➡ This is a discussion on a series called Freedom Under Fire, which focuses on efforts to protect the Second Amendment. The host introduces Hannah Hill from the National Association for Gun Rights, who discusses their ongoing legal battles. One of these is against the ATF’s classification of forced reset triggers as machine guns, which they are fighting in court. The ATF has been ordered to return seized triggers and admit their mistake, but they are appealing this decision. The outcome of this case and others like it could be influenced by the new administration and a recent executive order from Donald Trump.
➡ The discussion revolves around the potential for the Department of Justice (DOJ) to repeal certain gun regulations. The speaker suggests that the DOJ should follow the precedent set by the Cargill case and stop litigating issues related to gun control, especially those that may not favor gun rights. They also discuss the importance of supporting gun rights organizations and encourage viewers to contact their representatives and the White House to express their views on gun control.
➡ The text discusses the power of social media in influencing government decisions and actions. It highlights how tagging influential figures in posts can have an impact, as seen in the recent administration. The text also discusses the role of the National Association for Gun Rights (NAGR) in fighting for gun rights at both federal and state levels, and their efforts to pass constitutional carry laws. Lastly, it mentions ongoing lawsuits against assault weapons bans and the influence of the Bruin ruling on these cases.
➡ The legal community is eagerly awaiting a decision on the Rhode Island standard capacity magazine ban, which could have significant implications for the Second Amendment. The hope is that the cases will be taken up and resolved, potentially even combined, for a major win for Second Amendment rights. Meanwhile, various lawsuits are ongoing across the country, challenging assault weapon bans in states like Colorado, Illinois, and Massachusetts. The outcomes of these cases could greatly impact gun rights, and there is a sense of anticipation as everyone waits for the rulings.
➡ A legal foundation is challenging Hawaii’s ban on certain guns and magazines, waiting for a ruling from the 9th Circuit court. This case could set a precedent for similar cases across the country. The foundation, though young and limited in resources, aims to fight battles that benefit all gun owners and create nationwide precedents for the Second Amendment. They encourage people to join and donate to help them continue their work.

Hey everybody. Welcome back to Guns and Gadgets. This is our new series called Freedom Under Fire where I bring you the faces of the people, the groups doing the work to fight the government to restore our second amendment and regain some of that lost ground. And it’s brought to you by Blackout Coffee. You all know that I’m one of the owners of Blackout Coffee and we’re so pro2a that we are donating money to sue the government left and right too. So check us out, blackout coffee.com G&G. So we have a new guest on the channel for the first time ever, a representative of national association for gun rights, Ms.

Hannah Hill. And before she says anything, I finally got to meet Hannah at the Gundies. And I love Hannah not just for the work she’s doing, but she has one of the voices that I could listen to all day long. I would listen to her recite the phone book. Hannah, how are you doing? Welcome to the channel. Good. Thanks so much. I appreciate it. I tell you what, that’s one of the interesting things. I’m originally from South Carolina and when you grow up in South Carolina politics, you learn basically all the tricks. And then I moved out to Colorado to work for the national association for Gun Rights and found that there are some people that are actually a little bit crazier than South Carolina Republicans.

Yeah, Colorado is. Colorado’s on fire right now, huh? Oh my goodness. It’s a dumpster fire might be a better, a better word for it. They’re trying to leapfrog California. So and that’s. That takes some doing. But they are trying to do it right now. We have our team in the, in Denver, in the capital right now trying to find insult weapons ban. They banned magazines in 2013, standard capacity magazines. And now they’re trying to follow suit with the most commonly owned rifles in America. So yeah, that’s what we’re dealing with now. It’s almost like the Bruin decision doesn’t exist in Colorado.

You know, I think the Bruin decision made some of them mad. I think that’s what it did. And I. And honestly, the Bruin decision is not going to stop state lawmakers from actually doing what they want to do. The Bruin decision should mean it’s easy to knock down in court. But unfortunately that’s not the way it’s played out either due to the lower court’s defiance of the second Amendment. So we hope to see that change here soon. But that’s where we’re at right now. Well, I’ll be here to help you all any way I can along the way.

So just say the word, and we will team up against the Colorado weirdos. So why don’t we. I’ll give you the floor. You can talk to some folks about some major lawsuits you guys have, and then we can break off into some legislation stuff and even talk about Donald Trump’s executive order, if you want. I appreciate that. So probably some of the most exciting news that we have right now is in our forced reset trigger lawsuit. So kind of here’s where that’s at. Right? The ATF didn’t actually issue an official rule. They didn’t go through the administrative procedures process to say, you know what, we’re creating a rule defining forced reset triggers as machine guns.

They just internally declared it to be so and started enforcing it. And the inventor of the Force Reset Trigger, our friend Lawrence Demonaco at Rare Breed Triggers, he has gone through a lot with the ATF targeting him and attempting to put him out of business. Now, he is currently being sued. There’s a lawsuit going in New York, right. Where they’re trying to take down his business that way. So we teamed up to file a lawsuit in the. In Texas, in the Fifth Circuit, which is probably the most unfriendly court in the country. The goal there was to fight what they’re doing in New York in another circuit.

And we’ve been succeeding. We’re what, six to seven wins to nothing with the ATF in this? Every time the ATF has asked the courts for something, they lost. We were able to block it, and then we were able to eventually win summary judgment at the district court. The judge said, all right, you know what, you’ve got a point. The force Reset trigger policy can no longer be enforced. And he ordered them to return the triggers of all the NAGR members they’ve seized. And also to. So a lot of Force Reset Trigger owners received letters, word scary letters from the atf.

You know, you own a machine gun, you could be in big trouble. You better turn it in. And now the judge has ordered the ATF to send letters to all of those people and say, you know what? Our bad, we got it wrong. Judge says we can’t do this anymore. Well, the ATF has been fighting that tooth and nail, and the judge did give them more time to do it. But while they appeal to the Fifth Circuit, the deadline is fast coming up. So the relief deadline to have all of that done by is February 22nd.

That’s right around the corner. So when they appealed all of that to the fifth Circuit, they asked, could we get a ruling in a hurry, please, because we really need some relief here. Get that. The ATF is finally asking for relief from the Second Amendment. Right. So the judge says, or, sorry, sorry. The fifth Circuit said, okay, we will give you a ruling in a hurry. So we are expecting this 5th Circuit to issue that ruling on our summary judgment. When? Right around the corner, sometime in the next couple of weeks. And oral arguments went really well.

Again, it’s the fifth Circuit. Right. Pretty much the only. Most of the pro gun wins we’re getting in the federal court system are coming out of the Fifth Circuit. So we’ve had a few of those from the district courts within the Fifth Circuit, you know, in the last few weeks on a number of different issues. So we expect, expect that ruling to go in our favor. And then the question is going to be, will the ATF keep appealing now before January, I would have told you, absolutely. They plan to take this to the wall. They’re planning to take this all the way to the Supreme Court.

And it doesn’t matter how many times they have to rehash the same old tired arguments that have secured them six successive losses in this case so far, they’re going to take it all the way to the Supreme Court. I don’t know what they’ll do. Now. We’re under a new administration. We’re under new guidance under the doj, where our own board chairman, David Warrington, is now the White House counsel. So it’s a new era, and we don’t exactly know what to expect, except that Trump’s recent executive order told the DOJ to basically do an audit of all of this stuff and to come up with a plan for all of it within the next 30 days.

So what we do know is that while the Fifth Circuit’s getting ready to rule, the Trump administration is taking a really hard look at whether or not they want to even appeal this case. Yeah. The interesting thing is that I’ve seen a couple cases now in the last 48 hours where the DOJ has said, hey, you know what? To the different circuits, hey, we need some more time. Let us pump the brakes, because we don’t know what we’re going to do here. And let me pick your brain here, and if you can’t answer it because it will give away strategy, that’s fine.

Where did, where do you all sit? Like, so my thing is, I’m sure most everybody who is a, a Second Amendment advocate or fanatic would love for the DOJ to say, you Know what? Our bad, we don’t believe in this anymore. We’re gonna just drop the case. Right. Hopefully the just judges or justices depending on the court, do it with prejudice. But would you rather the judges and justices force them to continue and take a legitimate loss in the case rather than having it dismissed and potentially without prejudice? So you might get some really well reasoned answers taking both sides from a number of second Amendment litigators.

I will tell you what I think. I personally would rather see the administration yank all of those policies immediately and move out the case. And that’s for two reasons. Number one, most of these things. So for instance, our forestry said triggers case is not actually based on the second Amendment. We’re not fighting it under Bruin. This is an agency powers case. That is the case with most of the lawsuits against the ATF over their. Over their rules. It was the case with bump stocks. It’s certainly the case with the ghost gun rule that we’re actually expecting the Supreme Court to rule on here probably in the next couple months.

The same is true of pistol brace all of these things. It’s not about whether or not government can ban these things under the second Amendment. It’s about whether or not the ATF can just unilateral, unilaterally ban them based on current federal statute. That’s not. We’ve already got that ruling. We got it on the bump stock issue in Cargill. We’ve already got what we need there. Right? Right. We don’t if the Trump. So the. The precedent that we needed for agency powers is already in place. And so there’s really nothing to be gained by continuing to litigate the issue itself, especially not since the Supreme Court may not actually go our way on the ATF ghost gun issue right now.

If that’s the case, there’s still nothing to present, prevent the DOJ from yanking the ghost gun rule. And they should, and I hope they will. That ruling won’t mean that, you know, if the Supreme Court blesses the ATF ghost gun ban, that doesn’t mean they have to keep it in place. It simply means that they may do it if they want to. You know, the more you litigate it, the more you risk rulings like that. You may risk the Supreme Court coming down in a way we wouldn’t want them to come. So now we’ve got Cargill.

I’d rather just, you know, let that stand and yank and for the DOJ to just start following Cargill. Now, any other reason I would say that is simply from A fiscal conservative standpoint. I’d rather not pay the DOJ lawyers. Yeah. With taxpayer funds to keep trying to litigate away our rights. Yeah, that’s a good point, too. Before we go to the next one, y’all, if you are not a member of national association for Gun Rights, there’s a link in the description of every single video I do. It’s also here on the screen. And join them. And if you’re already a member, donate so that this is how these groups are able to file these lawsuits.

We the membership, and yes, I’m a life member. We are their fuel for the fire. So if you’re already a member, skip a large pizza this month and send them 25 bucks. And you know, every, everything counts. So, Hannah, thank you again for agreeing to come on this, this new program we have here, guys. You’ll see her every single month with updates on everything they’re doing. So stay tuned and subscribe to the channel to stay in the loop. So what else, Steve, we’re in an interesting time right now because, you know, we’re in that flux period.

And we’ll talk here about the executive order was on the, on the seventh, Donald Trump did the first executive order where a president ever like, as far as I’m aware, and I’ve looked at quite a few of them in the last few days trying to pick any out that maybe prove me wrong. But I don’t think a president’s ever done an executive order protecting the Second Amendment. And, and, and to be fair, you know, I, I did a video. Executive orders really aren’t worth the paper they’re written on unless somebody does something right with that information.

But, you know, we’re in that 30 day period. I think there’s 25 or 24 days left and depending on when people see this, it’ll be less. What are you all doing in this 30 day rugby pile to try to get Pam Bondi and the DOJ to hopefully strike down whatever they concocted during the Biden administration? Right. Well, what we’re doing basically is kind of keeping a very close eye on things where we’re mobilizing our members to encourage Pam Bondi to repeal as much of this junk as the administration possibly can. And we’re aware too that some of this is not necessarily on the part of the atf.

Some of this comes straight from Congress. But that again, the ATF has a lot of latitude with how they enforce it. They need to do the right thing with that. So definitely being there to remind Ham Bondi and the rest of the administration that gun owners really do want to see all of this stuff revealed. We want to see all of it revealed. And you know, it’s not just their enforcement. It’s not. It’s also, for instance, things like their illegal gun registry as they digitize all the form 4473s. The what do you have? You have a searchable database of gun purchases that is flat out illegal.

That is something that the ATF’s been doing for a long, long time. That needs to stop, that needs to be destroyed, things like that, long standing, things like that. Also, all of these rules, again, bump stock’s already been knocked down. Ghost gun ban that’s being litigated. If the Supreme Court upholds it, that’ll need to be withdrawn. So will pistol price. Probably one of the most concerning things is the engaged in the business rule, which basically more or less gives the ATF agents a blank check to declare just about anything to be private, to be any private firearm sale to be done by a dealer.

Now, as we all know, it takes a lot to become a dealer. You go through a lot in order to become an ffl. So if they can basically say, you know what, you ought to be an FFL and you are basically conducting illegal firearm sales since you are not an ffl, they can do that to any private citizen. And that’s essentially what this rule is giving them permission to do. That’s a pretty, pretty big violation of rights on a number of fronts. So that needs to be yanked. And then also that executive order includes a review of their position in every single lawsuit relating to the second amendment that they’re in now.

That’s not just the accessory one. Right. These are the prosecutions and there’s been a couple. I mentioned this earlier from the, from within the 5th Circuit. So one of the most recent ones there was a gentleman who was being prosecuted for illegal possession of a machine gun. And he filed a second amendment challenge, he filed a motion to dismiss that, you know what, the federal machine gun ban is not consistent with the text, history and tradition of the Second Amendment. The judge issued a 12 page ruling saying, you know what, I don’t love this, but he’s right.

Yeah, that was, that was a good one. It was a really good one. The judge, you could tell reading that decision, he really didn’t want to utilize Bruin, but he was held to that standard and. Right. Well, he didn’t want to rule the way he did. And that was the. Was out of Mississippi. That case. I Believe it was Brown versus Mississippi if I’m right. But that was a big decision. Although it only is a applicable to, you know, him at the moment. Right. It’s good that we see an anti gun judge being forced to actually do their job the right way and say that you know what, that’s right, bans are unconstitutional.

If only every, if only every judge would be that good faith in how they handle Bruin analyses. But the interesting thing about that is that that was a prosecution. Right. That was a DOJ prosecution. Right. And, and now they have to decide do we want to fight it or do we want to let this ruling stand. Now they, even if they want to continue to protect and uphold and defend the machine gun ban, they may decide to let one single as applied ruling in one district court stand versus you know, possibly having the fifth circuit strike it down.

Now I will say I don’t think the fifth Circuit would do that. Yeah, I think they would stop short of doing something like that. But again that’s just one example. Another one, another district court judge recently ruled that the federal 18 to 20 handgun purchase ban is also illegal. I’m sorry, unconstitutional. They’re 100% right about that. Pam Body, Pam Bondi is going to have to decide do I, do I appeal that or do I let it stand? Yeah, it’s interesting. I mean I was heartbroken this week when the fifth Circuit three judge panel came out and said that second amendment protections don’t apply to suppressors.

I think they bumped their head just a bad, it was a bad panel but I think that’s going to get overturned on bonk. But it’s an interesting time that we’re in where there’s literally, literally everything that we’ve experienced for four years could be wiped clean if Pam Bond DOJ do the right thing. And that’s going to be remain to be seen. But there’s something that I, I had a meeting today. It was an hour and 10 minutes with people tied into the administration and Ladies and gentlemen, pass what I’m about to tell you on please. I’ll put it on the screen as well.

I’m going to give you a number to the White House switchboard. We need people to start calling the White House switchboard and there’s a reason I’m going to tell you this. I always tell people to call the U.S. capitol Switchboard 202-224-3121. Ask for your senator’s office, ask for your representative’s office and tell them what bills to support, which ones not to as well as what you want Pam, Bonnie and the DOJ to strike, but we need to start calling the White House as well. I’ll put the number on the screen. It’s 202-456-1111. Because we have a, a president right now who really likes to be liked and is plugged into social media like never before.

Nobody else that’s ever been in the office and I know that they watch Twitter a lot, they follow the trends people when they tag the president. So on everything you put up now that’s, that’s pro gun or anti gun, you want to tag the president. So at POTUS, at real Donald Trump, at J.D. vance, at VP, at the White House, at Doge and at Elon Musk and whoever else you can possibly think of, there’s a reason I’m telling you that because it’s having an effect already 24 days into this administration. So the numbers on the screen, I’ll put it in the description down below.

Not only call your representatives and your senators, but call the White House. This is something that we’re told has been working. So we’re going to keep pushing that. Speaking of with members, we go back to the, to the FRT case real quick. Have you had a bunch of members, obviously not going to mention any names, get their FRTs back from the ATF through this? It’s funny you asked that. What we’ve had more than anything else is ATF’s is ATF agents not wanting to return the triggers. Shocker, I imagine that. Right. They do not want to give these triggers back even under a court order.

In fact, we had to file a motion of contempt at the district court that had ordered the relief, saying, look, we have all of these instances of ATF agents absolutely flouting the order to return triggers to our members. Now what are you going to do about it? Now court processes run slow and we’re still waiting on them to respond to that. Maybe it’ll come it, you know, maybe the fifth Circuit will address that, although we filed it with the district court. Maybe, maybe they will at least take notice of that and incorporate it. And probably the district court is waiting for the 5th Circuit to weigh in on that.

I would look, you know, I think that if Elon Musk and Donald Trump and Pam Bondi do with the ATF what they’ve been doing in other areas of government, then there are a lot of ATF agents that should be really worried about their jobs right now. And if they’ve already been on the record, in defiance of Supreme. I’m sorry, in defiance of an outright court order, then that’s not going to do anything to endear them to the new administration. So they’re probably. They’re skating on thin ice right now, and they. And hopefully this is just the beginning.

Yeah, it’s good to see just an example of the pressure that was legitimately carried out through Twitter. And like I was just alluding to a couple days ago, Donald Trump issued an executive order freezing money for payments from FEMA to, you know, illegal alien activities. And they. A couple people in FEMA, four people exactly, decided they were still going to send $59 million to New York City for luxury hotels. Well, I can tell you today that all of that money has been recouped back into the. The coffers, and the four people responsible for that were fired.

And that came directly from the pressure they saw on social media. So keep it up, y’all. Keep it up. It’s. It’s an odd way to work it. You know, you can actually affect government through social media rather than the way it’s been for, like, the last 12 years where government was using social media to affect us. It’s good to see it on the other foot now, but what an opportunity right now more than ever before. The people have the access to their government and to the people who are running their government in a way, you know, you don’t have to go through a middleman anymore.

And the media is not the gatekeeper of information from the president to us or vice versa. And I think. I think that scares them. That scares a lot of people in traditional media, and it should, but it means that there’s a lot more opportunity today, now than ever before for impact of our government. Yeah, why don’t you take a second and whatever you want, a minute or three, give, give the folks at home who might not be aware of what NAGR does or what you all are about, give them the elevator speech. Here’s your pitch. Let’s earn some members for nagr.

Thank you for that. So NAGR is basically your no compromise group. We on the 501c4 side, the national association for Gun Rights, we have lobbyists on the Hill. We have lobbyists in a number of different states. And we’re fighting gun control at both the federal level and the state level. We’re also fighting to pass good bills. We’re not just, you know, these are not just defensive fights. Yes, we try to stop the gun control from passing, but we also try. Right now, we’re pushing national real constitutional carry in Congress right now. We’re also looking to pass.

So we’ve passed constitutional carry in 20, I think 29 states so far. And there’s a lot more to be done with that. There’s a couple more states, North Carolina we’re working on right now to try and get them to pass constitutional carry and be that 30th state. And then there are a lot of other laws that we can take the offense on. Florida’s red flag law, things like that. Other Tennessee’s constitutional carry law should be cleaned up a little bit, things like that. So we’re kind of the cutting edge when it comes to no compromise gun control on the legislative side.

Now about four years ago, we started working on building a legal arm that’s our 501, the National foundation for Gun Rights. And that’s what Dudley hired me to help build. We knew there was a lot of opportunity to bring that same no compromise approach to the courts. And there are a lot of groups out there that are doing fantastic work fighting gun control in the courts. Trouble is there’s just a lot of gun control to go around. Yeah. And so we’re all needed and probably our signature lawsuit so far has been against assault weapons bans and the magazine bans that are around the country.

We have five of those lawsuits ongoing and we’ve over the past couple of years following Bruin, we’ve had a lot of battles, we’ve had a lot of losses. We’ve had a few wins especially on the ETF side. The lower courts have been. This is one of the things we didn’t expect. When the Bruin ruling came out in 22, it was almost, there were some loopholes. It wasn’t perfect, but it was almost everything that we wanted it to be. It did away with two part interest balancing cost benefit analysis that the court, courts, lower courts used to throw out gun control, you know, anti gun control lawsuits.

And it also unilaterally established that yes, you do have an individual right under the second amendment to bear arms. And Heller, as you know, in 2008 had established that for the right to keep arms. So it was a fantastic precedent. And in the first month, and so it’s really funny, just as they passed that Colorado had repealed, we’re located in Colorado, Colorado had repealed their preemption law. And Bloomberg and a bunch of other national anti gun orgs had been agitating in the Boulder, Colorado area that basically the armpit of Colorado to say, you know, to get them to pass gun Bans local ordinances, banning guns.

And they passed that right about the same time the Supreme Court issued Bruin. I’ve always wished I could have been a fly on the wall when they realized what the Supreme Court had just let drop. So we immediately filed a lawsuit against those. That’s one of the five that I mentioned. And in that group there were four local governments. We sued. We got two temporary restraining orders in the first, first couple of months after Bruin. They were from outright leftist judges, Democrat appointees, saying you know what? We don’t. This is what Bruen said, we’ve got to uphold it.

And they blocked the enforcement of those ordinances. Now those were about the, some of the only, they were the first and they were some of the only Bruin based victories on the assault weapons and issue we’ve ever gotten, or to my knowledge that anyone’s gotten. And that was because they came before the left had a chance to circle the wagons and say all right, how are we going to get around this? Right. And having had that conversation then they have kind of a grab bag of illogical, bad legal reasoning workarounds that they use. And it’s kind of funny, we go into court to fight a gun ban.

It’s a straightforward case. This is completely inconsistent with the second Amendment and Bruin. And we never know which workaround they’re going to use in this case. Right. And it could be something completely out of left field. Usually is actually. So there are a number of cases, assault weapons ban cases queued up before the Supreme Court. There’s a pair of cases literally sitting on their desk right now, Snope, which challenges the Maryland assault weapons ban notion State Tactical challenging the Rhode island standard capacity magazine ban. So the whole second amendment litigation community has been holding their breath for weeks now, myself included.

Will they take it this time? It’s everything that they have indicated they want a case challenging this to be. Clarence Thomas has indicated they need to, they need to weigh in on this all happens ban issue. And this is the right vehicle for it. And I am very hopeful, I’m still hopeful sometime in the next few weeks that they’re going to take those cases and settle the issue once and for all. Yeah, I’m right there with you. The next, I don’t have my calendar open but I think the next time they actually have a conference is the third week in February.

So we’ll, we’ll get the, the orders if they’re going to be issued for conference again the week before that or five days before that. So soon, y’all, we’ll know soon. And the hope is that they take both, you know, both cases individually or even combine them, which is still going to be acceptable because you would think it’s still going to be the same outcome. So literally, the, the Second Amendment jurisprudence is, is teed up to have a major win here. Where else I, I know where you’re doing the other assault weapon bans, but the challenges. Could you just tell folks so that they know where y’all are are actually plugged in and fighting for people and then if you have a quick update on any of those yet, where some of them stand.

Right, Absolutely. So right now, the original lawsuit that we filed against the city of Superior of Colorado, that one, we finished the merits process and we are waiting for that ruling to come down at any time. Now, the judge in that case is very anti gun. She threw out our expert witness as they do. That’s one of the many tactics that they have in their grab bag. She argued this was bizarre. She argued that we didn’t have standing, but that wasn’t even an allegation by the other side. She just came up with that all by all herself.

You know, they weren’t challenging our standing. So she did give us the opportunity to beef up her standing. We, we’ve been waiting for that ruling for some time. She’s doesn’t seem to. She’s one to let the grass grow under her feet. So we may be waiting for some little time yet. But when that comes, then, you know, the question will be exactly what, what, what it looks like to keep fighting in light of the fact that Colorado is also about to pass an assault weapons ban, a statewide assault weapons ban. Now our, our state branch, Rocky Mountain Gun Owners is on the ground right now.

Twice in a row, last two years, they’ve killed the assault weapons ban bill when the other side had the numbers to pass it. We’re hoping this year we’ll make a trifecta, but if not, then we’ve got to talk about exactly the best legal strategy to continue challenging that here in Colorado. Is that a separate lawsuit. Is there a way to combine the two, you know, things like that. And how do we kind of keep fighting it up through the 10th Circuit? The 10th Circuit is certainly our only hope for a circuit split on it. Every other circuit is absolutely worse.

And we probably won’t get it from the 10th Circuit. They’re not that great either. So. But that’s our Colorado lawsuit. Illinois, we’re about to start in the spring. We’re about to start the merits. That one is interesting because that doesn’t just challenge the Illinois state. Why does all weapons ban that challenges an AR15 sale ban in the city of Naperville and that one was enacted before the statewide assault weapons ban was in place because they’ve had a pretty strong preemption law in place and that was the extent of what Naperville could do. So that one will be starting the marriage process at the district court in the spring, assuming the Supreme Court doesn’t decide to weigh in on the issue.

At which point we would put Paul hit pause on all of these lawsuits because there’s no point in proceeding while the Supreme Court mulls it over. We have a lawsuit challenging the Massachusetts assault weapons ban signed into law. Yeah. Signed into law by Republican Governor Mitt Romney. Well, let’s be clear. He’s not a governor, he’s not a Republican ever. No. Many people know I used to live in Massachusetts when we had Mitt Romney. He single handedly destroyed the second Amendment for everybody, doubled fees and made it difficult to get LTCs. It’s, he’s a clown. But yes, he is responsible for some of the restrictions we’re still fighting today in 2025.

And I wish more people, more conservatives understood that. Just because there’s an R after a politician’s name does not mean he understands freedom. It doesn’t mean he’s going to fight for the second Amendment. It doesn’t mean he’s not going to sell us down the river. So yeah, especially in Massachusetts. Especially in Massachusetts. But honestly in South Carolina too. Yeah, we have a huge Republican majority in that state and we are. It took us way too many years to pass constitutional care. It should not have. But you know, now the governor, I still think he only signed it because he wanted to win the election.

I think you’re right and sometimes that’s the way you have to get it. But it’s he didn’t want it’s the same thing with Florida. The only reason they got it is because old Ron wanted another four years and it worked. So my brother was a state lawmaker in the South Carolina House for about eight years and he was the constitutional carry bill champion and they were so angry at him for the way he fought for that bill that they threw him out of the Republican caucus. So that’s one of many more stories I could tell you for with how Republicans have fought gun rights even in a so called deep red state.

So the one thing that’s missing is always going to be the voters holding their politicians feet to the fire when they betray gun rights, regardless of what political party. So that’s our Massachusetts lawsuit, sir. Where does Massachusetts stand? Oh, right. So we had oral arguments in the fall over our preliminary injunction. We’d asked for a preliminary injunction to block the law now that we filed for that before, before we found out that the Supreme Court wasn’t going to be intervening in, you know, in preliminary injunction fights. Right. But that lawsuit just has just moved slowly. So we had our oral arguments.

We’re expecting. First Circuit is very, very anti gun, probably the most anti gun court in the country. I agree. There’s a reason everybody always asks like, how come they don’t, how come like all these groups don’t come to Massachusetts? And I have to tell them like, because it’s the, it’s the longest fight of all the circuits. It’s going to be the costliest fight in all the circuits and you’re going to lose every step of the way and you don’t know if the Supreme Court’s going to help you. It’s just, it’s the, a lot of people think the 9th is the worst, but the 1st is just insane.

I mean the 9th is bad, but this 1st Circuit is worse. Yeah. And it’s, it’s been slow. And we’ve, I think the, the district court judge during royal arguments, referred, said basically, well, according to you, your version of the second Amendment is a suicide pact. So obviously we lost that. And then we went up to the First Circuit and I will say oral arguments there went surprisingly well. We’re under no delusions that they’re going to rule against us. Right. And we don’t know when that ruling will come. When it does come, we’ll start the marriage process at the district court there.

Then we have almost in the exact same position, we have a lawsuit challenging Connecticut’s 2013 gun control or sorry, assault weapons ban law. Nagr. This was before I was with the group, but Nagr was in Connecticut fighting that law from, you know, mobilizing against it and then before they left the state said, you know what, we’re going to come back, we’re going to sue over it. Now it took us a little while to build up the legal operation so that we could do it, but it was one of the first lawsuits that we filed and we did and same situation, we asked for a preliminary injunction.

We lost. We appealed it to the Second Circuit, which is not much better than the first. Right. And we had oral arguments there like two weeks apart from our first Circuit court oral arguments. And that one I mentioned that although they’re anti gun, it went well at the first Circuit, we made up for it at the second Circuit. It was like going before a legal version of the View. That’s good. I tell you what, I felt like our attorney should get a purple Heart for that one. So again, we’re waiting for them to rule. We’ll start the marriage process there.

Our fifth process, I’m sorry, our fifth lawsuit is a challenge to Hawaii’s magazine van and assault pistol ban. They haven’t banned long guns, but they have banned AR&AK pistols as well as standard capacity magazines. That one actually is in an interesting position because that’s in the 9th Circuit and the 9th Circuit is currently sitting on rulings for challenging California’s assault weapons ban and magazine ban. And that’s a court of precedents for Hawaii. So. So our case is kind of on hold there until the, until the ninth Circuit rules on that. Now again with all of these, if the Supreme Court were to take Snope in Ocean State, all of these come to a screeching halt because there’s no point in going ahead and going through the process until we get the definitive precedent that’s going to speak directly to this issue for all the courts and then we have to enforce it once we get that.

So all, all of those will be jump started into high gear at that point. Awesome. Well, I thank you for going over all those because I know there are people who are, you know, I felt it, you know, before I got involved in this game, like how come nobody’s helping me here? And everybody always internalizes the individual fight, but they don’t realize that there are hundreds of lawsuits with the major groups that are fighting for, for, for everybody’s rights. And while they might not be fighting in Shrewsbury, Massachusetts, they are fighting everywhere. That’s going to affect us all in, you know, as long as things go the way we, we want them.

So, and that’s kind of, I appreciate you making that point because so we have limited resources. We’re still a very, very young legal foundation as they go. Lawsuits take a long time. We’ve most of these lawsuits, lawsuits we filed only two, two and a half years ago. We’ve been building the legal operation for the last four and a half years. That’s relatively young and we have to be careful and strategic with the fights that we take. So, and we tried to do that from day one. We want to take fights that will benefit every gun owner in the country.

So we, the Reason we filed so many Evans ban cases was because we wanted to get a circuit split. If there was an unchallenged assault weapons ban or magazine ban, some in a federal circuit, in a federal appellate circuit, we wanted to file it. Now there are several that were ongoing in some, so we looked at the remaining ones and we filed a lawsuit there. The idea was that after Bruin, we’ll win some, we’ll lose some, we’ll create a circuit split. And that’s one of the top indicator that the Supreme Court looks at when they’re evaluating whether or not to take the case.

And what we got was unanimity. We weren’t expecting them all to join in and define, which is actually even an even stronger argument for why the Supreme Court should weigh in. But I say that to say, you know, I wish we get a lot of requests to take lawsuits and we’re limited in how much we can do, but we are trying to take the battles that will benefit as many, many gun owners as possible and create as much Second Amendment nationwide precedent as possible. That’s, that’s. I couldn’t have said it better than, than you right there.

That’s perfect. And I think that’s a great way to, to ask people again, if you are not a member, join so that they can do more and donate to these groups so that they can do more. And I just told you, look, we, we’re only four years old. We don’t have coffers of money. We need help. So let’s help them. Let’s. Let’s give them some money so they can sue the face off the federal government. Hannah, thank you so much for your time. I don’t want to take. I know you’re, you’re busy. I don’t want to take too much of your time, and I don’t sure as hell don’t want to anger you so you don’t come back next month.

So thank you so much for your time. I really, really appreciate it. If there’s anything else you think the folks need to know about you or what you all do there, feel free. Like, first off, I just want to say thank you so much to you, Jared, for using your. Your channel and your platform to support the Second Amendment. Not just us, but all of the groups out there, because, you know, we’re all fighting gun control in the courts. And like I said, there’s, there’s, there’s way too many gun control laws for all of us to sue against even now.

So we all need the help. And you’re one of the staunchest advocates for the Second Amendment out there and we appreciate that so much, much. I would, I, I would just echo what you said. You know, we do this for the members. We do this for the members and the supporters. We represent y’all. And y’all are the ones literally who pay our attorney’s bills. So the more members we have, you know, the more gun control laws we can sue against. And SC the sky is kind of the limit with that. So, yeah, visit us@gun rights.org I think you said there’s a link down below or you can chip in and donate to the legal fund.

And yeah, really appreciate the invitation to have us on. That’s it’s my honor and I look forward to doing this regularly and giving some victory speeches to the people when we start kicking the tail off the government here. As long as Pam Bondi does what she’s supposed to do. Again, thank you so much for your time, guys and gals. Let me know in the comments below what you think about this new series, Freedom Under Fire. This is the first time a representative for NAGR has been on and she’s going to be on regularly to tell you what they’re doing.

So if again, if you, if you like what we’re doing here, easy, subscribe to the channel. Hit the bell notification so that you don’t miss any of these and tell your friends about it. Tell every patriot you know about what’s going on and how they can learn about these groups here on Guns and Gadgets. Appreciate y’all have a phenomenal evening or day depending on when you’re watching this and I’ll see you on the next one. Take care.
[tr:tra].

See more of Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News on their Public Channel and the MPN Guns & Gadgets 2nd Amendment News channel.