New Jersey Library of Gun Control Legislation and Significant Events

The Purpose of This Library

This digital repository is designed to serve as an educational cornerstone for anyone interested in understanding the intricate web of laws, regulations, and historical events that have shaped gun control in New Jersey and the United States. We've also incorporated various rulings and cases that, while not exclusively centered on the 2nd Amendment, are significant in assessing the constitutionality of laws impacting New Jersey gun owners.

Indirect means the case is directly related to constitutional rights but indirectly to the 2nd Amendment.

Export Library List to CSV: Click Here to Download
For search and display purposes, dates are stored in various formats provided in the export.

Export Library Supporting Documents (zip file): Click Here to Download (ver. 09-12-2024)
This zip file contains 79 files and the full download size is 188mb.

Federal Legislation and Significant National Events Shortcuts (57 items)
State Legislation and Significant Local Events Shortcuts (22 items)
Other Significant Events (25 items)
Legislation, Registration, Confiscation, and Extermination (9 items) Consequences of Gun Control and Victims

Federal Gun Control & Significant Events

USMap

Bill of Rights Ratified (1791)
Foundational | 12-15-1791

Bill of Rights Ratification (1791): The Bill of Rights was ratified to ensure that individual liberties were enshrined in the Constitution, with the Second Amendment specifically safeguarding the right to bear arms. This protection is integral to the broader framework of personal freedoms, enabling citizens to defend themselves and their property. This foundational document reminds us of the enduring importance of the Second Amendment in preserving individual autonomy and ensuring that Americans remain empowered to protect their rights and liberties against encroachment.
Document Available

USMap

Militia Act of 1792
Federal Law | 05-08-1792

Following the adoption of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which included the Second Amendment in 1791, the federal government passed the Militia Acts of 1792. This act required every eligible man to possess a firearm and ammunition, essentially mandating gun ownership for militia service. While this might not be considered a "gun control" law in the modern sense, it was one of the earliest federal regulations concerning firearms, aiming to ensure that the populace was armed for the defense of the state.
Document Available

USMap

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857)
US Supreme Court | 03-06-1857

Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857): Infamous for its denial of citizenship and rights to African Americans, it also serves as a stark reminder of why robust protections for individual liberties are crucial. The ruling underscores the importance of safeguarding all constitutional rights against historical injustices and ensuring that legal interpretations uphold fundamental freedoms. This was one of the worst decisions by the Supreme Court and would be reversed with the passages of the 13th and 14th Amendments.
Document Available

USMap

U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876)
US Supreme Court | 03-27-1876

United States v. Cruikshank (1876) held that the Bill of Rights, including the First and Second Amendments, did not apply to the states. This decision was based on the interpretation that these amendments only restricted the federal government, not state actions or private individuals. United States v. Cruikshank was later overturned by De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).
Document Available

USMap

Presser v. Illinois (1886)
US Supreme Court | 01-04-1886

Presser v. Illinois (1886): The Supreme Court's ruling in this case not only upheld state restrictions on private militia groups and their ability to carry firearms, but it also set a precedent that limited the application of Second Amendment protections against state interference. By endorsing state authority to regulate private military organizations and restrict the bearing of arms in certain contexts, the decision constrained the scope of federal constitutional protections and contributed to a fragmented understanding of the Second Amendment. Presser v. Illinois (1886) was effectively overruled by the Supreme Court's decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). This means that while Presser v. Illinois remains on the books for its historical context, its key holding regarding the Second Amendment's non-applicability to the states has been superseded by McDonald v. City of Chicago.
Document Available

USMap

Militia Act of 1903 (Dick Act of 1903)
Federal Law | 01-21-1903

The Dick Act of 1903, officially known as the Militia Act of 1903, was landmark legislation that modernized the U.S. militia system by establishing what became known as the National Guard, thus directly impacting interpretations of the Second Amendment's "well regulated Militia." The Dick Act reaffirmed the individual right to bear arms by organizing the militia into the National Guard and the broader unorganized militia, which includes all able-bodied individuals, thereby supporting the argument that the Second Amendment protects an individual right beyond the scope of just the National Guard. This act, while enhancing federal control over what was traditionally a state affair, did not infringe upon the individual rights aspect of the Second Amendment, as later clarified by court rulings like Heller, which affirmed that the right to bear arms is not tied solely to militia service but exists independently for the protection of individual liberties.
Document Available

USMap

National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA)
Federal Law | 06-26-1934

National Firearms Act of 1934: By imposing heavy taxes such as the $200 tax stamp, registration requirements, and regulations on certain firearms like short-barreled rifles and machine guns, it not only limited law-abiding citizens' access to these arms but also set a precedent for further government overreach into gun ownership. This act was a reactionary measure to the era's crime rather than a well-considered policy for public safety, effectively penalizing the general populace for the actions of a few.
Document Available

USMap

De Jonge v. Oregon (1937)
US Supreme Court | 01-04-1937

De Jonge v. Oregon (1937) did not explicitly overturn Cruikshank but significantly impacted its relevance by ruling that the First Amendment's protections of free speech and assembly apply to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision was part of the broader trend of "incorporation" where various rights from the Bill of Rights were applied to the states.
Document Available

USMap

Federal Firearms Act of 1938
Federal Law | 06-30-1938

Federal Firearms Act of 1938: By imposing a licensing system for firearms dealers and prohibiting the sale of firearms to certain categories of individuals, this act set a precedent for federal overreach into what should be an unrestricted right to bear arms. Not only does it infringe upon the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens but started the slippery slope towards more restrictive gun control measures, leading to the erosion of gun rights under the guise of public safety. This law would be repealed with passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 but many provisions would be reenacted by the same Act.
Document Available

USMap

U.S. v. Miller (1939)
US Supreme Court | 05-15-1939

U.S. v. Miller (1939): The Supreme Court's decision in this case upheld restrictions on sawed-off shotguns, ruling that such firearms were not protected by the Second Amendment because they did not have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia." This narrow interpretation undermines the broader intent of the Second Amendment, which is to protect the right of individuals to possess firearms for self-defense and personal security. By focusing on the militia context, the ruling inadvertently constrained the broader right to bear arms, suggesting that only certain types of firearms are protected. It's worth noting that Miller (on the run) ratted out his out his own gang members for a lighter sentence was shot to death before the ruling was released. U.S. v. Miller (1939) has not been explicitly overturned by a subsequent Supreme Court decision directly addressing its core holding. However, its interpretation and relevance have been significantly altered by later cases: Heller v. District of Columbia (2009) and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010).
Document Available

USMap

Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
US Supreme Court | 05-03-1943

Murdock v. Pennsylvania, decided on May 3, 1943, by the U.S. Supreme Court, is related to infringments and fees on constitutional rights. This case dealt with First Amendment rights, specifically the free exercise of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. The case involved Jehovah's Witnesses who were convicted for violating a city ordinance requiring them to purchase a license before distributing religious literature door-to-door. The Court ruled that such a license tax was unconstitutional as it infringed upon a constitutional right. The ruling underscores the principle that government cannot impose undue financial or regulatory restrictions that could effectively suppress constitutional rights, a principle which, by extension, could apply to the right to bear arms.
Document Available

USMap

Civil Rights Act of 1964
Federal Law | 07-02-1964

Civil Rights Act of 1964 Enacted: Primarily focused on ending racial discrimination and ensuring equal access to public facilities, it also reinforced the broader principle that all citizens, regardless of race, should have their constitutional rights upheld. The Act’s commitment to equality by emphasizing that fundamental rights, including the right to bear arms, must be preserved for all individuals. This Act highlights the ongoing need to safeguard and promote the full spectrum of constitutional freedoms, ensuring that the principles of equality and liberty remain central to American law and society.
Document Available

USMap

Voting Rights Act of 1965
Federal Law | 08-06-1965

Voting Rights Act of 1965: Aimed to eliminate racial barriers to voting, it also underscores the broader principle that all constitutional rights, including the Second Amendment, should be equally accessible and protected. By ensuring that every citizen's right to vote was upheld, the act reinforced the broader commitment to civil liberties and equal protection under the law. This anniversary highlights the importance of continuing to safeguard and promote all fundamental rights, including the right to bear arms, as integral to the broader fight for equality and justice.
Document Available

USMap

The Mulford Act of 1967
Federal Law | 07-28-1967

Mulford Act of 1967: Introduced as a knee-jerk response to the Black Panther Party, severely restrict the public carrying of firearms. While framed as a measure for public safety, the act targeted and undermined the right of individuals to bear arms, particularly in ways that disproportionately affected marginalized communities. By focusing on restricting open carry rather than addressing underlying issues of violence, the Mulford Act exemplifies how gun control measures are used to infringe upon constitutional rights under the guise of public safety.
Document Available

USMap

Duncan v. Louisiana (1968)
US Supreme Court | 05-20-1968

Duncan v. Louisiana (1998): The Supreme Court's decision in Duncan addressed the right to a jury trial in criminal cases, affirming that this right is a fundamental aspect of due process. While the case itself did not directly pertain to gun rights, it highlights the broader principle that constitutional protections are essential for safeguarding individual liberties. Duncan reinforces the idea that all constitutional rights, including the right to bear arms, are fundamental and must be protected against undue infringement.
Document Available

USMap

Gun Control Act of 1968
Federal Law | 10-22-1968

Gun Control Act of 1968: By imposing restrictions like age limits, interstate handgun sales bans, and criteria for gun ownership based on mental health and criminal records, this act set a precedent for federal overreach into what should be protected individual freedoms. These laws disproportionately affect law-abiding citizens, turning the right to bear arms into a heavily regulated privilege, while failing to address the root causes of violence or prevent criminals from obtaining firearms. See the Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 which amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to provide greater protections for gun owners and dealers.
Document Available

USMap

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1969)
US Supreme Court | 03-19-1969

Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham (1969) holds indirect significance for Second Amendment rights, particularly through its broader implications on constitutional rights and government regulation. While the case directly dealt with First Amendment rights concerning freedom of assembly and speech, its ruling emphasized that government regulations cannot impose prior restraint or act as a form of censorship without clear, objective criteria.
Document Available

USMap

Lewis v. U.S. (1980)
US Supreme Court | 02-27-1980

Lewis v. U.S. (1980): The Supreme Court upheld a conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, reinforcing restrictions on firearm ownership for certain individuals. This decision contributes to a broader trend of limiting Second Amendment rights by imposing stringent and broad disqualifications. It is presumed Lewis was not represented by counsel and plead guilty to felony of breaking and entering with intent on committing a misdemeanor in Florida 1961. Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) could've overruled Lewis's conviction, but never sought to appeal.
Document Available

USMap

Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986
Federal Law | 05-19-1986

The Firearm Owners Protection Act (FOPA) of 1986 was significant for several reasons, primarily because it amended the Gun Control Act of 1968 to provide greater protections for gun owners and dealers. It prohibited the federal government from establishing a national registry of firearm owners, limited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) inspections of gun dealers to once per year unless there's probable cause, and allowed for the interstate transport of firearms under certain conditions, thereby enhancing the rights of gun owners to travel with their firearms. Additionally, FOPA redefined what constitutes engaging in the business of dealing firearms, which helped protect occasional private sales from being classified as dealing without a license. However, it also included a controversial provision (the Hughes Amendment) that banned the private ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986, effectively freezing the supply of transferable machine guns to civilians.
Document Available

USMap

The Undetectable Firearms Act (1988)
Federal Law | 09-10-1988

The Undetectable Firearms Act, initially passed in 1988, prohibits the manufacture, import, sale, shipment, delivery, possession, transfer, or receipt of firearms that are not detectable by walk-through metal detectors or do not generate an accurate image when subjected to X-ray machines, such as those at airports. This legislation mandates that firearms must contain at least 3.7 ounces (105 grams) of metal to ensure detectability. The Act was set to expire on March 8, 2024, but was reauthorized as part of a larger spending package, extending its enforcement until 2031. This renewal was signed into law by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024, to prevent the proliferation of undetectable firearms, addressing concerns over security in public spaces and emerging technologies like 3D-printed guns.
Document Available

USMap

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990)
US Supreme Court | 02-28-1990

United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez (1990): This case highlights the distinction between citizens and non-citizens in constitutional protections. This case reinforces the Second Amendment as a right inherently tied to the concept of "the people" of the United States, suggesting that firearm ownership is a core component of American citizenship.
Document Available

USMap

The Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990
Federal Law | 11-29-1990

Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990: This act prohibited firearms in school zones and overstepped by restricting law-abiding citizens' ability to carry concealed weapons, including those with valid permits who might otherwise contribute to safety. The law's focus on creating firearm-free zones did not address the root causes of school violence and inadvertently left individuals without adequate means of self-defense. While this ruling was overrned by United States v. Lopez (1995), Congress amended the Act to include a jurisdictional element linking gun possession in school zones to interstate commerce, which was intended to address the Supreme Court's concerns.
Document Available

USMap

United States v. Rock Island Armory (1991)
US Supreme Court | 06-07-1991

United States v. Rock Island Armory (1991): The case addressed the regulatory authority over firearm manufacturing and sales, with the court ruling that reasonable regulations must respect the core rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. By affirming that gun control measures cannot unduly infringe upon the rights of lawful gun owners and manufacturers, the decision highlighted the importance of ensuring that regulations do not undermine constitutional freedoms.
Document Available

USMap

Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993
Federal Law | 11-30-1993

The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993, signed into law by President Clinton, aimed to curb gun violence by instituting a five-day waiting period for handgun purchases and mandating background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) by 1998. It expanded categories of prohibited firearm buyers, though parts were ruled unconstitutional in Printz v. U.S. (1997).
Document Available

USMap

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (1994 Crime Bill)
Federal Law | 09-13-1994

Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994: Imposed stringent restrictions on firearm ownership and led to the controversial assault weapons ban (AWB), which infringed upon individual freedoms and did little to effectively curb crime. This law undermines the fundamental right to self-defense enshrined in the Constitution.
Document Available

USMap

Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994 (Federal Assault Weapons Ban)
Federal Law | 09-13-1994

Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act of 1994: Was a section of the The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 - Introduced the assault weapon ban (AWB), restricted access to certain firearms and accessories based on arbitrary features rather than functionality. These restrictions infringed lawful gun owners' ability to possess and use firearms that are integral to self-defense and recreational shooting. The legislation's focus on cosmetic characteristics rather than actual criminal behavior failed to address the root causes of violence, and instead, it imposed unnecessary burdens on responsible gun owners. However, its key provisions, which included a ban on the manufacture, transfer, or possession of certain types of semi-automatic firearms and large-capacity magazines, expired in 2004 due to a sunset clause included in the original legislation. This means that after 2004, the specific restrictions on assault weapons and magazines as defined by the act were no longer in effect, effectively ending the ban without a formal overruling.
Document Available

USMap

United States v. Lopez (1995)
US Supreme Court | 04-26-1995

United States v. Lopez (1995): Addressed the limits of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause, its principles are relevant to the scope of federal authority over firearms. The Supreme Court's decision to strike down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 as exceeding federal power reinforced the idea that certain regulations must respect the balance of powers between federal and state governments.
Document Available

USMap

United States v. Rybar (1996)
US Supreme Court | 03-26-1996

While not directly overturning any Second Amendment rights, Rybar's case contributed to the body of law that was later revisited in more definitive Second Amendment rulings like Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010). These cases clarified that the Second Amendment does protect an individual right to bear arms.
Document Available

USMap

The Lautenberg Amendment (1996)
Federal Law | 09-30-1996

The Lautenberg Amendment, officially known as an amendment to the Gun Control Act of 1968, was enacted in 1996 as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997. Specifically, it was signed into law on September 30, 1996. This amendment prohibits individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence from shipping, transporting, possessing, or receiving firearms or ammunition. It was named after Senator Frank Lautenberg, who proposed it, aiming to address domestic violence by restricting firearm access to those convicted of related offenses.
Document Available

USMap

Dickey Amendment of 1996
Federal Law | 10-01-1996

The Dickey Amendment passed which safeguarded against government overreach into gun control advocacy under the guise of public health research. It prohibited federal funds to advocate or promote gun control to prevent biased research.
Document Available

USMap

Printz v. United States (1997)
US Supreme Court | 06-27-1997

Printz v. United States was decided on June 27, 1997. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that certain interim provisions of the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required local law enforcement officers to conduct background checks on prospective handgun purchasers, violated the Tenth Amendment. The Court, in a 5-4 decision, held that the federal government could not compel state officers to execute federal laws, emphasizing principles of federalism and the separation of powers between state and federal governments.
Document Available

USMap

Prosposed Rule Vol. 63, No. 107 - National Instant Criminal Background Check System Regulation (1998)
Federal Register | 06-04-1998

The Federal Register entry for June 4, 1998 (Vol. 63, No. 107) regarding Point of Contact (POC) dealt with a "proposed rule" aimed at formalizing how states could operate within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This proposed rule would have defined the responsibilities and operational guidelines for states choosing to conduct their own background checks for firearm purchases, integrating both state and federal databases. It would outline procedures for data sharing, system integration, and possibly address legal considerations like data privacy, aiming to streamline the background check process while respecting state autonomy over criminal justice data. This was part of the broader implementation of NICS, fulfilling the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's requirements by transitioning from a five-day waiting period to an instant check system.
Document Available

USMap

Final Rule Vol. 63, No. 210 - National Instant Criminal Background Check System Regulation (1998)
Federal Register | 10-30-1998

The Federal Register entry for October 30, 1998 (Vol. 63, No. 210) detailed the "Final Rule" concerning states functioning as Points of Contact (POC) within the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This entry would have formalized the operational framework for states choosing to conduct their own background checks for firearm purchases, integrating state-specific criminal and mental health records with federal databases. It would outline the responsibilities, data-sharing protocols, and legal considerations for these states, ensuring compliance with the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act's requirements while transitioning from a waiting period to an instant check system.
Document Available

USMap

The Tiahrt Amendment of 2003
Federal Law | 02-20-2003

Tiahrt Amendment of 2003: This amendment safeguarded the privacy of law-abiding gun owners and dealers by restricting access to sensitive firearm trace data, which could otherwise be misused to unjustly target or stigmatize them. By preventing the public disclosure of this data, the Tiahrt Amendment not only upholds the Second Amendment rights but also ensures that the focus remains on prosecuting criminals rather than law-abiding citizens or creating a backdoor registry.
Document Available

USMap

An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003 (2004)
Federal Report | 06-01-2004

The "An Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB): Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003" underscores several points from a pro-Second Amendment perspective, highlighting that the ban had a negligible impact on overall gun crime rates, with the use of assault weapons in crimes remaining low, suggesting that targeting specific firearm types or their cosmetic features does not effectively address broader crime issues. The report also notes that due to the low base rate of crimes involving assault weapons, legislative efforts focusing on these firearms are not an effective way to address gun violence or reducing gun-related crimes.
Document Available

USMap

The Federal Assault Weapons Ban Expires (2004)
Federal Law | 09-13-2004

Expiration of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 2004: The expiration of this ban marked a pivotal moment in reaffirming the fundamental right to bear arms as protected by the Constitution. The end of this ban restored the ability of law-abiding citizens to purchase and own a broader range of common firearms, aligning with the Second Amendment's protection of individual freedoms. This anniversary highlights the ongoing importance of safeguarding constitutional rights and ensuring that legislative measures do not unduly restrict lawful gun ownership or infringe upon the fundamental right to self-defense.
Document Available

USMap

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005
Federal Law | 10-26-2005

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005: Rightfully designed to shield firearm manufacturers and dealers from frivolous lawsuits ensuring that they can operate without undue legal harassment. The act reinforces the principle that responsible gun ownership and commerce should not be undermined by legal claims unrelated to their direct conduct. Safeguarding both the rights of gun owners and the integrity of the firearm industry.
Document Available

USMap

The NICS Improvement Amendments (NIAA) of 2007
Federal Law | 01-18-2007

NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007: Introduced even more stringent reporting requirements and expanded the categories of individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms. These measures lead to unjust denials of gun purchases and created additional bureaucratic hurdles for law-abiding citizens seeking to exercise their Second Amendment rights. The increased reporting requirements inadvertently infringe upon the rights of individuals without effectively addressing the root causes of violent crime.
Document Available

USMap

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)
US Supreme Court | 06-26-2008

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Supreme Court’s decision in Heller was a historic ruling that confirmed the individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. This decision marked a significant moment in protecting constitutional freedoms by striking down Washington, D.C.'s stringent handgun ban, thereby reinforcing the fundamental nature of the right to bear arms.
Document Available

USMap

Stevens v. United States (2010)
US Supreme Court | 04-20-2010

Stevens v. United States was decided on April 20, 2010. This Supreme Court case did not directly address the Second Amendment but rather focused on the First Amendment, ruling that a federal law criminalizing the commercial creation, sale, or possession of depictions of animal cruelty was unconstitutional under the First Amendment. However, its implications for interpreting constitutional rights, including those under the Second Amendment, lie in the Court's resistance to creating new categories of unprotected speech or activities without historical precedent. This decision underscores the importance of historical tradition in defining the scope of constitutional rights, which could influence future Second Amendment cases by suggesting that any restrictions on gun rights must be deeply rooted in American history and tradition, similar to how the Court approached speech rights in Stevens.
Document Available

USMap

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010)
US Supreme Court | 06-28-2010

McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010): The Supreme Court's ruling in McDonald extended the protections affirmed in District of Columbia v. Heller to the states, ensuring that the right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental liberty that applies nationwide. By striking down Chicago's handgun ban, the Court reinforced the principle that individual gun ownership for self-defense is a core constitutional right, not subject to arbitrary restrictions by state or local governments.
Document Available

USMap

United States v. Castleman (2014)
US Supreme Court | 03-26-2014

United States v. Castleman (2014) was significant because it clarified the scope of the federal law prohibiting firearm possession by individuals convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The Supreme Court unanimously held that a conviction for intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to a domestic partner qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," even if the offense did not explicitly involve what might commonly be understood as "violent" force. This decision expanded the application of the law to include offenses where any physical force was used, thereby broadening the category of individuals prohibited from possessing firearms due to domestic violence convictions, reinforcing the legislative intent behind the Violence Against Women Act to prevent abusers from accessing guns.
Document Available

USMap

Henderson v. United States (2015)
US Supreme Court | 05-18-2015

Henderson v. United States (2015) involved a unanimous Supreme Court decision addressing the rights of felons concerning their lawfully owned firearms. Tony Henderson, after being convicted of distributing marijuana, sought to have his firearms transferred from government custody to a third party, arguing that such a transfer would not violate 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which prohibits felons from possessing firearms. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Henderson, clarifying that a court-ordered transfer of firearms to a third party, where the court is satisfied the felon would not regain control or possession, does not violate § 922(g)(1). This decision emphasized the equitable authority of federal courts to manage property rights post-conviction, ensuring that felons could legally dispose of their firearms without technically possessing them, thereby balancing property rights with the legal restrictions imposed by felony status.
Document Available

USMap

Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016)
US Supreme Court | 03-21-2016

Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016): The Supreme Court's decision in Caetano extended constitutional safeguards to stun guns, ruling that these weapons are included under the right to bear arms for self-defense. By striking down Massachusetts' ban on stun guns, the Court reinforced the principle that the Second Amendment protects a wide array of arms that are commonly used for self-defense, not just traditional firearms. This decision underscores the importance of ensuring that modern and effective means of self-defense are recognized as part of the fundamental right to protect oneself.
Document Available

USMap

Voisine v. United States (2016)
US Supreme Court | 06-27-2016

Voisine v. United States (2016) was a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed whether a conviction for reckless domestic assault qualified as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9), thereby prohibiting the possession of firearms. The Supreme Court, in a 6-2 decision, held that a reckless assault indeed falls within this category, reasoning that recklessness involves a conscious disregard of a substantial risk of harm, distinguishing it from accidental conduct. This ruling expanded the scope of the federal gun ban to include not just intentional or knowing assaults but also those committed recklessly, affirming that such a conviction could bar an individual from possessing firearms. The decision was significant for interpreting the mens rea (mental state) required for domestic violence offenses under federal law, emphasizing that the use of physical force, even if reckless, was sufficient to trigger the firearm possession prohibition.
Document Available

USMap

ATF Bump Stock Ban (2018)
ATF Regulation | 12-18-2018

The bump stock ban was enacted December 18, 2018. This ban was put into place through a final rule by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), which reclassified bump stocks as "machine guns" under the National Firearms Act and the Gun Control Act. This reclassification effectively banned the devices since new machine guns have been illegal for civilians to own without special licensing since 1986. However, this ban was later struck down by the Supreme Court on June 14, 2024, in a 6-3 decision, ruling that the ATF exceeded its authority in banning bump stocks.
Document Available

USMap

NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022
Federal Law | 03-15-2022

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022, signed into law on March 15, 2022, included the NICS Denial Notification Act of 2022 which mandates the FBI to notify state, local, and tribal law enforcement within 24 hours when an individual prohibited from purchasing firearms is denied through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This legislation aims to enhance the enforcement of existing gun control measures by ensuring immediate law enforcement awareness of potential firearm purchases by prohibited individuals, thereby tightening the oversight on firearm transactions.
Document Available

USMap

Frame or Receiver Rule (2022)
ATF Regulation | 04-26-2022

The "Frame or Receiver" Rule was enacted with its final rule published on April 26, 2022. This rule aimed to modernize the definition of what constitutes a firearm frame or receiver, affecting how firearms are identified, marked, and regulated under federal law. However, it's worth noting that this rule was later vacated by a federal judge on July 1, 2023, meaning its provisions were nullified due to legal challenges regarding the ATF's authority to redefine these terms.
Document Available

USMap

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022)
US Supreme Court | 06-24-2022

New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen (2022): It's important to recognize its pivotal role in reaffirming Second Amendment rights. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bruen struck down restrictive New York state laws that limited concealed carry permits, asserting that such regulations violated the constitutional right to bear arms for self-defense. By affirming that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to carry firearms outside the home, the decision underscores the importance of protecting fundamental freedoms against overly restrictive state regulations. This ruling reinforces the principle that the right to self-defense and lawful firearm possession extends beyond the home, ensuring that individual liberties are upheld and balanced with public safety considerations.
Document Available

USMap

Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022
Federal Law | 06-25-2022

The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022 aimed at enhancing community safety through various measures, particularly focusing on gun control, mental health, and school safety. This act expands background checks for firearm purchasers under 21, narrows the "boyfriend loophole" by prohibiting those convicted of misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence in dating relationships from possessing firearms, and criminalizes straw purchasing and unlawfully trafficking firearms. It also invests heavily in mental health services, including funding for school-based mental health programs, crisis intervention, and the expansion of the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. Additionally, it provides grants for states to implement or enhance red flag laws, supports community violence intervention programs, and allocates funds for school safety measures.
Document Available

USMap

Ghost Gun Rule (2022)
Other | 08-24-2022

The Ghost Gun rule, aimed at regulating privately made firearms (PMFs), was implemented through a regulatory adjustment by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) under the Department of Justice, redefining what constitutes a firearm under existing law to include ghost gun kits. This rule was announced with its final version published on April 26, 2022, and was set to go into effect 120 days from that date, which would be August 24, 2022. Despite legal challenges arguing overreach, the Supreme Court allowed its enforcement to continue, effectively wiggling through by leveraging existing legal frameworks and executive authority, bypassing the need for new legislation from Congress.
Document Available

USMap

Pistol Brace Rule (2023)
ATF Regulation | 01-31-2023

The Pistol Brace Rule was enacted with its final rule published on January 31, 2023, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). This rule aimed to reclassify certain firearms equipped with stabilizing braces as rifles or short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act (NFA), depending on specific criteria like design and intended use. However, this rule faced significant legal challenges, and on June 13, 2024, a federal judge in Texas vacated the rule, ruling that it violated the Administrative Procedures Act due to procedural issues, effectively overturning the ban on pistol braces.
Document Available

USMap

Fix NICS Act of 2017
Federal Law | 03-23-2023

The Fix NICS Act of 2017, signed into law by President Trump, represents a significant step towards enhancing the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens by improving the efficiency and accuracy of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). This legislation focuses on ensuring that federal agencies and states submit all relevant records of individuals prohibited from purchasing firearms, thereby preventing illegal gun sales without infringing on the rights of legal gun owners. By addressing the critical issue of incomplete or missing records, Fix NICS aims to fortify the background check system, making it more reliable for gun sellers and buyers alike, while also supporting the constitutional right to bear arms by reducing the likelihood of erroneous denials due to bureaucratic errors or oversights.
Document Available

USMap

Engaged in Business Rule (2024)
ATF Regulation | 04-11-2024

The "Engaged in the Business" Final Rule was published on April 11, 2024, by the Department of Justice, aiming to clarify the definition of who must obtain a federal firearms license to sell firearms. This rule was designed to implement changes brought by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (BSCA), which was enacted on June 25, 2022. The rule became effective on May 20, 2024.
Document Available

USMap

Garland v. Cargill (2024)
US Supreme Court | 06-14-2024

Garland v. Cargill (2024) was a landmark Supreme Court case that addressed the classification of bump stocks under the National Firearms Act (NFA). In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that bump stocks do not qualify as "machine guns" under the NFA, overturning a regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from 2018 which had classified bump stocks as machine guns. Justice Thomas, writing for the majority, emphasized that a semiautomatic rifle with a bump stock does not fire more than one shot "by a single function of the trigger," as required by the statutory definition of a machine gun. This decision was significant for interpreting the scope of the NFA and the authority of the ATF, affirming that bump stocks, which allow for rapid fire by harnessing recoil, do not convert a semiautomatic weapon into a machine gun by legal definition, thereby striking down the ATF's rule.
Document Available

USMap

United States v. Rahimi (2024)
US Supreme Court | 06-21-2024

The United States v. Rahimi Supreme Court ruling on June 21, 2024, by an 8-1 decision, upheld a federal law that temporarily disarms individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders, arguing that such a restriction does not violate the Second Amendment. Pro-2A advocates might argue that while this decision was aimed at ensuring public safety, it sets a concerning precedent by interpreting the Second Amendment in a manner that could potentially expand to broader disarmament based on judicial findings rather than criminal convictions, thereby infringing on the rights of individuals who have not been convicted of a crime but are merely deemed a threat by a civil process. This approach, they contend, misaligns with the historical understanding of the Second Amendment, which was intended to protect the right to bear arms broadly, not contingent upon the government's assessment of an individual's potential danger.
Document Available

USMap

Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024)
US Supreme Court | 06-28-2024

The significance of overturning Chevron deference, which occurred on June 28, 2024, in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, was monumental. This decision meant that courts would no longer automatically defer to agencies like the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) when interpreting laws related to firearms. Previously, under Chevron, if a gun law was deemed ambiguous, courts would often uphold the ATF's interpretation, which could sometimes be seen as restrictive of Second Amendment rights. The overturning of Chevron thus potentially allows for more judicial scrutiny of agency regulations, offering a pathway for greater protection of 2A rights by reducing the arbitrary power of administrative agencies in interpreting firearms laws.
Document Available

State Gun Control & Significant Events

USMap

An Act Concerning Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons - Sills Act (1966)
NJ State Law | 06-06-1966

In 1966, New Jersey passed An Act Concerning Firearms and Other Dangerous Weapons, also knows as the Sills Bill 1966 L. C.60, significantly enhancing gun control. This law (a) mandated permits for buying rifles, shotguns, and handguns. (b) Set strict regulations on firearm sales and ownership. (c) Was a model for the federal Gun Control Act of 1968. (d) Prompted the NRA to begin its political lobbying against gun control. E. Reflected NJ's commitment to reducing gun violence through stringent laws.
Document Available

USMap

Burton v. Sills (1968)
NJ Supreme Court | 12-16-1968

New Jersey Supreme Court in 1968 is significant because it upheld the constitutionality of New Jersey's Gun Control Law enacted in 1966. The court ruled that the state's police power justifies the regulation of firearms. The decision affirmed the state's authority to impose stringent requirements for the purchase and possession of firearms, including background checks and the need for firearms purchaser identification cards.
Document Available

USMap

Siccardi v. State (1971)
NJ Supreme Court | 04-05-1971

Siccardi v. State was a significant case decided by the Supreme Court of New Jersey on April 5, 1971. This case dealt with the right to carry a concealed weapon, focusing on the necessity of proving "justifiable need" for a permit. The court's decision upheld the constitutionality of the statute requiring such proof, emphasizing that the right to bear arms, while protected, is not absolute and can be regulated by the state under reasonable conditions.
Document Available

USMap

Weston v. State of New Jersey (1972)
NJ Supreme Court | 01-17-1972

The Weston v. State Supreme Court ruling in New Jersey was decided on January 17, 1972. This case dealt with the process for obtaining a firearms purchaser identification card, addressing the rights of an applicant when their application is denied by local law enforcement. The court's decision emphasized the need for a review process where the applicant could challenge the denial, highlighting the quasi-judicial nature of the police chief's decision in such matters.
Document Available

USMap

State v. Hatch (1973)
NJ Supreme Court | 12-28-1973

The State v. Hatch Supreme Court ruling in New Jersey was decided on December 28, 1973. This case dealt with the issue of whether a non-resident passing through New Jersey could possess a handgun or other firearm without violating New Jersey law, even if such possession was legal in their home state. The court's decision clarified that ignorance of New Jersey's firearm laws did not excuse compliance, emphasizing the state's strict regulations on firearm possession.
Document Available

USMap

Service Armament Co. v. Hyland (1974)
NJ Supreme Court | 11-11-1974

The Service Armament Co. v. Hyland Supreme Court ruling in New Jersey was decided on November 11, 1974. This case dealt with the interpretation of the "antique firearms" exemption under New Jersey's Gun Control Law, specifically addressing whether replicas of antique muzzle-loading black powder firearms were exempt from licensing requirements. The court ruled that such replicas were not exempt, emphasizing a narrow construction of exceptions to the Gun Control Law to align with its remedial and humanitarian purpose.
Document Available

USMap

State v. Repp (1976)
NJ Supreme Court | 01-27-1976

State v. Repp in New Jersey addressed the interpretation of firearm possession laws, specifically regarding the requirement for a firearms purchaser identification card. The case clarified that individuals who acquired firearms before the enactment of the law requiring such identification were not exempt from possessing those firearms without the card, even if the acquisition predated the law. This ruling had implications for how pre-existing firearm ownership was treated under New Jersey law, affecting the rights and legal obligations of gun owners in the state.
Document Available

USMap

Assault Firearms Law of 1990
NJ State Law | 05-18-1990

The New Jersey Assault Firearms Law of 1990, enacted as one of the most stringent gun control measures in the U.S. at the time, prohibited the sale of numerous assault weapons (AWB), focusing particularly on semiautomatic rifles capable of holding over 15 rounds in a fixed magazine. This legislation was designed to curb the possession and sale of firearms based on their appearance, which included features like pistol grips or flash suppressors, rather than their functionality in crime. Subsequent evaluations of the law's impact suggested it had little effect on reducing criminal activities involving firearms.
Document Available

USMap

Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen v. Florio (1990)
State Ruling | 08-15-1990

The Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen v. Florio (1990) ruling, delivered on August 15, 1990, by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, was significant for challenging New Jersey's gun control legislation, specifically the ban on certain types of firearms and ammunition containers. This case was pivotal as it sought to clarify the boundaries of state gun control laws against Second Amendment rights, focusing on the constitutionality of defining firearms in a manner that could be seen as vague or overly restrictive. Although the specifics of the case's impact on overturning or upholding the law might not be detailed in the provided sources, its significance lies in how it contributed to the ongoing debate over gun control versus individual rights, setting a precedent for how such laws might be legally contested based on vagueness and potential infringement on constitutional rights.
Document Available

USMap

Substantially Identical Guidelines Announced (1996)
NJ State Guidance | 08-19-1996

The New Jersey State Attorney General issued guidelines regarding the "Substantially Identical" provision in the State's assault (AWB) firearms laws, N.J.S. 2C:39-1w(2). These guidelines define, in addition to the firearms specifically enumerated as assault firearms in N.J.S. 2C:39-1w(1), those firearms which are manufactured under any designation which are also classified as assault firearms.
Document Available

USMap

Mandatory NICS was Implemented nationwide. NJ Designates Itself as a POC for NICS (1998)
NJ State Events | 11-30-1998

New Jersey Designation as a Point of Contact (1998): Foreshadowed and known as an overreach that infringes rights by imposing additional bureaucratic hurdles for law-abiding citizens. The requirement for background checks lead to delays, excessive fee's and unnecessary restrictions on responsible gun owners. The focus on expanding restrictions, rather than addressing underlying causes of violence, raises signifant concerns about the intent. Link provided is federal ruling allowing states to declare POC.
Document Available

USMap

Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, Inc. v. Whitman (1999)
State Ruling | 03-01-1999

The Coalition of New Jersey Sportsmen, Inc. v. Whitman (1999) ruling, delivered on March 31, 1999, by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, was significant for its examination of New Jersey's stringent gun control legislation, particularly the definition of "assault firearms" (AWB). This case challenged the statute's broad categorization of firearms, which included not just specific models but also any firearm deemed "substantially identical" to those listed, arguing that this definition was unconstitutionally vague. Although the case did not lead to the overturning of the assault weapon ban, it highlighted the ongoing tension between legislative efforts to regulate dangerous weapons and Second Amendment rights, setting a precedent for how such laws might be legally contested based on vagueness and potential overreach into constitutional protections.
Document Available

USMap

Bullet Hole, Inc. v. Dunbar (2000)
State Ruling | 09-20-2000

The Bullet Hole, Inc. v. Dunbar case in New Jersey was significant for its implications on administrative law, particularly concerning the delegation of executive authority and the procedural requirements for implementing state regulations, especially in the context of firearms. The case challenged the Governor's designation of the New Jersey State Police as the agency responsible for conducting background checks under the Brady Act, questioning the separation of powers and the adherence to the Administrative Procedure Act for setting fees and operational procedures. This led to discussions on how administrative decisions affect private businesses, like Bullet Hole, Inc., through fees and operational restrictions, highlighting the importance of proper administrative rule-making processes and the potential for judicial review of such decisions.
Document Available

USMap

New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law of 2002
NJ State Law | 12-23-2002

The New Jersey Childproof Handgun Law of 2002, also known as P.L. 2002, c. 130, mandated that once smart gun technology (handguns that can only be fired by authorized users) became commercially available, all handguns sold in New Jersey would need to incorporate this technology within 30 months. This law aimed to eliminate the future sale of conventional firearms. This law was later revised to require retailers to offer at least one smart gun for sale when such technology becomes viable due to the lack of any interest in developing such technology.
Document Available

USMap

New Jersey Firearm Purchase and Permitting Study Commission (2015) (Ex. Order No. 180)
NJ Executive Order | 06-29-2015

The New Jersey Firearm Purchase and Permitting Study Commission of 2015, under Governor Christie, led to several reforms including: (a) Uniform criteria for gun applications across police departments. (b) Clarification of "justifiable need" for handgun carry permits. (c) Expedited permits for individuals under serious threats. (d) Guidance on "reasonably necessary" deviations when transporting firearms. (e) Increased transparency with annual reporting on permit processing times. These changes aimed to streamline and clarify New Jersey's firearm laws, focusing on fairness, efficiency, and legal clarity.
Document Available

USMap

Expedition of Carry Permits - Clarification of Transport Laws - Justifiable Need Interpration (2016)
NJ Regulatory Change | 04-08-2016

Governor Chris Christie's administration moved to clarify parts of New Jersey's gun transport laws and vowed to expedite the processing of gun permits and clarified existing laws and procedures.
Document Available

USMap

Gun Safety Package 1.0 (2018)
NJ State Law | 06-13-2018

The NJ Gun Control Package of 2018, often referred to as "Gun Safety Package 1.0," under Governor Phil Murphy, aimed to strengthen New Jersey's already stringent gun laws. Here's a summary of its key components: Enhanced Background Checks, Concealed Carry Permit Standards, Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO): Also known as "red flag" laws, Ban on Armor-Piercing Ammunition, Reduction in Ammunition Magazine Capacity from 15 to 10, Regulation of "Ghost Guns", Training and Liability Insurance. These laws were intended to severly limit access to firearms and ammunition and providing mechanisms to remove guns from law abiding citizens without due process. (A1181, A1217, A2757, A2758, A2759, A2761)
Document Available

USMap

Gun Safety Package 2.0 (2019)
NJ State Law | 08-05-2019

The NJ Gun Control Package 2.0 of 2019, signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy, aimed to further erode New Jersey's gun rights. Here's an overview of what it entailed: Smart Gun Technology Mandate, Expansion of Disqualifying Crimes, Gun Trafficking Measures: such as requiring firearms to be locked away when not in use at home or on permitted premise, Ammunition Sales Tracking, Firearm Identification Card Renewal Periods, Mandating proof of completion of a gun safety training course, Increased Penalties. These reforms were part of Governor Murphy's broader initiative to disarm law abiding citizens under the guide of public safety. (Bills S101, S3897, A4449, A3896)
Document Available

USMap

Executive Order No. 83 - Murder Insurance Ban (2019)
Exective Order | 09-10-2019

Executive Order No. 83, signed by Governor Phil Murphy on September 9, 2019, instructed the Commissioner of Banking and Insurance to implement measures that would prohibit insurance products covering firearm-related incidents in New Jersey. The intent was to render gun owners without insurance coverage for legal actions stemming from self-defense scenarios. Subsequently, in 2022, Governor Murphy attempted to introduce a requirement for what some have termed "Murder Insurance," which contradicted his earlier executive order. This new policy proposal, along with the implications of the original order, remains under legal scrutiny and has not been conclusively settled by the courts as of 2024.
Document Available

USMap

Governor Murphy Shutdowns NJ (2020)
NJ State Events | 03-21-2020

Governor Murphy Statewide Shutdown (2020): The shutdowns impacted personal liberties, including the ability of citizens to access services and resources crucial for self-defense. For many, the closure of gun shops and restrictions on obtaining firearms during this period created significant obstacles to exercising their Second Amendment rights. Executive Order 107 & 108.
Document Available

USMap

Governor Murphy Declares Gun Shops Essential (2020)
NJ State Law | 03-30-2020

Governor Murphy Declaring Gun Shops as Essential (2020): Classifying gun shops as essential ensured that citizens could access firearms and ammunition during a critical time. This declaration serves as a reminder of the importance of ensuring that rights to self-defense are maintained even amidst health crises.
Document Available

USMap

Gun Safety Package 3.0 (2022)
NJ State Law | 07-07-2022

The Gun Safety Package 3.0, signed into law by Governor Phil Murphy on July 5, 2022, in New Jersey, introduced several measures: (a) Firearm Training Requirement: Prospective gun buyers are required to complete a certified firearm safety course before obtaining a firearm purchaser identification card. (b> Ban on .50 Caliber Rifles: Most .50 caliber rifles were banned (c) Out-of-State Firearm Registration (d) Ammunition Sales Regulation: There's a new system for regulating and tracking handgun ammunition sales, aiming to curb illegal ammunition transactions. (e) Microstamping for Firearms (f) Increased Penalties for Ghost Guns: The manufacturing of ghost guns (unserialized firearms) (g) Public Nuisance Law. These laws were part of a broader initiative to criminalize law-abiding citizens. (A1765/S1893, A1179/S1204, A4367/S2846, A4366/S2905, A1302/S2903, A4370/S2906, A4368/S2907)
Document Available

Other Significant Events

USMap

Declaration of Independence Adopted (1776)
National Events | 07-04-1776

The Declaration of Independence, adopted on July 4, 1776, by the Continental Congress, formally announced the separation of the thirteen American colonies from British control, articulating the colonies' right to self-governance and independence. This document, primarily authored by Thomas Jefferson, not only declared independence but also laid out the philosophical foundation for individual rights, including the right to bear arms, which was later codified in the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The Declaration's assertion of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" as unalienable rights, coupled with the grievances against the British Crown for infringing on these rights, underscored the importance of an armed populace as a safeguard against tyranny, setting a precedent for the Second Amendment's protection of gun rights as a means to ensure security and liberty against potential governmental overreach.
Document Available

USMap

United States Constitution Adopted (1788)
Foundational | 06-21-1788

The U.S. Constitution was significant for establishing a federal framework that balanced power between the national government and the states, creating a system of checks and balances among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, which was designed to prevent any single entity from gaining absolute power. While not directly related to gun control or rights, the framework is the core reason why we still have the ability to protect our god given rights. This structure also inherently aimed to protect citizens from state burdens by limiting the powers of government through enumeration, thereby ensuring that rights not explicitly granted to the states or the federal government were reserved to the people. The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. However, it was not until March 4, 1789, that the Constitution officially went into effect, following its ratification by the necessary nine states.
Document Available

USMap

The NRA Is Founded (1871)
Milestone | 11-17-1871

NRA Founding (1871): A celebration of an organization that has been pivotal in defending and educating about the Second Amendment. The NRA's establishment marked a significant commitment to firearm safety, marksmanship, and the protection of gun rights, which are seen as integral to American freedoms. The NRA has empowered citizens through education and training, ensuring that the right to bear arms is not just theoretical but practical, fostering a culture of responsible gun ownership. This anniversary underscores the NRA's role in preserving what many see as a fundamental individual right, essential for self-defense, national security, and as a check against potential governmental overreach, thereby reinforcing the importance of an armed populace as envisioned by the founders.
Document Available

USMap

Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax (FAET) - Revenue Act of 1918
Federal Law | 02-24-1919

The beginning of a slipply slope: Excise taxes on firearms and ammunition were first imposed in 1919 in the Revenue Act of 1918 (P.L. 62-524), as part of the tax increases associated with World War I. The initial rate was 10%. Although the war ended, some of these taxes remained. The Revenue Act of 1926 (P.L. 68-553) eliminated the tax on long guns and ammunition, retaining only the tax on pistols and revolvers. The Revenue Act of 1928 (P.L. 75-400) eliminated these taxes as well. The FAET (Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax), at 10%, along with other taxes, was restored by the Revenue Act of 1932 (P.L. 71-88), reflecting the revenue needs during the Great Depression. The Revenue Act of 1940 (P.L. 76-656) raised the tax rate on pistols and revolvers to 11% for a temporary, five-year period. This temporary increase was made permanent in the Revenue Act of 1941 (P.L. 77-250), and the tax rate on other firearms and ammunition was increased to 11%. The Excise Tax Reduction Act of 1954 (P.L. 83-354) reduced the rate for pistols and revolvers to 10%, leading to the rates that stand today. Initially, FAET revenues were deposited into the Treasury's general fund. However, in 1937, the Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act (P.L. 75-415, commonly known as the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act) redirected the taxes on rifles, shotguns, and ammunition to the Wildlife Restoration Trust Fund.
Document Available

USMap

The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937
Federal Law | 09-07-1937

The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937, imposing an 11% federal excise tax on firearms, ammunition, and archery equipment, was intended to fund wildlife conservation, habitat restoration, and hunter education, ensuring hunters directly support conservation. However, this tax can be seen as an excessive burden stemming from a slippery slope that began with the 1918 Firearms and Ammunition Excise Tax for wartime funding. Critics argue it's an insult because it raises the cost of essential equipment, potentially deterring gun ownership and hunting, while seemingly unfairly targeting hunters for additional taxes despite their contributions through licenses and voluntary efforts, subtly infringing on Second Amendment rights under the guise of conservation. The Pittman-Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 is still in effect today at the same rate.
Document Available

USMap

Assassination of President John F. Kennedy (1963)
National Events | 11-22-1963

Assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963: During JFK's era, gun control was not as divisive an issue as it is today. The major legislative action related to guns during his time was the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was passed after his assassination along with his brother and Martin Luther King Jr. However, this act was more a response to his death and other high-profile assassinations rather than a direct reflection of his personal stance.

USMap

Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. (1968)
National Events | 04-04-1968

Assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on April 4, 1968: MLK applied for a concealed carry permit after his home was bombed in 1956, indicating a recognition of the need for self-defense in the face of violent threats. His application was denied. Some believe, his assasination along with John F. Kennedy and Robert F. Kennedy was the catalyst to passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was passed after his assassination.

USMap

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy (1968)
National Events | 06-05-1968

Assassination of Robert F. Kennedy on June 5, 1968: : During RFK's time, gun control was not as polarized an issue as it is now. The major legislative action related to guns during his era was the Gun Control Act of 1968, which was passed after his assassination along with his brother and Martin Luther King Jr. This act was more a reaction to his death and other high-profile assassinations rather than a direct reflection of his personal stance.

USMap

BATF Was Created (1972)
National Events | 07-01-1972

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) as Formed (1972): Department of Treasury Order No. 221, effective July 1, 1972. The ATF's regulations infringe upon the Second Amendment rights by creating convoluted legal hurdles and potential traps for gun enthusiasts and collectors. The ATF's actions often lack clear legislative backing, essentially legislating through regulation, which not only undermines the separation of powers but also turns legal gun owners into criminals through bureaucratic fiat, thereby challenging the very essence of the right to bear arms as protected by the Constitution.
Document Available

USMap

The NRA Establishes Its Lobbying Arm (1975)
Milestone | 01-04-1975

NRA Legislative Action (ILA) Formation (1975): Marks a pivotal moment in the defense of Second Amendment rights. This event signifies the NRA's commitment to actively protecting gun rights against legislative overreach, ensuring that the voices of law-abiding gun owners are heard in the halls of power. This move has been crucial in not only defending but also in expanding the recognition of gun rights as individual rights, as seen in landmark Supreme Court decisions like Heller and McDonald. The establishment of the ILA underscores the belief that an organized, proactive approach is essential to safeguard constitutional freedoms from erosion by political or legislative means, thereby preserving the right to bear arms for future generations.

USMap

The Cincinatti Revolt (1977)
Milestone | 05-21-1977

The Cincinnati Revolt (1977): Marks a pivotal moment where the National Rifle Association transformed from a group primarily focused on hunting and sports shooting into a formidable defender of the Second Amendment. This event underscores the importance of an organized, vigilant citizenry in safeguarding constitutional rights against potential erosion by legislative or cultural shifts. This revolt as the awakening of the NRA to its true mission: not just to teach marksmanship but to ensure that the right to bear arms remains a robust, individual freedom against any form of tyranny or overreach by the government.

USMap

Ruby Ridge (1992)
National Events | 08-21-1992

The Ruby Ridge incident, beginning on 8/21/1992, where Randy Weaver's family faced a tragic standoff with federal agents, stands as a stark reminder of why the Second Amendment is not just about the right to bear arms, but about safeguarding individual liberty against overreach. Here was a family, isolated and distrustful of government, whose story ended in bloodshed not because they posed an imminent threat, but because they were perceived as non-conformists. The loss of Weaver's son Sammy, shot in the back, and his wife Vicki, killed while holding their infant, underscores the emotional and physical cost of government overreach. This event, where the government's actions were later criticized for their excessive use of force, illustrates the Second Amendment's deeper purpose: to ensure citizens have the means to protect themselves against tyranny, not just from foreign threats, but from domestic abuses of power as well.

USMap

Waco Siege (1993)
National Events | 02-28-1993

The Waco Siege, a harrowing testament to the Second Amendment's necessity, unfolded when federal agents, under the guise of enforcing firearm laws, besieged the Branch Davidians, leading to a 51-day standoff that ended in tragedy. This event, where over 70 men, women, and children perished, not in a blaze of criminal defiance but in what many see as an overreach of government power, underscores the Second Amendment's role as a bulwark against tyranny. The Davidians, armed not out of aggression but for self-defense, faced tanks and tear gas, illustrating the stark reality that without the right to bear arms, citizens are defenseless against governmental excess.

USMap

Assault Weapons and Accessories in America study by Josh Sugarmann in 1988
Gun Violence Study | 05-18-1998

The term "Assault Weapon" gained significant attention and was popularized around 1988 when Josh Sugarmann, in his capacity with the Violence Policy Center, published a study titled "Assault Weapons and Accessories in America." This publication is often credited with bringing the term into wider use, particularly in the context of gun control discussions.
Document Available

USMap

Operation Fast and Furious & The Death of U.S. Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry (2010)
Government Overreach | 12-14-2010

Operation Fast and Furious, executed by the ATF, starkly illustrates government overreach and a troubling manipulation of public sentiment towards gun control. This operation, which involved allowing firearms to be trafficked into Mexico with the aim of tracking them to higher-ups in drug cartels, not only failed spectacularly but also revealed a disturbing intent. Documents and discussions within the ATF suggest that Fast and Furious was potentially designed to justify stricter gun control measures, like "Demand Letter 3," by artificially inflating the narrative of gun trafficking from the U.S. to Mexico. This duplicity not only endangered lives, including that of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry, but also undermined the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens, showcasing a government willing to sacrifice constitutional freedoms for political gain, thereby highlighting the need for vigilant defense of gun rights against such manipulative tactics. The lack of criminal charges against U.S. officials involved in Operation Fast and Furious has been a point of contention and discussion, especially in political and legal circles, reflecting on issues of accountability, oversight, and the ethics of such operations.

USMap

George Floyd Riots (2020)
National Events | 05-06-2020

George Floyd Riots (2020: The widespread unrest following George Floyd’s death saw many communities experiencing heightened violence and property destruction, underscoring the vital role that lawful self-defense plays in ensuring personal and public safety. Such unrest highlights the need for citizens to have the ability to protect themselves and their property during times of civil disorder. The riots demonstrated the obvious gaps in safety when law enforcement resources are stretched thin, reinforcing the argument that the right to bear arms is crucial for personal security and maintaining order in chaotic situations.

USMap

CHOP Zone Established (2020)
National Events | 05-29-2020

Establishment of the Capitol Hill Organized Protest Zone in Seattle (2020): The challenges of maintaining safety and security in an area where traditional law enforcement was forbidden. Many residents faced heightened risks and uncertainty about their personal safety. The lack and restriction of law enforcement presence during the CHOP zone underscores the need for individuals to have the means to protect themselves and their property in the face of potential threats and disorder.

USMap

Kenosha incident (2020)
National Events | 08-25-2020

Kyle Rittenhouse Incident (2020): Brought significant attention to the role of armed self-defense during periods of civil unrest. Rittenhouse, who was acquitted of charges related to the incident was exercising his right to self-defense amid a chaotic and violent environment. The incident underscores the importance when law enforcement is overwhelmed or absent.

USMap

Joe Biden Declared Winner of 2020 Election (2020)
National Events | 11-07-2020

President Biden Election (2020): Serves as a reminder that if an election's integrity could be compromised due to last-minute changes in voting laws, irregularities, and the influence of external factors on voting practices, then the populace must remain on guard against the possibility of a government that might not have been legitimately elected. The right to bear arms acts as a safeguard, ensuring that citizens have the means to resist or deter any authoritarian tendencies that could arise from a government perceived as having taken power through dubious means and safeguarding our country against tyranny.

USMap

First Doses of an FDA Vaccine (2020)
National Events | 12-14-2020

First FDA-Approved COVID-19 Vaccine (2020): Serves as a reminder of the broader implications for individual freedoms. The rapid push for vaccine mandates, coupled with widespread lockdowns and the perceived lack of transparency from health officials, exemplifies government overreach. This situation fuels concerns about how easily personal liberties will be curtailed under the guise of public health or emergency measures. Skepticism around the vaccine's development and the election integrity issues raised during the same period deepen the distrust in government, reinforcing the belief that an armed populace is necessary as a final safeguard against potential tyranny, where government actions might be influenced by political motives rather than genuine public welfare.

USMap

Russia invades Ukraine (2022)
World Events | 02-24-2022

Russia's Invasion of Ukraine (2022): Underscores the importance of an armed populace as a deterrent against tyranny and foreign aggression. Ukraine's initial restrictive gun laws left many citizens defenseless, highlighting how an armed citizenry can serve as a significant impediment to would-be invaders, potentially making aggressors think twice before launching an attack. The right to bear arms could have enabled more Ukrainian civilians to resist or deter Russian forces from the outset, thereby emphasizing the principle that an armed population is a critical element of national defense and personal freedom, especially in times of existential threat.

USMap

Former President Trump Mar-O-Lago Raid (2022)
National Events | 08-08-2022

Mar-a-Lago Raid (2022): An overreach of federal power into the private life of a citizen and showcases how broad search warrants can be abused to infringe upon individual rights. If the government can justify such an invasive search on former President Trump under the guise of national security, then the average gun owner could be subject to similar tactics under the pretext of gun control or public safety, thereby undermining the constitutional protections afforded to all citizens without due process being respected.

USMap

Democrat NJ Assemblyman McKeon Infamous Racist Speech (2022)
NJ State Events | 11-16-2022

NJ Assemblyman McKeon's Racist Speech (2022): pecifically, McKeon's statement, "Do you really want to put more guns in the hands of people that live in Paterson and Newark and Elizabeth and Camden?". During the carry bill meeting, McKeon's remarks were rightfylly criticized and the event highlights the importance of focusing on the core issue: the right to bear arms. Such incidents underscore the need for a respectful and principled debate on gun rights, free from divisive rhetoric. This speech serves as a reminder that discussions about firearm legislation should center on protecting constitutional freedoms and ensuring that all citizens can exercise their Second Amendment rights without discrimination or bias.
YouTube Link

USMap

Hamas attack on Isreal (2023)
World Events | 10-07-2023

Hamas Attack on Israel (2023): In times of conflict and threat, the ability to defend oneself and one's community becomes paramount. This event underscores the broader principle that individuals and nations must have the means to protect themselves against aggression and violence. The right to bear arms is essential for maintaining security and ensuring that citizens can effectively safeguard their lives and freedoms in the face of such threats. This event highlights the fundamental importance of self-defense in preserving liberty and security for oneself and one's community.

USMap

President Trump Assination Attempt (2024)
National Events | 07-13-2024

Trump Assasination Attempt (2024): Underscores the need for an armed citizenry as a deterrent against not only common criminals but also against acts of political violence or tyranny. If high-profile figures, surrounded by security, can be vulnerable to such attacks, then average citizens, without such protective measures, must have the means to defend themselves. Reinforcing the belief that an armed populace is essential for the preservation of freedom and safety against unforeseen threats.

Legislation, Registration, Confiscation, and Extermination

extermination

Armenian Genocide (1915)
Genocide | 1915

In the early 20th century, the Ottoman Empire implemented gun control measures in 1911, which preceded the tragic events often referred to as the Armenian Genocide. Following this, from 1915 to 1917, an estimated 1.5 million Armenians were systematically displaced and killed in what many historians classify as an act of genocide. The gun control laws have been cited by some as a factor that facilitated the ability of the Ottoman government to carry out these mass killings, as it significantly reduced the capacity for resistance among the targeted populations.

extermination

China - Nationalist (1927)
Genocide | 1927

In Nationalist China, the period from 1927 to 1949 was marked by significant political violence and civil war, where gun control measures were an integral part of the control mechanisms employed by the state. The Chinese Civil War and subsequent policies under both Nationalist and Communist rule led to millions of deaths. Historical accounts suggest that the conflict, resulted in the deaths of millions, with some figures suggesting up to 20 million casualties, encompassing various causes linked to gun control.

extermination

Soviet Union (1929)
Genocide | 1929

In the Soviet Union, gun control was enacted in 1929, which significantly restricted the ability of the populace to possess firearms, setting a stage where resistance against state actions was minimal. Following this, during Stalin's regime, various acts of political repression, purges, and forced collectivization led to mass deaths, with estimates varying widely. It's commonly cited that these purges, including the Great Purge and the Holodomor, resulted in the deaths of millions, with some estimates suggesting around 20 million people were either executed, died in the Gulag, from 1929 to 1953.

extermination

Nazi Germany (1938)
Genocide | 1938

In Nazi Germany and occupied Europe, the 1938 German Weapons Act was enacted to restrict gun ownership, particularly targeting Jews and other groups deemed undesirable by the regime. This disarmament is often cited by some as a facilitator for the Holocaust, where an estimated 11 million people, including 6 million Jews and 5 million others such as Roma, Slavs, homosexuals, and political dissidents, were systematically murdered during World War II. The gun control measures reduced resistance against the Nazis' genocidal policies.

extermination

China - Red (1949)
Genocide | 1949

In Red China, the periods from 1949-1952, 1957-1960, and 1966-1976 were marked by significant political violence and social upheaval, where gun control measures played a pivotal role in the state's ability to exert control over the populace. Prior to and during these eras, particularly with the establishment of the People's Republic in 1949, gun control was enacted, which facilitated the government's capacity to carry out mass killings and suppress resistance. The estimated death toll from these periods, encompassing the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, varies widely with some sources suggesting figures from 20 million to as high as 80 million.

extermination

Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge (1956)
Genocide | 1956

In Cambodia, gun control was established in 1956, set the stage for one of the 20th century's most brutal periods under the Khmer Rouge regime from 1975 to1979. During this time, the Khmer Rouge, led by Pol Pot, implemented a radical Marxist policy that resulted in the Cambodian genocide, where an estimated 1.5 to 2 million people died due to executions, labor, and starvation, representing about 25% of Cambodia's population at the time. The disarmament of the population through gun control made it easier for the regime to carry out itsocidal policies without significant resistance.

extermination

Guatemala (1964)
Genocide | 1964

In Guatemala, the period leading up to and during the genocide against the Mayan population saw significant gun control measures, particularly following the 1964 establishment of stricter firearm regulations. This control facilitated the military government's ability to carry out widespread violence during the Guatemalan Civil War from 1960 to 1996. It's estimated that over 200,000 people, primarily Indigenous Mayans, were killed or disappeared during this conflict, with acts of genocide occurring especially between 1981 and 1983, as part of the government's counterinsurgency operations.

extermination

Uganda (1971)
Genocide | 1971

In Uganda, the period under Idi Amin's rule from 1971 to 1979 was marked by severe political violence and genocide, where gun control measures played a role in the state's ability to suppress opposition. Prior to and during this era, gun control was enacted, which critics argue facilitated Amin's regime in carrying out mass killings. It is estimated that between 300,000 to 500,000 people were killed during this time.

extermination

Rwanda (1994)
Genocide | 1994

In Rwanda, prior to the 1994 genocide, gun control laws were implemented in 1979, which facilitated the mass killings by limiting civilian access to firearms for self-defense. During the genocide, which lasted for about 100 days from April to July 1994, an estimated 800,000 to 1 million Tutsis and moderate Hutus were brutally murdered. The absence of means for self-defense exacerbate the scale of violence during ethnic cleansings.