Major breaking news is sending shockwaves through the Second Amendment community. The U.S. Department of Justice has officially concluded that 18 U.S.C. §1715, a nearly century-old federal gun control law, violates the Second Amendment and should no longer be enforced.

In a newly issued memorandum from the DOJ’s Office of Legal Counsel, Attorney General Pam Bondi and her legal team determined that the 1927 law banning the mailing of handguns through the U.S. Postal Service is unconstitutional under modern Supreme Court precedent, including Bruen. This marks what may be the first time in U.S. history the Department of Justice has formally acknowledged that a federal gun control statute itself infringes on the Second Amendment.

The memo explains that prohibiting law-abiding Americans from mailing handguns burdens core constitutional rights, including self-defense, lawful transport, firearm acquisition, training, and maintenance. DOJ attorneys emphasized that constitutional rights are meaningless if citizens are prevented from receiving arms in common use for lawful purposes.

As a result, the DOJ concluded that the executive branch may not enforce §1715 against constitutionally protected firearms and directed the Postal Service to update its regulations accordingly. The decision also recognizes that mailing firearms is often the only practical way for Americans to lawfully transport guns across restrictive jurisdictions.

This announcement represents a historic shift in federal gun policy and could have far-reaching implications for other federal firearm restrictions. While courts will ultimately have the final say, the DOJ’s position signals a major change in how the federal government views Second Amendment rights—and opens the door to further challenges against unconstitutional gun laws.

Virginia gun owners are facing one of the most aggressive legislative attacks on the Second Amendment in recent memory. As the 2026 Virginia General Assembly session begins, lawmakers have introduced a wave of gun control bills aimed at taxing, restricting, and outright banning common firearms and accessories.

At the center of the controversy is House Bill 207, which would impose a $500 state excise tax on firearm suppressors, just months after the federal suppressor tax was repealed. The proposal would make suppressors—widely used for hearing protection and safe shooting—more expensive than ever, pricing many law-abiding Virginians out of the market.

But the suppressor tax is only the beginning. Additional bills include House Bill 271, which targets commonly owned semi-automatic rifles and magazines, effectively reviving an “assault weapon” ban. Other proposals threaten concealed carry reciprocity, restrict firearms in vehicles, ban homemade firearms, expand prohibited-person categories, and expose gun manufacturers and retailers to lawsuits through vague “responsible conduct” standards.

Together, these measures represent a coordinated effort to erode lawful gun ownership in the Commonwealth. Critics argue the bills do nothing to stop crime and instead punish responsible citizens through higher costs, legal uncertainty, and reduced access to constitutionally protected rights.

With multiple bills moving quickly through the legislature, gun owners are being urged to stay informed, contact their representatives, and engage before these proposals become law. As history shows, stopping bad legislation early is far easier than undoing years of infringement later.

California gun owners are facing an unexpected and alarming consequence of the state’s newest firearm laws. Since AB1263 and AB1127 took effect on January 1, confusion across the firearms industry is leaving law-abiding citizens without their legally owned guns.

Reports are emerging that manufacturers and out-of-state service centers are refusing to return California-compliant firearms after warranty or repair work. The problem stems from vague legislative language and a lack of clear guidance from the California Department of Justice, prompting companies to hold firearms indefinitely rather than risk violating state law.

In one documented case, a California gun owner sent a handgun out of state for warranty repair, only to be told it could not be returned due to “non-compliance” concerns—despite the firearm being legally owned, registered, and compliant under California law. With manufacturers awaiting legal opinions and no official timeline for resolution, owners are left without their property and without answers.

This situation amounts to confiscation by confusion, a predictable outcome of poorly written legislation. With thousands of gun owners potentially affected, the issue underscores the real-world consequences of vague firearm laws that punish responsible citizens rather than address crime.

California gun owners are urged to exercise extreme caution before sending firearms out of state and to demand written assurances that their property will be returned. Awareness and accountability are critical as this issue continues to unfold statewide.

Major breaking news is emerging from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, where prominent federal judges are openly questioning the constitutionality of the federal ban on post-1986 machine guns. This development places 18 USC §922, also known as the Hughes Amendment, squarely back on the legal radar.

In a recent decision, Judges James Ho and Don Willett—both widely viewed as potential future Supreme Court justices—flagged a critical issue: the machine gun ban appears to lack any valid connection to Congress’s enumerated powers under Article I of the Constitution. Unlike other federal gun laws, §922 does not rely on taxation authority or include any requirement that the firearm be connected to interstate commerce.

Judge Willett’s concurrence echoed long-standing concerns first raised decades ago by then-Judge Samuel Alito in United States v. Rybar, arguing that Congress may have exceeded its constitutional authority when it criminalized mere possession of post-1986 machine guns. While the Fifth Circuit panel was bound by existing precedent and did not overturn the ban, the judges’ analysis strongly suggests the issue is ripe for higher court review.

Although this does not legalize machine guns today, it represents a significant shift in judicial thinking. As constitutional scrutiny continues to build, the long-standing federal prohibition may eventually face a direct challenge at the Supreme Court level—making this one of the most important Second Amendment developments in years.

Monday brought new developments from the United States Supreme Court as the justices released their latest orders list, revealing decisions on several high-profile Second Amendment cases. While some outcomes were disappointing, others remain very much alive and could still shape the future of gun rights nationwide.

Two important cases were officially denied certiorari. The first, Perez v. United States, asked whether the Second Amendment presumptively protects the right to acquire firearms. The second, Mares v. Massachusetts, involved interstate travel with firearms. Their denial means the Court declined to directly address those questions at this time.

However, there is still reason for cautious optimism. Three major cases—Duncan v. Bont (California’s magazine ban), Gators Customs Guns v. Washington (Washington’s magazine ban), and Vera Montes v. Cook County (Illinois’ rifle ban)—were not denied. Instead, all three were rescheduled for conference again, now set for later this week. While repeated rescheduling can be frustrating, it also means the Court has not closed the door.

Adding to the significance of this moment, a new case has entered the spotlight. NAGR v. Lamont, out of Connecticut, has officially received its first Supreme Court conference date. This case challenges both rifle bans and magazine bans simultaneously, and if accepted, it could have sweeping nationwide implications.

For now, the Supreme Court continues to deliberate, leaving several of the most consequential Second Amendment cases in limbo. While two petitions were denied, the survival of multiple magazine and rifle ban challenges keeps hope alive. As always, developments at the Court can move quickly, and these upcoming conferences could prove pivotal for the future of the Second Amendment.

A major Second Amendment victory quietly flew under the radar this week as the White House announced that the United States has withdrawn from dozens of international entities that do not serve American interests. Among the most significant moves: President Donald Trump formally ended U.S. participation in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, including reporting related to small arms and civilian firearms.

This decision reinforces a fundamental constitutional principle—America does not answer to international bodies when it comes to the rights of its citizens, especially the right to keep and bear arms. By withdrawing cooperation with the UN arms registry framework, the Trump administration rejected the notion that civilian firearm ownership is subject to global oversight, international data collection, or foreign “best practices.”

The UN Register of Conventional Arms, originally created in 1991, has increasingly shifted focus from tanks and fighter jets to small arms and light weapons, the same category that includes firearms lawfully owned by American civilians. While participation is technically voluntary, the registry plays a key role in shaping global norms that treat gun ownership as a controllable risk rather than a protected right.

Supporters of the Second Amendment understand why this matters. History shows that registration often precedes restriction and confiscation, and international frameworks normalize the idea that civilian arms ownership should be monitored. Once accepted globally, those standards are frequently cited by domestic agencies, lawmakers, and advocacy groups to justify tighter controls at home.

By withdrawing from the UN arms registry, the United States drew a clear line in the sand. Firearms policy remains a domestic constitutional issue, not an international bargaining chip. The Second Amendment is not negotiable, not subject to global consensus, and not granted by government—it is a pre-existing right meant to keep power in check.

For gun owners and constitutionalists, this move wasn’t symbolic. It was a reaffirmation of American sovereignty, natural rights, and the principle that freedom does not require permission—especially from the United Nations.

A major shift is underway in the national conversation surrounding concealed carry and the Second Amendment. In a striking development, three prominent federal judges have publicly argued in favor of nationwide concealed carry, citing the confusion and danger posed by America’s patchwork of gun laws when traveling across state lines.

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Judges Elizabeth Branch (11th Circuit), Robert Wilkins (D.C. Circuit), and Trevor McFadden (D.C. District Court) endorsed Senator Tom Cotton’s Protect Our Prosecutors and Judges Act. The proposal would allow federal judges and prosecutors who complete firearms training to carry concealed nationwide—similar to existing protections under LEOSA for law enforcement.

Their argument is simple but powerful: judges travel frequently, face credible threats, and are often forced to disarm due to inconsistent state laws. In doing so, they unintentionally underscore the very problem gun owners have raised for decades—constitutional rights should not disappear at state borders.

While the proposal would apply only to judges and prosecutors, its broader impact cannot be ignored. As more members of the judiciary experience lawful concealed carry firsthand, it helps normalize armed self-defense and exposes the flaws in restrictive gun control narratives. That shift expands the Overton window toward nationwide reciprocity for all law-abiding Americans.

Although concerns remain about creating a two-tiered system of rights, this development signals growing institutional recognition that the current legal maze surrounding concealed carry is unworkable. Incremental change has already transformed the country, with nearly 30 states now recognizing permitless carry.

The trend is clear: familiarity breeds understanding. And understanding—especially within the judiciary—may ultimately pave the way for true nationwide concealed carry under the Second Amendment.

A major development at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could reshape the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence nationwide. In Roodie v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s ammunition background check regime, momentum is rapidly shifting against the state’s restrictive gun laws.

California currently requires a background check and fee for every single ammunition purchase, bans direct-to-home delivery, restricts interstate purchases, and layers these rules on top of an additional 11% tax on firearms and accessories. The result is a system that conditions the exercise of a constitutional right on repeated government permission—one that has been shown to fail thousands of lawful buyers.

This week, the U.S. Department of Justice took the extraordinary step of not only filing an amicus brief supporting Olympic gold medalist Kim Roodie, but also formally requesting to participate in oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for March, and the DOJ will argue that access to ammunition is inseparable from the right to keep and bear arms.

Even more significant, a massive coalition of states—including Texas, Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and more than 20 others—along with the Arizona State Legislature, filed a joint brief supporting Roodie. Major Second Amendment organizations have also weighed in, creating one of the largest pro–Second Amendment coalitions ever assembled in a Ninth Circuit case.

At its core, this case challenges whether a state can tax, fee, and regulate a constitutional right into near nonexistence. With the DOJ, a majority of states, and leading constitutional scholars aligned against California, Roodie v. Bonta may become the breakthrough case that finally cracks the Ninth Circuit’s long-standing resistance to Second Amendment protections.

The stakes are enormous—and this case is one to watch closely.

A newly proposed federal bill should alarm every American who values the Second Amendment. Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim have introduced legislation known as the Federal Firearms Licensing Act, a sweeping proposal that would require citizens to obtain a federal license just to purchase, receive, or possess a firearm.

Under the bill’s language, firearm ownership would no longer be treated as a fundamental right, but as a government-granted privilege. Without a valid federal firearms purchasing license, possession itself would be illegal. This represents a complete inversion of the Second Amendment, which recognizes gun ownership as a pre-existing right—not one granted by the state.

The requirements to obtain this license are extensive and burdensome. Applicants would be required to complete mandatory firearms training, pass written and live-fire exams, submit fingerprints, undergo background investigations, provide proof of identity, and even disclose the make, model, serial number, and seller of the firearm they intend to acquire—before being allowed to purchase it. Even after completing these steps, the government would have up to 30 days to decide whether to issue the license, which would expire after five years and could be revoked at any time.

This type of licensing scheme mirrors gun control models seen in states like New York and New Jersey, where rights have steadily been transformed into permissions through regulation, fees, and administrative delays. While the bill may not advance in the current Congress, it serves as a clear warning of what could come with a shift in political power.

History shows that unconstitutional gun laws are often passed and enforced regardless of legality, forcing citizens to fight them in court after the damage is done. That’s why proposals like this cannot be ignored or dismissed as unlikely. They are trial balloons, signaling future attempts to federalize gun control.

Now is the time to stay engaged, contact lawmakers, and make it clear that the Second Amendment is not negotiable. Liberty is fragile, and once a right becomes a privilege, reclaiming it is far more difficult.

Virginia House Bill 217 is not a routine gun control proposal—it is a sweeping rewrite of firearm law that would fundamentally criminalize lawful gun ownership across the Commonwealth. Introduced after Democrats regained control, HB 217 represents one of the most aggressive state-level gun control efforts in the country.

The bill dramatically expands Virginia’s definition of so-called “assault firearms,” capturing most common semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns based on standard features such as detachable magazines, threaded barrels, adjustable stocks, pistol grips, and muzzle devices. These are not rare or unusual weapons—they are among the most commonly owned firearms in America.

HB 217 would make it a criminal offense to manufacture, sell, import, purchase, or transfer any firearm that falls under this expanded definition. Law-abiding citizens, dealers, and manufacturers alike would face misdemeanor charges simply for engaging in ordinary, previously lawful activity.

The bill also bans standard-capacity magazines over ten rounds, effectively outlawing common AR-15 magazines and many handgun magazines used for home defense. In addition, adults aged 18 to 20—who can vote, serve in the military, and sign contracts—would be prohibited from possessing firearms arbitrarily redefined by lawmakers.

Perhaps most troubling, HB 217 strips firearm rights after misdemeanor convictions, imposing a three-year prohibition on gun ownership and authorizing seizure and forfeiture of firearms, magazines, and accessories. This is not based on violent conduct, but on paperwork offenses and minor crimes.

HB 217 is not about public safety—it is about control. It punishes possession rather than behavior, turns ordinary citizens into criminals, and lays the groundwork for confiscation. While the bill would almost certainly face constitutional challenges under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard, the damage to gun owners would occur long before any court ruling.

What happens in Virginia rarely stays in Virginia. Bills like HB 217 set a dangerous precedent, and gun owners nationwide should be paying close attention.