Tag: NRA

Is There Now a Crack in the Wall Between Cannabis Use and Gun Rights

[ad_1]

Has Minneapolis upended politics and is there now a crack in the wall between cannabis sue and gun rights? There is pressure on the administration.

For decades, the relationship between cannabis use and gun ownership in the United States has been shaped by conflicting legal frameworks and cultural trends. Since the Gun Control Act of 1968, federal law has prohibited individuals who are “unlawful users” of controlled substances from possessing or purchasing firearms, a rule that historically included cannabis because it remained classified as a Schedule I drug. As more states have moved to legalize medical and recreational marijuana use, this federal prohibition has produced a legal disconnect: people who legally use cannabis under state law can be barred from firearm rights under federal law, while gun ownership, protected by the Second Amendment and upheld in key Supreme Court decisions like District of Columbia v. Heller, has remained a deeply entrenched individual right.

RELATED: What The Polymarket Says About Cannabis Rescheduling And More

Recent events in Minnesota have intensified national conversations about gun use, public safety, and federal regulation. The fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good in Minneapolis by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent sparked widespread protest and media attention, thrusting discussions about when and how guns should be carried into the spotlight. The current administration’s response — including comments from national leaders suggesting that certain forms of gun carry at protests may be inappropriate — has prompted debate and scrutiny from both sides of the political aisle, especially in a state with permissive carry laws. The President’s remarks Good “should not have been carrying a gun,” despite Minnesota’s legal provisions for open and concealed carry, have underscored a broader willingness among federal officials to reconsider how guns are used in public spaces and under what circumstances.

Official White House Photo by Andrea Hanks

Cannabis use and gun rights have intersected not just legally but culturally. While states such as Minnesota grapple with questions of public safety following high-profile shootings, federal courts are taking up cases that challenge the application of firearm prohibitions to marijuana users. Several appellate courts have ruled barring state-sanctioned cannabis consumers from owning guns could violate the Second Amendment, creating legal pressure that may culminate in a decisive Supreme Court ruling. Advocates argue these challenges underscore the outdated nature of federal cannabis policy in a nation where a majority of states have embraced some form of legalization.

That uncertainty has also been visible inside the administration itself. In recent press briefings, the White House press secretary struggled to clearly articulate a definitive position on gun control, particularly when pressed on how new restrictions might apply to lawful gun owners versus criminal misuse. Repeated attempts to clarify whether the administration favors broader limits on public carry, enforcement changes, or legislative reform yielded cautious, and at times contradictory, responses. The moment underscored the administration’s difficulty in balancing public safety concerns with constitutional protections, revealing a lack of consensus on how far any restructuring of gun policy should go.

Amid these legal and political tensions, leaders in the current administration have repeatedly appeared on national news outlets discussing the need to rethink how guns are carried and used by average citizens. Some administration figures have indicated that the nation should consider stricter guidelines for public gun carry, citing recent violence and demanding a reevaluation of existing policies. This shift has sparked sharp disagreements with traditional gun rights advocates.

RELATED: Is CBD Next On The Fed’s Hit List

The National Rifle Association, for example, publicly criticized comments from federal officials seemed to question the rights of lawful gun owners, calling such statements “dangerous and wrong” and stressing law-abiding citizens deserve their full Second Amendment protections.

At the same time, the broader national dialogue remains unsettled. With public opinion sharply divided, legal challenges pending in the courts, and political leaders offering competing visions for the future of gun policy, it is far from clear where the balance will ultimately fall. As lawmakers, judges, and citizens continue to hash out these issues, the evolving conversation about cannabis use, gun ownership, and public safety highlights lingering tensions in American law and society.

[ad_2]

Terry Hacienda

Source link

January 28, 2026
San Diego firearms advocates file lawsuit challenging Glock sale ban

[ad_1]

A pile of guns in a box. (Photo courtesy San Diego County Sheriff’s Department)

Days after the signing of a new state law that bans the sale or transfer of Glock and Glock-style handguns, firearms advocates filed a lawsuit in San Diego federal court this week challenging the ban.

Assembly Bill 1127, which was signed by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Friday, bars California firearms dealers from selling semi-automatic firearms that include a “cruciform trigger bar,” which lawmakers behind the bill say allows semi-automatic guns to be converted into fully automatic weapons.

The law takes effect next year.

On Monday, a complaint was filed challenging the new law, which it states “is flagrantly unconstitutional.”

The complaint cites case law stating that weapons “in common use at the time” are protected by the Second Amendment and that the guns targeted by the ban are “among the most popular firearms in the nation.”

Plaintiffs in the case include national organizations like the National Rifle Association of America, Firearms Policy Coalition, and Second Amendment Foundation, along with local plaintiffs including firearms retailer Poway Weapons & Gear and its president, John Phillips, as well as San Diego County resident Danielle Jaymes.

“The Constitution does not allow elitist politicians to decide which constitutionally protected guns the people may own, and California doesn’t get to tell people that their rights end where Gov. Newsom’s tyrannical, anti- Second Amendment politics begin,” Brandon Combs, president of the Firearms Policy Coalition, said in a statement.

“Every American has a right to choose the tools they trust to defend their lives and liberty.”

READ NEXT

[ad_2]

Source link

October 15, 2025
Expert calls NRA’s spending policies a ‘dumpster fire’

[ad_1]

The second phase of the trial in a civil lawsuit against the National Rifle Association began Monday in Manhattan, with New York Attorney General Letitia James seeking an independent monitor to oversee the powerful gun rights group’s finances.In addition, the Democrat wants Wayne LaPierre, the organization’s former CEO, banned from returning to the NRA. She is also asking for other restrictions on John Frazer, the NRA’s corporate secretary and former general counsel. Video above: Longtime head of NRA takes the stand in civil trialJames had previously asked that LaPierre be banned from holding leadership positions or collecting funds for charitable organizations conducting business in New York, but that is no longer the case.In the trial’s first phase, a jury in February found LaPierre misspent millions of dollars of NRA money to fund an extravagant lifestyle that included exotic getaways and trips on private planes and superyachts. Jurors also found the NRA failed to properly manage its assets, omitted or misrepresented information in its tax filings and violated whistleblower protections under New York law.NRA lawyers argued Monday that an independent monitor isn’t necessary because the organization is enhancing its internal oversight, including through annual audits, hiring a compliance officer, and disclosing to members how it spends on executive travel and other perks.Jeffrey Tenenbaum, a lawyer testifying for the state as an expert in nonprofit law, acknowledged that the NRA had made some strides toward transparency — but said it had only done so in the wake of James’ lawsuit. In lieu of an independent monitor, there’s nothing guaranteeing the organization will continue to adhere to its reforms, he said. Among other things, Tenenbaum said, the organization’s policy manual is “a dumpster fire.”The second phase of proceedings in Manhattan state court is a bench trial, meaning there is no jury and the judge will hand down the verdict. It is expected to last about two weeks. Charles Cotton, an NRA board member and president, was the first witness to take the stand. He revealed that the organization did not have a succession plan in place when LaPierre announced his retirement in January, just before the start of the trial’s first phase — suggesting his exit was hasty and not expected. Cotton rejected a state lawyer’s suggestion that the NRA’s “old guard” was standing in the way of reforming the organization. At the same time, he conceded it had not reprimanded or punished LaPierre for his spending. LaPierre is not required to attend, according to his lawyer, but he was in the courtroom Monday. The NRA, through its lawyer, called the request for a court-appointed monitor to oversee administration of the organization’s charitable assets “unwarranted.”William Brewer, a lawyer for the NRA, said Friday that the organization was the victim in the case and has since taken a “course correction” to make sure it is fully complaint with the state’s nonprofit laws.”The focal point for ‘phase two’ is the NYAG’s burden to show that any violation of any law is ‘continuing’ and persistent at the NRA,” he said in an email. “This is a burden the NYAG cannot meet.”Spokespersons for James declined to comment ahead of Monday’s proceedings, as did a lawyer for LaPierre. An email also was sent to Frazer’s lawyer.Bob Barr, the organization’s president and a former congressman, and Douglas Hamlin, the NRA’s CEO, are among the current employees and board members also listed as potential witnesses, according to James’ office. The first phase of the trial cast a spotlight on the leadership, organizational culture and finances of the lobbying group, which was founded more than 150 years ago in New York City to promote rifle skills and grew into a political juggernaut that influenced federal law and presidential elections.The jury ordered LaPierre to repay almost $4.4 million to the organization he led for three decades, while the NRA’s retired finance chief, Wilson “Woody” Phillips, was ordered to pay back $2 million. Last week, James’ office announced details of a settlement it reached with Phillips.Under the agreement, he agreed to be banned for 10 years from serving as a fiduciary of a not-for-profit organization in New York. He also agreed to attend training before returning to any such position. The deal means Phillips, now retired, doesn’t have to take part in the proceeding that started Monday, but he is still on the hook for $2 million in damages from the initial verdict.

NEW YORK —

The second phase of the trial in a civil lawsuit against the National Rifle Association began Monday in Manhattan, with New York Attorney General Letitia James seeking an independent monitor to oversee the powerful gun rights group’s finances.

In addition, the Democrat wants Wayne LaPierre, the organization’s former CEO, banned from returning to the NRA. She is also asking for other restrictions on John Frazer, the NRA’s corporate secretary and former general counsel.

Video above: Longtime head of NRA takes the stand in civil trial

James had previously asked that LaPierre be banned from holding leadership positions or collecting funds for charitable organizations conducting business in New York, but that is no longer the case.

In the trial’s first phase, a jury in February found LaPierre misspent millions of dollars of NRA money to fund an extravagant lifestyle that included exotic getaways and trips on private planes and superyachts.

Jurors also found the NRA failed to properly manage its assets, omitted or misrepresented information in its tax filings and violated whistleblower protections under New York law.

NRA lawyers argued Monday that an independent monitor isn’t necessary because the organization is enhancing its internal oversight, including through annual audits, hiring a compliance officer, and disclosing to members how it spends on executive travel and other perks.

Jeffrey Tenenbaum, a lawyer testifying for the state as an expert in nonprofit law, acknowledged that the NRA had made some strides toward transparency — but said it had only done so in the wake of James’ lawsuit. In lieu of an independent monitor, there’s nothing guaranteeing the organization will continue to adhere to its reforms, he said.

Among other things, Tenenbaum said, the organization’s policy manual is “a dumpster fire.”

The second phase of proceedings in Manhattan state court is a bench trial, meaning there is no jury and the judge will hand down the verdict. It is expected to last about two weeks.

Charles Cotton, an NRA board member and president, was the first witness to take the stand. He revealed that the organization did not have a succession plan in place when LaPierre announced his retirement in January, just before the start of the trial’s first phase — suggesting his exit was hasty and not expected. Cotton rejected a state lawyer’s suggestion that the NRA’s “old guard” was standing in the way of reforming the organization. At the same time, he conceded it had not reprimanded or punished LaPierre for his spending.

LaPierre is not required to attend, according to his lawyer, but he was in the courtroom Monday.

The NRA, through its lawyer, called the request for a court-appointed monitor to oversee administration of the organization’s charitable assets “unwarranted.”

William Brewer, a lawyer for the NRA, said Friday that the organization was the victim in the case and has since taken a “course correction” to make sure it is fully complaint with the state’s nonprofit laws.

“The focal point for ‘phase two’ is the NYAG’s burden to show that any violation of any law is ‘continuing’ and persistent at the NRA,” he said in an email. “This is a burden the NYAG cannot meet.”

Spokespersons for James declined to comment ahead of Monday’s proceedings, as did a lawyer for LaPierre. An email also was sent to Frazer’s lawyer.

Bob Barr, the organization’s president and a former congressman, and Douglas Hamlin, the NRA’s CEO, are among the current employees and board members also listed as potential witnesses, according to James’ office.

The first phase of the trial cast a spotlight on the leadership, organizational culture and finances of the lobbying group, which was founded more than 150 years ago in New York City to promote rifle skills and grew into a political juggernaut that influenced federal law and presidential elections.

The jury ordered LaPierre to repay almost $4.4 million to the organization he led for three decades, while the NRA’s retired finance chief, Wilson “Woody” Phillips, was ordered to pay back $2 million.

Last week, James’ office announced details of a settlement it reached with Phillips.

Under the agreement, he agreed to be banned for 10 years from serving as a fiduciary of a not-for-profit organization in New York. He also agreed to attend training before returning to any such position.

The deal means Phillips, now retired, doesn’t have to take part in the proceeding that started Monday, but he is still on the hook for $2 million in damages from the initial verdict.

[ad_2]

Source link

July 15, 2024
NRA and former leader Wayne LaPierre are found liable in a lawsuit centered on the organization’s lavish spending

[ad_1]

The National Rifle Association and its former longtime leader were found liable Friday in a lawsuit centered on the organization’s lavish spending.

The New York jury found that Wayne LaPierre, who was the NRA’s CEO for three decades, misspent millions of dollars of the group’s money on pricey perks for themselves.

LaPierre, 74, sat stone-faced in the front row of the courtroom as the verdict was read aloud.

The verdict is a win for New York Attorney General Letitia James, a Democrat who campaigned on investigating the NRA’s not-for-profit status. It is the latest blow to the powerful group, which in recent years has been beset by financial troubles and dwindling membership. LaPierre, its longtime face, announced his resignation on the eve of the trial.

Jurors ordered LaPierre to pay $4,351,231 in restitution. NRA general counsel John Frazer and retired finance chief Wilson Phillips were also defendants in the case.

Any penalties paid by LaPierre or others would go back to the NRA, which was portrayed in the case both as a defendant that lacked internal controls to prevent misspending and as a victim of that same misconduct.

James also wants the three men to be banned from serving in leadership positions at any charitable organizations that conduct business in New York. A judge will decide that question during the next phase of the state Supreme Court trial.

Another former NRA executive turned whistleblower, Joshua Powell, settled with the state last month, agreeing to testify at the trial, pay the NRA $100,000 and forgo further involvement with nonprofits.

James sued the NRA and its executives in 2020 under her authority to investigate not-for-profits registered in the state.

She originally sought to have the entire organization dissolved, but Manhattan Judge Joel M. Cohen ruled in 2022 that the allegations did not warrant a “corporate death penalty.”

The trial, which began last month, cast a spotlight on the leadership, organizational culture and finances of the powerful lobbying group, which was founded more than 150 years ago in New York City to promote rifle skills and grew into a political juggernaut that influenced federal law and presidential elections.

Before he stepped down, LaPierre, had led the NRA’s day-to-day operations since 1991, acting as its face and becoming one of the country’s most influential figures in shaping gun policy.

During the trial, state lawyers argued that he dodged financial disclosure requirements while treating the NRA as his personal piggy bank, liberally dipping into its coffers for African safaris and other questionable expenditures.

His lawyer cast the trial as a political witch hunt by James.

LaPierre billed the NRA more than $11 million for private jet flights and spent more than $500,000 on eight trips to the Bahamas over a three-year span, state lawyers said.

He also authorized $135 million in NRA contracts for a vendor whose owners showered him with free trips to the Bahamas, Greece, Dubai and India, as well as access to a 108-foot (33-meter) yacht.

LaPierre claimed he hadn’t realized the travel tickets, hotel stays, meals, yacht access and other luxury perks counted as gifts, and that the private jet flights were necessary for his safety.

But he conceded that he had wrongly expensed private flights for his family and accepted vacations from vendors doing business with the NRA without disclosing them.

Among those who testified at the trial was Oliver North, a one-time NRA president and former National Security Council military aide best known for his central role in the Iran-Contra scandal of the 1980s. North, who resigned from the NRA in 2019, said he was pushed out after raising allegations of financial irregularities.

After reporting a $36 million deficit in 2018 fueled largely by misspending, the NRA cut back on longstanding programs that had been core to its mission, including training and education, recreational shooting and law enforcement initiatives. In 2021, it filed for bankruptcy and sought to incorporate in Texas instead of New York, but a judge rejected the move, saying it was an attempt to duck James’ lawsuit.

Despite its recent woes, the NRA remains a political force. Republican presidential hopefuls flocked to its annual convention last year and former President Donald Trump spoke at an NRA event earlier this month — his eighth speech to the association, it said.

Associated Press writer Philip Marcelo contributed to this report.

[ad_2]

Jake Offenhartz | Associated Press

Source link

February 23, 2024
Bank Of America, NRA, And Mastercard Are Lobbying On Marijuana Banking – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news

[ad_1]

Bank Of America, NRA, And Mastercard Are Lobbying On Marijuana Banking – Cannabis Business Executive – Cannabis and Marijuana industry news