Author: Chris M

September 5, 2024

YouTube’s recent announcement that channels posting links to gun and ammunition dealers will face bans has sparked significant controversy, with many critics arguing that the policy infringes upon First Amendment rights.

Despite YouTube’s status as a private company with its own terms of service, the policy has been criticized as an overreach that limits free expression and access to information.

The policy, outlined in a recent update, prohibits users from including links to websites that sell firearms or ammunition. YouTube justifies this move as part of its efforts to enhance community safety and comply with regulatory standards. However, this decision has raised concerns about its potential impact on constitutional freedoms, particularly the First Amendment.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and the press, which encompasses the right to share and access a broad spectrum of information. Critics argue that by banning channels for linking to gun and ammo dealers, YouTube is effectively censoring discussions related to firearms, a topic of considerable public interest and debate. This restriction, they argue, stifles open dialogue and limits the ability of individuals to freely share information.

While YouTube, as a private platform, is not legally bound by the First Amendment in the same way that government entities are, its policies still have substantial implications for free speech. The platform’s widespread influence means that its content moderation practices can significantly shape public discourse.

By imposing such restrictions, critics contend that YouTube is setting a troubling precedent for how digital platforms handle sensitive subjects and potentially undermining the spirit of free expression.

Moreover, this policy highlights a growing tension between digital platforms’ content control and users’ rights to freely share and access information.

As this debate unfolds, it underscores the broader conversation about the role of private companies in managing public discourse and the balance between platform policies and constitutional protections. While YouTube’s intent may be to promote safety and adhere to legal standards, the broader implications of such policies warrant careful consideration of their impact on free speech and access to information.

September 2, 2024

A recent poll has highlighted a strong and widespread public endorsement of the right to bear arms, reflecting enduring support for Second Amendment protections in the United States. According to the survey, a significant majority of Americans continue to advocate for the right to own and carry firearms, underscoring the deeply rooted nature of this constitutional right in American society.

The poll, conducted in August 2024, reveals that a substantial 78% of respondents support the right to bear arms, a figure that remains consistent with previous surveys. This broad approval crosses demographic and political lines, indicating a high level of agreement on the importance of firearm ownership rights.

Supporters of gun rights argue that this widespread endorsement is a testament to the Second Amendment’s role in ensuring personal security and upholding individual freedoms. They point out that the right to bear arms is not only a constitutional guarantee but also a fundamental aspect of American heritage and identity.

The poll also highlights a notable trend in public opinion regarding firearm regulations. While the majority supports the right to bear arms, there is also significant support for reasonable regulations aimed at enhancing public safety. About 65% of respondents believe that while the right to own guns should be protected, there should be sensible measures in place to prevent misuse and ensure responsible ownership.

This nuanced perspective reflects a balanced approach to gun rights, where individuals can support the Second Amendment while also endorsing measures designed to reduce gun violence and improve safety. This viewpoint suggests that while Americans are committed to preserving their right to bear arms, they also recognize the need for effective policies that address safety concerns without undermining fundamental rights.

The poll’s findings are expected to influence ongoing debates about gun control and legislation. As policymakers and advocacy groups consider these results, the emphasis will likely be on finding common ground that respects the right to bear arms while addressing public safety issues.

Overall, the poll underscores a strong and resilient support for the Second Amendment, illustrating that the right to bear arms remains a central and cherished aspect of American life. This broad endorsement serves as a reminder of the enduring significance of gun rights in shaping national conversations about freedom, safety, and regulation.

August 29, 2024

Weatherford, TX — Texas Gun Rights (TXGR) is proud to announce that Attorney General Ken Paxton’s recently filed lawsuit against the State Fair of Texas and the City of Dallas has been heavily influenced by a legal brief submitted by TXGR prior to its filing.

The lawsuit comes after the State Fair of Texas announced a blanket ban on all firearms at the fairgrounds, despite the property being publicly owned. This ban flies in the face of Texas law and the Constitution, infringing on the rights of law-abiding gun owners to protect themselves and their families.

Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt issued the following statement:

“We’re thrilled that Attorney General Paxton has taken our brief to heart in filing this lawsuit. The State Fair of Texas and the City of Dallas cannot be allowed to trample on the Second Amendment rights of Texans, especially on public, taxpayer-funded property. We fully support AG Paxton’s efforts and will continue to fight alongside him to ensure this ban is overturned.”

TXGR’s Outreach Director Kyle Rittenhouse also weighed in, condemning the ban and highlighting the importance of this legal challenge:

“This gun ban is not only unconstitutional – it’s downright dangerous. Disarming law-abiding citizens while criminals remain undeterred is a recipe for disaster, especially in Fair Park. We’re proud to see Attorney General Paxton stand up for the rights of Texans, and we’re confident this lawsuit will pave the way for the elimination of gun bans on public property throughout Texas.”

TXGR’s legal brief, submitted earlier this month, played a crucial role in shaping the arguments presented in AG Paxton’s lawsuit. The brief emphasized the illegality of the State Fair’s actions under Texas law and the unconstitutionality of restricting licensed gun owners from carrying firearms on public property.

As this case progresses, Texas Gun Rights remains committed to mobilizing its grassroots supporters and providing unwavering support to ensure that justice prevails and the rights of Texans are protected.

TXGR’s brief can be found here.

The AG’s lawsuit can be found here.

###

Texas Gun Rights (TXGR) is the largest “No Compromise” gun rights organization in Texas, dedicated to defending the Second Amendment rights of all Texans. Through grassroots activism, legislative advocacy, and legal action, TXGR fights to protect the right to keep and bear arms against any infringement.

July 10, 2024 

In a move that has ignited fierce backlash from Second Amendment supporters, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has once again released sensitive firearm trace data, flouting federal laws designed to keep such information confidential.

For the second time in under a year, the ATF has disregarded the Tiahrt Amendment, which explicitly prohibits the disclosure of firearm trace data outside of law enforcement engaged in legitimate investigations.

This time, the ATF handed over the data to The Trace, a media outlet affiliated with the gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety.

Six months earlier, the ATF released similar data to USA Today following a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, despite firearm trace data being exempt from FOIA.

The Trace had not contested a Ninth Circuit ruling that ordered the release of this protected data to Stop US Arms to Mexico, an Oakland-based nonprofit. This ruling came after the group’s founder, John Lindsay-Poland, requested data on U.S.-made firearms recovered at crime scenes in Mexico and Central America, detailed by the U.S. regions from which they were purchased.

Initially, the ATF denied this request, citing the Tiahrt Amendment. However, Lindsay-Poland sued, and the Ninth Circuit ruled in his favor.

Conversely, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that such data is protected and cannot be released, creating a split in circuit court decisions.

The ATF and the Department of Justice (DOJ) should have recognized this as an opportunity to escalate the issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Ninth Circuit has a history of having a significant number of its decisions overturned, suggesting a strong chance for a successful appeal. Instead, the ATF opted to release the data.

Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights, voiced his frustration: “This blatant disregard for the law shows that the ATF is more interested in appeasing gun control activists than upholding their legal responsibilities. They’re not protecting law-abiding gun owners; they’re targeting them.”

The ATF’s actions appear influenced by broader political pressures. Gun control groups like Everytown and Stop US Arms to Mexico are determined to dismantle the Tiahrt Amendment, viewing it as an obstacle to their agenda.

Meanwhile, Mexico is suing several U.S. firearm manufacturers for $10 billion, claiming these companies are responsible for the criminal misuse of firearms by Mexican drug cartels.

This lawsuit, supported by prominent gun control activists, seeks to hold American manufacturers accountable for the actions of criminals abroad.

Joe Biden has made no secret of his stance against the firearm industry. During his campaign, he declared gun manufacturers as “the enemy.” His administration has utilized every available lever to attack the industry, from legislative efforts to executive actions.

Vice President Kamala Harris, assigned to secure the southern border and spearhead the gun control agenda, has seen little progress on both fronts. The newly established White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention, staffed by former Everytown lobbyist Robert Wilcox, further underscores the administration’s commitment to this cause.

Attorney General Merrick Garland, known for his anti-gun rulings, and ATF Director Steven Dettelbach, who halted Operation Thor—a project aimed at disrupting firearm trafficking—are key figures in this contentious approach.

The ATF’s repeated release of trace data undermines ongoing investigations and further alienates themselves from gun owners and the gun industry.

Critics argue that these trace data leaks prove background checks do not work. Chris McNutt stated “All of the guns in the trace data were purchased by individuals who successfully passed a background check. So there is no reason to demonize the stores where these guns were initially sold” highlighting fundamental flaws in current gun control measures that unfairly target legitimate businesses.

Former ATF Acting Director Michael Sullivan emphasized the importance of safeguarding trace data, warning against its use as a political weapon. “If the Tiahrt Amendment were repealed, it could seriously undermine, if not eviscerate, the critically important investigations ATF special agents and local law enforcement are building to bring illegal firearm traffickers to justice,” Sullivan wrote.

The ATF’s decision to release this data twice within six months raises serious questions about the agency’s priorities and its commitment to upholding the laws designed to protect sensitive information.

For many in the gun rights community, these actions are seen as part of a broader strategy to erode Second Amendment protections and vilify law-abiding gun owners and retailers.

July 9, 2024

As we reported last week, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned the Chevron Deference doctrine, a move that promises significant implications for gun owners and the administrative state’s power.

The decision, handed down on June 28, 2024, marks a substantial shift in the judicial review of regulatory actions, particularly those undertaken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

By describing the 1984 Chevron decision as “fundamentally misguided” and a “byzantine set of preconditions and exceptions,” SCOTUS has now empowered judges to closely scrutinize and potentially overturn regulatory agency actions, significantly limiting their power to redefine their authority. This decision dismantles an important tool of the political bureaucracy—the appeal to “experts”—and returns judicial authority to the courts.

Chevron Deference, established by the 1984 case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., mandated that courts defer to federal agencies’ interpretations of ambiguous statutes, provided those interpretations were reasonable.

For decades, federal courts often sided with agencies, even when their decisions were questionable. This gave agencies leeway to interpret laws in ways that expanded their power, sometimes at the expense of constitutional rights.

For gun owners, Chevron was often translated into more restrictive regulations and a lack of judicial recourse. This doctrine effectively empowered agencies like the ATF to act as judge, jury, and executioner in regulatory matters.

Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights, explained the significance: “The Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron is a game-changer. It removes the undue deference that courts have historically given to agencies like the ATF. Now, federal courts will evaluate these cases independently, ensuring that no agency can bypass judicial scrutiny.”

This decision could not have come at a more critical time.

The ATF has been at the center of several contentious regulatory battles, including those over bump stocks, pistol braces, and redefinitions of what constitutes a firearm.

Under Chevron, the ATF’s expansive interpretations were often upheld by courts. Without Chevron, these regulations will face stricter scrutiny.

McNutt highlighted the immediate effect: “Ongoing and future litigation against the ATF now has a higher chance of success. For instance, in the bump stock ban case, courts will no longer feel compelled to side with the ATF just because of their perceived expertise. They will look at the facts and the law more objectively.”

One significant impact is on federal firearm licenses (FFLs). The ATF has been known to revoke these licenses for minor infractions, citing willful violations. Without Chevron Deference, there’s a stronger chance that courts will thoroughly examine whether such violations are truly willful or simply clerical errors, giving gun dealers a fairer chance in disputes.

Critics of Chevron have long argued that it undermined the separation of powers by allowing executive agencies to wield legislative and judicial authority.

The Supreme Court’s ruling realigns the balance of power, reaffirming the judiciary’s role in interpreting the law.

McNutt emphasized, “This decision is a monumental victory for gun owners. It ensures that regulatory agencies like the ATF cannot impose restrictive measures without thorough judicial review. This upholds the fundamental principle that no agency should have unchecked power over the rights of citizens.”

For gun owners, this decision is a monumental victory. It curtails the ATF’s ability to unilaterally impose restrictive regulations without thorough judicial review.

By ensuring that courts evaluate regulatory actions independently, the decision upholds the fundamental principle that no agency should have unchecked power over the rights of citizens.

In the broader context, the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Chevron Deference is a significant step toward reining in the administrative state and restoring constitutional checks and balances.

For the gun community, it marks a triumph in the ongoing battle to protect Second Amendment rights from overreach by federal agencies.

July 8, 2024 

One year after Governor Gavin Newsom of California proposed a constitutional amendment that would significantly water down and weaken the Second Amendment, his campaign has failed to gain traction beyond his home state. In fact, no other states have joined his call for a “28th Amendment.”

Newsom’s efforts to gather support have been promoted heavily across his social media channels over the past year, and primarily involve online petitions and volunteer training, aimed at building a grassroots movement.

However, legislative leaders in several Democratic-controlled states have indicated that the idea of a constitutional convention to adopt this amendment has not been discussed among their caucuses.

Nathan Click, Newsom’s spokesperson, acknowledged the difficulty of passing a constitutional amendment but emphasized their focus on grassroots mobilization.

“We’re under no illusions of how hard it is to pass a constitutional amendment, so that’s why we’ve focused on building this grassroots army to help these legislators,” Click said.

Despite these efforts, the campaign’s lack of progress raises questions about whether Newsom is genuinely committed to the amendment or using it as a political strategy to maintain national relevance.

California’s strict gun control laws have faced significant challenges in the courts, especially following the 2022 Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which overturned New York’s stringent concealed carry law and set a precedent for evaluating firearms regulations.

This ruling has led to numerous lawsuits against California’s gun laws, resulting in several of them being struck down or put under serious legal scrutiny.

In response, on June 8, 2023, Newsom announced his plan to circumvent these judicial setbacks by proposing a constitutional amendment.

His proposed amendment includes universal background checks, raising the federal minimum age for gun purchases to 21, implementing a mandatory waiting period, and banning the sale of assault weapons.

“Governor Newsom isn’t sitting idly by while right-wing judges dismantle our gun safety laws,” Click stated. “He’s taking aggressive actions — defending our state’s first-in-class gun safety laws from judicial attacks while simultaneously fighting to pass a constitutional amendment to enshrine gun safety nationwide.”

However, the path to a constitutional convention is fraught with obstacles. Two-thirds of state legislatures must agree to convene such a convention, and any proposed amendment would need ratification by three-fourths of the states. Given the current political climate, achieving this level of consensus appears highly unlikely.

Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights, criticized Newsom’s efforts, saying, “This push for a constitutional amendment is nothing more than a publicity stunt. Newsom knows he doesn’t have the support needed to pass this, but he’s using it to keep himself in the spotlight and rally his base — especially with the prospect of Biden being replaced as the Democratic nominee for President.”

Despite Newsom’s efforts, no other states have joined California in calling for a constitutional convention on gun control. Even in Democratic strongholds like New York, Illinois, and Michigan, the idea has not gained traction. Legislators in these states have not discussed the proposal, and there has been little to no outreach from Newsom’s team.

National gun control advocacy groups have also remained distant from Newsom’s campaign. Organizations such as Everytown for Gun Safety and Brady: United Against Gun Violence, while supportive of all of the policies pushed by Newsome, have not publicly supported the push for a constitutional convention, focusing instead on legislative efforts that seem more feasible.

Newsom continues to promote his plan through advertisements and social media, urging supporters to sign his petition.

Despite this, many see his campaign as more of a political maneuver than a serious legislative effort.

Critics argue that his focus on gun control is out of step with other Democratic priorities, especially in key battleground states where gun rights remain a deeply divisive issue.

June 25, 2025

U.S. Surgeon General Dr. Vivek Murthy has declared gun violence a “public health crisis” in a new advisory from the Office of the Surgeon General, urging the nation to collectively address the issue.

Texas Gun Rights has been warning Americans about the potential for the radical left to declare gun violence a public health crisis after federal, state and local governments abused their power in a declared public health crisis during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Chris McNutt, President of Texas Gun Rights, remarked, “This so-called public health crisis is just another way for the government to ram radical gun control down our throats. We’ve seen how they’ve exploited health crises before, and now they’re trying to do the same with our Second Amendment rights.”

Gun Violence Statistics and Misconceptions

The gun control debate is often fueled by alarming statistics that sow fear among the public.

Yet the Brady Campaign, a staunch advocate for radical gun control, claims that a whopping 60% of gun deaths are suicides — and only 37% are homicides, including the 1% of mass shootings.

The remaining 3% of gun deaths involve law enforcement, unintentional shootings, and undetermined causes.

Among the homicides, the majority are criminals killing other criminals, often gang related.

Despite these figures, the likelihood of an average person dying from gun violence is extremely low.

Yet the use of such statistics is frequently aimed at inciting fear to push a political agenda rather than presenting a balanced view of the role of firearms in society.

The Reality of Defensive Gun Use

While guns are often villainized in the media for every death they are involved in, the reality is that the overwhelming majority of gun uses in the United States are defensive.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), studies on defensive gun use indicate that Americans use their firearms defensively between 500,000 and 3 million times each year.

These instances often go unreported to law enforcement and are rarely picked up by local or national media outlets.

This extensive defensive use of firearms highlights the critical role that the Second Amendment plays in American society.

It demonstrates that the “good guy with a gun” is not a myth but an essential aspect of self-defense and public safety.

Surgeon General’s Push Call for Gun Control

But the Surgeon General’s advisory outlines what they refer to as the devastating impact of gun violence, noting that “over 48,000 people died from firearm-related injuries in 2022” — which accounted for less than 1% of U.S. deaths in 2022.

For perspective, the three leading causes of death in 2022 were heart disease (699,659 deaths), cancer (607,790), and unintentional injury (218,064).

COVID-19, listed as the underlying cause for 186,702 deaths during 2022, ranked as the fourth leading underlying cause of death.

The Surgeon General’s advisory calls for more research, better data collection, and the implementation of “public health strategies to reduce gun violence,” which, of course, includes radical gun control laws in the form of mandatory storage requirements, an assault weapons ban, universal gun registration and even “red flag” gun confiscation.

Dr. Murthy argues that this “public health approach” can somehow significantly reduce gun violence, drawing parallels to successful efforts in reducing tobacco-related diseases and motor vehicle crashes.