By  Konstadinos Moros

An article at yesterday details the efforts of a brace of red-shirted Moms Demand Action members who are “scouring archives across the United States for historical firearm regulations.” What they’re actually doing, author Mark Joseph Stern says, is trying to dig up proof that Justice Clarence Thomas was wrong in his Bruen opinion when he wrote that prior to 1900, carry restrictions weren’t part of America’s history and tradition.

In Bruen, the Supreme Court demanded proof that a firearm regulation is rooted in “longstanding” tradition in the form of “historical analogues”—old gun laws that show how Americans “understood” the Second Amendment in the past. The historical record of firearm regulations, however, is far from complete. So motivated volunteers like [Moms Demand Action member Jennifer] Birch, a product designer by trade, are stepping in to fill the gaps. What they’ve found directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s conclusions.

This is actually an article about how an organization funded by a billionaire is encouraging people to work for free for no reason. And when there’s a misleading article about the Second Amendment that confidently asserts nonsense, Mark Joseph Stern’s name is often on the byline.

Birch was surprised by what she found: Santa Ana prohibited the concealed carry of weapons, including guns, in 1892, while neighboring Anaheim followed suit in 1893. Orange County itself, in which both cities are located, had also prohibited concealed carry for well more than a century.

Yes, lots of places did that. Concealed carry was often banned, but open carry was allowed. If California wanted to ban concealed carry today but allow open carry, there is a historical tradition to support that. But because they’ve banned open carry, concealed carry is all that’s left.

It’s weird Stern and the volunteer moms are acting like what they’ve found is somehow shocking. Many states have presented such concealed carry restriction laws in a variety of cases.

Justice Clarence Thomas, writing for the court, found that before that date, concealed carry bans were not part of America’s history and traditions, and they were thus unconstitutional.

That’s not, in fact, what Thomas wrote. Again, open carry was generally allowed.

The disparity in these cases between well-funded gun rights advocates and government attorneys—with little expertise and relatively low access to expert historians—means a court may strike down a gun law not because it’s unsupported by the record, but because government lawyers lacked the time, knowledge, and resources to dig up analogous laws from the past.

This of course, is a lie. State defendants in lawsuits challenging gun control laws are typically using more historical “experts” than gun rights litigants are. This applies in every case I am involved in, for example. We do what we can on limited budgets, whereas they have both effectively unlimited taxpayer dollars, and also Bloomberg-backed gun control orgs funding them.

California cities also required gun owners to store gunpowder safely, and restricted the amount of it that a person could store at one time. These laws are analogous to modern-day regulations of ammunition, like requirements for safe storage and bans on high-capacity magazines—regulations that are under attack in the courts right now.

Again, it’s hilarious that they think they’ve found something groundbreaking here. California first cited many such laws almost a year ago in their first post-Bruen briefs. Also, restrictions on gunpowder storage mainly applied to black powder and vanished later. They are not in any way analogous to magazine capacity restrictions. Rather, they were about fire prevention because of how inherently flammable black powder is.

Everytown is compiling a list of their discoveries; the organization shared a draft with Slate and allowed us to share individual findings, but asked us not to publish the entire list—currently at 159 laws—because it remains incomplete.

Heh. California cited more than that in their Duncan/Miller/Rhode charts a while back. Also, there’s a clerk in our office who will definitely get a kick out of them bragging about gathering up 159 laws.

For example, in the 1800s, many Western territories implemented stringent restrictions on firearms; some, like Idaho and Wyoming, prohibited the public carry of any firearm in all municipalities. Yet Thomas dismissed the importance of these laws, reasoning that they were “transitional” measures that did not reflect the national “consensus” or “tradition.”

These restrictions were, by definition, transitional. Those laws didn’t remain in place for long, and were contradicted by what actual states were doing at the time.

Future generations, and future Supreme Courts, may see this historical evidence as a justification to roll back or overturn decisions like Heller and Bruen that hinge on bogus history.

Oh really? Is that why even the Biden Department of Justice is citing 19th century sources that confirm that the fundamental holdings of Heller and Bruen are correct?

It’s adorable that Stern thinks a klatch of red-shirted wine moms leafing through the stacks will be the secret weapon that will take down the hated Bruen decision and preserve America’s unconstitutional gun control laws.


Konstadinos Moros is an Associate Attorney with Michel & Associates, a law firm in Long Beach that regularly represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in its litigation efforts to restore the Second Amendment in California. You can find him on his Twitter handle @MorosKostas. To donate to CRPA or become a member, visit

3 thoughts on “Gun Control, Inc. turning to wine-chugging moms to find gun control laws their paid lawyers can’t even find”
  1. This is THEE crown jewel of total idiocy that is the anti gun anti liberty movement in this country. First of all I personally have sat thru a few “Moms demand action ” meetings. I asked a female friend to go and I tagged along to soak up the vibe and see whats what. I just sat silently trying to blend in as one of the cuckold guys you see wearing “Moms” t shirts. I went to the Oak Park chapter meeting ( beautiful old library by the way ), The LaGrange meeting, and one in Orland Park. What happens is you have 1 or 2 ringleaders and several concerned women that are half way conned into taking action. Young liberal moms, a few old ladies with NOTHING to do, and a few lonely and bored housewives from nice suburbs with a few bucks. The meetings generally cover dumb projects / busy work and such but focus on political activism, call your reps, vote like this, etc. It’s a useful idiot training camp. Many of them think it’s all guns and nothing but guns. they have no clue about gangs, crime, street thugs, etc. Housewives with money from nice suburbs can’t comprehend thug / street life. They have alarm systems and lots of cops so they don’t want guns and they don’t want you to have them either. some are actually really nice but totally clueless. The fact that these “moms” are actually doing this is laughable !!!! Remember I said they engage in dumb projects / busy work ? here’s a great example. The big funders are trying to keep the sheep on board and feeling important so they give them this. In reality these misguided at best and totally fake at worst “moms” couldn’t find there own asshole if they used a funnel and had 2 boy scouts helping them.

  2. Dont worry we have the globalist backed GSL and ISRA to fight for our rights 😉 😉 I’M betting they are already working on a new lawsuit to challenge the next round of the fat bastards gun grab oh and don’t forget your dues… they have that new out of state house WE have to pay for……… why dont we sue for the 18th, 15th or how about the 25th amendment anything but 2A Bruen Heller

    1. Yes, GSL is globalist backed. I sat next to George Soros at the last meeting. Bill Gates couldn’t make it but we’ll see him at the world depopulation seminar at GSL global HQ in Savoy, the sodom and gomorrah of central IL. ISRA is a washed up has been gun rights organization. Have you started your gun rights advocacy group yet ? I’m looking forward to seeing you blow the doors of GSL. What’s the first lawsuit you’re going to bring up ? I can hardly wait !!!! Your new group will have PICA knocked down real soon !!!

Comments are closed.