Blog

Guns & Gadgets - Machine Guns Returning to Civilians? 1986 Machine Gun Ban COLLAPSING?

02/23/2026

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.

Copper Jacket TV - Supreme Court Weighs In On Major 2nd Amendment Cases

02/23/2026

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.

The Four Boxes Diner - GREAT SCOTUS MOVE ON NFA ELIMINATION!

02/23/2026

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.

Copper Jacket TV - California Gun Control Just Crossed A Major Line

02/22/2026

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.

Guns & Gadgets - SAF & NRA Fight to Stop Gun Owner Exposure!

02/19/2026

A little-known federal case could have major consequences for gun owners across America. In Hall v. Sig Sauer, plaintiffs are asking a federal court to force SIG Sauer to turn over the identities of customers who contacted the company about alleged issues with the P320 pistol.

In response, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and the National Rifle Association (NRA) filed a joint amicus brief defending gun owner privacy. Importantly, they are not weighing in on whether the firearm is defective. Instead, they argue this case is about something bigger: whether Americans retain a reasonable expectation of privacy when exercising a constitutional right.

The brief cites major Supreme Court precedents, including Carpenter v. United States and District of Columbia v. Heller, to argue that gun ownership is sensitive personal information deserving of protection. They also draw parallels to NAACP v. Alabama, where forced disclosure of membership lists was struck down due to its chilling effect on constitutional rights.

The concern is straightforward: if courts compel manufacturers to release customer identities during litigation, it could normalize exposure of lawful gun owners. That raises fears of harassment, data misuse, or de facto registry-building through civil discovery.

With federal law like the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act limiting registry creation, this case could test whether privacy protections extend beyond legislation into courtroom procedure.

While it may not dominate headlines, Hall v. Sig Sauer could quietly shape the future of gun owner privacy in America.

The Four Boxes Diner - ANTI-GUNNERS SABOTAGE THEMSELVES IN FEDERAL COURT!

02/19/2026

A major Second Amendment case is now pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. In Shoenthal v. Raoul, gun owners are challenging Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transportation—even for licensed concealed carry holders.

The lawsuit was filed after the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that gun regulations must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. A federal district court initially ruled against Illinois, but the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed that decision.

Now, the plaintiffs are asking the Supreme Court to clarify whether buses and trains qualify as “sensitive places” where firearms can be banned.

In a newly filed brief urging the Court to deny review, Illinois officials argue that sensitive places are typically confined government buildings—not broad public areas like cities, sidewalks, or parks. That concession could carry broader implications, as several states have attempted to label wide public areas as gun-free zones.

The case also centers on how courts interpret the “sensitive places” doctrine outlined in Bruen, including whether firearm bans are only permissible where the government provides heightened security measures.

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari, Shoenthal v. Raoul could significantly impact public transportation gun bans and the future scope of the Second Amendment nationwide.

Armed Scholar - Permanent Nationwide Block of Short Barreled Rifle & Pistol Brace Rule Pushed Forward!

02/19/2026

There have been major developments in the nationwide fight over the ATF’s pistol brace rule. The Biden-era regulation has officially been vacated following litigation, and several related lawsuits have now been dismissed. But one critical case remains—and it could shape the future of pistol brace regulation.

After a federal court struck down the brace rule in Mock, and the appeal was dropped, the regulation was nullified nationwide. Lawsuits filed by groups like the Second Amendment Foundation were subsequently dismissed as moot.

However, a separate case brought by Gun Owners of America and the State of Texas in the Northern District of Texas is still active. Unlike the earlier challenges, this lawsuit seeks a permanent injunction preventing the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) from enforcing its underlying legal theory—that braced pistols qualify as short-barreled rifles under the National Firearms Act based on statutory interpretation alone.

The DOJ has now moved to dismiss that case, arguing courts cannot block “legal theories,” only final agency rules. While the ATF acknowledges the brace rule is gone, it has not disavowed its interpretation that braced pistols may fall under NFA definitions.

That distinction is crucial. Without a permanent injunction, a future administration could attempt to revive pistol brace restrictions through new rulemaking—or by relying directly on statutory interpretation.

With most brace lawsuits resolved, the GOA-Texas case may be the final opportunity to permanently close the door on renewed federal pistol brace enforcement.

Copper Jacket TV - "Concealed Carry Bill” Just Introduced In California AB1948

02/18/2026

A newly introduced California bill, California Assembly Bill 1948, is gaining attention for what appears to be a major change to concealed carry permits. Introduced by Assemblymembers James Ramos and Avelino Valencia, the bill suggests extending CCW license durations from two years to three years for new permits and up to six years for renewals.

On the surface, that sounds like a big win for permit holders. Longer expiration periods would reduce renewal costs, training requirements, and processing delays—especially in counties where approvals already take months.

However, the actual bill language raises concerns. Instead of mandating three- and six-year terms, AB 1948 states that licenses “shall not exceed” those time limits. That wording gives counties discretion to set permit durations at any length of time under those maximums—including potentially shorter terms than currently allowed.

In practice, this means conservative counties might extend permit durations, while more restrictive counties could leave them unchanged—or even shorten them.

The key takeaway: AB 1948 does not automatically extend CCW permits statewide. It shifts authority to local agencies, creating flexibility rather than a guaranteed benefit.

As the bill moves forward, gun owners should watch closely for amendments that clarify whether this measure truly expands carry rights—or simply reshapes local control over permit timelines.

Guns & Gadgets - Regulating BARRELS?! This Is Next Level Gun Control!

02/17/2026

A new bill introduced in Colorado is sparking serious Second Amendment debate. Colorado Senate Bill 26-43 would regulate the sale and transfer of firearm barrels as if they were complete firearms—potentially making it a crime for private citizens to sell a simple metal tube without going through a federally licensed dealer (FFL).

Under the proposed law, firearm barrels could only be transferred in person through an FFL. Private sales would be prohibited, and even possessing a barrel “with intent to sell” could result in misdemeanor charges, fines, and up to 30 days in jail. The bill also requires detailed recordkeeping, with dealers maintaining buyer information for five years and submitting tracking forms to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation.

The definition of a “firearm barrel” in the bill is broad. It includes not only finished barrels but also partially completed components such as forgings, castings, and machine bodies that could be made into barrels. Critics argue this language mirrors previous regulatory efforts targeting unfinished receivers and so-called “80% lowers.”

Opponents point directly to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which established that firearm regulations must align with the nation’s historical tradition of gun laws. Under the Bruen framework, if conduct is covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment, the government must demonstrate a historical analogue from the founding era.

Gun rights advocates argue there is no historical precedent from 1791 for regulating standalone firearm barrels or criminalizing private transfers of gun components. Early American gunsmithing was decentralized, and private trade of parts was common practice.

Supporters of the bill, however, frame it as a public safety measure aimed at closing perceived loopholes in firearm commerce.

If passed, Senate Bill 26-43 could become a major legal test case under Bruen. Legal challenges would likely focus on whether regulating non-serialized components like barrels constitutes an unconstitutional burden on the right to keep and bear arms.

As states continue to explore new regulatory approaches, Colorado’s proposal may signal a broader trend of targeting firearm components rather than complete firearms—setting up another potential showdown in federal court.

Copper Jacket TV - Legalizing Suppressors In California, Sanchez v. Bonta

02/17/2026

A major Second Amendment ruling could be just days away. The Ninth Circuit is now within the typical decision window for Sanchez v. Bonta, a lawsuit challenging California’s complete ban on civilian suppressor ownership.

Unlike most states, California outright prohibits suppressors for ordinary citizens. The lower court upheld the ban, but the case was appealed and argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit late last year.

Under the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, firearm regulations must align with America’s historical tradition of gun laws. Critics argue there is no founding-era precedent for banning suppressors.

If the Ninth Circuit rules against California, the decision could also affect Hawaii and potentially set the stage for a Supreme Court showdown. A ruling is expected soon, and it could have nationwide implications for suppressor bans.

Latest News

Sitemap

Phase 5 Social Media