Fox & Watchdog
← Public evidence ledger
RedState
Article misinformation risk ★★★★★ ★★★★★ 0.5/5 Mostly accurate · 2 checked claims
category/news-and-politics

Second Amendment Wins Big: A Conversation With the NRA

RedState's interview with the NRA's Justin Davis argues recent court decisions and politics favor gun-rights advocates, states that 29 states now have constitutional carry, and quotes the NRA saying a recent legislative change removed the NFA "tax stamp," enabling lawsuits challenging the National Firearms Act; it also cites White House interest in national concealed-carry reciprocity (H.R. 38).

Open the original RedState article ↗

Mostly accurate
Public importance 70/100

“Constitutional carry laws, which allow carrying a concealed firearm ... without the need for government permission, are now in place in 29 states.”

Attributed to RedState (Ward Clark)

✓ Proof standard met 4 reachable references Independent-source requirement passed
Original context and attribution

Ward Clark's article asserts as a factual overview that 29 U.S. states have enacted constitutional carry laws allowing concealed carry without permits.

What the proof shows

Authoritative sources show that, using the common definition of “constitutional/permitless carry” (laws that allow eligible people to carry a concealed firearm in public without first obtaining a government-issued carry permit), 29 states had such laws in place as of early–mid 2026. Johns Hopkins’ March 2026 report explicitly counts 29 states; state legislative documents and governor press releases confirm recent additions (e.g., Nebraska, Louisiana, Florida). The statement is accurate as a snapshot, but omits important context: states’ rules differ (age thresholds, resident-only language, prohibited locations), many permitless states still issue optional permits for reciprocity, and counts can vary slightly depending on the exact statutory definition used.

Corrected version

As of March 2026, 29 U.S. states had enacted permitless ("constitutional") carry laws allowing eligible people to carry a concealed firearm without obtaining a state carry permit; however, details vary by state (age limits, residency exceptions, prohibited locations), and most of those states still offer optional permits for interstate reciprocity.

Automated evidence confidence: 0%

References and proof

Every link was reachable when published. Each proof point states how that source bears on the claim.

Official data Supports

Governor Ron DeSantis Signs HB 543 – Constitutional Carry (press release) ↗

Office of the Governor of Florida (press release)
Proof point

“Today, Governor Ron DeSantis signed House Bill (HB) 543 which strengthens Floridians’ Second Amendment rights by allowing Floridians to carry concealed weapons without a government-issued permit. HB 543 goes into effect on July 1, 2023, making Florida the 26th state to enact Constitutional Carry legislation.”

Primary source Supports

LEGISLATIVE BILL 77 — Nebraska (Bill text, LB77, 2023) ↗

Nebraska Legislature
Proof point

LB77 (Intro) — purpose includes: 'to provide for the carrying of a concealed handgun without a permit;' (bill text and enacted provisions remove permit requirement for concealed carry).

Official data Supports

SB1 (BillInfo) — 2024 Second Extraordinary Session: WEAPONS: Provides relative to the right of law‑abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns lawfully without a permit (Act 1, 2024 Second ES) ↗

Louisiana State Legislature (BillInfo)
Proof point

SB1 (Act 1 of 2024, Second Extraordinary Session) — bill summary: 'Provides relative to the right of law‑abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns lawfully without a permit.' (SB1 was enacted and made Louisiana permitless effective July 4, 2024.)

Other Supports

Constitutional carry — Wikipedia (overview and state-by-state list) ↗

Wikipedia (state statutes cited)
Proof point

State entries and citations show the timing and statutory changes (e.g., Louisiana’s SB1 effective July 4, 2024) and list the states that have eliminated permit requirements for concealed carry; the page’s state-by-state details corroborate the recent wave of permitless carry laws.

Mostly accurate
Public importance 70/100

“Earlier this year, we passed the one big beautiful bill, which took out the actual financial tax stamp [under the NFA], which allowed us to open the door for several lawsuits ... to say the NFA is unconstitutional.”

Attributed to Justin Davis, NRA Director of Public Affairs (quoted in RedState)

✓ Proof standard met 5 reachable references Independent-source requirement passed
Original context and attribution

In an interview excerpted by RedState, Justin Davis claims a recent legislative change removed the National Firearms Act's transfer tax (the "tax stamp"), enabling legal challenges to the NFA.

What the proof shows

Congress’s 2025 reconciliation law (Pub. L. 119-21, the “One Big Beautiful Bill”) amended the NFA tax provisions so that, effective January 1, 2026, the making/transfer excise tax for most NFA items (suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs) is set to $0 while machineguns and destructive devices remain taxed. ATF’s rulemaking and multiple federal complaints filed since the change explicitly rely on that statutory zeroing to argue the NFA’s registration regime can no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power and therefore is unconstitutional as applied to the untaxed items. The RedState quotation accurately reports the two factual points (the financial tax was removed for most items and that this spurred multiple lawsuits asserting constitutional claims), but misses the important nuance that the statutory tax was set to $0 (not that all NFA paperwork/registration was repealed) and that the lawsuits are ongoing (no final judicial determination that the NFA is unconstitutional has been entered).

Corrected version

Congress’s 2025 law set the NFA making and transfer tax to $0 for most NFA items (effective Jan. 1, 2026); that change prompted several federal lawsuits arguing the NFA’s registration rules are now unconstitutional, though registration and background-check requirements remain in effect and the cases are unresolved.

Automated evidence confidence: 0%

References and proof

Every link was reachable when published. Each proof point states how that source bears on the claim.

Official data Supports

Removing CLEO Notification Under the National Firearms Act (Federal Register, ATF proposed rule) ↗

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives / Federal Register
Proof point

Effective January 1, 2026, the transfer tax for NFA firearms (other than machine guns and destructive devices) is $0. Pub. L. 119-21, sec. 70436 (July 4, 2025).

Official data Supports

26 U.S.C. § 5811 — Transfer tax (annotated current text) ↗

Office of the Law Revision Counsel (via LawStack)
Proof point

There shall be levied ... a tax at the rate of— $200 for each firearm transferred in the case of a machinegun or a destructive device; $0 for any firearm transferred which is not described in paragraph (1).

Court record Supports

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (Jensen v. ATF) ↗

U.S. District Court filing (hosted by Second Amendment Foundation)
Proof point

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act ("BBB"), Pub. L. No. 119-21 ... eliminated the making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and NFA-defined "any other weapons," while leaving the registration requirements intact.

Court record Supports

Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (case page and complaint) ↗

Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse (court docket / complaint)
Proof point

This case challenges the enforceability of the National Firearms Act (NFA) after the One Big Beautiful Bill zeroed the manufacture and transfer tax on most NFA items.

Court record Supports

Complaint: Brown v. ATF (Eastern District of Missouri) (filed Aug. 1, 2025) ↗

U.S. District Court filing (hosted by American Suppressor Association)
Proof point

Plaintiffs filed Brown v. ATF after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act eliminated the making and transfer taxes for certain NFA items, and the complaint asks the court to declare the NFA unconstitutional as applied to those untaxed items.

COMMUNITY EVIDENCE

Discussion

Disagreement is welcome. Spam and abuse are not.

No published comments yet. Add evidence or challenge the reasoning.

Members can comment for free

Create a free membership or sign in.