New Mexico lawmakers are advancing Senate Bill 17 (SB17), officially titled the Stop Illegal Gun Trade and Extremely Dangerous Weapons Act, a proposal that has ignited intense debate among gun owners, firearms dealers, and Second Amendment advocates nationwide. Critics argue the bill goes far beyond crime prevention and instead represents a sweeping restriction on lawful firearm ownership and commerce.

SB17 redefines a broad range of commonly owned firearms and accessories as “extremely dangerous,” including gas-operated semi-automatic rifles, magazines over 10 rounds, and .50 caliber rifles and ammunition. These firearms are among the most widely owned in the United States for lawful purposes such as self-defense, sport shooting, and hunting, placing the bill squarely in the center of constitutional scrutiny.

The legislation also imposes extensive new requirements on federally licensed firearms dealers. Mandates include state-approved security systems, reinforced buildings, continuous video surveillance with long-term data retention, frequent reporting requirements, and expanded law-enforcement access to business records. Opponents warn these measures could force small and rural gun stores out of business, effectively limiting access to firearms without direct confiscation.

Additionally, SB17 includes provisions restricting who may handle firearms in a retail setting, requiring ongoing state-approved training and background checks for employees, and permanently retaining transaction records—raising concerns about the creation of a de facto firearm registry.

As the bill continues through the legislative process, SB17 is being closely watched beyond New Mexico’s borders. Supporters frame it as a public safety measure, while critics view it as a model for future firearm restrictions in other states. The outcome could have significant implications for gun policy, firearms commerce, and Second Amendment challenges nationwide.

Recent comments made by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Janine Pirro during a Fox News interview have sparked controversy within the Second Amendment community. While discussing crime reduction efforts in Washington, DC, Pirro stated that individuals who bring firearms into the district unlawfully could face jail time, regardless of whether they are licensed gun owners in other states.

The remarks raised concerns among gun owners who argue that the phrasing suggested lawful firearm carry could lead to arrest. Washington, DC does allow both residents and non-residents to carry firearms, but only if they comply with the district’s specific licensing and registration requirements. Failure to meet those requirements can result in criminal penalties under current law.

Following the backlash, Pirro clarified her position, stating publicly that she supports the Second Amendment and personally owns firearms. She emphasized that her office is focused on prosecuting individuals who carry guns illegally, particularly those tied to criminal activity, rather than targeting responsible gun owners who follow local laws.

The situation highlights ongoing tensions surrounding firearm reciprocity and the patchwork of gun laws across the United States. While constitutional rights do not disappear at state lines, gun owners traveling between jurisdictions must navigate varying regulations that can create legal risk. As debates over nationwide reciprocity and constitutional carry continue, Washington, DC remains a focal point in the broader conversation about balancing public safety, enforcement, and Second Amendment protections.

In a major win for the Second Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that a non-violent felony conviction cannot automatically justify a lifetime firearm ban under federal law. The decision limits how 18 USC § 922(g)(1)—the federal felon-in-possession statute—can be applied after Bruen.

The case involved a Mississippi man with a single prior conviction for meth possession. Years later, federal prosecutors charged him under § 922(g)(1) after he possessed a firearm. While a lower court upheld the conviction, the Fifth Circuit unanimously reversed it, finding no historical tradition that supports permanently disarming someone based solely on non-violent drug possession.

Applying the Bruen framework, the court held that firearm possession is plainly protected by the Second Amendment and that the government failed to prove a founding-era analogue allowing lifetime disarmament for simple drug possession. The panel emphasized that only the elements of the conviction—not unproven allegations—can be used to justify disarmament.

The ruling deepens a growing split among federal circuits over how felon gun bans should be analyzed, with some courts allowing blanket bans and others requiring individualized or offense-based assessments. For now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision marks a significant shift toward restoring gun rights for non-violent offenders—and signals that federal gun laws face increasing constitutional scrutiny moving forward.

It’s been a frustrating few days for Second Amendment supporters, and for good reason. In the wake of recent high-profile shootings, several politicians who have long supported gun control are suddenly talking like defenders of the Second Amendment. At first glance, that might sound encouraging—but history tells a very different story.

In Georgia and beyond, lawmakers with records of backing magazine bans, carry restrictions, and firearm prohibitions are now claiming they want to “work with gun owners.” This sudden shift isn’t leadership—it’s political theater. Timing matters, motives matter, and past actions matter. Real defenders of gun rights don’t wait for tragedy or headlines to speak up; they’ve been consistent all along.

The same pattern is playing out nationally. California Governor Gavin Newsom has recently claimed to support the Second Amendment, despite overseeing some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and previously proposing a constitutional amendment that would have embedded sweeping gun control measures into the Constitution itself.

For gun owners, the takeaway is simple: words are cheap, records are not. Rights are lost when people become complacent and accept rhetoric instead of demanding real action. Staying informed, vigilant, and willing to call out hypocrisy—regardless of party—is essential to protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

A major Second Amendment lawsuit against California has taken an unexpected twist. In Hoffman v. Bonta, gun rights advocates initially scored a major victory when a federal judge ruled California’s ban on non-resident concealed carry unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction. That ruling opened the door—briefly—for non-residents to apply for carry permits in the state.

However, that injunction has now been dissolved after California enacted Assembly Bill 1078, which took effect on January 1, 2026. The new law rewrote the carry statutes challenged in the case, prompting the court to erase the earlier injunction. While this technically ends the lawsuit, it doesn’t fully erase the win.

Under AB 1078, California was forced to create a statewide pathway for non-resident carry permits. While the process remains expensive, time-consuming, and restrictive—including firearm registration and extensive training—it does allow non-residents to apply without belonging to specific gun rights organizations.

In short, California’s non-resident carry ban was ruled unconstitutional, lawmakers changed the law to sidestep that ruling, and gun owners are left with a difficult but viable path forward. It’s not reciprocity or constitutional carry—but for now, it’s the only legal option for visitors who want to exercise their right to self-defense in California.