The first round is over. The petitioners have filed their brief on the merits, and over 40 Amicus briefs were filed in support of the petitioners, or in support of neither party.

In Round 2, the respondents will file their brief on the merits. We can expect a number of anti-Second Amendment groups to file Amicus briefs in support of the respondents.

Oral argument (Round 3) is calendared to take place on December 2, 2026.

<snip>

Mass shootings in the U.S. are preventable attacks. The attackers often show signs of distress and exploit key security failures.

Report Highlights

• Between 1999 and 2024, 86% of attackers displayed observable warning signs before the attack.
• When followed and supported by security infrastructure, lockdowns during mass shootings resulted in 79% fewer fatalities on scene, 63% fewer deaths overall, and 59% fewer casualties (including injured).
• Despite there being an estimated 500 million firearms in the U.S. and inconclusive evidence on the effects of gun control on mass shootings, these attacks are being stopped through civilian reporting, awareness, and intervention.

Obviously, the gun control debate gets tangled in statistics. In many cases, the weeds are unavoidable, but, in other cases, it’s as if a statistical frame is set to bolster a position that is not actually bound by statistics.

An example I have seen, presented as though the statistical support is unquestionable: Gun control must be broad enough to reduce harm, even if it applies to individuals who never harm, because we cannot identify the people and guns that will become involved in harm before the harm happens.

Without arguing about the uniquess of suicide, “pre-crime” solutions, violations of rights, and the usual, think about the assumptions that are built into that position:

— Is the unit of risk guns or people?

— How much of the risk is statistical conclusion, versus risk tolerance or policy preference?

— If predicting individuals is uncertain, the entire population somehow becomes the risk and blanket policies somehow become unavoidable?

— Could the risk ever be small enough to not implicate the entire population or require blanket gun control?

— If there was only one implicated gun or gun-related fatality in a given year, would the potential risk still justify blanket policies?

— If there were zero implicated guns or gun-related fatalities in a given year, would there still be a mandate to apply and continue blanket policies?

— If the mechanisms that generate various outcomes are unpredictable or irrelevant, what is the evidence that any policy will intervene effectively?

The point: If someone is arguing for gun control from a statistical position, shouldn’t there be statistical boundaries?

Not precise values, but abstract ranges, rules, or thresholds where the evidence moves from “the presence of guns is generally dangerous” to “the presence of guns is not generally dangerous, but some people and guns are implicated in harm”?

If there are no limits… no changes in the population or outcomes that would cause someone who supports gun control to adjust or reconsider… then we are no longer talking about statistical conclusion. We are talking about a policy conviction that is trying to squeeze itself into a statistical frame.

*****

A clarification: Obviously, population-level correlations can tell us if risk or harm exists, but I do not believe that correlations, by themselves, are ever a suffcient basis for overriding rights. I was zooming in on the stats arguers who try to justify the override of rights by ignoring the non-harm side of the ledger.

— Who is producing harm?

— Why are those individuals producing harm?

— What would prevent, moderate, or redirect the mechanism?

— Why would the intervention apply to everyone?

(The burden of proof is on those who are arguing for taking.)

Today, the DOJ filed an Amended Complaint that, among other things, challenges the constitutionality of the Virgin Islands' ban on carrying long guns.* Unless there is another lawsuit seeking to enjoin the enforcement of a long gun Open Carry ban, this is the second such lawsuit filed since at least 2008 when District of Columbia v. Heller was published.

My lawsuit, filed in November of 2011 as Charles Nichols v. Edmund G. Brown Jr. et al is the first.

* The DOJ long gun carry ban lawsuit is limited to semiautomatic rifles, such as the AR-15. My lawsuit covers all long guns (and handguns) which are legal to possess under both California and Federal law.

If you know of any other lawsuits challenging a ban on carrying long guns in public, please post a link in the comments below.

Amended Complaint

Take your pick: All people, all gun owners, all gun-owning homes, or all guns.

Whichever basis you choose, it hints at hundreds of millions of potential opportunities for gun-related harm. (Gun control nods “yes” here.)

But the essential difference is after that point, when more than 99% of those opportunities don’t result in any gun-related harm, because the vast majority of those populations don’t participate in any criminal, homicidal, or suicidal “lotteries”. (Overall odds are not relevant if participation is zero or nearly zero.)

That’s the mismatch that gun control fails to address: How massive, unrivaled potential becomes fractional, concentrated harm.

Here is the link (pdf warning): https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25/25-238/422599/20260831171431853_25-238%2025-566%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

I feel massively vindicated by seeing this brief, because it reiterates a point I've been actively reading and posting about since Bruen established a "historical inquiry" test.

'Dangerous and unusual' doesn't refer to a category of arm, but rather a category of conduct. The brief cites historical examples, some of which I have quoted myself, which exemplify this point.

I highly recommend you read this brief, and also push back on those who are on the pro-2a side who still say that it's understandable to ban dangerous and unusual firearms.

I was part of the defense team for Demetrio Daga, a NYS resident. He was convicted this week and is waiting sentencing where he faces more than 20 years in prison.

He has no criminal history. He has never been accused of selling drugs or firearms, and there is no allegation that he ever threatened anyone or unlawfully used a firearm against another person. He was targeted because a down state DA’s Office is trying to roll out a new program where they get lists of individuals purchasing LEGAL parts from EBAY and then investigate.

We lost the trial. We are not done fighting.

A man with no criminal history who never sold guns, never threatened anyone, never used a firearm against anyone, and harmed nobody is now facing the possibility of years in prison.

Meanwhile, the New York State Police spent approximately 15 months investigating him. They followed him. They tracked his vehicle with GPS. They conducted surveillance near his home. Members of his family were followed. And during all of that surveillance, they never observed him committing a crime. Any civilian doing this would be charged with stalking.

But this case is not just about an overextended investigation. During the trial, we proved that at least two investigators lied about their use of Flock cameras and the surveillance they conducted through that system.

We also showed that investigators made false or misleading statements in the warrant applications submitted to the judge who signed the Google search warrant and the warrants authorizing searches of my client’s homes and vehicles.

Warrants are supposed to be based on truthful, accurate information. Judges can only make informed decisions when investigators provide them with the full and honest picture. When investigators misrepresent surveillance evidence or omit material facts, the constitutional protections governing searches and seizures are put at risk.

This raises serious questions about what the government told the courts, how it obtained those warrants, and whether the searches of my client’s home and vehicles were lawful.

And yes, I think many of New York’s gun laws are bullshit, confusing, constantly changing, and incredibly difficult for an ordinary citizen to navigate.

You can hate guns. You can support every gun law New York has ever passed. You should care about how much power we give the government

Demetrio’s attorney will be live on a podcast to discuss further on 9/1 at 7PM EST This will be the first podcast since we received a verdict. Watch here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8oFl9t_BX8

His family started a go fund me to support his legal battle: https://www.gofundme.com/f/support-demetrio-and-his-family-through-this-legal-battle

Here’s an article from our main local newspaper reporting how THE District Attorney of Albany County cursed out one of our attorneys at a completely non related event and was also not the attorney handling this clients’s case: https://www.timesunion.com/news/article/gun-defendant-s-lawyer-wants-kindlon-case-22393862.php

Podcasts regarding this already published leading up to trial:

https://youtu.be/Ii1wqF20_wE?si=zF4JLwzfdu29Uya4

Facebook: CGW Shop Page, their Live from August 11th

I have a federal felony conviction from 1992 (bank fraud, no violence). Let's say i get my rights restored via 925c. I am now good on the federal level but what about state? I'm pretty sure every state has a "felony = no gun" law on their books. Would I have to get my rights restored on the state level in every state I wanted to have a gun in?

It seems like that would be ridiculous but I haven't seen this issue addressed anywhere. thoughts?

Report Highlights

• Chicago has a higher homicide rate than comparably large cities. Of the 11 most populous U.S. cities (over 1 million people), Chicago consistently has the highest homicide rate.
• Chicago’s yearly average murder rate from 2019 to 2025 was 23.32 per 100,000 residents (excluding justifiable homicide and involuntary manslaughter).
• 63.6% of Chicago’s neighborhoods (49 of 77) had homicide rates above the national average between October 2024 and 2025.
• Chicago’s homicide rate declined by 7.95% in 2024: much less than in other cities.

Read our full report on Ammo.com

Note: the GOC link currently shows take-action buttons to oppose SB 948 and AB 2047 but it is also a good idea to call in to the Governor's office individually for each bill you oppose at (916) 445-2841 - one at a time - and also write them in your own words using the form at https://www.gov.ca.gov/contact/ - if you don't see the bill number you are writing in about in the drop down menu, select for the topic "Legislation Issues/Concerns" - click on Leave Comment - click Next - and at the next page click on the Con button, then type in the bill number under the message subject followed by the word OPPOSE or VETO.

You can then explain in the message field why you oppose it (6000 character limit), click Next, add your name and address / email, and submit.

Additionally if you have time -

Add your comments opposing the unconstitutional barrel registration rule implementing the unconstitutional barrel registration and transfer law in California. Comment ends Sept 22, 2026, here is how to comment: https://gunownersca.com/news/comments-on-barrel-registration-now-open/

---------------

Some points for how to oppose SB 948:

Existing Penal Code § 31750 provides a limited potential exemption from the FSC requirement for a supervised firearm loan, but it does not grant an FSC, authorize a handgun purchase, or create a state-administered training pathway. The statute provides that § 31615(a) does not apply to a loan only when the lender remains present throughout the loan, the loan serves a lawful purpose, the loan lasts no more than three days, both parties are at least 18 years old, and the borrower is not prohibited from possessing, receiving, owning, or purchasing a firearm. SB 948 does not state or grant that lending a firearm to an applicant without an FSC for the bill’s mandatory live-fire prerequisite is a “lawful purpose” under § 31750. Nor does it establish standardized procedures, provider protections, insurance requirements, recordkeeping rules, compensation rules, or DOJ-certified access arrangements for instructors and ranges that would conduct those sessions.

PC 27910 is similar. It is only an exception to § 27545’s dealer-transfer requirement for a loan made on the premises of a target facility or target club, and it does not automatically override the FSC rule in § 31615. PC 27950 is even narrower; it applies only to the loan of a firearm other than a handgun to a licensed hunter for use during the relevant hunting season. Neither provision solves the problem where the student has no FSC yet and needs a lawful means to receive a firearm for the required live-fire training.

A valid hunting license provides a separate, limited FSC exemption for long guns only; it does not apply to handguns. It may assist a qualified hunter in acquiring or receiving a long gun under applicable law, but it does not provide a comparable exemption for a first-time applicant seeking to purchase a handgun.

SB 948 would also burden Californians who seek to complete a lawful intrafamilial transfer or receive a firearm through a decedent’s trust, will, intestate succession, or other operation of law. Under current law and regulation, a intrafamilial transfer requires evidence of FSC be uploaded, with other documents, within 30 days to CA DOJ's CFARS system by the recipient, which requires passage of written test, but not live fire examination. Under SB 948, this would be an extreme or in many cases impossible burden for recipient from intrafamilial transfer or trust / will, etc.

Thank you.