States such as New York have been signing conceal carry restrictions into law like there’s no tomorrow. And recently there have been claims that these restrictions disproportionately impact minority communities. Likewise, there is a lawsuit claiming that the “good moral character” clause included in New York’s Conceal Carry Improvement Act (CCIA) is rooted in racist tradition, and it’s subjective nature is just another way to deny minorities gun permits.

These developments in the continued suppression of Americans’ God-given right to bear arms come on the heels of a trend showing an increase in black gun ownership over the past couple of years. 44 percent of retailers saw an increase of African Americans purchasing firearms in 2021.

Also, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), at least 40 percent of gun sales in 2020 were made by first-time gun buyers. Among these first-time gun buyers were young people, women and minorities, from all over the spectrum of political views. In 2020, the number of gun purchases by African Americans increased 56% from what it was in 2019, according to research by the NSSF.

And a 2022 New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center report found that Black and Hispanic gun owners are several times more likely to carry a firearm outside the home than white gun owners.

The NSSF’s Managing Director of Public Affairs Mark Oliva has spoken at length about the rise in gun ownership among black Americans, who are looking to become educated and highly trained with the most modern firearms technology. He says that due to growing numbers of women and minorities purchasing firearms, “today’s gun owner looks a whole lot less like me and looks more like the rest of America, because they are the rest of America.”

Oliva says that the typical gun owner today is “shattering the stereotypes,” and that “it’s becoming much more difficult for those who oppose gun ownership to put gun owners into a neat little box as they have in the past.”

The Rise of the National African American Gun Association (NAAGA)

The National African American Gun Association (NAAGA) has seen a dramatic growth upwards from 58 percent in 2021. And the group celebrates its 8 year anniversary this year during Black History Month on February 28. So I decided to have a chat this month with president and founder of the NAAGA Philip Smith, on topics related to black gun ownership and other present day second amendment issues.

While the NAAGA encourages black citizens to practice their second amendment rights in a safe and positive way, the group is open to anyone, not just black gun owners. The organization currently has over 2,000 white members.

“We’re not worried about where you’re coming from or what you do in your private time or how you’re dressed and all these social, political and racial litmus tests, we don’t have that,” says Smith, who makes inclusivity a core aspect of the group. “We’re gonna give u a high five and say ‘come on sister,’ regardless of your color or gender.”

Smith discussed NAAGA’s recent growth spurt with us. “Right now we’re at about 51,000 members nationally. We have over 130 chapters. We have members in every state of the U.S. and we have chapters in 38 out of the 50 states so we’re not quite there for chapters in every state but we’re getting close and our members vary.”

On the topic of gun control laws disproportionately impacting minorities, Smith concurs. “Yeah anybody can buy a Glock for $400 or a Smith and Wesson or a Daniel Defense or any gun that you want.”

But the barriers for people that want to legally carry a gun seem to grow more and more expensive. Smith explains how these would-be gun owners are then required to take a conceal carry certification course which is likely to cost at least a couple hundred dollars. “Then you have to get [the firearm] registered, or you have to go through some kind of verification, that’s another $100. So you now have in effect doubled the price of that gun, for a poor person in the hood.”

Not only does this price many black, as well as white Americans out of the second amendment, but Smith says “I think you’re basically taxing the second amendment which I think should not be allowed, and any and everybody should be allowed to buy a gun with no barriers, period. As long as you can pass that background check, you should be allowed to buy a gun.”

The History of 2A Rights for Black Americans

There is a lot of history behind the oppression of gun rights for African Americans and people of color. After slavery was abolished, the Klu Klux clan, Jim Crow laws and lynchings terrorized the black community well into the 1900s.

But that doesn’t mean that the second amendment wasn’t essential during very critical times in African American history. For starters, carrying arms is the sole reason many black people escaped lynchings in years past. And then there’s Harriet Tubman, who was armed with a pistol on her missions to rescue slaves. The first African-American female mail carrier, Mary Fields, was described by the African American registry as “a black gun-toting female in the American Wild West who was six feet tall, heavy, tough, short-tempered, two-fisted, and powerful; she carried a pair of six-shooters and an eight or ten-gauge shotgun.”

 “I always use examples of heroes within our community, you know the Buffalo Soldiers, Tuskegee Airmen, the Harlem Hellfighters out of the army, Deacons of Defense, folks that really utilized the firearms to emancipate [themselves],” says Smith. “We should be very proud of that fact, and they died for us in many many cases, and those are just the famous ones but a lot of not-so-famous people died utilizing a gun to try to fight for their freedom as well.”

Smith says because their ancestors fought so hard for freedoms such as the Second Amendment, it’s critical that black Americans do their part to preserve these liberties. “We’re not discounted Americans, we’re not sub Americans, we’re Americans and we fought for this country when we weren’t even considered citizens, so we are in my mind the most patriotic group within the U.S. by far.”

MLK, Civil Rights, Black Panthers and the Mulford Act

The Civil Rights Movement was led by Martin Luther King who recognized the need for self-defense (and was denied a conceal carry permit which he applied for after his house was bombed). The rise of Malcolm X and the Black Panthers also played a significant part in the breaking down of racial barriers, and these individuals believed that nonviolence was not the road to take to protect blacks, that in fact it would only put them in more danger. Then came the Mulford Act, an open carry ban which was California’s first major gun control law, signed by Ronald Reagan, who was governor of California at the time. According to History.com, “The 1967 bill took California down the path to having some of the strictest gun laws in America and helped jumpstart a surge of national gun control restrictions,” including the Gun Control Act of 1968. It’s also worth noting that the National Rifle Association (NRA) supported the Mulford Act.

This Mulford Act was signed at the same point in history when the Black Panthers began educating people on their rights the old school way. The NAAGA’s Smith refers to the Black Panthers as “the first group coming from the black community that really utilized firearms as part of their dogma.” The Panthers would show up in the neighborhood when a citizen was confronted by the police, armed with lawbooks, to observe the interaction, as Smith says, “right there on the spot, right there on the spot literally.”

Modern Day Black 2A Leaders

Now let’s take a look at modern second amendment leaders and activists from the black community.

Gun rights activist Lucretia Hughes spoke in front of lawmakers back in June about her experience losing her 19-year old son to gun violence perpetrated by a convicted offender who used an illegally obtained gun. With the second amendment currently under attack, Hughes is adamant that tighter gun laws are not the answer. Instead, Hughes, a 48-year old African American female, says that guns are essential as a mechanism for protection and self-defense, and uses her testimony to bring together women of all ages and races to learn about guns and receive proper training.

Hughes says she has a black police officer, Sheriff Jones of Barrow County, Georgia, to thank for insisting that she carry a firearm for protection when he noticed her door-knocking alone for Congressional candidates in her neighborhood. Sherriff Jones asked Hughes about where her gun was, and when she told him she had left it at home, he said “look around you, I’m the only cop within ten minutes of getting here to save your life. You will be dead before I even rescue you.”

Then there’s Colion Noir, a young African American attorney and Second Amendment advocate. When he was struggling to pass the bar exam, Noir found solace and stress-relief in going to the shooting range.

Noir recently did a video where he unpacked the Mulford Act after Joy Behar claimed on the View that “when black people get guns,” the laws will change. Then Noir argued that if Behar truly feels that way, then why isn’t she encouraging blacks to practice their second amendment rights as much as possible?

Thomas Cunningham started Onyx Gun Club in Ohio due to scarce representation of people of color at his local shooting range. Onyx Gun club emphasizes responsibility and safety training to shatter historical stigmas of black gun owners.

And right before an armed citizen stopped the deadly Mall Shooting in Indiana last summer, Black Guns Matter founder Maj Toure began calling for training citizens to ‘defend life’ as the only gun control necessary in America. You can check out his moving statements on this issue here.

It’s been a challenging, but victorious road for black Americans that want to become educated and trained on all things gun related.

Smith says that when he first started the NAAGA, “the initial conversations I had were very tough because folks, you know, only deal with what [they] know, and a lot of folks didn’t really know much about our community.” He then found himself “constantly educating folks in the manufacturing side, ammo, gun holsters, whatever, about our organization.” One key message that Smith seeks to transmit to society is, “that black folks, let’s be transparent, are buying guns, and a large amount of guns, and they’re changing their mindset slowly but it is changing.”

During his recent State of the Union address, President Biden demonized AR-15s as “assault weapons” even though only one cartridge is expended each time the trigger is pressed, and despite the fact that these rifles are used for lawful purposes every day, with over 24.4 million in circulation today. Also, Biden failed to mention that over half of the country opposes this ban on millions of firearms, as the National Shooting Sports Foundation recently reported.

But this is only the tip of the iceberg for the Biden’s war on the second amendment. With the exception of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (which didn’t ban or place restrictions on specific types of firearms, but instead dumped hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars into mental health programs), Biden’s administration hasn’t made much headway with gun control through Congress. So the commander in chief and his stewards decided to weaponize the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) instead.

The ATF’s Crackdown on Firearms Parts and Serial Numbers

Biden’s ATF appears to be the latest government agency to reenact George Orwell’s 1984 with their language alterations. Case in point is their sudden reclassification firearms parts as firearms. They have now changed the definition of “firearm” to “include unfinished pistols that would only require a small amount of time and effort to complete.” They are also punishing gun manufacturers that sell firearms without serial numbers.

Over the past year, we have seen the CDC change the definition of vaccine, Merriam Webster change the definition of “anti-vaxxer” and then the White House redefined the term “economic recession.” Now this mirroring of 1984’s Newspeak is impacting the firearms industry and citizens’ right to bear arms.

Under the ATF’s new rules, a pistol frame that has no associated jig and doesn’t even operate as a firearm, is now defined as a firearm and requires serial numbers and background checks, simply because they can be used in a crime.

From an open letter that the ATF addressed to federal firearms licensees on December 27:

"[P]artially complete Polymer80, Lone Wolf, and similar striker-fired semiautomatic pistol frames, including, but not limited to, those sold within parts kits, have reached a stage of manufacture where they 'may readily be completed, assembled, restored, or otherwise converted' to a functional frame," the letter reads. "Therefore, even without any associated templates, jigs, molds, equipment, tools, instructions, guides, or marketing materials, these partially complete pistol frames are 'frames' and also 'firearms' as defined in the [Gun Control Act] and its implementing regulations."

I discussed these new developments with Philip Smith, founder and president of National African American Gun Association (NAAGA). He says that in theory, he understands the concept of concern over criminals having access to guns. But, Smith says “when you have people that are just building a gun for their own leisure and their own home and they’re not selling that gun, I really do not see the harm in that, and I’m not trying to be dismissive or flippant.”  In the end, he says these regulations interfere with American liberty and not only endanger law-abiding citizens, but remove their favorite pastimes and passions as well. Smith likens individuals who build firearms as a hobby to someone that enjoys building and breaking down cars. “And I just think that takes away from the spirit of this country that I know, where people are allowed to enjoy the merits of being an American. And I’m not trying to be super patriotic but I am trying to be realistic that folks like building guns at home, a lot of them. So that’s just my perspective.”

The ATF Redefines “Rifle” with New Pistol Brace Regulations

As many suspected, the crusade to “close the ghost gun loophole” by requiring serials numbers was only the beginning of this power grab by Biden’s ATF. Now, they have gone as far as to criminalize handicapped gun owners. In the latest set of shenanigans from this new trend of bypassing Congress to create laws, the ATF has created a rule that now requires pistol brace owners to register their pistols as “short barrel rifles” (SBRs) with the federal government. If these legal gun owners fail to comply, they could spend up to 10 years in jail and face a fine of up to $10,000.

So here we go with the Biden ATF’s Newspeak. Once again changing language as they redefine “rifle” to be any weapon that is ““designed or redesigned, made or remade, and intended to be fired from the shoulder.” The ATF is giving gun owners 120 days to register their gun as a short barrel rifle, and they will also be slapped with a $200 tax. Aside from registering their gun as an SBR, the only other option for pistol brace owners will be to dismantle the firearm, surrender it to authorities, remove the brace or convert the gun with a different barrel. If the brace is removed, gun owners will also have to make sure the attachment is destroyed, making it unable to be reinstalled, or else they will be in violation of the ATF’s rule.

Second Amendment Foundation founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb told the Daily Caller News Foundation that it’s Congress that has the authority to define what a firearm is, not the ATF. The NRA says that the ATF has no authority to regulate braces separate from a firearm.

I asked Mark Oliva, Director of Public Affairs at National Shooting Sports Foundation, his thoughts on this latest move to regulate pistol braces. Incidentally, the ATF had a booth at Shot Show, which is the NSSF-sponsored trade show for the firearms industry that just took place in January. “There are concerns that some of these regulations have no foundation in law, it is up to Congress to decide what is law, and what is especially criminal law,” says Oliva. “So when we talk about the definition of firearms and punishments that can go with it for illegal possession and illegal manufacturing for firearms, that is up to Congress.”

Oliva said that since the ATF is the industry’s regulating body, the NSSF tries to maintain a professional relationship with them and work with them in whatever capacity possible while also staying within the confines of the law. He says that the ATF’s booth tends to be one of the busiest at Shot Show, and he thinks it’s important the retailers, manufacturers, dealers and others from the gun industry have the opportunity to ask the ATF any questions they have. But regarding concerns over whether these new ATF regulations are unconstitutional, he likens this situation to the Supreme Court decision in June which restricted the EPA's authority to mandate carbon emissions reductions:

“The US Supreme Court said that the EPA was promulgating their own rules with force of law that had no foundation in law, they had to go back to Congress to do that so there are concerns, we expect there to be some challenges,” says Oliva. “In the meantime we’re trying to make sure that we’re doing our best to ensure that our manufacturers, our retailers and dealers can stay within the confines of the law, make sure they’re not running afoul of that, and [that these organizations are] able to stay in business.”

The Pistol Brace Backlash

Many fear that these ATF regulations would leave the door wide open for the Biden administration’s previously-expressed desire to create a national firearms registry and confiscate weapons. This is why patriotic lawmakers like Louisiana senator John Kennedy and Florida Representative Matt Gaetz brought the backlash in a heartbeat.

Senate Republicans John Kennedy (Louisiana) and Roger Marshall (Kansas) immediately got to work with a Congressional Review Act they plan to introduce, which would render the ATF pistol brace rule null and void if it passes with a simple majority. Marshall stated:

"The Biden administration’s war on every American’s fundamental right to bear arms is relentless and an offense to our founders. Congress must use every tool at its disposal to stop the Biden ATF from enacting this unconstitutional gun grab and creating its newly proposed anti-2nd Amendment gun registry. The Congressional Review Act is one of those important tools, and I’m pleased to co-lead this effort with Senator Kennedy."

A corresponding Congressional Review Act was drawn up by the House as well, spearheaded by Republican Rep Andrew Clyde (Georgia).

And another member of the House, Republican Dan Crenshaw from Texas, is reintroducing the ATF Accountability Act with bipartisan support, thanks to the bill’s co-sponsor, Democrat Texas Rep. Henry Cuellar. This legislation would create a formal procedure for firearms dealers, importers and manufacturers to appeal ATF regulations, which the ATF must respond to within 30 days of the appeal. Then the attorney general is required to respond to these inquiries within 90 days, and business owners appealing ATF regulations will also have the opportunity to have an administrative law judge hear their appeal. 

Representative Matt Gaetz wants to take this all a step further and completely abolish the ATF. A few weeks ago, Gaetz introduced H.R.374, the "Abolish the ATF Act,"

The ATF has claimed that the rule regarding pistol braces doesn’t apply to the stabilizing braces used by disabled gun owners. Instead, they claim these new regulations apply to the pistol braces that are used for shouldering the weapon as a rifle.

But Gaetz told Fox News Digital that "the people at the ATF making these rules fundamentally don't understand firearms."

"I think they are under the flawed conception that a stabilizing brace increases the lethality or danger of a pistol,” says Gaetz. “It seems the ATF is on a snipe hunt for regulatory action that virtue signals to the anti-gun left, but that has no real practical safety impact on Americans."

The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty estimates there are over 40 million of these braces in the United States. And a lawsuit has been filed against the ATF on behalf of three military veterans who own these stabilizing braces. One of them is Darren Britto, a marine combat veteran and manager of training at Silverback Independent, LLC, Darren Britto. After suffering a rotator cuff injury, Britto had his pistol brace custom made.

“By having the brace I can affix it to my forearm and be able to have better control of the fire arm,” says Britto.

And to add to what is mentioned above, the NRA and 25 states have just joined forces to file a lawsuit against the Biden administration to stop the unconstitutional pistol brace rule. One thing is clear: Biden’s ATF has certainly entered new territory. And in coming weeks and months the firearms industry, members of Congress and other concerned citizens and businesses are likely to turn this pistol brace backlash into a full-on riptide.

Mass shootings seem to always be a great excuse for lawmakers and media to push for more red flag laws. Such is the case with the recent Club Q shooting in Colorado that killed five people and injured 22 others. But there are several problems with this. First, these laws are largely left up to interpretation. Two, it’s very difficult to put these laws into action without violating Constitutional rights. And third, states that do have these laws fail to effectively use them, rendering any discussion or legislation in this realm to be a complete waste of time.

A Brief Rundown on Red Flag Laws

In June, the House passed a gun control bill that allowed for “red flag laws,” meaning that a person’s family member, coworker, friend, police officer, or another person close to them can petition federal courts to remove firearms from that person’s home if they believe they are significant risk of harming themselves or others. Often, firearms are then temporarily removed from possession of the person being flagged as a risk before any hearings take place. The House bill has yet to pass in the Senate.

Nineteen states and Washington D.C. have red flag laws. But the Supreme Court recently dealt a blow to red flag laws. In the case Caniglia v Strom, the Supreme Court protected both privacy rights (fourth amendment) and gun rights (second amendment) by ruling the unwarranted search of the home and seizure of the firearms in possession of the individual in question, Edward Caniglia, to be unconstitutional.

A recent article from the Poynter Institute concluded that while there have been instances where court orders resulting from red flag laws may have prevented suicide, there is simply not enough research to conclude that these laws prevent dangerous people from killing others. And even in many of these 19 states that have red flag laws, a recent study from the Associated Press found that they were rarely used. For example, Chicago had 8,500 shootings, which led to 1,800 deaths since 2020. But red flag laws have only been used four times in Chicago.

A recent study from the Crime Prevention Research Center found that the supposed high support for these red flag laws is likely due to the public’s lack of knowledge about how they work. When survey respondents were informed of the lack of due process in most red flag cases, strong support of these laws came down from 34% to 14%.  Back in 2018, the ACLU of Rhode Island spoke out against red flag laws, raising concerns about the impact these laws would have on civil liberties.

These red flag laws don’t seem to work because of their inherent vagueness. First, determining whether a person is a danger to themselves or others is widely left to the discretion of the police officer present. Second, a recent article from Reason.com which examined Colorado’s red flag law in the wake of the Club Q massacre stated that “the ‘significant risk’ standard [used to determine if a person is a risk] is open to wide interpretation, and the process encourages judges to err on the side of issuing orders,” putting innocent people in danger of losing their Second Amendment rights. The article also pointed out how the red flag law would have likely expired months before the Club Q attack, unless the police or another petitioner was granted an extension by successfully making the case that the would-be shooter remained a threat. So the law likely wouldn’t have even prevented the tragedy.

Mark Oliva from the NSSF Weighs in on Red Flag Laws and Due Process

I asked Mark Oliva, Managing Director of Public Affairs for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), what his thoughts are on red flag laws. “The NSSF is never opposed to red flag laws so long as those laws have due process rights and protections written into them,” says Oliva. “The difficulty is that [out of] the 19 states and the District of Columbia that have those laws right now, none of them have due process rights and protections written into them.”

Oliva provides a hypothetical example of a woman whose abuser calls authorities and reports that she is suicidal so her firearm should be taken away. Under the current red flag laws some states have, while she is awaiting procedural due process, she would be unarmed and unable to protect herself and therefore vulnerable to the abuser. Oliva also points to the failure of authorities in these states that do have red flag laws to utilize them properly to remove firearms from the possession of individuals such as the shooter in Buffalo, New York. Oliva points out that the Buffalo shooter Payton Gendron was never given a mental health hearing after his family expressed concerns about his erratic behavior and therefore was still allowed to have the firearm in his possession. Oliva points out that despite these failures to properly enforce the laws these states already have, there are louder and louder cries for more gun control.

Ablechild Demands Answers Regarding Link Between Mass Shootings and Psychiatric Drugs

I also recently spoke with Sheila Matthews, co-owner of Ablechild, a national parent’s rights organization, which is dedicated to protecting full informed consent and the right to refuse psychiatric services. Gallo sees these red flag laws as “red herrings,” or diversions from the real problems our nation is facing that are at the root of many of these violent tragedies.

For decades, Ablechild has been calling for investigations into the connection between mass shootings and psychiatric drugs, and they have yet to get such an investigation. Many of these shooters were taking psychiatric drugs at the time the crime was committed. The 2005 Red Lake, Minnesota school shooter was taking Prozac at the time of the massacre. Ablechild submitted a written request to the United States Attorney for the District of Minnesota, as well as the FDA, requesting a full investigation into this event. In 1999, one of the Columbine shooters, Eric Harris, was taking the antidepressant Luvox. Then fast forward to the Las Vegas concert shooting in 2018, where the autopsy found that shooter Stephen Paddock had anti-anxiety medication in his urine. 

“Pharmaceutical companies and the mental health industry take zero responsibility for the link between psychiatric drugs and mass shootings,” says Matthews.

There was a leap to gun control after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting, which is still obscured in a cloud of unanswered questions related to Adam Lanza’s (the shooter’s) psychiatric care. First, there were the criminal charges and other serious allegations involving Dr. Paul Fox, a psychiatrist who played a big part in Lanza’s treatment.  In 2016, Fox was arrested by the Department of Homeland Security and eventually convicted of a felony.  According to the state police report, the Yale Child Studies Center evaluated and treated Lanza from October 2006 to February 2007.  Lanza’s mother sent an email to in February of 2007 requesting that Dr. Fox “take the lead role” in treatment Adam would be receiving.  Just six days after that email was sent, treatment abruptly ended.  After that, there has been no information made available to the public regarding what became of Lanza’s mental health treatment, or what psychiatric drugs he was taking.  Meanwhile, legislation was passed to allocate millions of taxpayer funds to increase mental health services and implement severe gun control measures. 

We all want to prevent these tragedies and solve mental health issues, but these solutions appear to be misdirected, while the root of the problem remains unaddressed. Instead, time and money are wasted on laws that are unclear and mental health services that could potentially be part of a system that is perpetuating violence and instability. We will never know for sure, so long as the government continues to refuse to investigate long-endured common denominators from these school shootings, and instead threatens the rights of law-abiding citizens with legislation such as red flag laws.