Latest News

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.

July 3, 2024

The Supreme Court declined to review National Association for Gun Rights v. Naperville, allowing the case to move forward in the lower courts. The U.S. District Court previously denied a preliminary injunction to block a law affecting gun owners, a decision upheld by the 7th Circuit. This ruling, which controversially stated that AR-15s are not protected by the Second Amendment, stands despite strong opposition from Justice Clarence Thomas.

Thomas criticized the 7th Circuit’s decision as “nonsensical,” arguing that AR-15s, as widely owned semi automatic rifles, are indeed “Arms” under the Second Amendment. He emphasized the importance of the Supreme Court reviewing this decision if it returns in a final judgment posture.

Hannah Hill, Executive Director for the National Foundation for Gun Rights, expressed frustration, stating, “Today’s decision tells the lower courts they’re more than welcome to trample Bruen to their hearts’ content – at least for the time being. For now, the Second Amendment IS a second-class right until the Supreme Court decides to stop ducking the issue.”

Dudley Brown, President of the National Association for Gun Rights, echoed this sentiment, pointing out that the Supreme Court’s inaction effectively delays justice for gun owners. “Justice Thomas just told the nation that the 7th Circuit got it wrong when it ruled that AR-15s – the most commonly owned rifle in America – is not a gun at all under the Second Amendment. They better get used to hearing from us because we will keep bringing ‘assault weapons’ ban cases until they get it right.”

The Supreme Court’s reluctance to address this critical issue leaves many Second Amendment advocates concerned about the future of gun rights in America. As the legal battle continues, organizations like the National Association for Gun Rights remain dedicated to challenging laws that infringe upon constitutional freedoms. This ongoing struggle underscores the importance of vigilance and persistent advocacy in defending the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment.

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.

June 21, 2024

In a blow to Texas’s bid for firearm independence, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit challenging federal regulations on suppressors made and kept within the state.

This decision confirms that even suppressors manufactured entirely within Texas must comply with federal law, rendering them illegal under the National Firearm Act (NFA).

The lawsuit, driven by several Texas residents and the Texas Office of the Attorney General (OAG), sought to challenge federal oversight on suppressors through the Texas Suppressor Freedom Act (House Bill 957).

This 2021 law, championed by state Rep. Tom Oliverson (R-Cypress), posited that suppressors made and kept in Texas should not be subject to federal regulation.

Under the act, Texas residents could request the OAG to obtain a federal court order to prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing federal suppressor regulations within the state.

Federal Judge Mark Pittman originally dismissed the lawsuit, citing lack of standing. Plaintiffs appealed, but the 5th Circuit panel, composed of Judges Edith Brown Clement, Jennifer Walker Elrod, and James C. Ho, affirmed the dismissal.

The 5th Circuit’s 14-page opinion emphasized that the plaintiffs did not demonstrate a concrete plan to violate federal law.

The court noted that while the plaintiffs expressed intent to manufacture suppressors, they did not specify that they would bypass federal requirements, such as registering the suppressors, paying a $200 excise tax, and applying for federal approval. The court underscored that manufacturing a suppressor is not illegal if these procedures are followed.

Chief Judge Edith Brown Clement, writing for the panel, stated, “The declarations do not state any intention to engage in conduct proscribed by law. The plaintiffs must show an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.”

Texas Gun Rights expressed disappointment but remained defiant. President Chris McNutt criticized the ruling, asserting, “This decision is another example of federal overreach infringing on states’ rights and individual freedoms. Using a suppressed firearm is considered polite in other parts of the world, yet here in America they are regulated like a machine gun.  It makes no sense. Texans should have the right to manufacture and possess suppressors without federal interference.”

For now, this ruling reaffirms the ATF’s authority to regulate suppressors, even those made and kept within a single state. The court’s decision also highlights the stringent requirements individuals must meet under the NFA, which categorizes suppressors as firearms, subjecting them to extensive regulations.

Texas argued that the federal suppressor regulations hinder residents’ ability to protect their hearing, a health and well-being issue. However, the court found this argument insufficient, stating that Texas’s interest was derivative of its citizens’ individual Second Amendment claims and did not constitute a valid quasi-sovereign interest.

Attorney Tony McDonald, representing the Texas residents, indicated plans to refine the lawsuit and refile with more specific allegations to better establish standing. McDonald stated, “We will go back to the trial court, re-tool our declarations and allegations, re-file the case, and ask the court to take up the rest of the summary judgment questions again.”

June 25, 2024,

Joe Biden launched a new 30-second advertisement emphasizing his commitment to gun control, just days after his son, Hunter Biden, was convicted on felony gun charges.

Biden’s move also follows the Supreme Court’s decision to roll back a national ban on bump stocks.

The Supreme Court recently ruled 6-3 that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) overstepped its authority by classifying bump stocks as illegal machine guns.

This decision overturns the ban implemented during Donald Trump’s presidency, which was a response to the 2017 Las Vegas massacre where a deranged killer allegedly used a bump against to kill people for the first time in recorded history.

In the newly released ad, Biden accuses former President Trump of being influenced by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and failing to take meaningful action on gun control.

“When Trump was president—children gunned down in classrooms, innocent people killed in church, and massacred at a concert. Still, Trump did nothing,” Biden asserts. “He sided with the NRA, but I sided with you. I’ve expanded background checks, created an office of gun violence prevention, and now murder rates are down.”

Biden concludes the ad with a direct message to viewers: “You and your family deserve to be safe and I’m going to fight like hell to see to it that you are.”

In response to the Supreme Court ruling, Biden urged Congress to take further action, stating, “Congress must ban bump stocks, pass an assault weapon ban, and take additional action to save lives. Send a bill to my desk. I will sign it immediately.”

Of course, Biden’s “assault weapon” ban is far more expansive than AR-15 rifles; the GOSAFE Act being pushed by Biden’s Democrats in D.C. serves as a de facto ban on most semi-automatic firearms, including most commonly owned rifles, shotguns and pistols.

The timing of Biden’s ad is notable, coming just days after a federal jury in Delaware convicted his son, Hunter Biden, on three felony gun charges.

These charges are related to Hunter’s 2018 purchase of a revolver, for which he falsely claimed he was not a drug user. Hunter Biden faces up to 25 years in prison for these charges, further complicating the president’s stance on gun control.

Joe Biden’s ad and his call for more stringent gun control measures come at a critical time, as the ATF continues facing court room losses over its regulatory authority.

With his latest polling numbers in the toilet, Biden is doubling down on his stance as a staunch advocate for more gun control in hopes of resurrecting his fledgling campaign.

Help us fight back against Biden’s anti-gun agenda!

June 18, 2024 

Cornyn is caving again…

According to a recent article published by The Hill, Senator John Cornyn expressed that he is not averse to the idea of teaming up with Democrats to pass gun control legislation to ban bumpstocks (and other items) following the Supreme Court’s recent ruling striking down the ATF’s overreach in classifying bump stocks as machine guns.

When will he learn!?

The Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill was a monumental victory for our Second Amendment rights, reaffirming that the ATF exceeded its statutory authority.

However, Senator Cornyn and some Democrats are now signaling their willingness to undermine this ruling by supporting new legislative measures to ban bump stocks — and any firearm that they believe fires “too fast.”

Considering many anti-gun Democrats keep trying to ban most semi-automatic firearms with the GOSAFE Act, we must send a clear message to Senator Cornyn: No Gun Control Deals!

Please take a moment to call Senator Cornyn’s office at (202) 224-2934 and tell him to respect the Supreme Court’s decision and stand firm against any new gun control measures.

Here’s what you can say:

“Senator Cornyn, as a supporter of Texas Gun Rights, I urge you to respect the Supreme Court’s ruling in Garland v. Cargill. Do not support any new legislation to ban bump stocks or any other firearm that Democrats believe fires ‘too fast.’ No Gun Control Deals!”

Your voice is crucial in this fight.

Joe Biden and his lackeys believe that if they can pass radical gun control through Congress before November, it will save his hide amid horrendous polling numbers.

Given that weak Republicans like U.S. Senator John Cornyn always cave to the gun grabbers when they turn up the heat, I’m afraid that anything is possible in D.C. right now.

That’s why it is critical you call Cornyn and tell him to not give Joe Biden this win.

And once you call Cornyn, I hope you will consider chipping in $25, 50 or even $150 to help Texas Gun Rights continue mobilizing pro-gun Texans across the state.

Thank you for your continued support and vigilance.

For Texas and Liberty,

Chris McNutt
President, Texas Gun Rights