In a major development for gun rights advocates, South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden has signed legislation removing firearm suppressors from the state’s definition of “controlled weapons.” The move represents a significant shift in how suppressors are treated under state law — and it could have ripple effects nationwide.

For decades, suppressors have often been grouped with heavily restricted firearms under both state and federal regulations. Critics of those policies argue that suppressors are frequently misunderstood and mischaracterized as tools for criminal activity, largely due to Hollywood portrayals rather than real-world data.

Under South Dakota’s new law, suppressors are no longer categorized as inherently dangerous weapons simply for existing. While criminal misuse remains illegal, lawful ownership is no longer treated as a felony by default under state statute. Supporters say this change better reflects the practical function of suppressors, which are designed to reduce firearm noise to safer levels, helping protect hearing and improve shooting safety.

The debate over suppressor regulation also intersects with broader Second Amendment discussions. In recent years, courts have increasingly examined firearm regulations under constitutional standards that focus on text, history, and tradition. With hundreds of thousands of legally registered suppressors owned nationwide, some legal scholars argue that their common lawful use strengthens constitutional challenges to restrictive policies.

South Dakota’s decision adds momentum to a growing trend of states reassessing firearm laws, from constitutional carry expansions to challenges against magazine and accessory bans. As more states reconsider longstanding regulations, attention may increasingly turn to federal policies, including provisions within the National Firearms Act.

Whether this marks the beginning of broader suppressor reform remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: South Dakota’s move has reignited the national conversation about how firearm accessories are regulated — and whether those regulations align with modern realities and constitutional principles.

A new incident involving the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is drawing national attention as gun rights advocates point to what they call blatant bureaucratic overreach. According to newly revealed information, a lawful American was denied an ATF Form 1 application after stating his reason for applying was to exercise his Second Amendment rights.

The denial did not cite criminal history, background check issues, or statutory violations. Instead, the application was reportedly rejected because officials deemed the applicant’s constitutional justification “insufficient.” Critics argue this transforms a constitutional right into a privilege dependent on bureaucratic approval.

Sources close to ATF leadership later characterized the denial as an internal error, stating that the “reason” section of the form should never be used to deny a lawful application. However, gun rights advocates say the incident exposes deeper structural problems within the National Firearms Act (NFA) system.

The controversy comes amid major nationwide lawsuits challenging the NFA after Congress reduced the federal tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and other regulated items to $0. For decades, courts upheld the NFA largely under Congress’s taxing authority. With the tax eliminated, plaintiffs argue the remaining registration scheme lacks constitutional justification.

Legal challengers contend this denial is not an isolated mistake, but evidence of discretionary enforcement that violates the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard, which prohibits open-ended discretion in firearm licensing. As litigation moves forward, this case may become a key example cited by courts examining whether the NFA can survive constitutional scrutiny in its current form.

A new California lawsuit is drawing national attention after state officials moved to restrict access to digital firearm-related files and computer code. Filed in early February 2026, the case targets organizations and individuals accused of distributing CAD designs and other technical data tied to firearm components.

Unlike many past gun control efforts, this legal action focuses on information rather than specific firearms or accessories. The lawsuit seeks to block distribution of certain digital files, shut down related websites, and impose civil penalties. Supporters argue the move is necessary for public safety, while critics claim it raises serious constitutional concerns.

Legal experts and gun rights advocates say the case could test the limits of both the Second Amendment and the First Amendment. The central question is whether restricting access to technical firearm data violates constitutional protections related to speech, knowledge sharing, and lawful firearm ownership.

The lawsuit could also have broader implications beyond firearms. If courts allow states to restrict technical information tied to regulated items, it may influence future cases involving digital knowledge, manufacturing instructions, and online technical communities.

As the case moves forward, it is expected to spark significant legal debate and could potentially reach higher federal courts. Many observers see this as a major moment in the ongoing national conversation around gun policy, digital information, and constitutional rights.

The legal fight to dismantle the National Firearms Act (NFA) has escalated after plaintiffs introduced new evidence showing how the ATF is operating in practice following the recent $0 tax change. The case, brought by major gun rights organizations, manufacturers, and more than a dozen states, challenges whether the NFA can still stand without a tax to justify its authority.

After the tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns was reduced to zero, the Department of Justice filed briefs defending the NFA as a lawful “shall issue” registration system. However, plaintiffs responded with newly obtained ATF records that appear to contradict that claim.

The evidence shows ATF examiners denying Form 1 applications based not on statutory violations, but on subjective judgment. In one example, an application was denied because the applicant stated they wanted to exercise their constitutional rights—an action critics say reflects open-ended discretion rather than objective standards.

This directly challenges the government’s argument under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which allows shall-issue systems only when they rely on narrow, objective criteria. Discretionary denials, plaintiffs argue, turn the NFA into an unconstitutional barrier to exercising Second Amendment rights.

With the DOJ now facing procedural disputes and substantive constitutional challenges, the case is shifting from theory to documented real-world impact. The outcome could have sweeping implications for the future of the NFA and federal firearm regulation nationwide.

California lawmakers have introduced SB948, a sweeping new gun control bill that critics say would dramatically expand the state’s already burdensome firearm regulations. Written by the same legislator behind last year’s controversial background check expansion, SB948 builds on California’s firearm safety certificate system—what many gun owners view as a de facto permit to purchase.

Under current law, Californians must pass a test, pay a fee, and renew their firearm safety certificate every five years. SB948 would significantly raise the bar by requiring mandatory training similar to concealed carry courses, including at least eight hours of instruction and live-fire shooting. The added cost, time commitment, and limited availability of instructors could delay firearm purchases for weeks or even months.

The bill also targets people moving into California. New residents would be required to submit detailed information to the Department of Justice within 60 days, potentially including photographs of their firearms for approval. Those who fail to comply could be forced to transfer, store out of state, or surrender their firearms for destruction.

Unlike past proposals, SB948 avoids budget obstacles by shifting all implementation costs onto gun owners themselves, explicitly stating that no state reimbursement is required. Opponents argue this makes the bill especially dangerous, as it prices many low- and middle-income residents out of exercising their Second Amendment rights.

As the first major gun bill of the year, SB948 signals another aggressive push by California lawmakers. Gun owners are urging residents to contact legislators and submit formal opposition comments before the bill advances further.

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.

California’s controversial AB 127, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, has triggered one of the most significant firearm lawsuits in recent years. Just days after the bill was signed, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the NRA filed James v. Bonta, challenging what critics describe as an unconstitutional ban on the most popular pistols in America—commonly referred to as the “Glock ban.”

AB 127 targets a specific internal component used in many modern pistols, effectively removing entire product lines from California’s handgun roster. The law was designed to roll out in phases, with importation restrictions taking effect first, followed by complete removal from the roster on July 1. Law enforcement exemptions remain in place, leaving millions of California residents impacted by the ban.

Since the lawsuit was filed, most activity has been procedural. In January, the court issued a scheduling order laying out the roadmap for the case, with key dates extending through late 2026 and beyond. This confirms what many expected: the case will move slowly, likely stretching into 2027 and eventually facing review by the Ninth Circuit.

Complicating matters further, Glock discontinued its roster-approved models before key deadlines, raising questions about how the case will proceed when the affected firearms are no longer in production. Despite these challenges, the lawsuit is officially moving forward, even if meaningful relief remains far off.

For now, the fight over California’s handgun roster and AB 127 continues. While immediate injunctions appear unlikely, related cases challenging the roster itself may ultimately determine the fate of California’s sweeping handgun restrictions.

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.