In a significant new development, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) has filed a powerful reply brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to hear the case West Virginia Citizens Defense League v. ATF. The central question: Does the Second Amendment protect 18-, 19-, and 20-year-old adults?

The SAF argues unequivocally that it does—and that the Supreme Court must settle this issue once and for all.

At the heart of this case is a long-standing federal law that prohibits adults under 21 from purchasing handguns from federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs). The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this restriction, sparking a deep divide among federal courts. Some circuits have ruled that young adults do have full Second Amendment protections, while others have not—creating what’s known as a circuit split.

Currently, the Fifth Circuit—which includes Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi—has struck down the age-based handgun ban as unconstitutional. Meanwhile, other circuits continue to enforce it. This means young adults in different states live under conflicting federal standards, an inconsistency the Supreme Court typically steps in to resolve.

In its reply brief, the Second Amendment Foundation outlines five key reasons why the Supreme Court must grant certiorari (“cert”) and take the case now. Among them:

• Clear circuit split on whether young adults have Second Amendment rights.
• Inconsistent enforcement of the same federal law across states.
• Immediate constitutional harm to young adults currently barred from exercising their rights.
• Precedent showing the Supreme Court often resolves such federal conflicts.
• No reason to delay, as the Court often hears multiple cases under the same constitutional provision in one term.

SAF also notes that delaying the case would effectively deny justice to those currently affected. Once these individuals turn 21, the case becomes moot—meaning they will have lost their Second Amendment rights for the three most formative years of their adulthood.

The Solicitor General’s Office, representing the Department of Justice, isn’t arguing that young adults lack Second Amendment rights. Instead, they’re asking the Court to wait until it rules on two other pending gun cases this term:

1. Wolford v. Lopez – challenging Hawaii’s so-called “no-carry” or “vampire rule,” which bans lawful concealed carry in most public spaces.
2. U.S. v. Daniels (Hammani) – questioning whether regular marijuana users can legally own firearms under federal law.

The DOJ contends that these decisions might inform how the Court handles future Second Amendment challenges.

The SAF counters that waiting is unacceptable. Because of the split among circuits, some Americans are currently denied a right that others enjoy. Federal laws are supposed to apply uniformly across all states, but that’s not the reality today.

The case also raises fundamental questions about the constitutional rights of young adults—a group often recognized as legal adults for military service, voting, and taxation, but restricted when it comes to firearm ownership.

While the Supreme Court has already agreed to hear the Wolford and Hammani cases, pressure is mounting for it to add West Virginia Citizens Defense League v. ATF to its docket.

If the Court grants cert, the ruling could reshape federal firearms policy for millions of young adults and provide long-awaited clarity on whether age-based handgun restrictions violate the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment Foundation remains confident, stating that “18-, 19-, and 20-year-old Americans are entitled to full-blown Second Amendment rights—no more, no less.”

As of now, only two states in the U.S. — California and New York — require background checks for ammunition purchases. California led the charge, and New York quickly followed suit. Many fear that if these laws continue to stand, more states will adopt similar restrictions, further limiting Americans’ access to ammunition and their ability to exercise their Second Amendment rights.

While these laws are often marketed as “public safety measures,” critics argue that they are less about safety and more about control — a direct effort to monitor and regulate every aspect of lawful gun ownership.

Imagine needing government approval every time you wanted to attend church, publish a blog, or express your views online. Most Americans would find that outrageous. Yet, when it comes to exercising the Second Amendment, courts across the country seem willing to allow exactly that.

Both California and New York are currently facing lawsuits over their ammunition background check laws.

• California’s case: Roodie v. Bonta — currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
• New York’s case: New York State Firearms Association v. James — before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals

Both courts are known for their activist judges and a history of rulings that lean against gun rights. However, in an unexpected twist, the Ninth Circuit — often criticized as the most anti–Second Amendment court — actually ruled against California’s ammunition background check law earlier this year, calling it unconstitutional.

In July, a three-judge panel from the Ninth Circuit ruled that California’s ammunition background check system “facially violates the Second Amendment.” The panel cited the Bruen decision, which requires courts to evaluate firearm restrictions based on the nation’s historical tradition of regulation.

Meanwhile, less than a week ago, the Second Circuit upheld New York’s nearly identical law, claiming that the background checks and fees “do not meaningfully constrain the right to keep and bear arms.”

In essence, the Second Circuit concluded that the restrictions are too minor to count as a constitutional violation — and didn’t even bother applying the Bruen historical test.

This reasoning — that the law doesn’t “meaningfully” restrict rights — has been criticized as subjective and dangerous. Who decides what’s “meaningful”? To many gun owners in California and New York, being forced to pay fees and wait for background checks (which often lead to false denials) feels like a very real infringement.

By sidestepping the historical analysis that the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision requires, the Second Circuit has effectively given itself room to uphold almost any restriction by simply deeming it “not meaningful.”

The case now returns to the district court in New York, which has already shown hostility toward gun rights. Still, the legal fight is far from over.

If the Ninth Circuit’s ruling against California is upheld by an en banc panel and continues to conflict with the Second Circuit’s decision, it would create a circuit split — a key factor that could push this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Until then, New York’s ammunition background check law remains in effect, while California’s remains under review.

The Second Circuit’s decision underscores a growing problem: courts that interpret constitutional rights based on ideology, not the rule of law. Whether you live in California, New York, or anywhere else, these rulings set a dangerous precedent for how easily fundamental rights can be chipped away.

Until we see judges who respect all constitutional freedoms — including the Second Amendment — these battles will continue in courtrooms across the country.

Just days after news broke about California’s upcoming “Glock ban” under AB1127, gun owners and retailers across the state are facing even more uncertainty. Glock has announced that it will discontinue nearly all of its existing pistol models, including roster-approved Gen 3 variants, and replace them with a new “V Series” lineup.

For Californians, this is a major blow. Retailers already have until December 31st, 2025, to stock as much inventory as possible before the ban takes effect on January 1st, 2026. Now, with Glock halting production of older models by November 30th, inventory will become even scarcer — and prices are expected to spike.

The discontinuation comes as distributors report low stock levels, leaving both shops and buyers scrambling to purchase what’s left before the deadline. The situation has triggered a statewide buying frenzy, with many customers focusing on tried-and-true Gen 3 Glocks before they disappear from shelves.

However, there’s a much larger issue at play — California’s handgun roster. Because the new V Series pistols aren’t yet roster-approved, they cannot be legally sold in the state once the current models are gone. This creates a gap in availability and highlights how restrictive the roster has become.

The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (2AF), and NRA recently filed James v. Bonta, a lawsuit directly challenging AB1127. While Glock’s move complicates things — since the banned guns are being discontinued — the case remains critical in contesting the state’s overreach on firearm design features.

Meanwhile, another major case, Renna v. Bonta, which targets the California handgun roster itself, is currently pending before the Ninth Circuit. Many legal experts believe that overturning the roster could eliminate most of these issues altogether.

Despite the frustration, there may be hope. AB1127 includes a provision that allows certain guns already on the roster before January 1, 2026, to be modified for compliance and resubmitted for approval — even without meeting microstamping or other modern roster requirements, provided changes are made only to meet the new law’s conditions.

That means if Glock’s V Series only changes what’s necessary to comply with AB1127 (such as the trigger bar design), it could potentially be added back to the roster under the existing exemption.

However, if Glock makes additional modifications beyond what’s required, California regulators could reject the submission, arguing it’s an entirely new firearm design subject to all current roster mandates.

The next few months will be crucial. If Glock moves quickly to resubmit the V Series for roster testing — and California allows it — gun owners could eventually see the new lineup hit the market legally.

If not, California could effectively lose access to Glock pistols altogether, creating a significant gap in the handgun market and impacting thousands of buyers and dealers.

The long-running Duncan v. Bonta case — a decade-old legal battle challenging California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds — is once again making national headlines. This case, which questions the constitutionality of California’s magazine restrictions, has officially entered a new phase as the state files its opposition brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Originally filed nearly ten years ago, Duncan v. Bonta has become one of the most significant Second Amendment cases in the country. U.S. District Judge Roger T. Benitez twice ruled that California’s ban violates the Second Amendment, calling it unconstitutional. However, both times the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed his ruling, claiming the ban is lawful and that such magazines are not even protected under the Second Amendment.

After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision reshaped the landscape of gun law analysis in 2022, the high court sent the case back to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration. But once again, the Ninth sided with the state — pushing Duncan back toward the Supreme Court for a second time.

Since the case was re-petitioned in August 2025, Duncan v. Bonta has received unprecedented nationwide support. Over half of U.S. state attorneys general have filed amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to take up the case. Major Second Amendment organizations have also rallied behind the challenge, emphasizing that if Duncan succeeds, it could invalidate magazine bans nationwide — a historic victory for gun rights.

Earlier today, California filed its long-awaited opposition brief, urging the Supreme Court not to review Duncan. The state argues that the Court has recently denied similar cases, such as Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island and Hanson v. District of Columbia, and should do the same here.

Essentially, California’s position is that there’s no need to revisit the issue, even though Duncan arises from a final judgment rather than an interim decision. Critics call these arguments “laughable,” pointing out that California appears to be stalling to protect its restrictive gun laws and avoid a precedent that could strike down magazine bans nationwide.

Now that California has filed its opposition, the Supreme Court can move forward to conference the case — a process where justices decide whether to grant or deny review. If accepted, Duncan v. Bonta could become one of the most consequential Second Amendment cases since Bruen.

A ruling in favor of Duncan could mean millions of law-abiding gun owners in California and across the U.S. regain access to standard-capacity magazines — ending a decade-long legal saga.

In a new video on Copper Jacket TV, Will breaks down the growing confusion around California Assembly Bill 127 (AB127) — commonly called the Glock Ban. As the law’s enforcement dates approach, gun owners and dealers alike are struggling to understand what’s banned, when it takes effect, and how it impacts firearm availability in the state.

Even gun shops are being left in the dark. According to Will’s conversation with Julian at 308 Industries in Palmdale, California, the California DOJ has issued no official alerts or memos to help clarify how this new law will roll out — creating widespread uncertainty across the state.

AB127 has three critical enforcement dates, each affecting a different part of the process for gun dealers and consumers:

Unfortunately, the supply chain is already drying up nationwide. Distributors are running low, and California gun dealers can’t find compliant models due to SKU-based roster restrictions. Because each approved firearm is tied to a specific SKU, dealers can’t substitute or import similar versions — even if they’re functionally identical.

That means that by early 2026, most stores could already be out of stock, months before the legal deadline even arrives.

Adding to the chaos, the DOJ is not responding to dealer inquiries. Even typically responsive contacts have gone silent, leaving gun shops without clear guidance as the clock ticks down.

This new legislation doesn’t just affect one brand — it impacts multiple models that share the same firing mechanism design. Will warns that this could cause a major ripple effect across the state’s handgun roster, removing far more options from the market than many expect.

He calls the situation a “complete mess,” citing how California’s ongoing gun control efforts have reached “unconstitutional levels.” For many firearm owners, this latest restriction is just another step in an escalating campaign to limit 2A rights in the state.

If you’re a California gun owner considering purchasing a Glock or similar model, time is running out. With dealers unable to restock after January 1, 2026, and total sales ending by July 1, 2026, waiting too long could mean missing your last chance to buy.

California has once again taken gun control to a new level. Governor Gavin Newsom recently signed AB 1344 into law — a bill that significantly expands red flag confiscation powers in the state. This new law launches a pilot program in four counties: Ventura, Santa Clara, El Dorado, and Alameda, giving even more authority to state officials to file Gun Violence Restraining Orders (GVROs). This expansion could easily double the number of red flag orders issued in California — which already leads the nation in confiscations.

Under existing California law, a wide range of people can file for a GVRO against you — including neighbors, roommates, romantic partners, family members, co-workers, employers, and even your child’s school officials. Now, thanks to AB 1344, District Attorneys can also initiate red flag orders.

To make matters worse, all data from this pilot program will be shared with research groups that have a history of supporting stricter gun control. The goal? To study and find new ways to further expand red flag laws statewide.

Since GVRO laws took effect in 2016, California has issued more than 11,000 confiscation orders — many against citizens who haven’t been charged with a single crime. The number already exceeds 7,000 verified cases in less than a decade.

In Santa Clara County, officials issued 700 GVROs in 2024 alone, averaging nearly two per day. Despite these staggering numbers, District Attorney Jeff Rosen has publicly stated that his office “can do better” and plans to push for even more filings by “raising awareness” among law enforcement.

Opponents argue that these laws strip individuals of their Second Amendment rights without due process. Once a GVRO is filed, a judge can approve it without the accused even being present in court. Law enforcement then confiscates the person’s firearms and prevents them from acquiring new ones — all before any crime is proven.

Many gun rights advocates, including Will from Copper Jacket TV, see this as nothing more than “backdoor confiscation” disguised as public safety. As he explains, simply owning body armor or displaying firearms responsibly could be enough for someone to file a red flag against you in California.

While supporters claim red flag laws prevent violence, critics see them as an unconstitutional power grab. With the passage of AB 1344, California’s approach to gun confiscation is likely to become even more aggressive — and other states may soon follow suit.

As awareness spreads, Will urges gun owners to stay vigilant, know their rights, and choose their circles wisely, especially in states where due process is being replaced by suspicion.

California’s AB 1344 dramatically increases who can red flag you and could set the stage for a statewide expansion of confiscation powers. Whether you’re a California gun owner or a supporter of constitutional rights nationwide, this development is one to watch closely.

California’s controversial new gun law, AB127, often dubbed the “Glock Ban,” is already facing a major federal challenge. On October 13th, just three days after Governor Gavin Newsom signed the bill, a federal lawsuit titled James v. Bonta was filed in the Southern District of California.

The case, brought by three major Second Amendment organizations — the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the National Rifle Association (NRA) — argues that AB127’s prohibition on certain semi-automatic handguns, including popular Glock-style pistols, is a direct violation of the Second Amendment.

According to the complaint, the lawsuit seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, asking the court to rule Penal Code Section 27595A unconstitutional and block its enforcement. The plaintiffs argue that these handguns are “in common use” for lawful self-defense and cannot be banned under existing Supreme Court precedent (referencing D.C. v. Heller).

What’s notable is that California has previously admitted in court that firearms commonly used for self-defense cannot be banned — a point that could significantly weaken the state’s defense. Critics of AB127 claim it’s a politically driven attempt to further restrict Second Amendment rights, with minimal justification beyond advancing an anti-gun agenda.

In response to the lawsuit, FPC President Brandon Combs stated:

“The Constitution does not allow elitist politicians to decide which constitutionally protected guns the people may own. California doesn’t get to tell the people that their rights end where Governor Newsom’s anti-Second Amendment politics begin.”

If successful, this case could set a major legal precedent limiting California’s ability to impose similar firearm restrictions in the future. While legal battles like this often take months or years, gun rights advocates are hopeful that the courts will issue an injunction before July 1, 2026, when the law is set to take effect.

For now, all eyes are on Judge Bencivengo’s court, where James v. Bonta may become the next landmark case shaping the future of gun rights in America.

California has once again become the testing ground for extreme gun control laws, and this time, it may be one of the biggest attacks on the Second Amendment yet. Governor Gavin Newsom has officially signed a sweeping gun control package that critics say shreds the Constitution and sets the stage for national copycat legislation.

Yesterday afternoon, Governor Newsom signed dozens of new bills into law, including three that stand out for their sweeping impact on law-abiding gun owners:

• AB 1127 (The “Glock Ban”) – Outlaws an entire category of handguns, effectively removing them from California’s handgun roster.
• SB 74 (Background Checks on Barrels) – Requires eligibility checks at FFLs for purchasing firearm barrels.
• AB 1078 (Purchase Limit Bill) – Restricts gun owners to three firearm transactions per month.

Each of these bills, now signed, further limits Californians’ ability to purchase, own, and modify firearms, creating even more hurdles for responsible gun owners.

Here are the key implementation dates for these new restrictions:

• AB 1078 – Takes effect April 1, 2026
• AB 1127 – Takes effect July 1, 2026
• SB 74 – Takes effect July 1, 2027

These laws do not apply to law enforcement or select government groups, highlighting what critics see as a double standard that targets average citizens rather than criminals.

In response to these new laws, the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) issued a powerful statement condemning the governor’s actions:

“Governor Newsom has once again proven that California’s political class will stop at nothing to attack peaceable people and their rights. AB1127 is an unconstitutional, bad-faith attempt to outlaw some of the most common firearms in the United States. But no tyrant, no politician, and no state will ever be allowed to extinguish the rights of a free people. Not now, not ever.”

The FPC confirmed that their legal team has been preparing lawsuits against these bills for months. Other 2A organizations, including the Second Amendment Foundation (2AF), the Gun Owners of California (GOC), and the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), are also expected to file legal challenges.

However, as Copper Jacket TV’s Will points out, California lawsuits can take years to move through the courts, especially in the Ninth Circuit, which has a reputation for upholding restrictive gun laws.

Interestingly, Newsom’s signing of this gun control package was quiet compared to his usual press spectacles. In the past, he has held media events alongside groups like Mom’s Demand Action to promote these laws.

This time, however, there was no fanfare—possibly because Newsom doesn’t want footage of him signing controversial gun bans circulating as he positions himself for a presidential run.

Regardless of the motivation, one thing is clear: he has never vetoed a gun control bill that reached his desk.

Now that these bills are law, the best way to fight back is to support local and national 2A organizations that are taking legal action. Groups like FPC, CRPA, GOC, 2AF, and GOA need membership support to continue funding these constitutional battles.

As Will from Copper Jacket TV urges:

“Find the group that best fits you and join the fight. These laws are signed, but that doesn’t mean we stop pushing back.”

California’s latest round of gun control laws marks another serious blow to the Second Amendment. With bans on handguns, limits on firearm purchases, and background checks for barrels, the state continues to tighten its grip on gun owners.

But with organizations like the FPC and 2AF ready to take the fight to federal court, the battle for the Constitutional rights of Californians is far from over.

In a surprising turn of events, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has backed down after heavy backlash from the Second Amendment (2A) community over the controversial Reese v. ATF case.

This case challenges the federal handgun ban on young adults between the ages of 18 and 20, and it recently sparked outrage when the court required 2A organizations like the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) and Second Amendment Foundation (2AF) to hand over their member lists to the federal government.

Initially, the DOJ filed a proposed judgment asking the court to limit relief only to specific plaintiffs and verified members of the involved organizations. The DOJ argued that they needed to identify members in order to comply with the judgment, citing Rule 65D of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

This effectively meant that the government wanted names of private citizens who were members of these 2A groups—a move that gun rights advocates called dangerous and unacceptable. Many saw it as an effort to build a list of gun owners and supporters, raising serious privacy and constitutional concerns.

The 2A community erupted in protest, criticizing both the DOJ and the court for what many saw as a direct threat to civil liberties.

After days of intense pushback, the FPC announced breaking news: the DOJ had caved. All parties—including the DOJ—filed a joint motion asking the court to change the judgment’s language.

Under the proposed change, the court would replace the word “shall provide” with “may provide”, meaning 2A organizations would no longer be required to hand over their member lists, though they could voluntarily do so if they chose.

This simple change from “shall” to “may” marks a major victory for gun rights advocates concerned about government overreach and potential misuse of member data.

This case exposes a broader issue in 2A litigation—limited-scope judgments that only apply to certain members or plaintiffs. Critics argue that if a law is found unconstitutional, it should apply to all citizens, not just a select few.

Moreover, the DOJ’s reversal shows the power of public pressure. Without the vocal resistance from gun owners and advocacy groups, the department likely wouldn’t have altered its stance.

The joint motion requests that the court act before October 14, 2025, giving just a few days for a decision. If approved, it would prevent mandatory disclosure of member information and mark a notable win for privacy and Second Amendment rights.

As Copper Jacket TV’s Will puts it, the community’s unified voice made a difference—proving once again that public awareness and pushback can influence how the government treats gun owners’ rights.

The ongoing battle over Second Amendment rights in California took a dramatic turn as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals voted to uphold the state’s ban on large-capacity magazines—a decision that has stirred outrage among gun rights advocates nationwide.

In a 7–4 ruling, the court sided with California, declaring that magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds are not protected under the Second Amendment, or that even if they are, the state’s restriction aligns with the nation’s “historical tradition” of regulating dangerous weapons.

What made this ruling particularly controversial wasn’t just the outcome—it was the response from Judge Lawrence VanDyke, one of the dissenting judges.

Rather than relying solely on a written opinion, VanDyke released an unprecedented video dissent on YouTube, where he personally handled firearms to demonstrate how magazines and firing mechanisms function. His goal, according to his statement, was to provide a “visual explanation” that written words alone could not convey.

The move, however, was met with immediate backlash from other members of the court.

Judge Marsha Berzon, concurring with the majority, sharply criticized VanDyke’s approach, accusing him of acting as an “expert witness” and introducing materials outside the case record—a serious departure from judicial norms.

Berzon labeled the video as “wildly improper,” arguing that it blurred the lines between judicial reasoning and public advocacy. Legal scholars have since debated whether VanDyke’s video dissent could impact judicial ethics and the integrity of appellate proceedings.

The Ninth Circuit’s decision may not be the end of this story. With ongoing litigation surrounding gun control and the Second Amendment, it’s possible the issue could reach the U.S. Supreme Court, especially given the Bruen precedent’s emphasis on historical analysis.

If the Supreme Court agrees to review the case, it could once again redefine how lower courts interpret the constitutional right to bear arms—and whether states like California can continue to enforce sweeping magazine restrictions.

This case highlights the deep divide within the judiciary over how to balance public safety and constitutional freedoms.
Judge VanDyke’s video dissent, while unconventional, underscores growing frustration among some jurists who believe the courts are undermining the Second Amendment through what they see as political rulings rather than legal reasoning.

Whether or not the Supreme Court intervenes, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling—and VanDyke’s fiery video response—will likely shape the national conversation on gun rights for years to come.