A new bill in Kentucky could ignite a major constitutional battle over federal gun control.

Kentucky House Bill 749 (HB749) proposes creating a state-run system allowing qualified citizens to acquire modern machine guns—relying on an exception written directly into federal law. The strategy mirrors recent legislative efforts in West Virginia but goes even further in structure and detail.

At the center of the debate is 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), commonly known as the Hughes Amendment, which generally bans civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. However, the statute includes an exception for transfers “to or by” a state or under state authority. HB749 explicitly declares that all transfers under its program would be made “by and under the authority of the Commonwealth of Kentucky.”

The bill establishes a new office within the Kentucky State Police to acquire and transfer machine guns to individuals who are otherwise eligible to possess firearms under state and federal law. It also incorporates privacy protections, administrative funding mechanisms, and legal immunity provisions.

Lawmakers cite Supreme Court precedent such as District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, emphasizing the protection of “arms” in common use and the broader historical understanding of the Second Amendment.

If enacted, HB749 could force federal courts to confront a fundamental question: Does the Hughes Amendment fully prohibit modern machine gun access, or does its own statutory language leave room for state-authorized programs?

With multiple states now exploring similar paths, the legal and constitutional stakes surrounding federal firearm regulation may soon rise to a national showdown.

A major Second Amendment case is now on track for possible Supreme Court review after the Fifth Circuit refused to pause its ruling in United States v. Peterson.

At issue is whether suppressors are protected “arms” under the Second Amendment—and whether the National Firearms Act (NFA) can survive constitutional scrutiny post-Bruen.

Initially, a Fifth Circuit panel ruled suppressors were not protected arms. After the Department of Justice shifted its position and conceded that suppressors are indeed protected, the court withdrew that opinion. However, in a revised decision, the panel still upheld the NFA’s suppressor regulations—reasoning that the law functions like a “shall-issue” permit scheme.

Relying on language from New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the court concluded that objective requirements such as background checks, fingerprinting, registration, and tax payments could be constitutionally permissible if structured like a licensing system.

After denying rehearing, the Fifth Circuit also denied an unopposed motion to stay its mandate—even as the case prepares for Supreme Court review. Although the district court allowed Peterson to remain on bond, the appellate court’s refusal to pause the ruling raises the stakes significantly.

Now, the Supreme Court may soon decide whether the NFA’s suppressor framework can stand under Bruen—or whether treating federal firearm regulations as “shall-issue permits” stretches the decision too far.

A major firearms industry case is now headed to the Supreme Court of the United States, and the outcome could have nationwide consequences.

In National Shooting Sports Foundation v. Letitia James, the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) is asking the Court to review a Second Circuit ruling that allowed New York to enforce a state public nuisance law against gun manufacturers.

At the center of the dispute is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). Congress passed the PLCAA to shield firearm manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits seeking to hold them liable for crimes committed by third parties using lawfully sold firearms.

However, New York enacted a statute designed to impose public nuisance liability on members of the gun industry. The Second Circuit upheld the law, finding it could qualify under the PLCAA’s “predicate exception,” which allows lawsuits if a manufacturer knowingly violates a statute applicable to firearm sales or marketing.

The NSSF argues that interpreting the exception this broadly undermines the entire purpose of the federal law and creates a circuit split with other courts that have rejected similar theories. If the Supreme Court declines to step in, anti-gun states may use similar statutes to pursue costly litigation against manufacturers—potentially reshaping the future of the firearms industry.

Now, all eyes are on the Court as it decides whether to grant review in a case that could define the limits of federal preemption and industry liability for years to come.

California gun owners are once again feeling the impact of California Senate Bill 2 (SB2), widely considered one of the strictest carry laws in the country.

While much of SB2 took effect in January 2024—expanding “sensitive places,” increasing training requirements, and tightening permit standards—one delayed provision is now set to kick in on September 1, 2026.

Under the new rule, all concealed carry permit (CCW) renewals will require fresh live scan fingerprinting, even if applicants have already completed the process previously. Until now, renewal applicants were able to rely on fingerprints already stored in the state system. Beginning in 2026, that changes.

Although the fingerprint rolling itself may cost around $35, state-imposed processing and Department of Justice fees can push the total to $120–$150 per renewal. Since California CCW permits expire every two years, this adds a recurring financial burden for lawful permit holders.

Parts of SB2 were previously blocked by federal District Court Judge Carney, and litigation continues—including Wolford v. Lopez, which could have broader implications for restrictive carry laws in states like California.

For now, however, permit holders should prepare for higher renewal costs starting in late 2026 as SB2’s remaining provisions continue to roll out.

A bold proposal in West Virginia could spark one of the most significant federal gun law challenges in decades.

Lawmakers are considering legislation—reportedly backed by Gun Owners of America—that would authorize the state to acquire and transfer post-1986 machine guns to qualified civilians. The strategy centers on language in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), commonly known as the Hughes Amendment, which generally prohibits civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986, but includes exceptions for transfers “to or by” government entities.

Supporters argue that if a state conducts the transfer, it may fall within that statutory exemption. If the U.S. Department of Justice were to challenge the program, the dispute could escalate quickly.

Beyond statutory interpretation, the bigger issue may be constitutional. Critics of the Hughes Amendment have long argued that it lacks a clear jurisdictional hook tying it to Congress’s Article I powers, particularly the Commerce Clause. In United States v. Rybar, then-Judge Samuel Alito questioned whether the statute adequately connected machine gun possession to interstate commerce.

If litigation arises, West Virginia could argue not only that its program complies with federal law—but alternatively, that the Hughes Amendment itself exceeds Congress’s constitutional authority. Such a challenge would place the entire post-1986 machine gun restriction under judicial scrutiny.

Whether or not the proposal becomes law, the legal theory behind it has already intensified debate over federal firearms authority and the future of machine gun regulation in America.

Two sweeping gun control bills are moving through the Minnesota legislature, and critics say they could dramatically reshape firearm ownership in the state.

Minnesota House File 3433 would ban the sale, transfer, and possession of many semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns based on features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, threaded barrels, and folding stocks. The bill also calls for mandatory registration of affected firearms, renewal requirements every three years, and limits on where registered firearms can be possessed. Violations could carry penalties of up to five years in prison and fines up to $25,000 per offense.

Alongside it, Minnesota House File 3402 would prohibit magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Unlike the firearm bill, HF3402 does not include a grandfathering registration system. Owners would be required to remove, surrender, or otherwise dispose of affected magazines by a specified compliance deadline.

Both measures are currently under consideration in the Minnesota House Public Safety Committee. Supporters argue the bills aim to reduce gun violence, while opponents contend they infringe on constitutional rights and could expose thousands of law-abiding residents to serious criminal penalties.

As debate continues, these proposals place Minnesota at the center of the national conversation over magazine limits, semi-automatic firearm bans, and the scope of the Second Amendment.

A bold new bill in West Virginia could ignite one of the biggest Second Amendment battles in decades. West Virginia Senate Bill 1071, supported by Gun Owners of America, proposes a strategy to work within federal law to authorize state-facilitated transfers of machine guns to qualified civilians.

At the center of the debate is the Firearm Owners Protection Act, specifically the Hughes Amendment codified at 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). While the amendment generally prohibits civilian possession of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986, it includes an exemption for transfers “to or by” a state or government agency.

SB 1071 seeks to leverage that exemption. The bill would establish a state entity authorized to acquire and transfer certain machine guns under state authority, arguing that such transfers fall within the statutory language of the federal exemption.

Supporters contend this approach is not nullification but textual statutory interpretation. Critics argue the exemption was never intended to create a pathway for broader civilian access. If enacted, the measure would almost certainly trigger federal litigation and potentially a major constitutional showdown.

Whether SB 1071 survives court challenges remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: West Virginia is testing the limits of federal firearm law in a way that could reshape the national conversation around the machine gun ban.

The U.S. Supreme Court has once again delayed action on several high-profile Second Amendment cases, leaving millions of gun owners in legal limbo.

Last Friday, the Court considered multiple major petitions, including Duncan v. Bonta, Snope v. Brown, Gazzola v. Hochul, and NAGR v. Lamont. These cases challenge state-level magazine bans and so-called “assault weapon” restrictions that directly affect millions of Americans.

When the Court released its orders list, only one case was granted certiorari—and it was not a Second Amendment case. While none of the major gun cases were denied, they were once again rescheduled for conference.

For gun owners, that’s both good and bad news. The petitions remain alive, but continued rescheduling has historically signaled eventual denial in some high-profile Second Amendment disputes. In particular, Duncan v. Bonta, which challenges California’s magazine capacity limits, has now been relisted multiple times—raising concerns about its ultimate fate.

If the Court declines to take these cases, lower court rulings upholding magazine bans and firearm restrictions could remain in place for years. If granted, however, the cases could clarify how the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen applies to modern gun bans.

For now, gun owners nationwide must wait yet another week to see whether the Supreme Court will step in—or continue to delay decisive action on the Second Amendment.

Major news from the Supreme Court of the United States could have ripple effects far beyond tariffs. In Learning Resources v. Trump, the Court addressed Congress’s taxing authority—and in doing so, clarified a key constitutional principle that may impact ongoing challenges to the National Firearms Act (NFA).

At issue in the tariffs case was whether certain executive actions fell within Congress’s delegated taxing powers. In its majority opinion, the Court emphasized that the constitutional power to tax under Article I is distinct from the power to regulate. Taxes raise revenue. Regulations control conduct. The two authorities are not interchangeable.

That distinction could prove significant in lawsuits challenging NFA requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs)—particularly after Congress eliminated the $200 tax stamp for certain items in recent legislation. Plaintiffs argue that if the NFA’s taxation basis is removed, remaining regulatory requirements like registration and fingerprinting may lack constitutional grounding.

The Supreme Court also cited Sonzinsky v. United States, a key precedent upholding the NFA as a tax measure. By reaffirming that tariffs—and by extension similar levies—are exercises of the taxing power, the Court underscored the importance of constitutional “hooks” that justify federal authority.

While future litigation will determine how this reasoning applies to firearm regulations, the Court’s clear separation of taxing and regulatory powers is likely to play a central role in upcoming NFA challenges.

California lawmakers are at it again. A newly introduced bill, California Assembly Bill 2047, would impose sweeping new restrictions on 3D printers sold in the state.

Introduced by Assemblywoman Rebecca Bauer-Kahan, AB 2047 would require any 3D printer sold in California to include DOJ-approved software capable of scanning and blocking files used to print firearms or gun parts. Manufacturers would have to submit their devices for approval, and only printers meeting these requirements would be allowed for sale—essentially creating a new state “roster” of approved 3D printers.

Under the proposal, printers must scan CAD and STL files, identify prohibited content, block certain prints, and receive regular updates as new files are cataloged. If a printer cannot reliably detect and block restricted designs, it would fail qualification and be banned from sale in the state.

Critics argue the bill goes beyond firearm regulation, potentially affecting hobbyists, engineers, designers, and small businesses who use 3D printers for lawful purposes. They also raise concerns about free speech implications, since digital design files are often considered protected expression.

AB 2047 is still in its early stages, but if passed, it would mark one of the most aggressive attempts yet to regulate 3D printing technology through state-level gun control policy.