:24 Eastern.

And no, this post doesn't mean the blog is back for business as usual. It means I'll continue using it for announcements promoting my stuff until I can settle in a new home, something I should have some time to seriously look into over the weekend.

“As such, they have an interest in the outcome of this case because a positive ruling in the instant matter will assist them in their efforts to have their lawful property returned to them in the future and will help guide other courts in reaching the correct conclusion which is that bumpstocks are not machineguns,” the brief elaborates. [More]

I'm not resuming this blog per normal practices-- as I said in the last post, I will still use it to promote my articles, assuming this one doesn't get "unpublished" as well.  In the meantime, I will be using this weekend to scout out a new home.

It linked to "blue check" correspondent Paul Bedard's Washington Examiner report on a peer-reviewed study by John Lott published in the journal Public Choice. 
Incidentally, its link appears on a general Google search including on Google Cache, but is suppressed in a "News" search, with an article attacking Lott's work appearing at the top of the page by two "researchers" of undisclosed political affinity that my money says will turn out to be sympathetic to Democrats. 

My suspicion is an algorithm went searching to erase it from existence. If this is all it takes to get booted from a personal opinion and commentary blog, everything I post here is subject to being undone and Blogger is no longer a viable platform to publish on. Either that or some troll saboteur complained, and the same applies. Until I see if I can get this reversed, I'm going to need to limit activity here to promoting my articles as I search for a reliable repository for my work.
Remember when Facebook booted a post for wishing everyone a contemplative Bill of Rights Day?
UPDATE:

Democratic Rep. Ami Bera of California says he was attacked by a rogue fox outside the US Capitol. [More]

Maybe if he wasn't an anti-gun fanatic he could have done something about that.

The thought strikes: That fox ended up being a bigger danger to a member of Congress than every one of the Jan. 6 "insurrectionists."

Then again, so did this Democrat.