
The United States is currently experiencing what is likely to be a record-low in homicide, which has occurred at the same time as a massive expansion in firearm carry rights across the country. I have previously written
about how those with carry permits almost never commit crime. State-level data proves it, and even gun-skeptical research organizations have recognized that “evidence generally shows that, as a group, [carry permit] license holders are particularly law abiding and rarely are convicted for violent crimes.”
Yet this irrefutable data didn’t stop the usual antigun suspects from predicting doom when the Supreme Court first issued its ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen in 2022. There, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. Gun control groups angrily claimed that the decision would lead to dramatic increases in violence.
For example, the then-Chief Counsel of Brady, Jonathan Lowy, said that Bruen “is extremist judicial activism at its worst, and Americans may die as a result of what the Court issued in the sanctity of its protected chambers.” John Feinblatt, President of Everytown for Gun Safety, said the Supreme Court chose “to put our communities in even greater danger with gun violence on the rise across the country.” Giffords claimed the ruling would “escalate gun violence,” “spur unlawful militia activity,” “embolden those inclined to vigilante justice,” “increase violence at protests,” and cause “more domestic violence and hate crimes.”
Antigun politicians made similar breathless predictions. Governor Phil Murphy of New Jersey claimed Bruen was a dangerous decision that “will make America a less safe country.” Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg said it “severely undermines public safety not just in New York City, but around the country.” Senator Alex Padilla of California put it more bluntly: “Today’s decision will make our communities less safe, plain and simple.”
Countless other examples abound. I encourage you to follow @2Aupdates if you want to constantly be reminded of all these claims.
We all make incorrect predictions from time to time, but the degree to which opponents of the Second Amendment were wrong is simply astounding.

Not only has homicide not risen, it has fallen to record lows. 2025 may have been our best year for intentional homicide ever.
As the Council on Criminal Justice explained:
When nationwide data for jurisdictions of all sizes is reported by the FBI later this year, there is a strong possibility that homicides in 2025 will drop to about 4.0 per 100,000 residents. That would be the lowest rate ever recorded in law enforcement or public health data going back to 1900, and would mark the largest single-year percentage drop in the homicide rate on record.
The antigun predictions weren’t just wrong, they were hilariously wrong. They said America would turn into the “Wild West” and the streets would be awash in blood from the regular gunfighting we’d all be engaged in.
None of that happened.
Turning to firearm-related homicide in particular, Bruen didn’t mark the start of a new violent era, it was instead the beginning of a new chapter of relative peace and tranquility. Indeed, when you look at month-by-month firearm-related homicide data from the CDC, the summer of 2022 represented close to the peak of the post-Covid homicide surge, eclipsed only slightly by the two summers preceding it. Since then, there has been a dramatic and sustained decline:

The Bruen ruling was handed down in June of 2022. That month saw 1,769 firearm-related homicides nationwide. But the same month two years later, June of 2024, had 1,424. And while final data isn’t yet available from the CDC, by all accounts 2025 was even lower still.
Perhaps antigun activists would argue here that other firearm-related crime could be increasing, even if homicide is falling. But the data dispels that notion too.
According to the Council on Criminal Justice, aggravated assaults with a firearm across the 11 cities they measured — Baltimore, Chicago, Dallas, Little Rock, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, Nashville, Philadelphia, San Francisco, St. Paul, and Washington DC — were also down from their 2021 peak, and are now lower than they were pre-pandemic:

Several of the sharpest declines in homicide have come in cities which have been forced to issue carry permits on a shall-issue basis for the first time in their modern history, thanks to Bruen. I have highlighted some of those cities in the chart here:

This pattern persists on a state-by-state level, too. Since 2022 and Bruen, there are two broad categories of carry rights expansion:
- Former may-issue states (a couple of which were effectively no-issue) that now must issue permits on a shall-issue basis because of Bruen. This category includes California, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Rhode Island.
- Shall-issue states that adopted permitless “constitutional” carry, i.e., you don’t even need a permit to carry as long as you can lawfully possess a firearm. States in this category include Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Nebraska, Ohio, and South Carolina.
Collectively, I will refer to these 16 states as the “rights-expanding states.”
Florida is particularly notable because it saw perhaps the fiercest opposition from gun control groups when it moved to adopt constitutional carry. Giffords ran a press release titled The Facts Are Clear: Permitless Carry will Make Florida Less Safe.
Using the CDC’s WONDER tool, we can check how Florida and the rest of the rights-expanding states have done on firearm-related homicide since 2022. That year, these states totaled 8,479 firearm-related homicides amongst them, for a rate of 5.5 per 100,000:

By 2024, most of these states saw significant declines in firearm-related homicide, and their combined rate dropped to 4.2 per 100,000, a 24% drop.

Only two of the states, Delaware and Hawaii, saw increases. Even then, the increases in those two states were slight while the drops in many of the other states were considerable. California saw a 28% reduction. Georgia is down 23%. New Jersey homicides dropped 32%. New York is down 33%. Ohio fell 22%. And Florida, which Giffords confidently and loudly asserted would be less safe thanks to constitutional carry, was also down 28% in firearm-related homicide.
Overall, the nation as a whole also saw a roughly 24% drop in firearm-related homicide, identical to the reduction in the rights-expanding states. Thus, the rights-expanding states matched the decline of the country as a whole, and several of them actually comfortably beat the national decline in firearm-related homicide.
I won’t claim that carry rights expansion caused the national decline in homicide. I don’t have sufficient evidence for that. I do believe it’s at least plausible that news coverage of the Bruen ruling made the American public (including criminals) more aware of the fact that anyone could be carrying a firearm, which may have deterred some criminals and contributed to the decline in homicide. But I certainly can’t prove it. Experts in the field continue to debate what has caused the national decline in homicide, and it may be a long time before there’s any scholarly consensus.
Whatever the cause, its existence definitely shatters the fear-mongering post-Bruen claims of the antigun groups and the politicians they support.
This has been a massive, real-world test of the “more legal carry = more gun violence” hypothesis the gun control advocates peddle. They explicitly and loudly predicted disaster. The data has proved them wrong in spectacular fashion.
Kostas Moros is Director of Legal Research and Education for the Second Amendment Foundation. This post was adapted by SNW from an article posted at X.


Federalist No. 28 Proves the 2A Was Never About Hunting.
“Federalist No. 28 is one of the clearest Founding-era explanations of what happens when government turns its power against the people—and why an armed citizenry and federalism were seen as safeguards for liberty. In this episode, we break down Hamilton’s argument step-by-step and connect it to the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s Bruen “text, history, and tradition” framework.”
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nelod8ErgM
BREAKING | Gavin Newsom TIED To $100 Million In Paid Protestors As Governor… This Will Be Fun [note: California has been funding, with tax payer dollars, left wing non-profits whose core and stated function is to organize left wing protestors and protests and left wing advocacy causes.]
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-zOuuTeVbY
It’s True: Gavin Newsom’s California Government Has Paid Protestors Over $100 Million. [with tax payer dollars]
ht* tps://townhall.com/tipsheet/josephchalfant/2026/02/21/california-government-has-paid-protestors-over-100-million-n2671686
[Basically – Left winger city counsel member is afraid of left wingers violence, that the city counsel facilitated, and now suddenly embraces the second amendment for her, but apparently not for anyone else not on the city counsel, and wants to open carry to protect herself from the left wingers violence]: Portland City Council Member Wants to Open Carry After Anti-ICE Protest.
“A Portland, Oregon Democrat on the city council is the latest lefty public official to signal support for the Second Amendment, though at the moment she seems to be far more interested in her right to carry than anyone else’s.
The change of heart was sparked by a protest during the latest city council meeting, where dozens of members of a group called “Revoke the ICE Permit PDX” interrupted the proceedings. At first the disruption was only verbal, with chants and shouts. Ultimately, though, four people were arrested after one protester made her way to the dais to shove a petition filled with signatures demanding public officials boot ICE out of its facility in the city.
Susan Anglada Bartley was eventually arrested for trespassing along with three other members of the group, but the experience rattled one council member enough that she wants to be able to openly carry a handgun during future meetings.
…
Councilor Loretta Smith, who represents East Portland in District 1, has drafted a city ordinance to allow city councilors to openly carry a firearm while conducting city business. Smith has never carried a firearm.
‘It’s a defensive mechanism,’ Smith told OPB. ‘If people know that you’re a serious person and you’re going to protect yourself they’re not going to be as quick to mess with you.’
…”
ht* tps://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2026/02/21/portland-city-council-member-wants-to-open-carry-after-anti-ice-protest-n1231640
They did the FA part and got to the FO part: The DOJ Has Canned the Most Liberal Immigration Judge in America.
”
…
Breanna Morello
@BreannaMorello
🚨YOU’RE FIRED🚨
The feds have FIRED immigration Judge Vivienne Gordon-Uruakpa after she approved a staggering 97% of asylum claims, topping every judge in the state.
She’s one of more than 100 immigration judges Trump has fired in this crackdown.
…”
ht* tps://townhall.com/tipsheet/josephchalfant/2026/02/21/the-doj-has-canned-the-most-liberal-immigration-judge-in-america-n2671691
Ok, …tarrifs. SCOTUS in Learning Resources, Inc., et al v. Trump, ruled (6-3) that Trump’s invocation of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to enact tariffs on foreign goods coming into the United States is unlawful.
Does this mean Trump, as president, does not have tariff authority? No, it doesn’t. It just means he doesn’t have it under the IEEPA, but does this mean those tariffs are going to go away and are no longer valid? No, not at all. Congress can ‘delegate/enable’ tariff powers to the president, they just didn’t do it under the IEEPA but they had already done it in the past under other statutes. And indeed some of the tarrifs Trump imposed were already under these other statutes (and not in contention in the SCOTUS case) and not under the IEEPA and will remain in place, its just the ones done under the IEEPA that will be ‘re-designated’ to fall under the other statutes.
In …. The Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (Section 232); the Trade Act of 1974 (Sections 122, 201, and 301); and the Tariff Act of 1930 (Section 338), congress gave the president tariff authority.
Basically, all SCOTUS did was conclude that the President checked the wrong statutory box by relying on IEEPA rather than another statute to impose these tariffs. And indeed, President Trump has already switched gears here with an EO announcement on friday imposing, under other statute, a ’10 percent global tariff under Section 122 over and above our normal tariffs already being charged.’ like he had done under the IEEPA. So the real looser in this case was the left wingers, because in effect their case made SCOTUS verify that the president does indeed have tariff power under statute (which is outlined in the Kavanaugh dissent) so overall even this SCOTUS loss was a Trump win.
The democrats rejoiced over the ruling, not realizing it wasn’t really a win for them and actually they set up the continuation of tariffs. But anyway…
Dems’ Rejoicing Over the Supreme Court Ruling on Trump’s Tariffs Got Wrecked…by CNN?
“Make no mistake; President Trump was not happy about the Supreme Court’s ruling on his tariff agenda. The Court’s opinion yesterday was that the president cannot impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. Trump held a press conference yesterday afternoon, where he expressed his displeasure but added that there are other avenues to impose tariffs, as other legal scholars noted.
…
Townhall.com
@townhallcom
🔥Tariffs will continue to make America HOT
“We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges.”
Which will “result in virtually unchanged tariff revenue in 2026.”
BOOM.
…
Scott Bessent earlier today at the Economic Club of Dallas:
‘Let’s be clear about today’s ruling. Despite the misplaced gloating from Democrats, ill-informed media outlets, and the very people who gutted our industrial base, the Court did not rule against President Trump’s tariffs. Six Justices simply ruled that IEEPA authorities cannot be used to raise even one dollar of revenue. This Administration will invoke alternative legal authorities to replace the IEEPA tariffs. We will be leveraging Section 232 and Section 301 tariff authorities that have been validated through thousands of legal challenges.’
…”
[Yes, tariffs will continue. No, tarrifs imposed under the IEEPA will not go away – those were not ruled illegal or unconstitutional.]
ht* tps://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2026/02/21/the-dems-rejoicing-over-the-supreme-court-ruling-on-trumps-tariffs-got-wreckedby-cnn-n2671690