What’s happening in Minneapolis is not random chaos. It’s a choreographed effort by the Left.

The media wants Americans to believe the unrest surrounding ICE and CBP operations is spontaneous outrage — a city reacting emotionally to unjustified immigration enforcement actions. That story collapses the moment you look at the evidence.

This so-called “protest” is an organized pressure campaign — manufactured to escalate and exploit.

Investigative reporting from journalists like James O’Keefe, Cam Higby, and Andy Ngo has exposed what the cameras consistently miss: encrypted Signal chats coordinating movements, spotters tracking federal officers in real time, logistics hubs embedded in hotels, and rapid-response agitators deployed across the city and surrounding suburbs.

There are also allegations that high-profile elected officials and activist networks were involved in the organizing efforts.

Unverified reports suggest Alex Pretti may have been active in Signal chats tied to that effort.

Shocking new video released of Pretti — 11 days before he was killed — shows him attacking a vehicle with federal agents, and spitting on them when confronted in the middle of the street.

Agents left him alone after the mob began to descend upon them.

That footage contradicts the “peaceful protester” narrative and raises serious questions about what was really happening on the ground.

That kind of behavior ends one way: escalation.

But the organized infrastructure of “community resistance” that Pretti was a part of exists for one purpose: escalation.

Tony Seruga’s analysis helps explain how that escalation works.

So-called “protesters” in Minneapolis have been using constant, unpredictable noise — whistles, air horns, sudden shouts — to induce stress, fatigue, and hyper-vigilance.

It’s a documented physiological tactic that degrades judgment and increases the likelihood of confrontation.

In this instance, it is designed to exhaust law enforcement, provoke mistakes, and then weaponize the outcome.

When violence occurs, the narrative machine activates. The facts blur. The blame shifts. And the organizers disappear into the background while someone else — often a bystander — pays the price.

In Pretti’s case, he paid the ultimate price. He may not have expected to die — but escalation is exactly what these tactics are built to produce.

Whether one believes Pretti’s shooting was justified or unjustified is beside the point. What matters is the context: a deliberately engineered atmosphere meant to generate conflict and confusion, followed by instant narrative exploitation.

That same confusion is now being weaponized against conservatives.

Republicans are being baited into unforced errors — statements that contradict the Second Amendment and fracture their own base.

Let’s be clear: the Alex Pretti situation is not a gun debate — and Republicans shouldn’t treat it like one.

We wrote a separate article about that here.

And while the streets of Minneapolis burn as part of the orchestrated destabilization efforts,  voters have also become distracted from recent Democrat blunders plaguing Minnesota and the rest of the country such as:

• Years of open-border policies that created a massive enforcement backlog
• Billions in fraud under the highest levels of progressive “leadership” in Minnesota
• A political machine that imports voters while exporting accountability

ICE and CBP didn’t create this mess.

They inherited it.

The manufactured outrage we’re seeing playing out has long been a political tool of the Left.

Disorder drives headlines.

Headlines drive elections.

And elections drive power.

If this unrest carries into the midterms, Democrats don’t need to defend their record on the border, on crime, or on corruption.

They just need chaos loud enough to drown it out.

And any miscues from Republicans on important issues — like the Second Amendment — will leave their base feeling jaded.

Then, a flipped Congress becomes the justification. A “mandate” becomes the excuse.

Their policy goals are no secret: nuke the Senate filibuster, ram through anti-gun legislation, pack the Supreme Court, and erase constitutional roadblocks.

That’s why every concession on the Second Amendment, every hedged statement, every attempt to sound “reasonable” in the middle of disorder helps set the table for their next phase.

This isn’t about one city or one incident. It’s about power, and how chaos is used to seize it.

Americans don’t need to choose sides in a street fight. They need to recognize what’s being done to them.

Because if we keep pretending this is organic outrage instead of organized destabilization, we will keep getting the same result: more chaos, more confusion, and more Americans paying the price.

A new federal funding bill moving through Congress would keep the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) funded at roughly $1.585 billion for FY2026, barely below what it received under Biden.

For context, the ATF’s budget was about $1.618 billion in 2025, meaning the agency is basically being rewarded with the same cash pipeline it used to target law-abiding Americans with Biden-era crackdowns and “rulemaking” schemes.

And here’s the part that should infuriate every gun owner in the country.

House Republicans originally floated funding cuts that would have dropped ATF spending closer to $1.2 billion.

That kind of cut would have forced real consequences. It would have meant fewer agents, fewer raids, fewer “gotcha” prosecutions, and less capacity to treat ordinary gun owners like criminals for paperwork errors and technicalities.

Of course, Texas Gun Rights wants nothing short of abolition, but once the D.C. machine did what it always does, all backbone vanished.

The “cuts” got negotiated away. The pressure got released. The ATF kept its money.

So now, the same agency that spent years acting like Biden’s personal enforcement arm gets funded at near record levels, with few meaningful restrictions on how it can use that money.

In other words, the ATF gets to keep playing politics with a badge.

This Is How “Gun Control” Actually Wins

Anti-Gun policies don’t always come through flashy gun bans in congress.

Sometimes it comes through bureaucracy, budgets, and the quiet surrender of weak-kneed Republicans who talk tough on camera and fold the moment it matters.

You do not need a new gun ban bill when you can fund a weaponized agency to regulate, harass, intimidate, and prosecute gun owners into submission.

That is what this is.

It is the administrative state doing the dirty work that lawmakers pretend they never authorized.

Pro-Gun Lawmakers Are Furious, and They Should Be

Rep. Andrew Clyde and others have been vocal about how pro-gun policy riders and real restrictions were stripped out during negotiations.

Pro-gun groups like Texas Gun Rights, National Association for Gun Rights, and Gun Owners of America are calling this exactly what it is: a betrayal.

And they are right.

Because if Congress will not defund the ATF while it is still operating under the same enforcement culture that attacked gun owners for years, then when exactly are we supposed to believe “change” is coming?

After the next raid? After the next rule? After the next prosecution? After the next tragedy used as an excuse for more power?

This funding bill tells you everything you need to know about Washington.

The ATF has not earned trust. It has earned oversight, restrictions, and budget cuts. Instead, Congress is preparing to keep the money flowing like nothing ever happened.

Gun owners are not paranoid. They are paying attention. And if Republicans cannot even cut funding to a rogue agency that has openly treated the Second Amendment like a loophole, then it is time to stop pretending we are being represented.

That is surrender and it is NOT what Americans voted for when they gave Republicans a trifecta of control in D.C.

Will you help us continue holding squishy Republicans accountable to their pro-gun campaign promises?

In the wake of multiple violent encounters involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in Minneapolis, critics who just a few years ago led the charge to defund the police, called January 6 an “insurrection” (when it was a riot at worst), condemned lawful self-defense by citizens like Kyle Rittenhouse, and pushed every new gun restriction they could get their hands on are now openly inciting hostility toward federal agents as if there is a fascist takeover underway.

Talk about political whiplash.

Violence in Minneapolis Has Escalated

The city has already been on edge after an ICE-involved shooting that sparked protests, outrage, and nonstop media pressure.

Federal officials defended the agent’s actions, while local & national Democratic figures used the moment to inflame tensions even further.

Then came another incident that should have ended any illusions about what this has become.

According to federal officials, three illegal aliens from Venezuela were arrested after allegedly beating an ICE agent with a shovel and broom handle during an enforcement operation.

The agent reportedly fired a defensive shot, injuring one suspect, and the attackers were taken into custody.

Yet another “peaceful protest” is another violent attack on a federal officer.

Some Protesters Are Now Calling for Armed Confrontation

As the protests intensify, rhetoric outside an ICE facility in Minneapolis has reportedly crossed a dangerous line.

One protester was quoted saying people should show up armed and “end this,” declaring the “time for peace” was over and insisting the ballot box was not enough.

And it is especially revealing coming from the same political culture that treats law-abiding gun owners like a threat for simply exercising a constitutional right.

Politicians Are Pouring Gasoline on the Fire

Instead of urging calm, some Minnesota politicians appear to be fueling the unrest.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told ICE to “get the f— out of Minneapolis,” as if federal law enforcement answers to city hall.

Gov. Tim Walz has leaned into the conflict as well, floating talk of the National Guard and using the unrest to posture against the Trump Administration rather than focusing on the danger of mobs targeting officers.

And Rep. Ilhan Omar has spent years demonizing immigration enforcement, helping cultivate the anti-law and anti-border sentiment now boiling over in the streets.

The Left’s Double Standard Is the Real Story

This moment exposes the left’s selective outrage in plain sight.

They spent years calling both police and conservatives “racist” and “corrupt.”

They celebrate when mobs attack law enforcement.

They spent years pushing gun bans and restrictions on peaceful Americans. Now they suddenly flirt with armed confrontation and pretend they are defenders of liberty.

They called January 6 the end of democracy. Yet now they excuse threats and violence aimed at federal officers enforcing immigration law.

Talk about blatant hypocrisy.

Stoking the Flames for a Radical Agenda

This is not about compassion. It is not about “human rights.” It is not even just about immigration policy anymore.

It is about an ideology that cannot survive without chaos. Now it is encouraging confrontation with federal agents doing the job they were tasked to do.

Americans should see this clearly.

When radicals say they want to defund the police, they mean it. When they push gun bans, they mean it. When they incite violence, they will pretend they were the victims the whole time.

Minneapolis is the proof. Will you help Texas gun rights take on this threat head on by chipping in below?

Across the globe, the struggle between citizens and authoritarian governments is playing out in real time — and Americans would be foolish to treat it like a distant foreign drama.

In Iran, widespread protests have surged across major cities as citizens openly challenge a regime that has ruled through fear, censorship, and brute force.

Reports indicate dozens have been killed in recent days, thousands arrested, and security forces have responded with gunfire and mass crackdowns.

Videos circulating online show crowds chanting “Death to the dictator,” underscoring the intensity of the uprising and the desperation of a population that has had enough.

And in Venezuela, a country once among the wealthiest in Latin America, years of authoritarian consolidation and political repression have shown how quickly a society can collapse when the government becomes unaccountable to the people. Economic devastation, state violence, and political persecution became routine as those in power tightened their grip and crushed dissent.

In both cases, the pattern is unmistakable: when the government has a monopoly on force and citizens are left disarmed and helpless, reclaiming freedom becomes brutally expensive.

The Real Lesson Americans Should Learn

The most sobering truth about tyranny is that it rarely arrives overnight. It comes in stages, and the first stage is almost always the same:

Disarm the people.

Once the population is politically powerless and physically defenseless, resistance becomes nearly impossible. At that point, citizens aren’t negotiating with their government, they’re pleading with it.

That’s exactly why Texas Gun Rights has warned for years that the Second Amendment is not simply about sport, hunting, or tradition. It is about whether ordinary people retain the ability to protect themselves and preserve liberty when government power becomes abusive or lawless.

Freedom Is Easy to Lose and Painful to Regain

Iran’s protesters don’t have a Second Amendment.

They don’t have a codified right to keep and bear arms.

When the state decides to crack down, there is no meaningful deterrent, only the threat of prison, beatings, or death.

And history is clear: when a government is willing to shoot its own people in the streets, it is not a government that fears elections. It is a government that fears resistance.

In Venezuela, the same reality has played out in a different form, where the state, the courts, the media, and enforcement mechanisms were steadily captured and weaponized against political opponents.

Once that power was centralized, the people were left with few options beyond fleeing, suffering, or submitting.

This is the cost Americans must understand:

When you surrender your freedom, you don’t get it back by filing a complaint: you get it back through hardship, and often through blood.

No Compromise Means No Retreat

That is why Texas Gun Rights’ message matters now more than ever:

We must never give a millimeter on the Second Amendment.

Not for “Red Flag” gun confiscation laws. Not for registration schemes. Not for bans dressed up as “reasonable restrictions.”

Not for taxes, permits, waiting periods, or backdoor enforcement traps.

Because every “compromise” becomes the foundation for the next restriction — and the next — until the right becomes a privilege, and the privilege becomes permission.

Iran and Venezuela are not just cautionary tales. They are reminders that governments do not hesitate to seize power when citizens lack the means to stop them.

Americans should not have to learn that lesson the hard way.

Freedom is priceless.

And once you let government take it, the cost to reclaim it is far higher than most people can imagine.

That is why the Second Amendment must remain exactly what it was meant to be: a line in the sand.

Don’t see your candidate? Tell them to fill out their TXGR Candidate Survey RIGHT AWAY! Print/Download candidate survey here. Not sure who you’re elected officials are? Look them up.

Will you help Texas Gun Rights identify MORE pro-gun candidates and EXPOSE those who would undermine your rights protected by the Second Amendment right?

Text version:

The candidates listed below have pledged to fight for your gun rights without compromise by returning a PRO-GUN Texas Gun Rights Candidate Survey and/or are TXGR PAC endorsed(*).

U.S. Senate
Ken Paxton*
Wesley Hunt
Alexander Duncan

U.S. Congress
Steve Toth – CD 2*
Brian Stahl – CD 6
Jessica Steinmann – CD 8*
Scott MacLeod – CD 10
Briscoe Cain – CD 9*
Zeke Enriquez – CD 21*
Mark Texiera – CD 21
Trey Trainor – CD 21
Jason Cahill – CD 21
Paul Rojas – CD 21
Daniel Betts – CD 21
Julie Dahlberg – CD 21
Brandon Herrera – CD 23*
Keith Barton – CD 23
Brandon Gill – CD 26 *
Nills Walker – CD 30
David Berry – CD 31
Abhiram Garapati – CD 31
Jace Yarbrough – CD 32*
Aimee Carrasco – CD 32
Ryan Binkley – CD 32
Kurt Schwab – CD 33
Fred Hinojosa – CD 34
Jay Furman – CD 35*
Josh Cortez – CD 35

Lieutenant Governor
Dan Patrick*
Timothy Mabry

Comptroller
Don Huffines*

Railroad Commissioner
Bo French*

Agriculture Commissioner
Nate Sheets*

Land Commissioner
Dawn Buckingham*

Attorney General
Aaron Reitz*
Chip Roy*
Mayes Middleton*
Joan Huffman

Texas Senate
Bob Hall – SD 2*
Trent Ashby – SD 3
Rhonda Ward – SD 3
Brett Ligon – SD 4
Leigh Wambsganss – SD 9*
Julie Dahlberg – SD 21
David Cook – SD 22*
Jon Gimble – SD 22

Texas House
Chris Spencer – HD 1
Brent Money – HD 2*
Kristen Plaisance – HD 3
Cole Hefner – HD 5*
Melissa Beckett – HD 7
Brian Harrison – HD 10*
John Bouche – HD 16
Kat Wall – HD 13
AJ Louderback – HD 30*
Katrina Pierson – HD 33*
Teresa Hernandez – HD 42
Alan Schoolcraft – HD 44*
Wes Virdell – HD 53*
Hillary Hickland – HD 55*
Ralph Patterson – HD 56
Richard Hayes – HD 57*
Helen Kerwin – HD 58*
Mike Olcott – HD 60*
Keresa Richardson – HD 61*
Shelley Luther – HD 62*
Andy Hopper – HD 64*
Mitch Little – HD 65*
George Flint – HD 70*
Liz Case – HD 71*
Carrie Isaac – HD 73*
Humberto Perez – HD 77
Don McLoughlin Jr – HD 80*
Dennis “Goose” Geesaman – HD 85*
Jamie Haynes – HD 86*
Holly Jeffreys – HD 86
John Browning – HD 88
Jeff Forester – HD 89
David Lowe – HD 91*
Alan Blaylock – HD 93*
Cheryl Bean – HD 94*
Mike Ingraham – HD 94
Brad Horton – HD 96*
Armin Mizani – HD 98*
Larry Brock – HD 106
Marc LaHood – HD 121*
Mark Dorazio – HD 122*
Stan Stanart – HD 126*
Polly Looper – HD 126
Tom Butler – HD 128*
Scott Bowen – HD 129*
Theodore Schramm – HD 136

Other Offices:

Comal County
Naomi Narvaiz – Justice of the Peace, Precinct 3

Denton County
David Wylie – County Commissioner pct 4*

Dallas County
Lt. Col. Allen West – GOP Chair*

Kaufman County
Rob Farquharson – Court at Law No 2

Kerr County
Randy Murphy – County Commissioner Pct 4*

Potter County
Zach Harvey – Justice of the Peace, Pct 3

Parker County
Brady Gray – GOP Chair*
Holly Hazlett – Precinct Chair 220*
Chris McNutt – Precinct Chair 230*
Laura Heffelfinger – Precinct Chair 420*
Amanda Garner – Precinct Char 440*

Smith County
Austin Luce – Commissioner Pct 2

Tarrant County
Tim O’Hare – County Judge
Tony Tinderholt – County Commissioner Pct 2*
Rashelle Fetty – 231st District Court Judge
Andy Hsu – 324th District Court Judge*
Ricky Rodriguez – Justice of the Peace, Pct 1

Williamson County
Michelle Evans – GOP Chair*

Will you help Texas Gun Rights identify MORE pro-gun candidates and EXPOSE those who would undermine your rights protected by the Second Amendment right?

The runoff pits Leigh Wambsganss (R)—an outspoken advocate for gun rights who has pledged no-compromise support for the Second Amendment—against Taylor Rehmet (D), a candidate whose public statements and allies place him squarely in the camp of gun confiscation policies and national anti-gun groups.

A Stark Contrast on Guns

Wambsganss has made her position clear: Texans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and she has pledged to defend that right without compromise.

Her campaign has earned endorsements from Texas Gun Rights PAC, National Association for Gun Rights PAC, Gun Owners of America (GOA), and the National Rifle Association (NRA)—a rare alignment that underscores the breadth of pro-gun support behind her candidacy.

Rehmet, by contrast, has drawn criticism from gun rights activists for backing policies such as “Red Flag” gun confiscation laws and mandated gun owner insurance, positions he has discussed publicly while attempting to brand himself as a “moderate.”

He has also received backing from radical national gun-confiscation groups, including Everytown, which has openly organized campaign events on his behalf.

Low Turnout, High Stakes

While Senate District 9 is considered a solidly red district, the dynamics of a runoff for a special election change everything.

Turnout is historically low, and motivated activist bases—especially those backed by national money—can have an outsized impact.

Gun rights leaders say complacency is the biggest threat.

“People hear ‘safe Republican district’ and think the fight is over,” said Chris McNutt, president of Texas Gun Rights. “That’s how anti-gun Democrats sneak into office. When turnout collapses, the gun-confiscation lobby shows up. If gun owners don’t, it’s game over. This race is also a warning shot for what we may expect to see in the March Primary. Who has the most motivated base right now?”

With the Texas Legislature set to consider major policy fights in the coming session, even a single Senate seat can tip the balance on key votes.

And with early voting starting January 20 and Election Day on January 31, gun rights groups are urging pro-gun Texans to take nothing for granted—and to turn out in force.

Will you help us expose Taylor Rehmet to constituents in North Texas by chipping in below?

The case, Havens v. City of Colorado City, was filed by Texas Gun Rights Foundation attorney C.J. Grisham and supported by the Texas Gun Rights Foundation (TXGRF) on behalf of plaintiff Jason Havens, a licensed handgun carrier who sought to attend city council meetings while lawfully armed

The Dispute

According to the complaint, Colorado City posted signage prohibiting firearms throughout its entire civic center, not merely the specific room where a city council meeting was being held.

Havens repeatedly informed city officials that Texas law limits firearm prohibitions during open meetings to the room or rooms where the meeting occurs and provides exceptions for licensed carriers.

Despite those warnings, Havens alleged he was ordered to leave, physically removed by the police chief, and later threatened with arrest unless he disarmed.

After Havens filed complaints, the Texas Attorney General’s Office notified him that the city removed the signage and committed to complying with state law

Havens sued the city and individual officials under federal civil-rights law, asserting violations of the Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment, among other claims. The city moved to dismiss.

The Ruling

U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Most notably, the court held that Havens plausibly alleged a Second Amendment violation by the City, allowing that claim to proceed under Monell municipal-liability principles.

The judge explained that while certain locations may qualify as “sensitive places,” the city’s blanket prohibition across an entire multi-use government building may regulate firearms beyond what historical tradition permits, particularly where the ban extends beyond the meeting room itself.

The court also found Havens plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim based on his physical removal.

However, the judge dismissed claims against the individual officials on qualified-immunity grounds and dismissed several other claims, including First and Ninth Amendment theories and a civil-conspiracy claim.

Despite dismissing the individual claims on qualified immunity, the court found that those same individual officers had violated Mr. Havens’ Second and Fourth Amendment rights, but were granted qualified immunity due to the lack of clearly established case law on the issue.

The Second and Fourth Amendment claims against the City remain the case’s core moving forward

Help TXGRF Continue the Fight

The decision underscores a growing post-Bruen scrutiny of broad government gun bans.

While legislatures and municipalities may restrict firearms in narrowly defined “sensitive places,” the court signaled that cities cannot simply declare entire government buildings gun-free without historical support.

As the case proceeds, the ruling places Colorado City’s former policy squarely before the court and adds to the developing body of law clarifying where and how governments may regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

The shooting occurred during an immigration enforcement encounter in which a federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent fatally shot a woman after officers said her vehicle posed an immediate threat.

Activists and several media outlets quickly condemned the shooting as unjustified, while federal officials rejected that characterization and defended the agent’s actions.

President Donald Trump, Vice President J.D. Vance, and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have each publicly reaffirmed their support for ICE and the agent involved, warning that federal officers will not be abandoned while enforcing the law amid increasingly hostile conditions.

Alternate Video Challenges Early Portrayals

Independent journalist Nick Sortor shared video from an alternate angle of the incident that appears to show the woman’s vehicle making contact with the ICE agent before shots were fired.

If verified by investigators, the footage would complicate early portrayals by Leftwing media suggesting the shooting occurred without provocation.

Law-enforcement training and longstanding use-of-force standards recognize a moving vehicle as a potential deadly weapon when used against an officer at close range.

Federal authorities have said the shooting remains under review but continue to maintain that the agent acted in response to an imminent threat.

Protests Escalate, Order Frays

As news of the shooting spread, protests intensified and portions of Minneapolis again descended into chaos marked by aggressive crowds, property damage, and hostility toward police and journalists.

Sortor, who was reporting from the scene, said he was chased by protesters and received explicit threats while attempting to leave the area. He claims multiple calls to 911 resulted in delays or no immediate police response, forcing his private security team to extract him from the city, and released audio of him being hung up on by dispatchers.

Minneapolis police have not yet released dispatch audio or response logs related to those claims.

The allegations have renewed criticism that city leadership has struggled to maintain public order during periods of unrest — a charge that has followed Minneapolis officials since 2020.

Trump, Vance, and Noem Double Down

Despite mounting pressure from activists and media critics, the Trump administration has shown no sign of retreat.

Secretary Noem said ICE agents are being “targeted and surrounded” while enforcing federal law and vowed that the department would not sacrifice officers to appease violent mobs.

Vice President Vance echoed the message, warning that surrendering enforcement authority to protesters would invite further lawlessness.

Rittenhouse Social Media Firestorm

The unrest also sparked a social-media controversy involving Kyle Rittenhouse, whose name trended after users began sarcastically calling for him to be “deployed” to Minneapolis.

Rittenhouse responded online with what appeared to be deliberate trolling, posing a rhetorical question about traveling to Minnesota — a comment that quickly went viral and was treated by some left-wing outlets as a serious threat.

Publications including Raw Story and the Daily Mail reacted with outrage, with Raw Story labeling Rittenhouse “sociopathic,” despite no indication he intended to appear at the protests.

Rittenhouse later mocked the coverage, accusing the media of fabricating narratives and exploiting his name for clicks. He followed up with posts blaming the unrest on years of unchecked illegal immigration and stalled deportations under the Biden administration.

Rittenhouse recently announced his return to Texas and renewed involvement with Texas Gun Rights, saying recent political violence and ongoing unrest motivated him to more actively use his platform against what he describes as left-wing intimidation and attacks on civil liberties.

A Familiar Pattern Returns

For many Americans, the scenes in Minneapolis feel all too familiar: a disputed law-enforcement shooting, selective video dissemination, rapid national outrage, and street violence framed as protest.

The difference this time, administration officials say, is that the federal government is not backing down.

As Minneapolis again struggles to contain unrest, the Trump administration has made clear that ICE agents will not be left to face hostile crowds alone — and that the failures of 2020 will not be repeated without resistance.

Pam Bondi’s Department of Injustice (DOJ) just detonated a political and constitutional bombshell.

In a stunning 48-page summary-judgment brief filed in SilencerShop Foundation v. ATF, DOJ is openly asking a federal judge to resurrect the National Firearms Act, preserve the federal gun registry, and declare that suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs are not protected by the Second Amendment.

And they want it done with no trial, no discovery, and no further evidence.

Bondi’s DOJ claims:

• A $0 tax is still a “valid tax”
• The NFA’s registry survives even though Congress eliminated the tax
• The Commerce Clause gives DOJ sweeping power to regulate firearms
• The Necessary & Proper Clause authorizes federal gun registration
• SBRs, SBSs, silencers, and AOWs are “dangerous and unusual” and thus NOT protected by the Second Amendment
• The court should immediately grant judgment for DOJ

And it gets worse.

And if you want Texas Gun Rights to keep mobilizing gun owners to confront every threat to the Second Amendment — no matter who is in charge — then please chip in below to help us turn up the heat.