Attorneys General Forum at Shot Show 2026

The Attorneys General Forum was held at the 2026 SHOT Show on January 21, 2026. Eight Attorneys General were present. From left to right they were: Montana AG Austin Knudsen (wearing cowboy hat); Missouri AG Catherine L. Hanaway; Iowa AG Brenna Bird; West Virginia AG John B. McCuskey;  Kansas AG Kris Kobach; Louisiana AG Liz Murrill; Arkansas AG Tim Griffin; and Florida AG James Uthmeier.

The discussion started with a question about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, the PLCAA. The Montana AG, Austin Knudsen answered: Yes the Supreme Court had made the PLCAA clear, but lawsuits against firearms companies for criminal actions of others are not about the law, they are about lawfare, using lawsuits to damage the firearms industry by the costs of continual lawsuits. This appeared to be a consensus among the AGs present. The lawsuits are being used as political tools. Those bringing the lawsuits do not expect to win.

There was considerable discussion of the Supreme Court and the cases they have and have not taken. There was a general dissatisfaction at the relatively small number of cases taken by the Supreme Court.  Kansas AG Kris Kobach made the case of the enormous progress which has been made since 2008, compared to the previous 70 years. He suggested the originalists on the court are being very careful so as to make a lasting legacy for the Second Amendment.

Several Attorneys General commented there were possibilities to build cases against the organizations bringing these lawsuits on the bases of fraud, for false statements used in fundraising emails, or for conspiracy to defraud based on false statements. In Montana, for example, the state AG has broad authority over non-profits.

The potential of filing lawsuits against state governments which prohibit citizens of one state from exercising their constitutional rights in other states was considered a possibility.  West Virginia AG John B. McCuskey believes this is an upcoming tool to protect Second Amendment rights.

State lawsuits against other states are supposed to go directly to the Supreme Court instead of through the appellate courts. Use of the Dormant commerce clause was mentioned. The commerce clause was originally meant to prevent one state from inhibiting commerce with or through another state.  State laws which inhibit or prohibit the sale of firearms appear to directly violate the commerce clause and the Second Amendment. An example could be state waiting period laws, which have no historical basis.

Economic power of the state can be used to prevent banks from discriminating against people who are involved in the firearms industry. States can pass laws preventing banks from discriminating. Banks, at present are vulnerable to this because of actions at the federal level, by the Trump administration.  This tactic has been successful, but could be reversed in a future leftist administration.

Florida AG James Uthmeier told of how he refusef to defend Florida laws which he had determined were unconstitutional. He stated his oath to follow the Federal and State Constitutions pre-empted any duty to uphold a state law. The recent example was the nullification of the Florida open carry ban.

Arkansas  AG Tim Griffin told of how he had researched to see if there was any historical requirement for an Arkansas AG to defend state laws in court. He did not find any such requirement. He then looked for an opportunity make a test case. He found a law which was clearly unconstitutional, violating the dormant commerce clause. He stated the AG would not prosecute the unconstitutional law, and created a precedent the AG would not prosecute or defend laws which violate the Constitution. The ability of Attorneys General to use their power to uphold Constitutional rights has been dormant for decades. It can be very powerful.  The Attorney General is an elected official. They are not required to rubber stamp acts of the legislature.

This gives state AGs power to negotiate with the legislature during debate over the passage of a law. When the AG says he will not enforce a law because it is unconstitutional, legislatures will be willing to make necessary changes in bills before they become laws. The doctrine that Attorneys General must defend unconstitutional laws in court has been pernicious. It does not have a Constitutional basis.

Iowa AG Brenna Bird explained how important the office of AG is in a state. She defeated a Democratic party AG Thomas Miller, who had been in office with only a 4 years break, since 1978.  Miller was not a friend of the Second Amendment. AG Brenna Bird is. She finds delight in defending rights protected by the Second Amendment.

Missouri AG Catherine L. Hanaway brought up the problem of referendum used to undermine Constitutional rights.  Referendum can be brought with out of state money, which allows deep pockets to undermine constitutional rights. States need to tighten requirements for referendum in order to protect constitutional rights.

Louisiana AG Liz Murrill explained how the cases being brought to the Supreme Court by the opposition are carefully crafted to erode rights protected by the Second Amendment as shown in the Bruen decision. She explained how Second Amendment supporters cannot let down their guard and assume their rights will be protected. Second Amendment supporters have to be vigilant in every case.

There appeared to be consensus on the need to counter the ability of organizations to bring lawsuits to attack rights protected by the Second Amendment without risk and at little cost. There are mechanisms to use state resources to protect constitutional rights and to hold those who bring such lawsuits accountable.

Another theme of the forum was the opportunity afforded by the Trump administration. The possibility of rolling back federal constraints and working with the Trump administration showed a 180 degree reversal from the Biden administration.

Analysis: The eight Attorneys General were impressive in their understanding of the law, the Constitution, and the current threats to rights protected by the Second Amendment. Their ability to articulate the threats and potential remedies was excellent. The open forum gave them enough time to delve into details of strategy and tactics not easily available in an ordinary press conference.

©2026 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch 

Source: http://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2026/01/attorneys-general-forum-at-shot-show.html