Bruen and the Future: What Unresolved Questions Are Likely to Return to the Supreme Court—and How to Prepare for the Next Phase of Second Amendment Doctrine (Part 3 of 4)

The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen resolved a specific constitutional question—whether discretionary “may-issue” public carry regimes are permissible—but it deliberately left many others unanswered. In doing so, the Court initiated a new phase of Second Amendment doctrine defined not by finality, but by recalibration.

Lower courts are now engaged in an extended process of applying Bruen’s text–history–tradition framework to modern firearm regulations. That process has already produced circuit splits, inconsistent outcomes, and repeated emergency applications. Taken together, these developments strongly suggest that the Supreme Court will be asked—again and again—to clarify the contours of post-Bruen law.

This article identifies the unresolved questions most likely to return to the Court and explains how educators, trainers, and policy professionals should prepare for what comes next.

---

The Scope of “Sensitive Places”: How Far Is Too Far?

Why this question will return

The Court reaffirmed that firearms may be restricted in “sensitive places,” but declined to define the outer boundary of that category. As a result, states and cities have tested the limits by designating broad classes of locations as firearm-free zones.

Lower courts are divided on:

• whether modern public infrastructure (subways, airports, stadiums) can be analogized to historical sensitive places,
• whether governments must justify each category individually,
• and whether cumulative restrictions effectively negate the right to carry.

Why Supreme Court review is likely

Sensitive-place litigation is producing uneven outcomes across jurisdictions, with some courts allowing narrow lists and others blocking expansive schemes. This creates precisely the type of doctrinal fragmentation that historically draws Supreme Court intervention.

How educators and professionals should prepare

Instruction should emphasize:

• analogical reasoning as the core legal skill,
• the difference between categorical bans and location-specific restrictions,
• and the risk that overbroad definitions may be treated as indirect carry prohibitions.

Learners should be prepared for a future ruling that either narrows or formalizes the sensitive-place doctrine.

Weapon-Type Restrictions: Are “Assault Weapon” Bans Constitutional After Bruen?

Why this question will return

Restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms sit at the intersection of two unresolved doctrines:

• the meaning of “common use,” and
• the historical scope of bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

Lower courts have reached conflicting conclusions on whether modern bans align with historical tradition or impermissibly restrict commonly owned arms.

Why Supreme Court review is likely

Weapon-type bans are among the most frequently litigated post-Bruen issues, and the stakes—both legal and political—are high. The Court has thus far declined to resolve the issue directly, but continued circuit splits make eventual review likely.

How educators and professionals should prepare

Future instruction should avoid treating weapon bans as a single issue. Instead, learners should be trained to analyze:

• ownership prevalence data,
• historical analogues for categorical bans,
• and distinctions between regulation and prohibition.

A future ruling may clarify—or fundamentally reshape—the “common use” inquiry.

Magazine Capacity Limits: Regulation or Functional Prohibition?

Why this question will return

Magazine capacity limits raise a distinct analytical problem: they do not ban firearms outright, but they may significantly affect how firearms function for lawful purposes.

Courts are divided on whether:

• capacity limits meaningfully burden the core right of self-defense,
• historical analogues exist for limiting ammunition capacity,
• or such limits are better understood as modern policy innovations.

Why Supreme Court review is likely

Like weapon bans, magazine limits generate inconsistent lower-court outcomes and recurring emergency applications. The absence of clear historical parallels makes this an especially unstable doctrinal area.

How educators and professionals should prepare

Instruction should focus on:

• functional burdens versus categorical bans,
• how courts assess “comparable burden” under Bruen,
• and the difficulty of analogizing modern technology to historical practices.

Professionals should expect this issue to remain unsettled until directly addressed.

Prohibited-Person Categories: How Broad Can Disarmament Be?

Why this question will return

Longstanding prohibitions on firearm possession by felons have generally survived constitutional scrutiny, but Bruen has reopened questions about:

• nonviolent offenders,
• regulatory crimes,
• lifetime versus time-limited bans,
• and individualized dangerousness.

Lower courts increasingly distinguish between facial challenges and as-applied challenges, producing divergent results.

Why Supreme Court review is likely

As challenges move beyond traditional violent felony cases, the Court may be forced to clarify:

• whether historical tradition supports categorical disarmament,
• or whether modern prohibitions require closer tailoring.

How educators and professionals should prepare

Teaching should emphasize:

• historical understandings of civic status and dangerousness,
• the difference between punishment and prevention,
• and the growing importance of individualized assessments.

Future doctrine may narrow—or reaffirm—the scope of prohibited-person laws.

Age-Based Restrictions: Who Are “the People”?

Why this question will return

Age limits implicate foundational constitutional questions:

• who is included in “the people,”
• whether adulthood for Second Amendment purposes aligns with other legal thresholds,
• and how historical militia obligations should be interpreted.

Lower courts have split sharply on restrictions affecting 18–20-year-olds.

Why Supreme Court review is likely

Age-based cases present clean legal questions with clear constitutional stakes and relatively narrow factual records—conditions that often attract Supreme Court review.

How educators and professionals should prepare

Instruction should prepare learners to analyze:

• historical militia laws,
• distinctions between possession, purchase, and carry,
• and the role of age in constitutional doctrine more broadly.

A future ruling could significantly reshape youth access to firearms nationwide.

The Method Itself: How Strict Is “Text, History, and Tradition”?

Why this question will return

Perhaps the most fundamental unresolved issue is methodological: how demanding is the Bruen test?

Lower courts disagree on:

• how close historical analogues must be,
• which historical periods carry the most weight,
• and how to proceed when historical evidence is sparse or conflicting.

Why Supreme Court review is likely

Without further clarification, the test risks becoming either:

• too rigid to accommodate modern governance, or
• too flexible to provide meaningful constraint.

The Court may eventually need to refine the methodology it introduced.

Conclusion: The Second Amendment’s Next Chapter Is Being Written Now

Bruen did not close the book on Second Amendment law—it opened a new chapter. The questions returning to the Supreme Court will not be narrow technicalities; they will shape how constitutional rights and regulatory authority coexist for decades to come.

For educators, trainers, and professionals, the task is not to predict outcomes, but to prepare learners for doctrinal evolution. Those who understand the Bruen framework, its uncertainties, and its limits will be best equipped to navigate the next phase of Second Amendment law—whatever form it ultimately takes.

Bruen in Practice: Where the Real Legal Battles Are Being Fought (Part 2 of 4)

The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen did not settle the national debate over firearms regulation. Instead, it changed how that debate plays out in court. By replacing interest-balancing tests with a “text, history, and tradition” framework, the Court effectively redirected constitutional litigation toward a set of recurring fault lines—areas where modern gun laws intersect awkwardly with historical analogues.

Since Bruen, lower courts have been flooded with challenges. Some regulations have been upheld, others struck down, and many remain in limbo as cases move through appellate courts. What has emerged is not a single, clear post-Bruen rulebook, but a collection of battlegrounds where judges, lawmakers, and litigants are struggling to apply an 18th- and 19th-century historical framework to 21st-century problems.

This article surveys the major post-Bruen battlegrounds, explains why courts disagree, and outlines what observers should watch for as the law continues to evolve.

---

“Sensitive Places”: The Front Line of Post-Bruen Regulation

Why it matters

The Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment right to carry arms is not unlimited. The Court reaffirmed that firearms may be restricted in “sensitive places,” citing historical examples such as legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses. The problem is that Bruen did not provide an exhaustive list—or a precise definition.

The post-Bruen strategy

Many states responded to Bruen by expanding lists of prohibited locations. Instead of denying permits, they restricted where permit holders could lawfully carry. These lists often include:

• public transportation,
• government buildings,
• schools and universities,
• entertainment venues,
• places that serve alcohol,
• and sometimes broad categories of private property.

Why courts disagree

Courts diverge on how broadly “sensitive places” can be defined. Key points of disagreement include:

• Historical scope: Was historical regulation limited to a narrow set of locations tied directly to core governmental functions, or does it support broader restrictions?
• Analogical reasoning: Can modern spaces like subways or sports arenas be analogized to historical gathering places, or are those analogies too strained?
• Practical effect: At what point does a sensitive-place regime become so expansive that it functionally nullifies the right to carry?

Some courts have allowed narrow lists closely tied to historical examples. Others have blocked expansive schemes that turn large portions of daily life into no-carry zones.

What to watch for

Expect further appellate rulings that clarify:

• whether entire categories (such as “all private property unless posted otherwise”) are constitutional,
• how geographically dense restrictions can be before they violate the Second Amendment,
• and whether states must justify each location individually with historical evidence.

---

Training Mandates and Licensing Requirements

Why it matters

Bruen did not strike down licensing itself. It rejected discretionary licensing that requires applicants to show a special need. Objective requirements—training, background checks, fingerprinting, and fees—remain widespread.

The legal question

The constitutional issue is not whether training is a good idea, but whether a specific training mandate is consistent with historical tradition and does not operate as a de facto denial of the right.

Why courts disagree

Judges are split over:

• Historical precedent: While militia laws often required training, they did not always condition the right to possess or carry arms on prior government-approved instruction.
• Burden level: How long, expensive, or complex can training be before it becomes unconstitutional?
• Timing: Is pre-licensure training fundamentally different from post-licensure or voluntary training?

Some courts view reasonable training as analogous to historical expectations of arms proficiency. Others are skeptical when training mandates appear designed to slow, deter, or selectively burden applicants.

What to watch for

Key indicators going forward include:

• judicial treatment of multi-day or high-cost training requirements,
• litigation over recurring or renewal-based training,
• and challenges arguing that training is being used as a proxy for discretionary denial.

---

Age Limits on Firearm Possession and Carry

Why it matters

Age-based restrictions are among the most actively litigated issues after Bruen. Challenges often focus on 18–20-year-olds, who are legally adults for many purposes but are restricted from purchasing or carrying certain firearms.

The historical tension

Historically, young adults were often required to serve in militias and bring their own arms—suggesting access rather than exclusion. At the same time, some historical laws treated minors differently in limited contexts.

Why courts disagree

Disagreements center on:

• Who counts as “the people” protected by the Second Amendment,
• how to interpret militia-era expectations, and
• whether modern age limits reflect tradition or modern policy judgments.

Some courts have invalidated age-based carry or purchase bans, finding insufficient historical support. Others have upheld them, emphasizing public safety and narrower interpretations of historical evidence.

What to watch for

Expect continued circuit splits, especially on:

• handgun purchase restrictions for young adults,
• public carry eligibility,
• and whether courts treat possession differently from purchase.

---

“Assault Weapon” Restrictions

Why it matters

Restrictions on so-called “assault weapons” represent one of the most politically charged and legally complex post-Bruen battlegrounds.

The Bruen-era framing

Post-Bruen challenges typically argue that:

• commonly owned semi-automatic rifles are “in common use” for lawful purposes,
• historical bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons do not apply to modern firearms widely possessed by civilians.

States counter that these weapons are unusually dangerous and that historical analogues exist for regulating especially lethal arms.

Why courts disagree

Judicial disagreements stem from:

• definitions of “common use” and how to measure it,
• disputes over historical analogues for weapon-type bans,
• and differing views on whether lethality alone justifies regulation.

Some courts have enjoined enforcement of bans, while others have allowed them to remain in place pending full review.

What to watch for

This area is widely expected to return to the Supreme Court. Key signals include:

• whether appellate courts converge or continue to split,
• how courts treat magazine capacity limits in parallel,
• and whether the Supreme Court clarifies how Bruen applies to weapon-type restrictions.

---

Domestic Violence Prohibitions

Why it matters

Restrictions on firearm possession by individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders raise particularly sensitive constitutional and public-safety concerns.

The legal challenge

Post-Bruen, defendants have argued that such prohibitions lack clear historical analogues. Governments argue that historical traditions of disarming dangerous individuals support modern domestic violence restrictions.

Why courts disagree

Courts wrestle with:

• whether historical laws targeting “dangerousness” are sufficiently analogous,
• how temporary civil orders compare to criminal convictions,
• and how to balance due process concerns with preventive safety measures.

This category has already produced Supreme Court engagement, underscoring its importance.

What to watch for

Future rulings are likely to focus on:

• procedural safeguards in restraining order processes,
• distinctions between temporary and permanent prohibitions,
• and how explicitly courts define “dangerousness” as a historically grounded concept.

---

Prohibited-Person Categories (Felons, Nonviolent Offenders, and Beyond)

Why it matters

Longstanding prohibitions on firearm possession by felons have generally survived constitutional scrutiny, but Bruen has reopened questions about scope and justification.

Emerging fault lines

Challenges increasingly distinguish between:

• violent and nonviolent offenses,
• historical felonies versus modern regulatory crimes,
• lifetime bans versus time-limited restrictions.

Why courts disagree

Judicial disagreement arises from:

• incomplete historical records on categorical disarmament,
• debates over whether modern felony definitions align with historical understandings,
• and differing views on rehabilitation and restoration of rights.

Some courts have upheld broad prohibitions, while others have questioned lifetime bans for nonviolent offenses.

What to watch for

Key developments to monitor include:

• as-applied challenges rather than facial challenges,
• restoration-of-rights frameworks,
• and whether courts begin requiring individualized dangerousness assessments.

Why the Disagreements Persist

The persistent divergence among courts is not accidental. It reflects three structural realities of the post-Bruen landscape:

1. Historical evidence is incomplete and contested, forcing judges to make interpretive choices rather than apply bright-line rules.
2. Analogical reasoning is inherently subjective, especially when mapping centuries-old practices onto modern society.
3. Lower courts are waiting for further Supreme Court guidance, and are reluctant to move too far ahead of future clarifications.

As a result, constitutional outcomes often depend as much on judicial philosophy and methodology as on the regulation itself.

What Comes Next

For gun owners, policymakers, and legal observers, the post-Bruen environment demands attention and patience. The contours of Second Amendment law are being reshaped incrementally, through case-by-case adjudication rather than sweeping rulings.

Future Supreme Court decisions are likely to:

• clarify the scope of “sensitive places,”
• address weapon-type bans directly,
• and refine how history and tradition should be applied in difficult cases.

Until then, Bruen in practice means uncertainty, litigation, and a constitutional dialogue that is far from over.

---

New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen: What the Supreme Court Changed, and What Comes Next (Part 1 of 4)

On June 23, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued one of the most consequential Second Amendment decisions in modern history: New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen. In a 6–3 ruling, the Court struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for a license to carry a concealed handgun in public, concluding that the state’s discretionary “may-issue” framework violated the Second Amendment.

The decision did more than invalidate a single New York law. It reshaped the legal test courts must use when evaluating gun regulations nationwide—moving away from balancing public-safety interests against individual rights, and toward a history-focused inquiry anchored in constitutional text and early American tradition. For lawful and responsible gun owners, Bruen clarified that the right to “keep and bear arms” includes carrying in public for self-defense, and that a state generally cannot condition that right on proving a special need beyond ordinary self-protection. For states and cities, it created a new regulatory reality: firearm restrictions must now be justified primarily by historical analogues, not by modern policy arguments alone.

What follows is a practical, plain-English explanation of what Bruen held, how it changed the legal framework, and what the implications look like for both gun owners and policymakers.

---

The Case in Context: “May-Issue” vs. “Shall-Issue”

Before Bruen, most states were “shall-issue” jurisdictions for concealed-carry permits—meaning that if an applicant met objective criteria (background checks, training, fees, etc.), the state generally had to issue the license. A smaller group of jurisdictions—New York among them—used “may-issue” systems, where local officials had broad discretion to deny permits unless the applicant showed a heightened, individualized need (often described as “proper cause” or “good cause”).

New York’s “proper cause” standard, as described in constitutional commentary summarizing the record, typically required a license applicant to demonstrate a “special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community.” In practice, that approach could make lawful public carry extremely difficult for ordinary citizens, while favoring those who could articulate exceptional risk or had the right connections.

The plaintiffs challenged that discretionary scheme, arguing it effectively converted a constitutional right into a privilege granted by government officials.

---

What the Supreme Court Held

1) The Second Amendment protects a right to carry firearms in public for self-defense

The Court concluded that the Second Amendment’s text—particularly the phrase “bear arms”—covers carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense. The decision built on earlier landmark cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and McDonald v. Chicago (2010), but it addressed a question those cases left more open: how far the right extends beyond the home.

2) New York’s “proper cause” requirement was unconstitutional

The Court held that New York’s requirement—demanding applicants show a special need—violated the Second Amendment because it prevented typical, law-abiding citizens from exercising the right to carry in public for self-defense.

3) The decision replaced (or at least displaced) the common “two-step” approach used by lower courts

Prior to Bruen, many federal courts used a “two-step” methodology: (1) determine whether the Second Amendment covered the conduct, and (2) if it did, apply a form of means-end scrutiny (often “intermediate scrutiny”) to weigh the regulation’s burden against the government’s public-safety interests. A Congressional Research Service summary explains that Bruen rejected that type of interest-balancing framework for Second Amendment cases.

Instead, the Court announced a different standard.

---

The New Test: “Text, History, and Tradition”

The central doctrinal change in Bruen is the legal test.

In simplified terms, the Court said:

1. Text: If the Second Amendment’s plain text covers the individual’s conduct (for example, carrying a handgun for self-defense), then the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct.
2. History & tradition: The government must then justify the regulation by showing it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation—typically through historical analogues from relevant time periods.

The Court acknowledged that historical analysis can be “difficult and nuanced,” but nonetheless treated it as the governing method rather than modern interest balancing.

This shift matters because it changes what “wins” an argument in court. Under the older approach, states could often defend restrictions by emphasizing empirical studies, crime trends, or policy judgments about public safety. Under Bruen, those considerations may still appear in litigation, but they are no longer the core constitutional test. Instead, the question becomes: Is this regulation analogous to historical restrictions that Americans traditionally accepted?

---

What the Opinions Signaled (Beyond the Holding)

Even without recounting every concurrence and dissent, two practical themes emerged from the opinions and subsequent commentary:

• The Court’s majority emphasized that the decision does not eliminate all gun regulation. The opinion discussed the continuing acceptability of certain longstanding restrictions (for example, on possession by felons or in certain “sensitive places”), but insisted modern laws must be grounded in historical tradition.
• Critics argued that the history-and-tradition test is hard to administer and can produce inconsistent outcomes, because historical sources are incomplete and the analogical reasoning is contestable.

Those tensions are not theoretical. They show up repeatedly in post-Bruen litigation.

---

Implications for Lawful and Responsible Gun Owners

1) Expanded access to public carry in “may-issue” jurisdictions

For residents of jurisdictions that previously required “proper cause” or “good cause,” Bruen opened the door to a more accessible permitting regime. States cannot require ordinary citizens to prove a unique, heightened threat just to exercise a constitutional right.

2) Objective permitting requirements are still generally permissible

Importantly, Bruen does not forbid licensing systems outright. What it targets is unfettered discretion that functions as a de facto denial for most people. Many “shall-issue” elements—background checks, fingerprinting, training, fees, and objective disqualifiers—are more likely to survive, especially if they do not operate as a disguised “proper cause” requirement.

For responsible owners, the practical takeaway is straightforward: the path to lawful carry is more available in certain states than it was pre-2022, but compliance obligations have not disappeared.

3) More litigation-driven uncertainty around “where you can carry”

One of the most immediate friction points after Bruen has been the question of “sensitive places”—locations where firearms can be restricted even under a robust Second Amendment interpretation. The Court recognized that sensitive-place restrictions can be constitutional, but the boundaries are being tested in courts as states try to define expansive lists of prohibited locations.

For gun owners, that means legal carry is increasingly shaped by:

• rapid changes in state statutes,
• emergency rules and injunctions,
• and shifting appellate decisions.

Even “lawful carry” can become complicated in practice if the map of prohibited locations changes frequently.

4) A renewed emphasis on “responsible carry” norms

Even though Bruen is a constitutional ruling, it indirectly reinforces a cultural point: rights come with responsibilities. As permitting broadens, responsible owners have stronger incentives to:

• pursue quality training (even beyond minimum requirements),
• practice secure storage and safe handling,
• avoid escalation and prioritize de-escalation,
• and maintain strict compliance with posted restrictions and sensitive-place rules.

In other words, Bruen strengthens the legal baseline for carrying, but it also raises the stakes for demonstrating community responsibility—because the political and legal response to expanded carry often hinges on whether the public perceives carry as disciplined and safety-conscious.

---

Implications for States and Cities Implementing Gun Control

1) Policy goals must now be translated into historically grounded legal arguments

After Bruen, states and cities cannot rely primarily on public-safety rationales to defend regulations. They must show historical analogues: laws from relevant historical periods that are sufficiently similar in purpose and burden.

That pushes lawmakers toward:

• narrower drafting,
• more explicit legislative findings tied to historical practice,
• and careful analogical reasoning (for example, arguing that a modern restriction is comparable to an older category of regulation).

2) The “sensitive places” approach is attractive—but risky

One common response to Bruen has been to preserve public-safety aims by expanding prohibited locations. The logic is: if “may-issue” discretion is off the table, then regulate where firearms may be carried. But the more expansive the sensitive-place list becomes, the more it invites constitutional challenges—especially when the prohibited categories sweep in broad swaths of public life.

Cities should expect sustained litigation over:

• public transit,
• entertainment districts,
• private property default rules,
• and government-adjacent spaces.

3) Licensing “suitability” criteria and screening measures will face close scrutiny

Some jurisdictions have looked toward “suitability” standards (training, character references, disclosure requirements, or even controversial checks such as reviewing certain public postings) as a way to manage risk without reverting to “proper cause.” RAND noted that some states explored social media checks and other targeted screening tools in the post-Bruen environment.

The legal challenge for policymakers is to ensure such measures:

• do not become discretionary denials in disguise, and
• can be defended under the historical-tradition framework.

4) A surge in constitutional challenges, with uneven outcomes

The post-Bruen period has been marked by extensive litigation over many categories of gun regulation. Scholarly and policy analyses have noted that courts sometimes reach opposite conclusions on similar issues, reflecting how malleable historical analogies can be.

Even within specific regulatory areas, outcomes can diverge across circuits. For example, Duke’s Center for Firearms Law has tracked appellate activity and highlighted disagreements and evolving circuit-level approaches in challenges such as assault weapon and magazine restrictions. The practical impact for states and cities is that “what is constitutional” may differ by jurisdiction—at least until the Supreme Court resolves additional questions.

5) Governments still retain room to regulate, but must document and defend carefully

Despite fears that Bruen would invalidate most gun laws, a number of regulations have continued to be upheld, and courts have sustained certain longstanding restrictions in post-Bruen decisions. One example from 2025: Reuters reported that an appeals court upheld the federal machine gun ban, concluding it remained constitutional and emphasizing that machine guns are not in “common use” for self-defense under related Second Amendment precedent.

This illustrates a broader point: Bruen is restrictive, but it is not a blanket prohibition on firearm regulation. It changes the burden of justification—and makes legislative craftsmanship, evidentiary support, and historical argumentation more central than before.

---

The Bottom Line

Bruen did two big things at once: it strengthened the practical enforceability of the right to carry in public for self-defense, and it reoriented Second Amendment litigation around text, history, and tradition rather than modern interest balancing.

For lawful, responsible gun owners, the decision generally means:

• greater access to public carry in former “may-issue” jurisdictions,
• continued obligations to meet objective licensing requirements,
• and more complexity in navigating “where” carry is permitted as sensitive-place rules evolve through legislation and litigation.

For states and cities, the decision means:

• regulations must be built to survive a historically anchored constitutional test,
• expansive or discretionary restrictions are more vulnerable,
• and the legal environment will remain dynamic as lower courts work through hard questions and circuit splits.
  

---

Firearms Preemption Laws

One of the more confusing, and quite frankly dangerous aspects of gun ownership in many states is running afoul of the widely scattered and different federal, state, city, and local laws regarding guns, gun configurations, and gun accessories.  What is legal in the state as a whole may not be legal in a certain city in that state.  What is legal in a neighboring state may not be legal in your state.  And if something is legal in your town, but you travel to a neighboring town with a certain type of weapon or accessory in your possession, you may be fined or even arrested.  

As mention below, these laws created by local communities create "...a confusing patchwork of laws..." and "...places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating local laws..."

Preemption laws are supposed to be one way to remedy all that confusion and protect citizens.  In an effort to prevent cities and townships from being too far-reaching in their firearms laws, preemption laws are supposed to protect citizens against the confusing web of local laws by making state and federal law the guiding principle in their own laws.

Also related to preemption laws, is something that we have here in Colorado referred to as a "Peaceable Journey" law (CRS 18-12-105.6).  Both Denver and Boulder, for example, ban certain types of firearms and open carry.  But what if I have to drive through either of those cities while in possession of the type of firearm banned in those cities?  If I am pulled over, and the police officer discovers that I am carrying the type of weapon banned in that municipality, they are not supposed to be allowed to confiscate my firearm or even arrest me due to the Colorado state preemption and peaceable journey laws that are in effect.

The Colorado "Peaceable Journey" Law (CRS 18-12-105.6) includes the following:

(1)  The general assembly hereby finds that:

(a)  A person carrying a weapon in a private automobile or other private means of conveyance for hunting or for lawful protection of such person's or another's person or property, as permitted in sections 18-12-105 (2)(b) and 18-12-105.5 (3)(c), may tend to travel within a county, city and county, or municipal jurisdiction or in or through different county, city and county, and municipal jurisdictions, en route to the person's destination;

(b)  Inconsistent laws exist in local jurisdictions with regard to the circumstances under which weapons may be carried in automobiles and other private means of conveyance;

(c)  This inconsistency creates a confusing patchwork of laws that unfairly subjects a person who lawfully travels with a weapon to criminal penalties because he or she travels within a jurisdiction or into or through another jurisdiction;

(d)  This inconsistency places citizens in the position of not knowing when they may be violating local laws while traveling within a jurisdiction or in, through, or between different jurisdictions, and therefore being unable to avoid committing a crime.

Source:  Lexis Colorado Revised Statute Annotation

This Writer's Opinion: Why are we even forced to deal with this hogwash?!  The Second Amendment is clear that the citizens have the RIGHT to self-defense, and to possess the necessary arms with which to be able to defend themselves, their communities, and their families.  The answer is simple: The objectives of these communities include restricting or even banning firearms to make firearms ownership and possession so confusing and expensive, that people will give them up just to avoid being arrested and/or taxed, fined, and regulated into the poor-house.  What other rights as enumerated and are supposed to be protected in the U.S. Constitution cause the citizens to go through this level of gymnastics in order to comply with the law and enjoy the right?  Firearms owners continue to be hated and scorned by certain segments of our community and the lawmakers themselves.

As if draconian state gun control isn't enough, these local city and community laws are an arbitrary and capricious means towards adding a confusing additional layer of gun control.  They are, at the very least, knee-jerk reactions in the wake of tragedies for these city councils to politicize an issue and "grandstand" their efforts to make their citizens think that they are actually doing something meaningful to prevent these tragedies in their communities.

This is why city and county elections matter.  Get active and make sure that you are supporting City Council, Mayor, County Supervisor/Commissioner, and especially County Sheriff candidates who will uphold the U.S. Constitution and protect your rights.  If you have the ability in your locality to vote on judge retention, make sure that you are voting to get rid of activist judges who try to uphold these unconstitutional city laws when they are rightfully challenged.  Attend your City Council and County Commission meetings regularly.  Speak up at these meetings and let these people know your objections to their overreach.  Bring a friend!

For More Information: NRA-ILA Article - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20191111/strong-firearms-preemption-laws-are-more-important-than-ever

And in Other News...

Taxing the Second Amendment?

Taxing our rights is nothing new for sure.  This video directly ties in with the importance of preemption laws, as mentioned in the opening above.  If a municipality can't ban certain (or ALL) firearms, they will try to make firearms and ammunition impossible to obtain, create red-flag laws to make everyone prohibited to possess firearms, and in the case of the video below, impose taxes to make firearms and ammunition too expensive to obtain.  Besides being an unconstitutional means of backdoor gun control, in my opinion, laws that place exorbitant taxes on firearms and ammunition unfairly prohibit the poor by keeping them from being able to afford even the basic means of self-defense that is supposed to be protected for everyone.

You can stay up to date on this issue and other Second Amendment news and get some great gear reviews by subscribing to The Guns and Gadgets Channel.

Training

Proper Shooting Stance:

In last week's training video, former Navy SEAL Chris Sajnog discussed properly gripping the pistol.  He emphasizes concentrating on proper grip and then letting the trigger finger find its proper position.  This week's video is a good follow up to grip, which talks about proper stance.  Something that I see practiced all too infrequently is finding a natural point of aim (NPOA) and then using stance, not arms, to adjust so that your NPOA is always consistent and repeatable, and accurately puts the correct point of impact on the target.

This practice can be done using the LASR App software as well so that you can practice finding your NPOA and then see how the various adjustments to your stance can affect the actual point of impact on the target.  In fact, using the LASR App system (do NOT do this in live-fire), you can use Chris's practice for finding your NPOA with your eyes closed, then fire the shot with your SIRT pistol or other laser training device before you open your eyes.  The LASR App will record the shot and give you instant feedback to allow you to adjust your stance to align your NPOA with an accurate point of impact.  Then when you think you have found a good and repeatable stance that gives you your properly aligned NPOA, go to the range and practice under live fire to confirm.

And again - practice the "eyes closed" method above ONLY when in a safe dry-fire condition using the LASR App software.  When performing live fire, always keep your eyes open and aimed at your target, know your target and what is behind the target, and between you and the target!

Shameless Commercial Plug:

For more information about the LASR App Training System that you can use to set up this drill in a dry fire environment, see my LASR App page and receive a discount when using my discount code.

To receive a 10% discount on Live Fire Drill Cards, a shooter's training log and some great training ideas visit Burnett LFDC!

Red Flag Laws (Again!)

We should all be extremely concerned about this.  Social media scouring to determine who to "Red Flag" - seriously?!  Suppression of free speech is now taking the form of "Minority Report" types of behavior by the government.  It's bad enough that social media is suppressing conservative speech.  But stuff like this actually makes gun owners (who are most likely to be conservatives) afraid to even post anything on their social media accounts.  Share a meme that they don't like?  Red Flag.  Even repost a news story that they don't like?  Red Flag.  Are you a YouTube firearms friendly channel?  Red Flag.  This is getting out of control, and we need to be as vocal as possible to our representation.

Shared from the Guns & Gadgets YouTube Channel:

Special sessions for Red Flag Laws in the news.  Next meeting of the House Judiciary Committee, September 4, 2019.  Nadler and company plan on working on HR-1186 (Large Capacity Magazine Ban) and HR 1236 (Red Flag Laws) and many others.  Please make sure that you are contacting your representation and oppose this dangerous legislation.

Shared from the Guns & Gadgets YouTube Channel:

I have a new affiliate relationship with Crimson Trace!  Please check them out for some great products.

Second Amendment News and Training Resources

With all of the news about gun legislation, gun control efforts, and other threats to our Second Amendment liberties, I wanted to take a moment to post about some excellent resources for getting up to date news about new laws, gun control efforts, and even some good gear reviews.  There are also some good training channels out there as well.  In fact, the reason I am featuring some of my favorite channels below is that they have a good mixture of news, training, and gear reviews.  Training and staying sharp is important these days, especially if you are trying to maintain your emergency preparedness and self-defense posture.  I highly recommend visiting the channels for these folks, like their videos, and subscribing to their channels.  The YouTube algorithms are such that liking and subscribing really helps these channels to stay visible and get traffic.  Below are the links to their channels, as well as some recent videos to help get a sense of their video style.

Please also visit some of my affiliate links on this page and in this blog as well.  These are good, patriotic vendors, and I would like to help them earn your business.
  

Guns & Gadgets:

The Daily Shooter:

Reid Henricks (Valor Ridge):

Alex Kinkaid (Three F Words):

Pat McNamara:

URGENT: Join The NRA Today!

Shameless commercial plug - I am an NRA Recruiter and get a commission for signing up new NRA members.  But here's the deal:  Our 2nd Amendment Rights Count On It...

We need your help!  There is no doubt that the 2018 legislative session in the state of Colorado and the nation is going to be tough on gun rights.  There is still yet a lot of work to do to save our rights and our future as gun owners.  The new gun-friendly administration has been elected, but they are under fire and being attacked by those not friendly to our rights as citizens to defend ourselves.  In fact, those wishing to take back power have even promised groups such as the "Brady Bunch" that they are will work on new gun control measures behind the scenes now and enact them once they are in power.  And unfortunately, their newly emboldened base consists of some of the most anti-gun, anti-self-defense people in history. 

But we have a strong ally:  The hard work and dedication of the professionals at the National Rifle Association will ensure that we can take the fight against draconian and excessive gun control measures to those who don't want us to defend ourselves.  Watch this SHORT VIDEO about the NRA to learn more...  Then JOIN, as we move forward in 2018 to ensure that all of us enjoy our RIGHTS for responsible gun ownership, self-defense.

NRA Membership is Affordable! 

A one-year regular membership is just $30.00 per year, with savings for multiple years or life memberships.

A full membership also includes your choice of magazine subscriptions to the most informative firearms publications available today.

Additional insurance and other great benefits. 

Support the NRA through your membership.  JOIN THE NRA TODAY. 

You can save on a regular annual membership by joining for multiple years.  A one-year membership just $30.00.  JOIN TODAY.

The Second Amendment is second in importance only to the First!!!  Indeed, it's the Second Amendment that allows the general population to defend all the rest of them from any attempt at tyranny.

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."

Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

JOIN THE NRA TODAY

The following is a quote from James Madison sixteen (16) months before he introduced the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1789.

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

James Madison, The Federalist No. 48, February 1, 1788

My Philosophy

I believe that our Second Amendment rights afford us as law-abiding citizens the ability to own firearms, and we should be able to use the tools that we see fit to protect ourselves, our families, and our property.  The immortal and often debated meaning of the words of the Second Amendment "A well-regulated militia..." was intended to mean that all citizens have the right and responsibility to bear arms in protection of self, family, and country.  "Well regulated" at the time, meant well trained and disciplined.  We believe that the meaning and spirit of those words are just as relevant today.  Our citizens should be well trained, but "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." 

"The Gonz" is a Fort Collins-based political and gun rights activist, NRA Certified Firearms Instructor, and Law Enforcement AR-15/M-16/M-4A1 Armorer, and NRA Recruiter specializing in fostering gun rights and firearms safety.  We emphasize firearms safety and are strong advocates of a law-abiding citizen's right to own firearms for self-defense, hunting, and sporting purposes.  If you live in the Northern Colorado area, please ask how I can help you with all your firearms training needs.  By joining the NRA today, you are helping me to muster the vital resources needed to ensure that these rights are here for our children and future generations to come.

Terrorism and Violent Attacks: What YOU Can Do!

In my “other life” outside of my job as a cyber-security operations supervisor, I am involved in a number of activities that revolve around community emergency response, institutional safety, and preparing for such things as what happened in Orlando and other previous attacks in places of worship.  Having previously performed physical (armed) security duties at my church and in the military, I still keep in touch with security efforts, and still attend constant training in this area.  My background in this area comes from being a firearms instructor, a member of the Fort Collins Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) and The Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab (The CELL) in Denver, as well as serving as an emergency communications HAM radio operator.

 Recently, I had the privilege of attending an Institutional Safety Conference (often referred to as a “Sheepdog Seminar”) presented by LtCol Dave Grossman, Carl Chinn (one of the responders at the December 2007 New Life Church shooting), Jimmy Meeks, and Northern Colorado’s own former Navy SEAL Mark Hotaling.  Less than a day after that seminar, we all learned that the Orlando massacre happened.  Little did I know that LtCol Grossman's words would turn out to be extremely prophetic.  In that seminar, Grossman, Meeks, Chinn, and Hotaling all told us that horrible attacks like this one would begin in America on a larger scale, and very soon.  Grossman took us through the Beslan Massacre as an example of what kinds of terrorist attacks could happen here.  In fact many in the extremist circles have stated that the Beslan Massacre was their dress rehearsal for what they had planned for America.

I need to be very blunt here:  As was stated several times in the presentation, and as I firmly believe, many people are still in denial and have their heads in the sand on the issues of violence and terrorism in America.  September 11, 2001 woke us up to the fact that terrorism on a large scale can happen in America.  But then, we went back to sleep.  We have been living the “it can’t happen here” lie for quite a while now.  This has only been worsened by the endless bombardment of political correctness in our society.  Well you know what?  It’s high time we start calling these threats for what they are, face them head on, and declare that we as Americans will not put up with the tactics of fear and terrorism in our land.Protecting my family, friends, community, and co-workers is a responsibility that I don't take lightly.  LtCol Grossman was emphatic in his belief that more attacks would happen soon.  No sooner does he say that, and then one happens less than 24 hours after making his remarks.  I firmly believe in being prepared, and will accept nothing less from my fellow citizens.  By all of us being prepared, we send a strong message to the bad guys, and present a formidable deterrence against their actions.

So here are some things that YOU can do, and will hopefully find helpful in your own preparations:

• Attend a “Sheepdog Seminar.”  This is some of the best information you will ever receive on this topic of preparing for, and responding to, violent attacks.  If you can’t attend, they offer the seminars on DVD. http://www.sheepdogsafetytraining.com/ 

• Meet with your family, neighbors, and friends.  Form a group.   Discuss preparedness, neighborhood watch activities and crime prevention strategies.  Your local law enforcement will have some great resources for you to use.

• The Counterterrorism Education Learning Lab (The CELL) in Denver – has some great information on recognizing the signs of terrorism.  See if your community offers a similar program. http://www.thecell.org/cap/

• Attend a law enforcement Citizen’s Academy or similar program in your area.  Not only do these sessions give you great insights into the inner workings of law enforcement, but they can give you some great information on community specific threats and disaster preparedness initiatives.

• Attend training presentations in your local community on general emergency and disaster planning.  Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training is a great place to start.  You can take online CERT training at the FEMA Independent Study Institute here:  http://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-317

• Many times, terrorists perform surveillance activities prior to the actual attack.  Here is a surveillance awareness course provided by the FEMA Independent Study Institute to help you recognize when surveillance activities are taking place.  https://training.fema.gov/is/courseoverview.aspx?code=IS-914&trk=profile_certification_title

• As part of the “See Something, Say Something” program, you can install the “SeeSend” app on your smart phones to help facilitate video, pictures, and alerts to the appropriate authorities. Here, for example, anything we send goes to our Fusion Center (Colorado Information Analysis Center – CIAC) in Denver.  I’m sure you have something similar where you live.

• Other SmartPhone apps that you may find useful for receiving emergency notifications from emergency response organizations, family, neighborhood watch groups, etc:

• CodeRed
• Emergency Alert
• FEMA Mobile App
• ICE Blackbox
• NOAA Weather International
• PulsePoint
• PulsePoint AED
• Silent Beacon Emergency Alert

Oh, and by the way:  This is NOT a gun control issue.  I do not want to hear the argument that “if the Orlando killer didn’t have an AR-15, he wouldn’t have been able to do this!”  Bull!  The semi-automatic rifle did not kill all those people.  A dark and evil heart killed all those people.  The rifle was a tool.  He wanted to kill people.  He would have found a way.  Most killers do!

I’m not trying to insult you, frighten you, or be overly dramatic.  I just care about my loved ones, community, and co-workers, and I need you all with me on this.  We “Sheepdogs” are the new “Civil Defense” in a dangerous new era.  I just want everyone to be prepared, be aware of their surroundings, and be able to WIN in an emergency situation rather than become a victim.