Two of the nation’s largest police organizations—the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)—issued a joint letter urging Congress to reject H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, arguing it threatens officer safety, increases legal exposure, and undermines state gun laws.

The unions claim the bill would prevent officers from detaining or arresting individuals solely for firearm possession and would expose officers to lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by restricting qualified immunity in gun-related encounters. They also warn that the legislation would require officers to make real-time judgments about 50 different state carry laws, including permitless carry states with no physical permit to verify.

Second Amendment advocates strongly dispute these arguments, noting that mere firearm possession is not a crime and cannot legally justify detentions, searches, or disarmament under the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Critics argue the unions are opposing H.R. 38 not for safety reasons, but because it strengthens civil rights protections and increases accountability when officers overstep constitutional limits.

Supporters of the bill say H.R. 38 simply affirms that lawful gun owners retain their rights when traveling across state lines and prevents states from treating out-of-state carriers as second-class citizens.

The debate highlights a growing national divide between police leadership and gun-rights advocates as Congress weighs whether to advance the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

In the post-Heller and post-Bruen era, the Supreme Court has made the Second Amendment’s meaning unmistakably clear: the right to keep and bear arms cannot be treated as a second-class right. Yet in many blue-state jurisdictions, lower courts are finding new ways to limit gun rights despite that guidance.

Today, two major tactics are shaping this resistance.

1. The “Facial Challenge” Game

Some courts are misusing the Salerno rule, which requires a law to be unconstitutional in all applications for a facial challenge to succeed. Instead of evaluating the actual statute, judges are inventing hypothetical, narrower versions of gun laws to save them.

Example: Fairfax County, VA

• The county banned guns in all 420 parks.
• Only four parks have preschools.
• The Fourth Circuit used those four parks to uphold a county-wide ban—imagining a version of the law the legislature never wrote.

This contradicts Heller, where the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban even while acknowledging other permissible restrictions. Courts must evaluate the law as written, not rewrite it to uphold it.

2. Mislabeling Legislative Facts as Adjudicative Facts

This tactic forces gun owners into long, expensive litigation.

• Legislative facts determine constitutionality (history, tradition).
• Adjudicative facts deal with case-specific details (witnesses, experts, trials).

Supreme Court Second Amendment cases—Heller, McDonald, Bruen, Caetano, Rahimi—never required trials or expert testimony. They relied solely on legislative facts. But many lower courts now demand full evidentiary records, delaying decisions for years and leaving unconstitutional laws in place.

These tactics—rewriting laws and dragging cases out—create obstacles designed to weaken the Second Amendment without openly defying the Supreme Court. Following Bruen means:

• Courts must evaluate statutes as written
• Constitutional questions must rely on legislative facts, not trial-style litigation

Only then can the Second Amendment receive the full protection the Supreme Court intended.

We’ve got massive Supreme Court news—and for gun owners nationwide, this could be the moment we’ve been waiting for. After years of watching the Second Amendment treated like a “second-class right,” the Court is now preparing to review three major 2A cases on the same day. These cases target two of the biggest issues in the firearms debate: magazine bans and semi-automatic rifle bans.

For years, states have created a confusing and restrictive patchwork of gun laws. The Supreme Court’s decisions in Heller and Bruen established clear protections, but lower courts and anti-2A states have continued to ignore them. Now the Supreme Court has an opportunity to reset the playing field.

1. Duncan v. Bonta (California Magazine Ban)

This landmark case challenges California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
It asks:

• Are standard-capacity magazines protected by the Second Amendment?
• Did California violate the Takings Clause by banning them without compensation?

Duncan is one of the strongest, most fully-developed magazine-ban cases ever brought to the Court.

2. Gators Custom Guns v. Washington (Washington Magazine Ban)

This Washington State Supreme Court case asks whether magazines holding over 10 rounds are “arms” protected under the Second Amendment’s plain text.
If accepted, this case could help end magazine bans nationwide.

3. Viramontes v. Cook County (Illinois Semi-Auto Ban)

This case directly challenges bans on AR-15s and other semi-automatic rifles.
The key question:
Do the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess commonly owned semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15?

Justice Kavanaugh himself previously pointed to this case as one the Court should review—making it a strong contender for acceptance.

The Court will conference all three cases and decide whether to:

• Grant review
• Deny review
• GVR (grant, vacate, and remand)
• Push to a later conference

We typically learn the results the following Monday, but decisions can come early.

The Supreme Court could answer every major question about rifle bans and magazine bans with just one of these cases. If they take even one, it could reshape firearms law nationwide.

Gun owners now have their best chance in years for a major 2A victory. All eyes are on December 5.

In a major Second Amendment development, members of Congress have sent a formal letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, urging the Department of Justice to adopt a groundbreaking interpretation of the National Firearms Act (NFA)—one that could unravel the law’s registration and transfer requirements for millions of firearms.

The push comes after President Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed on July 4th, which included Section 70436—a provision reducing the NFA’s $200 excise tax on items like SBRs, SBSs, and suppressors to zero.

For nearly a century, the NFA’s legal foundation has hinged on the idea that registration is permissible only because it enforces a tax. That principle comes from the Supreme Court’s 1937 decision in Sonzinsky v. United States, which upheld registration because it was tied to collecting revenue.

But with the tax now eliminated, lawmakers argue that the NFA’s entire registration framework for these items no longer has constitutional footing.

In their letter, members of Congress state plainly that:

“The taxation and registration provisions of the National Firearms Act are inseparably linked… eliminating the tax eliminates the registration and transfer requirements.”

They further urge the DOJ to adopt this interpretation in all ongoing litigation, signaling that the government should stop defending NFA registration rules in court.

Congress’s request places the Department of Justice at a crossroads. DOJ leadership can either:

• Issue policy guidance acknowledging that NFA registration no longer applies to zero-tax items, or
• Fight the interpretation in court, defending a registration system that no longer collects revenue.

The outcome will influence multiple high-profile 2A lawsuits—including the GOA’s challenge to the NFA’s registration scheme—and could reshape federal firearms policy for decades.

If the DOJ agrees with Congress, Americans could witness the first major rollback of NFA restrictions in nearly 90 years, effectively removing the registration and transfer process for millions of currently regulated firearms.

If the DOJ rejects Congress’s interpretation, the nation is likely headed into one of the most consequential legal battles in Second Amendment history.

Either way, the stakes for gun owners—and for the future of the NFA—have never been higher.

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.”

Ninth Circuit Judge Lawrence VanDyke—a frequent defender of the Second Amendment and a top name on Trump’s Supreme Court shortlist—gave a rare, candid interview at the Federalist Society’s National Lawyers Convention. He explained why judges need real firearm experience if they’re going to rule on gun cases.

VanDyke argued that many federal judges have never touched a gun, yet regularly decide major Second Amendment issues. He compared it to ruling on free speech without ever speaking publicly. Understanding firearms, he says, keeps the Second Amendment from becoming abstract—something the Founders, who were deeply familiar with guns, never intended.

Growing up in Montana, VanDyke learned hunting and shooting early. Later, a gift of a Sig 556 pushed him into the world of competitive shooting, including:

• IDPA
• USPSA
• Tactical Games

He believes competitive shooting makes people far more prepared for self-defense than static range training.

VanDyke said judges risk becoming insulated. He stays grounded through church and the shooting community, where people treat him like a regular person—not “Your Honor.”

He highlighted his go-to SIG P320, his collection of AR-style rifles, and the Desert Eagle he once used to take an elk at 180 yards. He also joked about the AK-47 hanging in his chambers—technically owned by the government and nicknamed “the people’s AK.”

VanDyke’s interview gives a rare look at a federal judge who understands firearms both legally and practically. With major Second Amendment cases still rising through the courts, his voice is becoming more important than ever.

The Duncan v. Bonta magazine-ban case has officially become one of the most nerve-wracking 2A battles in the country. Not only could it decide the fate of magazine bans nationwide, but millions of gun owners’ rights and personal property hang in the balance. And with the Supreme Court’s inconsistent record on Second Amendment cases, every move triggers anxiety across the community.

This week, SCOTUS made an unexpected move—and it’s thrown the entire case into uncertainty.

Just days ago, Duncan was finally scheduled for its first Supreme Court conference on November 21, which determines whether the justices will hear the case or deny it. After months of waiting, gun owners were relieved it wasn’t rejected outright.

But last night, the conference date vanished. In its place: a single word—“rescheduled.”

No explanation.
No new date.
No context.

This same “rescheduled” status happened with both Snope and Ocean State, which were later denied. That’s what has many people nervous.

Right now, it’s all speculation. The reschedule could mean:

• SCOTUS wants to consider Duncan alongside Gates, another mag ban case.
• They prefer to push it into December or early 2025.
• Or there are internal scheduling or administrative adjustments.

Until the Supreme Court posts a new conference date, Duncan is officially in limbo.

Some skeptics argue SCOTUS should prioritize a “hardware case” over an accessory case like magazines. But that’s easy to say if you live in a state that respects your rights. In states like California, millions of people face felony charges for possessing anything over 10 rounds.

Passing on this case could instantly turn law-abiding Americans into criminals overnight.

What’s most frustrating is that the Second Amendment is crystal clear. Yet here we are—waiting for courts to decide if millions of Americans can keep their own property. Activist judges in the lower courts have dragged this case out for years, forcing SCOTUS to step in sooner or later.

For now, all we can do is wait for a new conference date and hope the Court finally takes action to protect the rights the Constitution already guarantees.

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.