The Replica Prop Forum
Very cool site I am also a member of
Thursday, April 2, 2026
Gun Prohibitionists Using Pincer Strategy with Reports on U.S. Arms in Mexico - Ammoland.com
“They were under siege by a Mexican cartel. Now these civilians fight back with AK-47s and grenades,” The Washington Post reports. “Residents in the Mexican central state of Guerrero are setting up self-defense patrols to keep a powerful cartel out of their mountain towns.”
That’s a good thing, right? Citizens who want to live their lives banding together to defend themselves against evil oppressors? That’s not why they’re posting this.
Because while it seems like the overwhelmed and outgunned Mexican citizens – who can’t rely on the government for justice – fighting for self-defense, freedom, and survival, are doing what any decent human being unwilling to live as a victim or a slave would do, that’s not the point of this story. So, the WaPo feigns understanding and objectivity but then shapes a narrative.
By lumping defenders in with “local gangs and vigilante groups, many of which are allied with the larger cartels,” and noting “Because Mexico has strict gun control laws, the vast majority of arms in Mexico are smuggled from the U.S. by cartels,” they’ve just been redefined as part of the “problem,” their motives notwithstanding. And the larger problem, per a prohibitionist narrative that keeps being recycled, is the carnage is caused by American weaponry being smuggled into Mexico, and that’s all due to the Second Amendment and “lax U.S. gun laws.”
Click the link to read the whole article: Gun Prohibitionists Using Pincer Strategy
Wednesday, April 1, 2026
Supreme Court Asked to Stop New York’s Lawfare End-Run Around PLCAA - Ammoland.com
The fight over New York’s gun-industry liability law is getting bigger, and the message now reaching the U.S. Supreme Court is hard to miss: this is not just a trade dispute, and it is not just another blue-state consumer protection case dressed up in legal jargon. According to two major amicus briefs filed in support of certiorari in National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James, New York is trying to do through lawfare what anti-gun politicians have failed to do through the normal legislative process—use the courts to choke off the lawful commerce in arms.
One of those briefs comes from the National Rifle Association, Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, and Independence Institute. The other comes from Montana and 23 additional states. Together, they make a serious and layered argument:
New York’s statute is an attempt to sidestep the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), revive the same kind of junk litigation Congress barred in 2005, and let one hostile state pressure gun makers and sellers across the country to live under New York’s anti-gun policies.
Click the link to read the whole article: Court Asked to Stop New York’s Lawfare End-Run
Tuesday, March 31, 2026
Heeter v. James Challenges New York Body Armor Ban Under the Second Amendment - Ammoland.com
New York’s ban on body armor is now facing a direct constitutional challenge that goes right to the heart of the Second Amendment.
In Heeter v. James, an ongoing 2024 federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York, plaintiffs Heeter and Firearms Policy Coalition are challenging New York’s body armor ban as a violation of the Second Amendment. Plaintiffs argue that the law has criminalized the purchase and acquisition of defensive gear that falls within the plain text of the right to “keep and bear Arms.”
As the motion puts it, “body armor is commonly owned for self-defense and other lawful purposes,” and New York’s law therefore cannot survive under District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
The filing opens by stating that New York’s law “prohibits the purchase, acquisition, or sale of any ‘protective body covering intended to protect against gunfire,’ by anyone who is not a member of several ‘eligible professions.’” In other words, ordinary law-abiding New Yorkers are barred from buying body armor unless the state has decided their job title is important enough. The plaintiffs say that violates the rights of citizens with “ordinary self-defense needs,” the same kind of language the Supreme Court used in Bruen when it rejected New York’s old carry regime.
Click the link to read the whole article: Heeter v. James Challenges NY Body Armor Ban
Colorado Democrats Change 3D Legislation to Avoid Veto, Vow Another Try - Ammoland.com
When anti-gun Colorado Democrats removed some key provisions in House Bill 1144—a measure that would have made it a crime to build guns or gun parts by using a 3D printer—advocates for the bill told news agencies they would come back next year to fill the gaps.
The problem came up, according to published reports, when Gov. Jared Polis indicated he would veto the legislation. Polis, a Democrat, is term-limited out this year.
The Summit Daily is reporting that state Sen. Tom Sullivan, one of the state’s most vocal gun control advocates, “signaled that he would try again to pass a ban on 3-D printing instructions next year after Polis leaves office.”
Sullivan’s son was a victim of the mass shooting at the Aurora movie theater in 2012. The killer in that incident had planned his attack well in advance. It did not involve a 3D-based firearm.
Likewise, the Colorado Sun quoted Sen. Katie Wallace (D-Longmont), saying she looks forward to “fighting another day” for the legislation.
Click the link to read the whole article: CO Democrats Change 3D Legislation to Avoid Veto
New Filing in Yukutake v. Lopez Accuses Hawaii of Rewriting Gun Laws to Dodge Defeat - Ammoland.com
A letter filed in a case challenging Hawaii’s restrictive gun laws attacks the state’s credibility after its attorney attempted to downplay the attorney general’s role in rewriting gun laws now under constitutional challenge.
The lawsuit, Yukutake v. Lopez, challenges two provisions of Hawaii’s firearm code. The first imposed a narrow window for handgun purchase permits, effectively forcing applicants to complete the process within a short and often impractical timeframe. The original timeframe was ten days, later expanded to 30 days, a change that attorneys AmmoLand spoke to believed was designed to moot this case.
The second required gun owners to bring newly acquired firearms to law enforcement for in-person inspection and registration within just a few days. Hawaii claimed this law was to prevent the spread of “ghost guns,” but anyone with an unserialized firearm in violation of the state’s law would most likely not show up to a police station with an illegal gun. With Hawaii’s history of anti-gun actions, gun owners think this was put in place to cause an undue burden to residents.
Click the link to read the whole article: Hawaii Rewriting Gun Laws to Dodge Defeat
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)