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.

A newly introduced bill in Utah should alarm every American who values self-defense as a fundamental right. House Bill 133, titled Use of Force Reporting Requirements, would require individuals who lawfully use force—including deadly force—in self-defense to report themselves to law enforcement or risk losing key legal protections.

On its face, the bill may sound administrative. In reality, it transforms self-defense into a conditional privilege, not a right. Under HB133, failure to promptly report a defensive use of force could bar an individual from asserting self-defense protections during critical pretrial proceedings, including justification hearings that can dismiss charges before trial.

This proposal is especially concerning because it applies even when force is clearly lawful. The “use of force” definition is broad and undefined, potentially encompassing everything from verbal commands to physical force or firearm use. Citizens who are injured, hospitalized, disoriented, or simply focused on getting to safety could find themselves punished not for wrongdoing—but for failing to meet a reporting requirement.

Utah has long been viewed as a strong self-defense state, recognizing no duty to retreat and providing presumptions of reasonableness in home and vehicle defense. HB133 undermines those protections by shifting the burden onto the victim and creating legal traps that prosecutors can exploit after the fact.

The bill also raises serious constitutional concerns beyond the Second Amendment. By conditioning legal defenses on compelled reporting, the state risks infringing on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Citizens should never be forced to choose between remaining silent and preserving their constitutional protections.

This is how gun control advances in states that would never pass outright bans—through procedural hurdles, reporting mandates, and technical penalties that make people hesitate before defending themselves. And hesitation in a violent encounter can be deadly.

If this approach succeeds in Utah, it will not stay there. Mandatory self-defense reporting laws could quickly spread to other states under the guise of “reasonable” reform. Self-defense is not a bureaucratic process—it is a natural, constitutional right. Any law that conditions it on paperwork or timelines is an infringement, plain and simple.

In its first major Second Amendment action of 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken a stunning position—supporting gun owners in a high-profile case challenging California’s ammunition background check system.

In Rhode v. Bonta, now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ filed an amicus brief arguing that California’s requirement for a background check every time ammunition is purchased is unconstitutional, historically unprecedented, and intentionally designed to frustrate the exercise of the Second Amendment.

The DOJ did not mince words, describing California’s system as “onerous,” “cumbersome,” and “unnecessarily complicated.” Under the law, gun owners must navigate multiple approval pathways, pay repeated fees, and deal with approvals that can expire in as little as 18 hours. Tens of thousands of lawful gun owners are wrongly denied each year due to bureaucratic errors—not criminal disqualifications.

Most importantly, the DOJ squarely rejected California’s claim that ammunition regulations fall outside Second Amendment protection. The brief makes a simple but devastating point: without ammunition, firearms are useless, and a right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire ammunition.

Applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, the DOJ concluded that buying ammunition is protected conduct and that California failed to identify any historical tradition supporting ammunition background checks. No such laws existed during the Founding, Reconstruction, or early 20th century—making California’s system constitutionally indefensible.

The DOJ also warned that constitutional violations do not require outright bans. Fees, delays, paperwork, and bureaucratic exhaustion can all amount to unlawful infringement when designed to discourage lawful conduct.

If the Ninth Circuit adopts this reasoning, the impact will extend far beyond California, threatening ammunition permit schemes and transaction-by-transaction controls nationwide. More importantly, it sends a clear message: governments cannot use administrative warfare to erode constitutional rights.

For gun owners across the country, this filing represents one of the strongest pro-Second Amendment positions taken by the DOJ in years—and a potential turning point in how courts evaluate regulatory abuse of fundamental rights.

In an unexpected but welcome development, the Ninth Circuit may be facing a turning point in Second Amendment litigation. In Rhode v. Bonta, a long-running challenge to California’s ammunition background check system, the U.S. Department of Justice has officially entered the fight—on the side of gun owners.

The case, brought by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, challenges California’s requirement that residents undergo a background check and pay a fee for every single ammunition purchase. Originally filed in 2018, the lawsuit highlights how the law has denied lawful Californians access to ammunition through excessive fees, repeated checks, bureaucratic errors, and outright rejections.

A federal district court first struck the law down as unconstitutional, with the judge famously noting that California’s “experiment” had failed and gravely injured Second Amendment rights. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit later agreed, ruling the law was designed to discourage lawful participation. As expected, the full Ninth Circuit vacated that ruling and granted an en banc rehearing, with oral arguments scheduled for March.

What changes everything is the new amicus brief filed by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. In unusually direct language, the DOJ described California’s ammunition background check system as “onerous,” “cumbersome,” “Byzantine,” and historically unprecedented. The brief makes a critical point: the Second Amendment protects operable arms, and firearms are useless without ammunition. As a result, the ability to acquire ammunition is squarely protected by the Constitution.

The DOJ flatly rejected California’s argument that ammunition regulations fall outside the Second Amendment and emphasized that no historical tradition exists for background checks on every ammo purchase. Tens of thousands of lawful gun owners are wrongly denied each year due to paperwork errors—not criminal disqualification—underscoring that the system burdens rights rather than promoting safety.

While a win is never guaranteed at the Ninth Circuit, the DOJ’s support gives this case new momentum. If the court rules in favor of gun owners en banc, it would represent a rare and significant shift—one that could reshape how courts view bureaucratic restrictions on constitutional rights nationwide.

A newly reintroduced bill from Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim should alarm every American who values the Second Amendment. Known as the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, this proposal would fundamentally transform gun ownership from a constitutional right into a federally licensed privilege.

At its core, the bill would make it illegal to purchase, receive, or even possess a firearm without first obtaining a federal license issued by the U.S. Attorney General. No license would mean no gun—period. That alone flips the Second Amendment on its head.

The licensing scheme goes far beyond background checks. Applicants would be required to complete mandatory training, pass written and live-fire tests, submit fingerprints, undergo extensive background investigations, and pre-identify the exact firearm they wish to purchase by make, model, and serial number. Each license would apply to one firearm only and expire after 30 days if unused, forcing Americans to repeat the process for every purchase.

Even more concerning, the Attorney General would have broad discretion to revoke licenses based on subjective criteria, including arrests without convictions, accusations, or any information deemed “relevant.” Once revoked, the bill mandates procedures to remove firearms from the individual, without requiring a criminal conviction—an outright reversal of due process.

The proposal also establishes ongoing federal monitoring of license holders and effectively creates a national gun registry by requiring detailed reporting of every transfer, including private sales. States would be pressured to adopt similar systems or submit their residents to federal control.

There is no historical tradition supporting federal gun licenses, pre-approval for specific firearms, or confiscation without conviction. Under Supreme Court precedent in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, this bill would be constitutionally indefensible.

Even if it never passes, the danger lies in normalizing the idea that the federal government gets to decide who may exercise a fundamental right. Once a right requires permission, it is no longer a right—it’s a privilege, and privileges can be revoked.

Staying informed about proposals like this is essential, because rights only survive when people are willing to defend them.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just delivered a major victory for the Second Amendment, striking down California’s effective ban on open carry in a landmark ruling that reaches far beyond the state.

In Baird v. Bonta, the court held that California’s prohibition on open carry in counties with populations over 200,000 is unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, the panel found that open carry is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and was clearly protected at the time of both the Founding and Reconstruction.

Writing for the majority, Judge VanDyke emphasized that California failed to produce any historically relevant analog justifying its urban open carry ban. The court made clear that banning open carry outright cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, especially when history shows open carry was common—and often preferred—during the founding era.

While the ruling leaves California’s rural licensing scheme intact for now, it sends the case back to the district court with instructions to enter judgment against the state’s urban open carry ban. A concurring opinion further criticized California for effectively denying open carry licenses altogether, despite claiming they are available.

This decision affects every state within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, including Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and others. Although California may seek an en banc rehearing or attempt further delays, the ruling represents a powerful affirmation that the right to bear arms includes public carry.

For gun owners across the Ninth Circuit, this is a significant step forward—and one that reinforces the Supreme Court’s message in Bruen: the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.

What should have been a historic win for Second Amendment supporters quickly turned into a familiar government failure.

On the very first day that suppressors and short-barreled shotguns became tax-free, the ATF’s eForms system crashed for hours under overwhelming demand. For the first time in nearly a century, Americans were able to exercise this right without paying a $200 federal tax—yet the system meant to process those applications couldn’t handle the volume.

The tax stamp was never about safety or crime. It was always a deterrent, designed to discourage everyday Americans from exercising a constitutional right. With that barrier finally removed, demand surged exactly as expected—something the ATF had months to prepare for after the law was signed on July 4th. Instead, users were met with login failures, error messages, and stalled submissions.

Industry sources report that the influx of applications overwhelmed the system, raising serious questions about why proper scaling and redundancy were never implemented. Some applicants are already reporting approvals in as little as 24 hours, while many others still can’t access the system at all.

This chaotic rollout reinforces what gun owners have long argued: the delays surrounding NFA items were never necessary. Past approvals in hours or days prove the system can work—when the government wants it to.

Despite the frustration, this moment still represents real progress. One of the central pillars of federal gun control has been cracked, and the surge in demand proves Americans are ready to exercise their rights when artificial barriers are removed.

The rollout may be messy, but the direction is clear—and it only happened because people refused to stop pushing.

For once, California gun owners may be heading into the new year with a bit of good news—and surprisingly, it’s being driven by the state’s budget crisis.

After a brutal year that saw the passage of major gun control measures like SB 74, AB 1078, AB 1263, and AB 127, a bipartisan bill is resurfacing in 2026 that could finally ease the burden on concealed carry permit holders. That bill is AB 1092, and it would extend California CCW permits from two years to four years.

Currently, California’s two-year permit system creates a never-ending renewal cycle. Many applicants wait a year or more just to receive their permit, only to begin the renewal process almost immediately. AB 1092 would significantly reduce that burden by extending permit validity, easing pressure on applicants, law enforcement agencies, and state resources.

Under the bill, the change would roll out gradually. New and renewed permits would first move to a three-year term, then to a full four years the following cycle. Existing permits would keep their current expiration dates until renewal.

Although AB 1092 initially failed committee in April 2025, it was reinstated just one week later and passed with a 7–1 bipartisan vote, signaling strong support once lawmakers recognized the potential cost savings. With California facing a massive budget shortfall, reducing administrative workload and expenses may be enough to push this bill across the finish line in 2026.

While many still believe constitutional carry should be the standard, extending CCW permit duration would be a meaningful improvement under California’s current system. With no real public safety downside and clear fiscal benefits, AB 1092 could represent a rare, common-sense reform in a state known for restrictive gun laws.

As the legislature returns to session, this is one bill worth watching closely.

The Department of Justice has taken a new position in a major Second Amendment case—and it should concern every American who values the right to keep and bear arms.

In Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bondi, currently before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ is defending the federal ban on switchblades. While the case centers on knives, the language used by the DOJ goes far beyond blades and directly impacts firearms and other bearable arms.

In its brief, the DOJ argues that “there is no constitutional right to carry concealed or inherently concealable weapons.” Let that sink in. According to the DOJ, if an arm is capable of being concealed, it may fall outside Second Amendment protection.

That interpretation would place nearly all modern pistols, folding knives, and other commonly carried defensive tools at risk. The Second Amendment makes no distinction based on size, method of carry, or concealability. It simply states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Bill of Rights was never meant to regulate the people—it was written to restrain the government. Yet this DOJ position suggests history supports broad bans on arms solely because they can be concealed, a claim that contradicts both constitutional text and long-standing precedent.

Whether this argument ultimately succeeds or fails, its implications are serious. If accepted, it could open the door to future restrictions on everyday carry weapons nationwide.

This case is one to watch closely. The DOJ’s stance represents a troubling shift—and one that gun owners should not ignore.