gun rights Archives

U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-Auburn) reintroduced a bill Monday that will help protect Americans’ Second Amendment rights.

Tuberville joined U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kans.) in reintroducing the Stop Harassing Owners of Rifles Today (SHORT) Act. This legislation would remove the taxation, registration, and regulation of short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons under the National Firearms Act (NFA).

“For too long, unelected bureaucrats have misplaced their priorities by overregulating the use of firearms that Americans are legally entitled to own,” Tuberville said. “Every American has a right to bear arms to protect themselves and their families. I’m proud to join legislation that cuts red tape and protects law-abiding gun-owners.”

Every American has a right to bear arms to protect themselves and their families.

I am proud to join @RogerMarshallMD in reintroducing the SHORT Act to cut red tape and protect law-abiding gun owners. https://t.co/lKMSd7d8If

— Coach Tommy Tuberville (@SenTuberville) March 31, 2025

The measure is meant to protect against overregulation of gun owners by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

“‘Shall not be infringed’ is crystal clear – and the Biden-era abuses of the Constitutionally protected rights of gun owners across the country need to be undone,” Marshall said.

“The SHORT Act takes a step toward rolling back nonsensical regulations that the National Firearms Act has placed upon gun owners. I challenge my colleagues in both chambers to pass this legislation and join me in fully restoring and protecting our God-given Second Amendment rights.”

The Biden Administration used the NFA to go after people who own pistols with stabilizing braces. The ATF under Biden enforced the ban. Gun owners who wanted to keep their firearms had to either violate the regulation or sign up in a registry titled “Amnesty Registration of Pistol Brace Weapons.”

U.S. Sen. Katie Britt (R-Montgomery) co-sponsored the measure along with U.S. Sens. Kevin Cramer (R-N. Dak.), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), Jim Justice (R-W. Va.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Pete Ricketts (R-Nebr.), Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Rick Scott (R-Fla.), and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) in cosponsoring the legislation.

Gun owners of America and the National Association of Gun Rights have endorsed the bill.

Yaffee is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts “The Yaffee Program” weekdays 9-11 a.m. on WVNN. You can follow him on Twitter @Yaffee

U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Birmingham) and fellow Democrat Shomari Figures, candidate for Alabama’s 2nd Congressional District, have received an ‘F’ rating from the largest gun rights political action committee in the United States.

The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund, the PAC for the firearm advocacy organization, grades federal legislators based on their voting record and level of effort to safeguard the 2nd Amendment.

Every election, the NRA evaluates hundreds of candidates running for federal office. The organization defines an A-worthy candidate as a “solidly pro-gun candidate” with a “demonstrated record of support on Second Amendment issues.”

The recipient of an ‘F’ is a “consistent anti-gun candidate who always opposes gun owners’ rights.” Along with the grades, the National Rifle Association recently issued a statement regarding the importance of gun owners voting in upcoming elections.

“This year’s elections are more important than ever for the future of our country and our Second Amendment rights,” the organization said. “The only protection against attacks on our Second Amendment rights and the democratic process is your vote. And this year, in particular, we will need each and every individual gun owner’s vote in every precinct and every district across the country. We’re all concerned about the direction this country is heading, and we need to make sure that our children and grandchildren enjoy the same freedoms that we do.”

“Your rights are within range. That’s why it all comes down to your vote.”

The NRA gave high marks to all of Alabama’s conservative officials: U.S. Reps. Barry Moore (R-Enterprise), Robert Aderholt (R-Haleyville), Dale Strong (R-Monrovia), and Gary Palmer (R-Hoover) were all awarded ‘A’ ratings.

Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Saks) received an A+, the highest grade given by the organization. A legislator who receives the grade has “not only an excellent voting record on all critical NRA issues but has also made a vigorous effort to promote and defend the Second Amendment.”

Republican Candidate for the 2nd Congressional District, Caroleene Dobson, was also given an ‘A’ by the organization.

Austen Shipley is a staff writer for Yellowhammer News. You can follow him on X @ShipleyAusten

On Monday, GOP Congressional candidate Robin Litaker spoke to the Second Amendment rights group BamaCarry in Tuscaloosa. Litaker is the Republican nominee in Alabama’s Seventh Congressional District, challenging incumbent Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-Birmingham).

“I am doing this for all of us,” said Litaker. “I am a retired teacher, principal, and I have lived in Terry Sewell’s district for over 30 years and I am tired of it.”

Litaker won the GOP nomination when her GOP primary opponent dropped out of the race. Sewell on the other hand did have a Democratic primary challenger. Litaker had some difficulty raising funds to challenge the seven term incumbent.

Litaker through March 31 (the most recent Federal Election Commission report) has only raised $8,224.25. She spent $5,969.15 in the primary and entered April with $2,255.10 in cash on hand.

Sewell on the other hand entered the campaign with $2,895,932.32. She raised another $2,031,082.68 through March 31. Rep. Sewell spent $1,281,941.99 in her primary race, leaving her with $3,645,072.76 in cash on hand to spend in the general election against Litaker.

Litaker acknowledged the campaign finance challenige.

“We are running a campaign that is grassroots and can use your help,” said Rep. Sewell. “We are not running a campaign with a lot of money. We need your help and your support. We have got to rally the troops.”

Democrats have won every Seventh Congressional District race since CD7 was redrawn as a majority minority district. Democratic Reps. Artur Davis and Earl Hilliard Senior both represented CD7 before Sewell’s election in 2010.

“We feel like conservative votes don’t count, but they do,” Litaker insisted. “This is my David and Goliath moment. Goliath laughed at David, the Philistines laughed at David; but what’s not discussed much is that his own people laughed at David, the king laughed at David, even his own brother laughed at David.” The Biblical story of David and Goliath can be found in the Old Testament book of First Samuel Chapter 17.

“This district can be flipped. We are going to flip it,” said Litaker. “You don’t have to worry about how I will vote on national issues.”

“When you call my office, someone will answer the phone,” said Litaker. “If you were lucky enough to get moved out of seven into four you are going to want come back by the time we get through.”

“My entire campaign is going to be run by volunteers,” said Litaker.

A Bamacarry members asked if the Second Amendment was going to be taken away. “They are not going to do anything to the Second Amendment, because I have you behind me,” said Litaker.

“We are going to get rid of the Department of Education,” said Litaker. “By the time it (money) gets back to the school district you are lucky to get fifteen cents back. And worse they want control of what you do with that.”

Litaker was a former teacher of the year. “Paul Hubbert (the late AEA executive director) hated me because I started an independent teacher’s group.”

Litaker said that redistricting has made CD7 more favorable for Republicans. Litaker is a former teacher and principal.

To connect with the author of this story, or to comment, email brandonmreporter@gmail.com

U.S. Rep. Robert Aderholt is joining several of his Republican colleagues in fighting back against what he believes is an attempt to infringe on the free speech rights of gun owners.

Aderholt (R-Haleyville) joined an amicus brief led by U.S. Sen. Ted Budd (R-N.C.) and U.S. Rep. Richard Hudson (R-N.C.) in the Supreme Court case NRA v. Vullo.

The case involves Maria Vullo, the Superintendent of the State of New York’s Financial Services, and her formal guidance issued to every bank and insurance company in the state urging them to “sever their ties” with the NRA.

She also promised leniency to insurers that stopped doing business with the NRA, and announced consent orders with longtime NRA insurers that imposed multimillion dollar fines on these insurers and barred them from engaging in future lawful business partnerships with the NRA.

“I was proud to join this amicus brief led by [Sen. Ted Budd] and [Rep. Rich Hudson],” Aderholt said. “Gun owners and groups don’t just have to defend our Second Amendment rights, but also our First Amendment rights from leftwing activists.”

I was proud to join this amicus brief led by @SenTedBuddNC and @RepRichHudson . Gun owners and groups don't just have to defend our Second Amendment rights, but also our First Amendment rights from leftwing activists.https://t.co/k1v7M8WVQu

— Robert Aderholt (@Robert_Aderholt) January 16, 2024

The brief argues that it not only infringes on the rights of gun owners, but also is an attack against states’ rights.

“This case presents other constitutional problems,” the brief states. “In their pursuit of the NRA and gun rights advocates, Cuomo, Vullo, and DFS used New York’s insurance laws to project power outside the State’s boundaries. Their agenda raises federalism concerns.”

U.S. Rep. Barry Moore (R-Enterprise) also signed on to the brief, making it 18 Senators and 62 Representatives who signed it.

Yaffee is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts “The Yaffee Program” weekdays 9-11 a.m. on WVNN. You can follow him on Twitter @Yaffee

Rep. Barbara Drummond (D-Mobile) filed a bill in the Alabama House last week that would charge parents if their child brings an unsecured firearm to school.

Originally, the bill made the penalty a Class C felony, but Drummond says lawmakers are working on dropping it down to a misdemeanor offense.

The state lawmaker promoted her bill on WVNN’s “The Dale Jackson Show,” Monday.

“I don’t think that this is a gun bill, I think that this is more about school safety for our children and it does not violate anyone’s Second Amendment rights,” Drummond said. “What it does is make parents responsible if that weapon is not secured … we need to get parents’ attention because the safety of our children is what is at risk.

“And I tell people that this bill is something that I felt was rather common sense.”

Drummond reiterated that a parent would only be charged if it was proven the student had the firearm because it was not properly secured by that parent.

“If law enforcement says that this weapon didn’t go off because you, as that child’s father had that gun secured, then it would be no charges against you because you had the gun secured,” she said. “It wasn’t the fact that it just went on campus, but if it was secured, your kid could not use that gun to fire it off or harm other children. And if you go and talk to school administrators, resource officers, and teachers there are a lot of guns that are showing up on our school campuses.”

Drummond emphasized that gun owners need to be responsible with their firearms, especially around children.

“I am a gun owner,” she said, “and I don’t have small children … but I have my grandchildren and nieces and nephews … I have a biometric lock, but I do keep it out of their reach, so I’m being responsible. This bill is very common sense. It just says ‘let’s be responsible,’ and all of the debate that you’ve heard around guns, it’s a lot of irresponsibility going on, and this is a bill that says ‘we can be responsible.’

“Our children’s lives depend on it.”

She also believes this bill has a chance of getting some Republican support, which it would need to pass the Legislature.

“I even talked to the Speaker of the House about it last Thursday,” she said, “and he was getting ready to read it, but he said in concept it sounds like a good piece of legislation.”

Yaffee is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts “The Yaffee Program” weekdays 9-11 a.m. on WVNN. You can follow him on Twitter @Yaffee

During Thursday’s House Judiciary Crime Subcommittee’s hearing on the Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms Administration (ATF)’s actions on gun control, U.S. Rep. Barry Moore (R-Enterprise) criticized the Biden administration for trying to take away gun rights.

https://twitter.com/RepBarryMoore/status/1638957015056654336?s=20

“In the last year, we have had 107,000 opioid overdoses,” Moore said. “That (makes opioids) the number one killer of people between the ages of 18 and 45. Based on testimony we’ve been hearing about the open border, those victims are getting younger and younger. If we really care about young people in this country dying, we need to address the opioid crisis instead of trying to come after law-abiding citizens (who own firearms).”

Witnesses in the hearing included Amy Swearer, legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation; Alex Bosco, the founder and inventor of Stabilizing Brace; Matthew Larosiere, partner at Zermay-Larosiere Law Group; and Rob Wilcox, senior director of policy at Everytown for Gun Safety.

The congressman asked Swearer if the gun control measures being proposed would actually stop gun violence.

“Are you aware of any law that could stop gun violence?” he asked. “Is there a law that we could pass in this country that will actually stop murders?”

Swearer said, “Congressman, even if you could pass a law outright banning guns, you’d still have to be able to snap your fingers to make them disappear out of the hands of violent criminals. It would be an impossibility to eliminate gun violence. We can certainly work on getting guns out of the hands of violent criminals and enabling law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with that lethal force, as is their natural and their constitutional right, but to suggest that we can somehow eliminate gun violence — you’re talking about eliminating human nature and the propensity that violent people have to commit crimes.”

Moore said more gun control laws do not result in safer communities.

“I moved to D.C. and I’m here part time, I’ve only been in Congress 24 months, but you guys I feel so much less safe here, and they’re pretty restrictive on firearms, so much less safe here than I do in the hometowns I grew up in and the cities in my state” Moore said. “Because, number one, normally we’re carrying concealed so we’re safe in that respect.

“But just the crime that we’re seeing in the cities where they think they can pass the law to change human morality is just staggering to me. And the statistics simply do not support that approach.”

Alabama @RepBarryMoore fighting for 2A rights at the House ATF hearing today in DC. pic.twitter.com/cc2hgRujyo

— American Firearms Association (@2A_Freedom) March 23, 2023

Yaffee is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts “The Yaffee Program” weekdays 9-11 a.m. on WVNN. You can follow him on Twitter @Yaffee

Tuesday, the National Rifle Association’s Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) endorsed Mo Brooks for U.S. Senate.

In a press release, the NRA-PVF said Brooks had a proven record of protecting Second Amendment rights.

“On behalf of our five million members across the country,” the group said in a statement, “the National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund (NRA-PVF) endorses your candidacy for the U.S. Senate in the May 24, 2022, Republican primary election in Alabama. Based on your consistent and proven voting record on Second Amendment issues in the U.S. House of Representatives, you have earned an ‘A’ rating from NRA-PVF. An ‘A’ rating is reserved for a solidly pro-gun legislator who has supported NRA positions on key votes and issues.”

The group highlighted some specific examples of how Brooks fought for gun rights in Congress.

“You voted against the so-called ‘universal’ background check system, which would criminalize the private transfer of firearms between law-abiding citizens and is only enforceable through a federal firearms registry,” the statement continued. “Additionally, you voted to uphold constitutional due process protections for gun owners and to prevent federal bureaucrats from enacting indefinite delays of firearm purchases for law-abiding Americans, which would turn a fundamental right into a privilege.”

The NRA-PVF also said it appreciated Brooks continuing to fight back against gun control activists.

“Lastly, you continually oppose the Nancy Pelosi, Joe Biden and former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gun control agenda of banning lawfully-owned firearms, ammunition and magazines,” the group concluded.

Brooks released a statement responding to the endorsement, saying he would continue to fight for the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

“The endorsements of both the National Rifle Association and National Association of Gun Rights confirms I am the only Senate candidate who, come hell or high water, will actually fight to defend the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms,” Brooks said in the statement.

The congressman argued that he was the only true defender of gun rights in the Senate race.

“My two principle opponents masquerade as 2nd Amendment defenders,” he said, “but their past conduct reveals they are not fighters and are nothing more than Senate ‘Surrender Caucus’ wannabes. Mike Durant is on video stating America should disarm citizens to restore law and order in our cities. That is NOT defending the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms. Both Mike Durant and Katie Britt publicly attacked me for voting to defeat Red Flag Laws that empower the government to seize a citizen’s weapons and force a citizen to litigate to get his weapons back if the seizure is unlawful. That is NOT defending the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms.”

The Senate candidate expressed gratitude for the NRA endorsement.

“I thank the NRA for helping to take the mask off the pretenders in this Senate race. I ask the citizens of Alabama who support the 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms for their vote because I am the only candidate they can rely on who has actually fought, and will actually fight, to defend our 2nd Amendment Right to Bear Arms,” he concluded.

Wednesday, Brooks’ campaign also released a video advertisement titled “Shall Not Be Infringed” that highlights his NRA endorsement and once again touts his record of supporting the Second Amendment.

The video features Brooks talking to the media following an assassination attempt at a 2017 Republican baseball practice. The congressman was listed at the top of a kill list found in the gunman’s pocket.

WATCH:

Yaffee is a contributing writer to Yellowhammer News and hosts “The Yaffee Program” Weekdays 9-11am on WVNN. You can follow him on Twitter @Yaffee

Republican U.S. senatorial nominee Tommy Tuberville is pushing back against U.S. Senator Doug Jones’ (D-AL) new assertion that he will be a champion of the Second Amendment in the Senate.

As first reported by Yellowhammer News, Jones on Monday argued he is a “Second Amendment protector.”

“I can have much more influence to make sure we can protect the Second Amendment [than Tuberville],” Jones added.

Reacting to that article, Tuberville on social media said, “Placeholder Senator Doug Jones claiming he’s a ‘Second Amendment guy,’ is like Bernie Sanders calling himself a free market capitalist.” (more…)

The National Rifle Association’s (NRA) political arm has released its grades and endorsements for candidates running for the United States House of Representatives, including incumbent members.

In Alabama, only the Seventh Congressional District did not see the NRA Political Victory Fund make an endorsement. This race only features U.S. Rep. Terri Sewell (AL-07), who received an “F” grade. No Republican qualified to run.

The NRA did make an endorsement in each of Alabama’s two open-seat races.

In Alabama’s First Congressional District, the NRA is backing Mobile County Commissioner Jerry Carl, the Republican nominee. Carl will face Democrat James Averhart, who received an “F” grade. The Republican received an “AQ” grade, the highest possible rating for someone who has never been a legislator or in another position that decides Second Amendment-related policies. (more…)

The Second Amendment is under attack like never before in our nation’s history, but I am leading the fight to preserve your constitutional rights.

Last year, just weeks after taking power, House Democrats passed a bill to limit the constitutional right to own guns. Their misguided legislation would do nothing to address the underlying problem behind actions of mass violence. That bill, H.R. 8, would prevent lawful gun owners from selling their guns to other law-abiding Americans. If that bill became law, anytime a gun owner like me wanted to transfer or sell a gun, he or she would have to go through a government-sanctioned middle-man. Of course, this process would be prohibitively time consuming and expensive. The authors of this bill’s true intent not only was to freeze all gun transactions through the power of a slow and inefficient federal bureaucracy but to subject millions of Americans to federal prosecution. Even transferring a firearm to a family member or friend could require federal permission! (more…)

Once again, the radical left has taken things too far. Recently, the Virginia legislature voted to put unconstitutional restrictions on law abiding citizens regarding the right to bear arms. These new laws go directly against the Second Amendment, which unequivocally guarantees this right.

Don’t be fooled: while the fight today is in Virginia, that doesn’t mean our Second Amendment rights are safe here. Any attempt to restrict the Second Amendment will have consequences across the country. If we let the radical Left get away with this, they will try this at the federal level next. (more…)

Congressman Bradley Byrne (AL-01) on Tuesday led 120 of his colleagues in filing an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in defense of Second Amendment rights.

The case, N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, will determine if the state of New York’s ban on transporting a handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is constitutional.

“Our Constitution is clear: the right to bear arms shall not be infringed,” Byrne said in a statement.

The National Rifle Association (NRA) and Gun Owners of America have endorsed Byrne’s efforts in this endeavor. All Republicans in the Alabama House delegation signed onto the amicus brief. (more…)

Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall is taking issue with a multi-state lawsuit that challenges the legality of 3D-printed gun plans being sold online.

Last week, Texas company Defense Distributed was set to upload designs of 3D-printed guns for the public to buy and download. This came after a Department of Justice settlement with the firm in April paved the way for publication of the designs online.

But on July 31, a day before the planned launch, a federal judge in Seattle temporarily blocked the release of the plans after seven states and Washington, D.C. sued the company and President Trump’s State Department.

Since then, twelve additional states have joined the court battle to stop the gun plans from being sold online, a preliminary injunction hearing has been scheduled for August 21 and the temporary restraining order has been extended until August 28.

Alabama is not on the list of nineteen states suing to prohibit the gun plans from being uploaded and sold.

“Attorney General Marshall has concerns with the lawsuit … and the resulting court action,” Mike Lewis, Communications Director for Alabama’s Office of the Attorney General, said in a statement to Yellowhammer News.

(more…)

A gun rights advocate won’t be allowed to speak on the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School campus where a teenager with an assault rifle killed 17 people.

Broward Schools spokeswoman Cathleen Brennan announced late Thursday that “non-school sponsored, student-initiated guest speaker assemblies/meetings are not permitted to take place on campus.”

Charlie Kirk had tweeted that he’d accepted an invitation from students to speak on the campus in Parkland, Florida. Kirk founded Turning Point, USA, a group that maintains a watchlist of professors it accuses of promoting leftist propaganda.

The SunSentinel reports that Kirk was invited by conservative students Kyle Kashuv, who has met with President Trump, and Patrick Petty, whose sister Alaina was killed. Kashuv told the paper they’ll meet off campus if they have to.

House Democrats stage a sit in for gun control. (Photo: Facebook)

WASHINGTON — Alabama Congresswoman Terri Sewell (D-AL7) joined her Democratic colleagues on the House floor tuesday for a sit-in designed to force Republicans to vote on more stringent gun control measures.

Several proposals that would have expanded background checks in various ways failed to meet the 60-vote threshold needed to push forward in the Senate, sending Democratic lawmakers into a public meltdown.

Several Democrats openly said that Republicans’ refusal to pass new gun control laws in the wake of the recent Orlando nightclub terrorist attack meant conservatives would rather sell guns to the so called Islamic State than buck the National Rifle Association (NRA).

.@ChrisMurphyCT said it right: The @SenateGOP have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.

— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 20, 2016

The NRA shot back with an email blast to its members saying, “They’re blaming you… for the terrorist attack in Orlando and taking advantage of this tragedy to push their gun control agenda while emotions run high.”

Democrats in the House then decided to stage a sit-in on the House floor, which they hoped would gain widespread coverage on television. However, House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) put the House in recess, meaning the C-Span cameras that normally capture the action on the floor were turned off. Democrats then turned to social media apps like Periscope and Twitter to get their message out.

Sewell, a three-term House member from Birmingham, tweeted out an image of her sitting “in solidarity” with her Democratic colleagues.

Sitting in solidarity with my colleagues on the house floor. #goodtrouble #StopGunViolence pic.twitter.com/lwy5IqlI1U

— Rep. Terri A. Sewell (@RepTerriSewell) June 22, 2016

Second Amendment issues often unite conservatives and liberals in Alabama, where gun rights are deeply engrained in the state’s culture. This time, however, Sewell — the state’s lone Democratic member of congress — has put herself out on an island.

The sit-in is a misdirected attempt to distract the public from the true issue, radical Islamic terrorism.

— Gary Palmer (@USRepGaryPalmer) June 22, 2016

The firearms company that made the AR-15 rifle used in the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre is seeking to dismiss a wrongful death lawsuit filed by the victims’ families.

Manufacturer Bushmaster plans to ask a Connecticut judge to dismiss the lawsuit, which threatens to dramatically weaken the legal protections for gunmakers.

The company’s lawyers said they are protected by a 2005 federal immunity law that protects gunmakers from most lawsuits over criminal use of their products, according to a report by the Associated Press.

Under current law, gunmakers are largely free from liability if a person commits a crime with their product. The law lists several situations that are not protected from liability. It does not protect gun dealers who transfer a gun knowing it would be used for criminal purposes, nor those who knowingly break state or federal law if the violation results in harm. Gun manufacturers can also be sued if the gun, when used properly, causes injury because the product is defective.

Democratic Presidential Front-Runner Hillary Clinton wants to take these legal protections away from those who manufacture firearms. “Probably one of the most egregious, wrong, pieces of legislation that ever passed the Congress when it comes to this issue is to protect gun sellers and gun makers from liability,” she said in Iowa Oct. 7.

A ruling in favor of the defendants would have drastic repercussions for the Yellowhammer State. In 2014 Remington, the parent company of Bushmaster, announced a plan to expand its operations into Alabama.

Remington first began considering new locations after the New York legislature passed the Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement (SAFE) Act. In addition to banning magazines that contain more than seven rounds and requiring instant background checks on ammo purchases, the law broadened the definition of so-called “assault weapons” to include a wide range of guns, including the Bushmaster AR-15, which is essentially the civilian version of the M-16, the fully automatic weapon that has been used by American soldiers since Vietnam.

Exposing gunmakers to liability for tragic events such as Sandy Hook could cause irreparable harm to their companies. If this legal doctrine gains steam, particularly at the Federal appellate level, those wishing to exercise their Second Amendment rights could be in trouble. Gun companies found liable for senseless and unforeseeable tragedies could be litigated out of existence by lawsuit after lawsuit.

The AR-15 has drawn the ire of liberal politicians, but has been fiercely defended by gun rights advocates, including NRA president David Keene who penned an op-ed titled “The AR-15: The Gun Liberals Love to Hate,” in which he criticized liberal politicians and members of the media for having “a simple minded and narrow understanding of why the founders included the Second Amendment in our Bill of Rights.”

Individuals defending the AR-15 say that it is an excellent weapon for self-defense. Perhaps most notably, business owners used AR-15s to successfully defended their shops against looters during the L.A. riots in the early 1990s.

Remington officials announced in May that they are moving the production lines for the Bushmaster rifle and 1911 pistol from Ilion, NY to Hunstville, Ala.

(Video above: Congressman Bradley Byrne discusses his family’s personal gun violence tragedy and how it shaped his views on the Second Amendment and mental health.)

WASHINGTON — As President Barack Obama cried while remembering the shooting victims of Sandy Hook Elementary School, and announced his plan to issue executive actions on gun control, Alabama Congressman Bradley Byrne (R-AL1) could not help but be reminded of his own family’s tragic experience with gun violence.

“This is not an abstract issue for me,” he said. “My grandfather was shot and killed by a mentally ill person. And it devastated my family. It devastated my mother and grandmother and my two uncles. So when we talk about people who have been shot by mentally ill people, I understand it. I understand what it does to the victims.”

Byrne told the Washington Post on Friday that he had not discussed his family’s tragedy publicly until several shootings by mentally ill individuals made headlines, compelling him to share his very personal experience.

“A younger man in (my grandmother’s) neighborhood who was mentally ill, and there wasn’t any provocation. … He shot and killed my grandfather,” Byrne recalled.

The fatal shooting left his grandmother to raise three young children on her own, in the midst of the Great Depression.

“I know at least a generation removed how it feels to have somebody in your family taken like that,” he said. “And my heart goes out to them.”

But while President Obama has used such tragedies to illustrate the need to implement more stringent gun control regulations, Byrne says that approach is misguided.

“Every one of these mass shootings that we’ve seen in the last couple of years in America, the guns were purchased legally through a gun dealer who did background checks,” he said. “At some point, you’ve got to say, ‘Now wait a minute, that’s the responsibility of the person who has the gun.’ … Don’t penalize the other 90-plus percent of people in America who buy guns legally and use them legally and don’t hurt anybody because we have a tiny percentage of people who have violated that.”

Instead of clamping down on law abiding citizens’ access to guns, Byrne said it is time to have a serious discussion about mental health. With that in mind, he is co-sponsoring a bill that aims to overhaul the country’s entire mental health care system.

“We’re not going to solve this problem if we’re not going to talk about changing the mental health policy of the United States,” he said. “Let’s talk about that.”

WASHINGTON — US Senator Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) on Monday responded to President Barack Obama’s planned executive actions on gun control, saying Mr. Obama wants the United States to “look more like Chicago,” the president’s violence-ridden hometown.

The Chicago Tribune noted in October of last year that someone in Chicago is shot once every 2.84 hours, in spite of the city maintaining the nation’s strictest gun control laws. A total of 468 homicides were reported in the Windy City in 2015.

President Obama is poised to announce executive actions that will push the United States toward Chicago-style gun policies, although the orders will fall short of the full-scale gun control the President desires.

The White House on Monday evening released details of the executive actions, which will include expanded background checks on gun purchases, additional federal agents to enforce gun laws and a $500 million expenditure to increase access to mental health care and to help “shape the future of gun safety technology.”

“The President and Vice President are committed to using every tool at the Administration’s disposal to reduce gun violence,” the White House said in a statement. President Obama will officially announce his executive actions at a press conference Tuesday morning.

In response to the announcement, Senator Shelby released the following statement:

The latest news that President Obama plans to circumvent Congress and attempt to restrict the constitutional right of the American people to keep and bear arms is unacceptable. The American people have witnessed time and time again a President who completely disregards the rule of law, the Constitution, and the separation of powers.

We must not allow our leaders to act like dictators just because they are repeatedly denied a political victory. From amnesty to gun control, the American people and Republicans in Congress will continue to say “no” the President’s out-of-control executive fiats.

None of the executive actions that we expect to hear from the President would have prevented the recent tragic events in our nation. Instead of looking for ways to truly put an end to violent crime and radical Islamic terrorism, the President is once again looking to score political points by taking away the rights of law-abiding Americans to protect themselves.

The President should know better than anyone that disarming law-abiding Americans will do nothing more than empower criminals. After all, his own hometown of Chicago has the strictest gun control laws in the country, yet its violent crime rate is among the highest in our nation.

President Obama wants America to look more like Chicago. I’m fighting for America to look more like Alabama. That is why I will work tirelessly to protect the Second Amendment and reverse any proposals by this President to restrict the constitutional rights of the American people.

Shelby, whose re-election bid has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association, is a familiar foe to President Obama’s gun control efforts.

In the wake of the the Sandy Hook Elementary School shootings in 2013, Shelby was a vocal opponent of a bill sponsored by then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) that would have implemented gun control measures similar to what the President is now circumventing Congress to implement.

“More background checks today, gun registration tomorrow,” Shelby said at the time. “Who knows what will follow after that. Congress should reject it all now.”

The bill fell six votes short of passage. But similar to previous bills on climate change and immigration, when the legislative branch refuses to make the laws he wants, President Obama does it anyway. The question now will be what, if anything, will the legislative branch do in response?

WASHINGTON — Alabama congressmen are gearing up for a fight with the Obama administration over the president’s expected executive orders on gun control, which could come as early as this week.

According to Politico, “the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.

“The administration is also expected to impose tighter rules for reporting guns that get lost or stolen on their way to a buyer.”

Gun rights advocates say the new executive actions could drastically expand the power of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), the agency that would be responsible for the implementation of the regulations. They also note that none of the expected orders would have done anything to stop recent mass shootings, which President Obama has used as his stated reasoning for unilaterally imposing stricter gun control.

In structure, the Presidential orders could be similar to Obama’s executive actions on immigration, which conservatives dubbed “executive amnesty” and insist are an unconstitutional overreach of the executive branch.

Alabama Congressman Bradley Byrne (R-AL1) released a statement urging his colleagues to be prepared to take “swift” action against any executive branch gun control efforts:

President Obama just doesn’t get it. He continues to openly disregard our Constitution and the will of the American people. For seven years now, Congress has rejected President Obama’s efforts to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Now, in the final months of his presidency, he intends to make these changes on his own through executive fiat.

These expected changes would not have prevented any of the recent mass shootings where guns were purchased from licensed gun dealers. Instead of continuing to ignore Congress, the President should work with us on commonsense reforms that would actually reduce gun violence, like mental health reform and preventing those who wish to bring us harm from entering the United States. In reality, I don’t think President Obama wants to solve the problem. Instead, he is simply looking for another political talking point and continuing to pander to far-left political groups.

Congress must be swift to respond to any executive action, and there will certainly be legal challenges as well. This debate is about more than the Second Amendment. This debate is about standing up to an out-of-control President who refuses to follow the Constitution.

Congressman Mike Rogers (R-AL3) pledged to join any efforts to push back against the president’s expected orders:

President Obama has spent his time in office expanding the size of government and infringing on our Constitutional rights. This is just another example of his blatant disregard for the Constitution. I remain completely opposed to any action that puts any level of restrictions on our right to bear arms. As a gun owner myself, I will continue to fight for our Second Amendment rights.

Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL4) said the gun control measures will not do anything to curb violence:

It is unbelievable and I’m at a loss of words at the news President Obama plans to sidestep the Constitution once again in order to circumvent Congress in his efforts to diminish gun owner’s rights in America. This is just another example of President Obama’s attempts to impose his failed agenda on the American people in the waning months of his Presidency.

There is not proof that the new restrictions President Obama proposes would have prevented any of the recent cases of gun violence in our country. I’m also confident that these new proposed restrictions on the Second Amendment will not stop any future incidents. As we know our problem in America is not a gun problem. It is a cultural problem and a problem of the heart by these criminals. No new gun laws can change the attitude of someone who is so lost in this world that they are bent on killing others.

Congresswoman Martha Roby (R-AL2) said Congress should focus its efforts on mental health and terrorism, rather than gun control:

President Obama is wrong to try to bypass Congress to unilaterally mandate his gun control agenda, and it won’t stand. I’m a gun owner myself, and I strongly value the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. I will fight on behalf of those I represent to stop any attempt to erode the Second Amendment rights of Americans.

There is a reason Congress has repeatedly rejected President Obama’s gun control agenda: on top of being unconstitutional, his proposals would not have prevented the recent attacks he uses to justify new laws. Instead of forcing unconstitutional gun regulations that have little hope of stopping premeditated attacks, I believe our focus should be dealing with the root causes, specifically mental health and terrorism.

Congressman Gary Palmer (R-AL6) added that the President’s orders are not the law of the land and can be rescinded by any President that follows him.

The President’s Executive Actions are beyond the scope of his Constitutional powers. This President has developed a pattern over the past seven years of ignoring the Constitution whenever it suits him. This is wrong. Nothing in the President’s Executive Actions would have done anything to stop the most recent incidents of gun violence.

I have always been and will continue to be a strong defender of our Second Amendment rights, and will fight any attempt to infringe upon them. Executive actions are not law and, on January 20, 2017, can be rescinded by the next President.

This story may be updated as more congressmen issue statements.

Alabama guns

In a long-rumored move, the Obama Administration signaled last week that the President is preparing to roll out executive orders on gun control.

Politico, which first broke the story, explains what the President is expected to do:

According to gun industry insiders and others familiar with the proposals, the changes include requiring an expanded number of small-scale gun sellers to be licensed — and therefore conduct background checks — whenever selling a weapon. This wouldn’t close the so-called gun show loophole, though it has the potential to narrow it.

The administration is also expected to impose tighter rules for reporting guns that get lost or stolen on their way to a buyer.

Neither comes close to the stronger gun control measures Obama sought in the wake of the 2012 mass shooting of schoolchildren in Sandy Hook and that he has said he still wants. But with Congress unlikely to approve any new gun curbs before the 2016 election, the measures are in line with what gun-control advocates were hoping would be adopted before Obama leaves office.

Alabama Republicans, who enjoy supermajorities in both chambers of the Legislature, are already considering their response, and looking to other states for inspiration.

Georgia, which in 2014 passed a “guns everywhere” law, is one of those states.

Under Georgia’s law, “gun free zones” have been effectively eliminated, as licensed gun owners are now permitted to carry a firearm almost anywhere, including schools, churches, bars and even some government buildings.

The National Rifle Association called it “the most comprehensive pro-gun reform legislation introduced in recent history,” and Georgia Governor Nathan Deal hailed his state’s commitment to the Second Amendment.

“Today I will put into law a gun bill that heralds self-defense, personal liberties and public safety,” Governor Deal said just before signing the legislation into law. “While we still guard against tyranny, America today cherishes this right so that people who follow the rules can protect themselves and their families from those who don’t follow the rules.”

Republican lawmakers Yellowhammer spoke with Monday morning said they are anxious to see what the President does, and acknowledged the ensuing fight will likely play out in the courts, but added they would like to see Alabama continue to increase its protections for gun owners and sellers.

Alabama is one of the most pro-Second Amendment states in the country, with support for gun rights cutting across traditional party and ideological lines. But pro-gun legislation has not always enjoyed smooth sailing through the Legislature, even under Republican control. In 2013, a bill to expand the rights of gun owners resulted in a tense showdown between the National Rifle Association and the Business Council of Alabama before a compromise was ultimately reached that drew support from both groups.

The 2016 legislative sessions begins next month. With President Obama’s gun control actions expected to come any day, Alabama legislators could once again look to strengthen the state’s protections for gun owners.

Alabama Supreme Court building, Montgomery, Ala.

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Supreme Court Friday shot down as unconstitutionally vague a state law banning the open carrying of a firearm on someone else’s property due to it lacking a punishment clause.

The ruling centered around the case of Jason Dean Tulley, a 38-year-old Jacksonville, Alabama resident who open carried his pistol in the First Educators Credit Union on March 31, 2011. An off-duty law enforcement officer acting as a security guard ordered Tulley to leave the premises and put the gun in his car. Tulley at first argued he was within his rights, but ultimately complied.

The charges came days later.

“This is definitely a victory for gun rights advocates,” said J.D. Lloyd, one of Tulley’s appellate lawyers. “More importantly, it’s a victory for folks who believe in Due Process and don’t want to see the Legislature passing vague criminal statutes.”

Tulley’s initial trial was in the City of Jacksonville Municipal Court, where he was convicted of violating Alabama state law 13A-11-52, which prohibits “carrying a pistol on premises not one’s own or under his control.”

In 2013 the Alabama Legislature updated the law to continue, “unless the person possesses a valid concealed weapon permit or the person has the consent of the owner or legal possessor of the premises.”

This revisions, as well as some in the 1940s, omitted any punishment to the crime it described, so Tulley’s lawyers argued it was therefore unconstitutionally vague, and in a 5-3 decision, the Alabama Supreme Court agreed.

“A person facing criminal prosecution has a fundamental right to know what the consequences are of their criminal conduct,” another of Tulley’s attorneys, Joe Basgier told AL.com in an email. “In this case, my client was convicted of what the trial court called a violation, but which was based on a state criminal statute lacking even a mention of the criminal penalties. The end result is that 13A-11-52 is not a ‘crime,’ and can not be prosecuted as such.”

Lloyd added that in order to criminalize violation of the law, the Alabama Legislature would have to go back and “fix” it.

Tulley told supporters in the Facebook group “BamaCarry” that the City of Jacksonville’s “attack” on his family has cost him $20,000 in court fees and lawyers.

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Have you ever been target shooting with someone under the age of 18, say, your daughter, nephew, or grandchild? If you allowed them to possess a handgun during that time, you were breaking the law.

A bill currently under consideration in the Alabama Senate would allow minors to obtain pistols while under the supervision of their parents or another adult, as well as eliminate some redundant record keeping regarding the sales of handguns.

Under the changes proposed by SB262 minors would only be allowed to use the weapon if a safety instructor, parent, or other adult has given permisson. The pistol may only be used on private property, with the permission of the property owner.

The bill’s sponsor, Senator Arthur Orr (R-Decatur), told Yellowhammer in a phone interview Monday afternoon that, contrary to how it’s being characterized by some in the media, the legislation simply allows parents to give permission to their teens to use pistols under parental or adult supervision. The bill will not allow minors to purchase handguns, or allow them to have possession of a pistol without adult permission.

Orr says that under current law he is unable to lawfully to hand his own son a pistol, even if it’s on his own property.

Minors are currently allowed to lawfully handle rifles and shotguns.

Another part of the bill would relieve firearms retailers from some of the record keeping required by the state that are already remitted to the federal government for its database. Current law requires the seller to keep records in triplicate of all sales of handguns in the state. One copy of the records are sent to the sheriff in the county where the handgun was sold, and another copy is sent to the Alabama Secretary of State.

The bill is currently pending in the Senate Governmental Affairs committee, and is expected to be taken up in the next few weeks.

Like this article? Hate it? Follow me and let me know how you feel on Twitter!

— Elizabeth BeShears (@LizEBeesh) January 21, 2015

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — Alabama State Sen. Gerald Allen (R-Tuscaloosa) says he plans to introduce a bill during the upcoming legislative session that would allow Alabamians to carry a handgun in their car without having to pay for a concealed carry permit.

Under current law, an unlicensed handgun must be kept unloaded and out of reach while be transported in a vehicle. Sen. Allen says Alabama’s Castle Doctrine makes it clear that a vehicle is an extension of an individual’s home, which means there should not be a licensing requirement.

“Your vehicle is personal property,” he said in a press release Monday. “This bill would simply allow a law abiding citizen who can own a handgun the same right to carry a handgun in their car as they do in their home. Alabama’s Castle Doctrine Law specifically states that your vehicle is an extension of your home. This should include the right to carry a loaded handgun in your car.”

State Rep. Ed Henry (R-Hartselle) told the Decatur Daily he supports the legislation because the current law seems “backward” to him.

“It’s legal in the state of Alabama for me to carry my pistol on my person unconcealed without a permit,” Henry explained. “But as soon as I get in my car, the law says I have to have a permit. That seems backward to me.”

Support for gun rights often crosses partisan lines in Alabama, but many Alabama Democrats continue to fall more in line with national Democrats, even warning that expanded gun rights could turn the state into the “wild, wild west.”

Local sheriffs have also been among the most ardent opponents of similar legislation in the past, including a bill that died in the House last year. The Alabama Sheriffs Association opposed the bill during the 2014 session, saying it could make law enforcement officers’ jobs more difficult and noted that sheriffs would lose some of the revenue they receive through pistol permits.

The bill was one of the most hotly-debated issues during last year’s session, at times grinding the senate to a halt for hours. It looks like we may be in for more fireworks during the 2015 sessions, which is set to begin in March.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) December 3, 2014

Scott Beason discusses his plans for life after the Alabama senate in the Yellowhammer News offices (Photo: Yellowhammer)

For the first time in a decade and a half, Scott Beason, the longtime state legislator from the north Birmingham suburb of Gardendale, isn’t serving in public office. First elected to the Alabama Legislature at the age of 29, Beason served two terms in the House and two more in the Senate. He also ran for U.S. Congress twice, including in 2014 when he decided to leave the State House for good.

During much of his time in the Legislature Beason was perhaps Alabama’s most well-known conservative lightning rod — something like Alabama’s state-level version of Ted Cruz. But unlike the Texas firebrand whose voice is often louder than his actual legislative influence, Beason was often successful in bending the Senate to his will on a wide range of conservative priorities, from immigration to guns.

But while Beason’s time as politician has come to an end — at least for now — his desire to stay engaged in the policy debate has not.

Yellowhammer caught up with Beason last week and found out that he’s wasting no time jumping back into the fray.

Yellowhammer News:

So now that you’re no longer in the Legislature, what’s next?

Scott Beason:

For a while I thought, ’16 years in Legislature was enough, just be done,’ but it’s one of those things where the passion that made me want to run in the first place is drawing me back in. There have to be people out there talking about the things that affect our future. If that’s burning in you, you can’t get rid of it.

I believe there are thousands of Alabamians out there who want to be involved, they just need someone to say ‘Here’s what’s going on, here’s what you need to do.’ So I’m going to start by traveling around the state and speaking to groups about going back to the basics — the fundamental issues of freedom.

Yellowhammer:

What issues will you be discussing on this “Alabama Freedom Tour”?

Beason:

There are three primary issues I’m going to be focusing on: gun rights, school choice and energy. It was tough to narrow it down to just three issues, but these are the three that I really think are the most important to the state of Alabama right now, and fundamental freedoms are at the core of each debate. We can’t lose these battles; they’re too important. We have to be vigilant.

Yellowhammer:

You were a champion of the Second Amendment while in the Legislature, what more do you feel like the state could do to strengthen its gun rights?

Beason:

I believe gun rights are a great litmus test. If your elected official is willing to compromise your Second Amendment rights, your other freedoms are probably already compromised.

The gun legislation that I passed, elected officials at so many levels have decided to just ignore it. They’re even telling citizens, ‘If you don’t like what we’re doing, sue us.’ It has really opened my eyes to some serious issues that a lot of people aren’t aware of because Alabama is typically thought of as such a pro-gun state.

For instance, you should not have to pay for a concealed weapon permit to have a pistol in your car. That was the last bill I had in the Legislature and they wouldn’t even allow it to come up for a vote. You should not have to pay to exercise your God-given, Constitutional right to defend yourself.

Yellowhammer:

It sounds like school choice is going to be a big issue during the 2015 legislative session. Why do you think this issue should be so important to conservatives?

Beason:

It’s all about freedom. My kids go to public schools. I’ve had my issues with the direction public education has taken at different times, as have my friends and family. But what can you do? You either send your children to the school you’re assigned, or you home school. It’s almost like school prison. The government says ‘You will go here no matter what the outcome, no matter the special needs of the child.’ I believe every parent — regardless of their economic status, where they live or what they look like — ought to have a say in where their children go to school and what kind of education they get. The only way you can do that is by creating education freedom through things like charter schools and tax credits. I firmly believe that is the conservative position.

We can fix some of the problems in the inner cities and poorer parts of the state, but it’s got to start by giving people quality schools for their children to attend. Investment will follow and people will start moving into those areas, but it starts with the schools.

School choice — namely charter schools — could probably be the most powerful urban revitalization tool the state could ever have and it wouldn’t cost us one more cent than we’re spending today. Alabamians are not satisfied with a one-size-fits-all education system.

Yellowhammer:

The third issue you mentioned is energy. How does energy freedom fit in to what you’ll be talking about on your speaking tour?

Beason:

Jobs started moving South as the liberal environmental policies in the northeast and rust belt started to take hold, and now that we’ve become the economic engine of the country, they’re relying on the EPA to stop us. The South is taking a beating because of the Obama Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency.

Their regulations are already affecting us. Coal plants have closed and energy prices are on the rise and it is a direct result of the policies of the EPA.

I don’t know many people who can afford to pay hundreds of dollars more each year on their power bill just because some bureaucrat is going to force it down our throats, but that’s exactly what is happening.

Again, the three issues I plan to focus on all go back to freedom. When it comes to energy, we should have the freedom to use our God-given resources to create affordable energy that powers our economy.

Yellowhammer:

Groups interested in having Beason come and speak can contact him at senatorsbeason(at)gmail(dot)com.

Like this article? Follow me on Twitter and let me know what you think.

— Cliff Sims (@Cliff_Sims) December 3, 2014