In a bold move that’s sending shockwaves through the Second Amendment community, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) has publicly called out President Donald Trump for failing to live up to his promise to protect gun rights. Despite Trump’s February executive order titled “Protecting Second Amendment Rights,” the Department of Justice under his administration continues to defend federal gun control statutes — and the FPC says enough is enough.

In a statement released from Washington, D.C., the FPC accused the Trump DOJ of “relentlessly defending the federal government’s unconstitutional gun control regime.” The group cited multiple cases where the Justice Department sided against gun owners rather than supporting efforts to dismantle federal restrictions.

According to the FPC, the Trump administration’s Solicitor General urged the Supreme Court to deny review of a challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) — the 1934 law that regulates and taxes items like short-barreled rifles, shotguns, and suppressors. The DOJ claimed these restrictions align with “historical tradition,” effectively endorsing federal overreach the Second Amendment was meant to prevent.

The FPC highlighted several ongoing court battles where the Trump DOJ’s actions appear to conflict with pro-2A promises:

• United States v. Himmani: A case the DOJ supported that could strengthen federal power over individual gun rights.
• United States v. George Peterson: A Fifth Circuit appeal challenging the NFA’s suppressor registration and taxation scheme — opposed by the DOJ.
• Jensen v. ATF: An FPC-backed case directly challenging provisions of the NFA itself.

The FPC argues that these are deliberate choices, not bureaucratic leftovers. The organization is demanding that the President order the DOJ to stop defending these laws and instead use executive power to restore Second Amendment protections.

If the Department of Justice stopped defending the NFA and similar laws, the effects would be immediate and far-reaching.
Victories in federal court could:

• Remove restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles
• Reopen the door for interstate firearm transfers
• Set the stage for striking down magazine capacity limits and AR-15 bans

If the Department of Justice stopped defending the NFA and similar laws, the effects would be immediate and far-reaching.
Victories in federal court could:

• Remove restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles
• Reopen the door for interstate firearm transfers
• Set the stage for striking down magazine capacity limits and AR-15 bans

In short, ending DOJ defense of federal gun control could reset decades of unconstitutional precedent and restore the Second Amendment to its original strength.

FPC’s message to Trump is clear: Stop being passive — start being proactive.

Gun owners who supported Trump for his pro-2A stance are now watching closely to see whether he’ll respond. The DOJ has already delayed its next filing in the Gun Owners of America’s NFA lawsuit until December 15, meaning all eyes will be on the administration’s next move.

As Guns & Gadgets host Jared reminds viewers:

“Actions speak louder than words. If the federal government backs down from defending unconstitutional laws, we could see major wins in court — and the restoration of the Second Amendment.”

The battle over the Second Amendment has taken a new and dangerous turn. On November 10, 2025, Connecticut Attorney General William Tong sent a letter to Sturm, Ruger & Co., threatening legal action under the Connecticut Firearms Industry Responsibility Act (CFIRA) — a controversial law that could make gun manufacturers liable for crimes committed by others. This marks the latest move in a coordinated campaign between state officials and anti-gun groups to undermine the firearms industry from within.

This attack began when the legal arm of Everytown for Gun Safety sent a warning letter to Ruger, accusing the company of “recklessly” designing its new Ruger RXM pistol to mimic Glock handguns — which can be illegally modified with black-market “switches” to fire fully automatic. Everytown demanded that Ruger pull the RXM from the market immediately, even though:

• Ruger does not manufacture or sell conversion devices.
• There are no known cases of a Ruger RXM being used in a crime.
• The gun fully complies with federal and state law.

Days later, AG Tong echoed the same claims in his own letter, suggesting Ruger could be liable if it was “reasonably foreseeable” that someone might illegally modify one of its pistols.

Under the CFIRA, the Connecticut AG can sue gun companies if they fail to exercise “reasonable controls” or if their products could “reasonably promote” illegal use — vague standards that effectively allow the state to sue lawful manufacturers for criminal misuse. Tong’s office also invoked Connecticut’s Unfair Trade Practices Act, expanding the threat to include claims over marketing and design.

Critics argue this approach directly circumvents federal protections granted under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), which shields manufacturers from lawsuits over crimes committed with their products. By using state-level liability laws, anti-gun activists have found a new path to pressure — or even bankrupt — legal gun companies.

If this strategy spreads to other blue states, it could create an industry-wide chilling effect:

• Manufacturers may pull models or stop producing entire lines of handguns and rifles.
• Prices could skyrocket due to legal risks.
• Innovation could stall, as companies prioritize lawsuit protection over design improvements.

This campaign mirrors the anti-tobacco lawsuits of the 1990s — but this time, it targets an industry protected by the Bill of Rights.

Glock has already begun transitioning its product line, reportedly to avoid legal risk over convertibility claims. Now, with Everytown and state attorneys general coordinating, the next frontier of gun control won’t come through bans or Congress — it will come through the courtroom.

Gun rights advocates warn this approach represents a “war of attrition” against lawful commerce. Rather than going after criminals, states like Connecticut are going after law-abiding manufacturers, hoping to choke off supply and weaken Americans’ access to firearms.

Glock’s long-awaited V-Series has finally arrived, offering a refined evolution of the Gen 5 lineup. Early testers are calling it smoother, cleaner, and more balanced. But for Californians, the big question is whether this upgraded pistol will ever make it back onto the California handgun roster — or if it’s yet another firearm destined to remain off-limits.

Let’s break down the key differences, the legal roadblocks, and what AB1127 could mean for the future of Glock handguns in California.

At first glance, the V-Series doesn’t look dramatically different from the Gen 5. The real changes are in the details:

• Removable backstraps for better ergonomics
• No finger grooves for a cleaner grip profile
• Dual-capture recoil spring for smoother cycling
• Forward slide serrations for improved manipulation
• Ambidextrous mag release for left- or right-hand operation

These refinements make the V-Series a more versatile and modern firearm — but they also create problems under California’s strict roster laws.

Under AB1127, California allows manufacturers a narrow carveout to bring older models back onto the roster if they make only the changes necessary to meet state requirements.

However, Glock’s V-Series may have gone too far. The law specifies that only modifications addressing compliance — such as those preventing “convertibility” — can qualify for reapplication. Since the V-Series includes several design and feature upgrades, California could view it as an entirely new pistol, requiring full retesting and additional safety features like a Loaded Chamber Indicator (LCI) and Magazine Disconnect Mechanism (MDM).

That means Glock would likely have to start from scratch to requalify the V-Series — a process few manufacturers find worth the effort or cost.

In short:

• The V-Series is essentially a re-engineered Gen 5, not a lightly modified Gen 3.
• California’s DOJ treats even small aesthetic changes (like frame color) as new SKUs requiring separate approval.
• The added enhancements in the V-Series exceed what California allows under AB1127’s limited exception.

So, despite the quality improvements, Glock’s newest evolution may never be legally sold in California unless the state roster is overturned in court.

The Glock V-Series is an impressive advancement that delivers everything fans have wanted — except for one crucial thing: California compliance.

Unless Second Amendment lawsuits challenging the roster succeed, California gun owners may never see this model on store shelves. For now, it’s another example of how innovation and restrictive legislation continue to clash, leaving law-abiding citizens behind.

In breaking Second Amendment news, the Supreme Court of the United States has just received a major new petition that could finally force the Court to address one of the most controversial issues in America — the constitutionality of semi-automatic rifle bans.

For years, gun rights advocates have argued that the phrase “shall not be infringed” is crystal clear. Yet courts across the country have added a long list of exceptions — “unless it’s dangerous and unusual,” “unless it’s not in common use,” or “unless it has military-style features.” These judicial loopholes have diluted the Second Amendment so much that Americans are now relying on the Supreme Court to clarify what should have been obvious from the start.

The Second Amendment Foundation (2AF) has just filed a petition for certiorari in Grant v. Rella, a direct challenge to Connecticut’s ban on modern semi-automatic rifles. Unlike other bans, Connecticut’s law prohibits firearms not only by features but also by name, specifically outlawing popular rifles like the AR-15.

At the heart of the case is a simple question:

Do the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess semi-automatic rifles in common use for lawful purposes — including the most popular rifle in the country, the AR-15?

The petition even cites Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s previous statement in the Snope v. Brown denial, where he noted that it’s “analytically difficult to distinguish the AR-15 from the handguns at issue in Heller.” In other words, if the Supreme Court ruled that handguns are protected under District of Columbia v. Heller, then semi-automatic rifles — which function the same way — should also be protected.

This isn’t the only case before the Court. Other 2A challenges like Vermontes v. Cook County (Illinois) and NAGR v. Lamont (Connecticut) are also waiting for review. Collectively, they represent a massive opportunity for SCOTUS to finally address bans on AR-15s, standard-capacity magazines, and similar firearms that are in common use across America.

If the Court refuses to take these cases, it would allow lower courts to continue defying both the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s own precedent in NYSRPA v. Bruen. The result would be a dangerous green light for states to continue punishing law-abiding gun owners for exercising their fundamental rights.

This filing by the 2AF marks a turning point in the national gun rights battle. With multiple semi-auto and magazine ban cases now sitting before the Supreme Court, 2025 could be the year the justices finally answer the question once and for all:

Can firearms in common use be banned?

The clear answer under the Second Amendment is no — but it’s now up to the Supreme Court to say so.

Once again, headlines scream that a “Donald Trump appointee” has ruled against him. The latest example? Judge Karen Immergut of the U.S. District Court for Oregon, who recently blocked President Trump’s authority to deploy federalized National Guard troops in Portland — a decision the Trump team is expected to appeal.

But this same judge also upheld Oregon’s Ballot Measure 114, the sweeping anti-gun referendum that banned so-called “large-capacity magazines” and imposed restrictive licensing requirements.

So, how does a judge like this get labeled a Trump appointee? The answer lies in an obscure but powerful Senate tradition known as the “blue slip process.”

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal judges are appointed for life by the President, but only after being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. For district court nominees — judges who serve within individual states — a long-standing Senate courtesy comes into play:

When a President nominates a judge for a district court seat, the Senate Judiciary Committee sends a blue slip to the two home-state senators. Each senator can either:

• Approve the nomination
• Reject it
• Ignore it altogether

If the home-state senators (for example, both Democrats from Oregon) don’t return the blue slip with approval, the Judiciary Committee won’t even hold a hearing on that nominee.

That means a Republican president, like Donald Trump, cannot appoint a solid conservative to a federal bench in a blue state unless the Democrat senators sign off.

In deep-blue states like Oregon, California, and New York, Trump couldn’t get conservative judges through this process. Instead, political deals were made. The White House would nominate candidates pre-approved by Democrat senators — individuals who could sail through the confirmation process.

That’s why judges like Karen Immergut — who later issued rulings upholding gun control laws and blocking Trump administration actions — are “Trump appointees” in name only.

Yes, their official appointment papers were signed by President Trump, but their selection was dictated by Democrat senators through the blue slip system.

So when mainstream outlets claim that “Trump’s own appointees are turning on him,” they’re leaving out critical context. These judges were never Trump’s personal picks for the bench — they were politically negotiated compromises to fill vacancies in blue states.

This misunderstanding fuels a false narrative that even Trump’s own judiciary doesn’t support him, when in fact, these judges were effectively chosen by Democrats under Senate rules that predate his presidency.

Understanding this process makes you the smartest person in the room when legal pundits talk about “Trump-appointed judges.”

It also explains why rulings in cases involving the Second Amendment, federal authority, or state gun laws often seem out of step with Trump’s judicial philosophy — even when the judge was appointed during his term.

In short:

• Yes, Judge Karen Immergut is technically a Trump appointee.
• No, she wasn’t a conservative originalist chosen by Trump himself.
• Yes, the blue slip process ensured only Democrat-approved judges could fill Oregon’s federal bench.

When you hear that another “Trump-appointed judge” has ruled against him, remember the blue slip backstory. It’s not betrayal — it’s bureaucracy. And it’s one of Washington’s best-kept secrets about how judicial appointments really work.

If you thought Gavin Newsom’s record on gun rights was bad, buckle up — because things in California could get even worse. Javier Becerra, the former Attorney General of California and current Health and Human Services Secretary under President Biden, is now running for governor. And according to recent polls, his campaign is gaining traction.

For gun owners, this is a red alert moment. Becerra has a long, well-documented history of fighting to restrict the Second Amendment — and if elected governor, he could deliver the final blow to gun rights in California.

Before joining the Biden administration, Becerra served as California’s Attorney General, where he defended and enforced some of the state’s most restrictive firearm laws.

He was instrumental in supporting Proposition 63, the sweeping gun control measure that banned “large-capacity” magazines and imposed background checks for ammunition purchases.

“With the help of Prop 63 and the champions who made it possible, we’ll keep our communities safer,” Becerra said at the time. “This is California — we don’t backslide.”

Becerra also pushed for strict federal action on “ghost guns” and advocated for controversial microstamping technology, which would mandate firearm components that mark bullets with unique codes — a policy critics say is expensive, ineffective, and unconstitutional.

Gun owners across the nation may recognize Becerra’s name from one of the biggest 2A legal battles in recent memory: Duncan v. Bonta (originally Duncan v. Becerra).

That case — which challenges California’s ban on standard-capacity magazines — began under Becerra’s leadership at the Department of Justice. He fought aggressively to defend the ban, arguing against gun owners’ rights even as federal courts found similar laws unconstitutional.

And his anti-gun stance isn’t new. Becerra has been in politics for decades and voted for the 1994 Clinton “assault weapon” ban when he served in Congress.

“I was in Congress back in 1993 when Joe Biden was a senator, and we passed that assault weapon ban,” Becerra once proudly recalled.

According to the latest polling (cited by the Becerra campaign itself):

• Sheriff Chad Bianco (Riverside County) currently leads the race. Known for his pro–Second Amendment stance, Bianco has streamlined CCW permits and defended Californians’ right to self-defense.
• Katie Porter (D), once the frontrunner, has seen her numbers drop sharply following several staff mistreatment scandals.
• Steve Hilton (R) holds a strong third position.
• Javier Becerra (D) trails closely behind but remains within the poll’s margin of error, meaning he could overtake Porter at any time.

In short — Becerra’s rise is real, and his history suggests that if he wins, California’s gun laws could become even more restrictive than under Gavin Newsom.

For those who value the right to self-defense, Becerra’s candidacy is a major warning sign. His record shows a consistent pattern of prioritizing government control over individual freedom, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment.

If elected, Californians can expect:

• Expanded bans on popular firearms and magazines
• Tighter restrictions on concealed carry
• More aggressive enforcement of “ghost gun” regulations
• Continued erosion of lawful gun ownership rights

Javier Becerra isn’t just another California politician — he’s Gavin Newsom 2.0, with an even deeper anti-gun record.

With Sheriff Chad Bianco and other pro–Second Amendment candidates rising in the polls, gun owners have a rare opportunity to make their voices heard. The key will be supporting candidates who respect constitutional rights and staying informed as this race unfolds.

Florida — often called the Gunshine State — is once again at the center of the national gun rights debate. A group of Second Amendment activists recently conducted an open carry audit near Florida State University in Tallahassee to test whether police and the public would respect their right to bear arms under the state’s newly clarified open carry law.

The activists legally carried visible firearms through the popular College Town area near FSU, filming the experience as part of a broader civil rights audit — a peaceful test to see how law enforcement reacts when citizens exercise constitutional rights in public.

While open carry without a permit has been legal in most public places across Florida since September 25, 2025, the state still prohibits it in sensitive locations such as schools, courthouses, polling places, and bars. The activists stayed within the law, but that didn’t stop the media from erupting in outrage.

Local outlets ran alarmist headlines about “men with guns near campus,” while students voiced fear and administrators raised safety concerns. But what most coverage ignored was the fact that these citizens broke no laws and were peacefully exercising a constitutional right.

The reaction highlights a deeper cultural divide: in modern America, the sight of a firearm — once a symbol of independence and civic duty — now sparks fear. As the video’s creator argued, that fear isn’t accidental; it’s the result of decades of conditioning that equates gun ownership with danger rather than responsibility.

Whether you agree with the tactic or not, open carry audits serve a purpose. They test whether officers know and respect the law. They reveal how society reacts to visible freedom. And they push conversations about the Second Amendment out of the shadows and into the public square.

As the speaker noted, “Rights are meaningless if society conditions you to fear them.” When citizens openly carry firearms responsibly, it normalizes gun ownership and challenges the narrative that only criminals or extremists carry guns.

The Founders didn’t write the Second Amendment to say “the right to keep and conceal arms.” They said “the right to keep and bear arms.” To bear means to carry — openly and confidently.

Critics argue that open carry audits are provocative, but so was freedom itself. From the Sons of Liberty to the Minutemen, every generation of Americans has had to confront what liberty looks like in practice — and it’s often uncomfortable.

The real story isn’t that armed citizens walked peacefully near a campus. The real story is how quickly society panics when freedom is visible.

As the speaker concluded, “The fear you’re seeing isn’t fear of violence. It’s fear of responsibility. Because an armed society is a responsible society.”

The long-running Duncan v. Bonta case has reached a critical turning point. After nearly a decade of legal battles, the Supreme Court of the United States has officially set a conference date for November 21st, marking what could be a historic decision for gun owners across California and the nation.

This pivotal case challenges California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, often referred to as the state’s standard capacity magazine ban. The case has journeyed through every level of the judicial system — from the district court to the Ninth Circuit, up to the Supreme Court, and back again after the Bruen decision reshaped the Second Amendment landscape.

District Judge Roger Benitez has twice ruled the ban unconstitutional, citing that it violates the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment. Despite that, enforcement remains on hold under an injunction, preventing California from enforcing the ban — for now.

On November 21st, the Justices will decide whether to accept or deny the case. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear it, the lower court ruling upholding the ban will stand — effectively outlawing all magazines over 10 rounds in California. This outcome would impact an estimated one million-plus magazines purchased during the state’s brief “Freedom Week.”

If the Court accepts the case, it could become the most significant Second Amendment showdown since NYSRPA v. Bruen, with nationwide implications for magazine capacity laws.

Unlike other 2A challenges, Duncan v. Bonta is fully developed, with a complete record ready for review. Advocates argue it represents the best opportunity yet for the Supreme Court to clarify limits on state restrictions regarding arms and capacity.

Though the Court has already taken up two Second Amendment cases this term, supporters believe Duncan’s clean record and broad impact make it too important to ignore.

The New York Times published a high-profile piece testing blast pressures (measured in PSI) from various firearms fired at indoor ranges — and while the story warned about risks to shooters’ brains and bodies, it quietly highlighted the clearest solution: suppressors. The paper’s own tests showed that adding a suppressor or blast regulator can dramatically reduce blast pressure (an AR-15 example fell from 1.7 PSI to under 0.5 PSI with a regulator), and the article recommends outdoor shooting, smaller calibers, or suppressors to reduce exposure.

That buried endorsement is a strategic boon for advocates and litigators: a mainstream outlet describing how suppressors lower dangerous blast levels gives a strong, science-based talking point for lawmakers and courts weighing Second Amendment and safety issues. Whether you care about hearing, health, or policy, the takeaway is simple — the New York Times accidentally handed suppressor supporters a powerful public-safety argument.

Shadow Systems’ DR920P (full-size, compensator) and MR920 (compact) are solid, well-finished pistols that bring match-grade barrels, generous slide serrations, optics cuts and ergonomic Gen-4 style frames to California buyers — with roster-required safety changes like a magazine disconnect and a loaded-chamber indicator (LCI).

Quick Highlights:

• DR920P: The non-threaded, pinned compensator is effective — noticeably flatter recoil and very shootable as a full-size pistol (≈4.5" barrel). Robust sights, multi-optic footprint, and comfortable stippling. Very few malfunctions in the reviewer’s ~1,000 rounds.
• MR920: Compact (≈4.18" barrel, 15+1) with the same high-quality fit and feel. Early stove-pipes/FTFs cleared up after ~150 rounds. One LCI on the MR920 stuck upright; the reviewer removed it and experienced no further problems — a reminder that LCI mechanisms can fail and shouldn’t be the sole safety check.

California legal context: AB1127 affects designs that use a certain cruciform trigger bar; Shadow is re-engineering affected models to meet a roster carve-out (manufacturers on the roster before Jan 1, 2026 can modify designs and re-certify). Transfers will be restricted starting July 1, 2026 unless changes are made, but Shadow reports they’re working on compliant updates and expect a prompt return.

Bottom line: Both pistols offer excellent ergonomics, optics readiness and competitive accuracy for their classes. The reviewer’s experience was largely positive but limited to a small sample — do further research and handle examples yourself before relying on any firearm for self-defense.