Big news for gun owners — the fight against universal background checks just scored a major win in Virginia. In a groundbreaking decision, the court has permanently struck down Virginia Code §18.2-308.25, declaring the state’s universal background check law unconstitutional. This ruling delivers a sweeping victory for the Second Amendment and sets an important precedent for other states still fighting similar restrictions.

The case, brought forward by Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), and the Virginia Citizens Defense League (VCDL), challenged the law for violating the rights of law-abiding adults—specifically those aged 18 to 20—and for lacking any historical precedent as required under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework.

The judge’s reasoning was clear:

• Age Discrimination: The law unlawfully restricted adults aged 18–20 from legally acquiring firearms through private sales, even though they are legal adults and historically part of the militia.
• No Historical Basis: There’s no founding-era tradition or historical precedent supporting universal background checks.
• Constitutional Violation: The measure imposed unnecessary barriers on private transfers between law-abiding citizens — something the Constitution protects.

The ruling grants a statewide injunction, halting enforcement of the law across all of Virginia. This means private, face-to-face firearm transfers can resume without government interference or forced FFL involvement.

The judge’s reasoning was clear:

• Age Discrimination: The law unlawfully restricted adults aged 18–20 from legally acquiring firearms through private sales, even though they are legal adults and historically part of the militia.
• No Historical Basis: There’s no founding-era tradition or historical precedent supporting universal background checks.
• Constitutional Violation: The measure imposed unnecessary barriers on private transfers between law-abiding citizens — something the Constitution protects.

The ruling grants a statewide injunction, halting enforcement of the law across all of Virginia. This means private, face-to-face firearm transfers can resume without government interference or forced FFL involvement.

For Virginia gun owners, this decision restores freedom and privacy in private firearm sales. No more extra paperwork. No more government tracking or registry-building disguised as “safety.”

For other states, this case provides a powerful legal precedent. It proves that universal background check laws — often marketed as “common-sense reform” — may not withstand constitutional scrutiny when challenged under Bruen.

While this is a huge victory, gun owners are being warned to stay alert. Virginia’s Attorney General Jason Miyares is reportedly preparing to appeal the ruling — but only after the upcoming election. Critics accuse him of hiding his anti–Second Amendment stance to avoid backlash from gun owners.

With Virginia’s governor term-limited and elections around the corner, the state’s political future could determine whether this win stands or gets challenged again.

With voting set to begin, California’s Proposition 50 is being pushed as a routine redistricting measure—but gun rights advocates warn it’s anything but harmless. According to the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA), Prop 50 could wipe out nearly all pro–Second Amendment representation in the state and damage efforts to restore 2A protections nationwide.

If passed, Prop 50 would redraw California’s congressional map in a way that could flip up to five Republican seats to Democrat control. That shift would deepen the state’s already lopsided representation—where roughly 40% of voters lean conservative but hold barely 20% of seats—and give anti-gun lawmakers an even stronger voice in Washington.

Critics say this would silence key 2A advocates like Rep. Darrell Issa, who has championed legislation to end restrictive handgun rosters in California and New York. They argue that Prop 50’s ripple effect could cement a permanent supermajority, making it nearly impossible for pro-gun voices to be heard in state or national debates.

Supporters call it reform; opponents call it a partisan power grab. Either way, the outcome of Prop 50 could reshape the future of the Second Amendment—not just in California, but across the nation.

Major breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court: a petition for certiorari has been filed in the case of Shanthal v. Raoul, challenging Illinois’ blanket ban on law-abiding citizens carrying firearms on public transportation. The petition — led by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) — argues that this prohibition violates the Second Amendment and misapplies the “sensitive places” doctrine established in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) and NYSRPA v. Bruen (2022).

A federal district court originally ruled that Illinois’ transit gun ban violated the Second Amendment, but the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that decision, citing private 19th-century railroad rules — a move heavily criticized as historically irrelevant and constitutionally flawed. The plaintiffs now seek Supreme Court review to correct what they call a “fundamental misunderstanding” of both the text and historical tradition of the Second Amendment.

Under Bruen, the government must justify firearm restrictions by pointing to a historical tradition of regulation. The Supreme Court previously identified only three examples of historically “sensitive” locations:

1. Legislative chambers
2. Courthouses
3. Polling places

Illinois’ ban on guns in buses and subways, the petition argues, falls far outside those narrow limits.

The SAF and FPC brief stresses that public transportation is not historically “sensitive” — and that banning firearms in these spaces disproportionately harms lower-income citizens who rely on buses and trains daily for work and self-defense.

The petition advances what it calls the “Comprehensive Security Doctrine.” In essence, if the government wishes to disarm citizens in a specific location, it must fully provide armed protection in their place — metal detectors, trained guards, and comprehensive screening.

This mirrors conditions at places like courthouses or the U.S. Capitol, which are protected by armed security, not mere “no guns allowed” signs. Without such security, the plaintiffs argue, disarming law-abiding individuals leaves them vulnerable to armed criminals who ignore gun bans.

The brief presents extensive historical documentation showing that, during the founding era, Americans were often encouraged or required to bring firearms into churches, meeting houses, and other public spaces for defense. Far from banning carry in “crowded” or “vulnerable” areas, early American laws recognized the necessity of being armed in public for self-protection.

Even Founding Father John Adams acknowledged during the Boston Massacre trial that colonial citizens had every right to be armed in congested urban areas — provided they did so peaceably.

This petition could become a landmark Second Amendment case. The Supreme Court has not yet defined clear boundaries for “sensitive places” after Bruen, leaving lower courts divided and inconsistent. Shanthal v. Raoul provides the justices a chance to set national precedent and determine whether governments can ban carry in modern spaces like buses, subways, and airports without providing full security.

If the Court grants cert, this case could pair with the Wolford v. Lopez challenge out of Hawaii — together reshaping the post-Bruen landscape and clarifying how far states can go in restricting public carry.

California has once again found itself at the center of a major privacy controversy involving gun owners. A reporter from the San Francisco Standard, a self-described progressive online news outlet, has successfully obtained the personal identifying information of concealed carry weapon (CCW) holders through a California Public Records Act request.

According to letters sent by the Butte County Sheriff’s Office, the Standard requested data dating back to January 1, 2015, including names, birth dates, addresses, license status, and more. Despite concerns about privacy and potential misuse, the sheriff’s office stated it was legally required to release much of this data under state law.

This move echoes past incidents, such as the state’s accidental leak of CCW holder data on a public website. Gun rights advocates warn that these repeated disclosures could lead to harassment, doxxing, or even targeted crime against lawful gun owners.

Critics argue that the state’s willingness to expose gun owners’ information is another example of California’s hostility toward Second Amendment rights. As the federal DOJ also seeks membership data from groups like FPC, many gun owners are questioning how much privacy they really have left.

Bottom line: Californians exercising their constitutional right to self-defense should not have to risk public exposure to do so. The fight for privacy and the Second Amendment is far from over.

In a major victory for the Second Amendment, Gun Owners of America (GOA), the Silencer Shop Foundation, and other plaintiffs have scored an important win in their challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA). The case, being heard in the Northern District of Texas before Judge James Wesley Hendrix, targets the federal government’s authority to regulate short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and suppressors under the NFA.

The plaintiffs argue that once the $200 NFA tax—originally imposed in 1934—was effectively nullified by a recent federal tax reform bill, Congress lost its constitutional authority under Article I to require registration and fingerprinting for these items. The tax was the legal foundation for the NFA’s regulatory scheme, and without it, the plaintiffs contend, the entire system collapses.

The ATF and Department of Justice attempted to delay the case, citing the ongoing federal government shutdown. However, Judge Hendrix denied the government’s motion to pause the proceedings, ordering DOJ attorneys to continue litigating the case immediately. The judge emphasized that this matter involves important Second Amendment issues and must move forward without delay.

This ruling keeps the momentum going in GOA’s effort to strike down what they call an unconstitutional overreach of federal power. The case could have sweeping implications: if successful, it could remove suppressors and short-barreled firearms from NFA control entirely, freeing millions of law-abiding gun owners from registration and tax stamp requirements.

While this is just one battle in a much larger war, it’s a significant step forward for gun rights advocates. The court’s decision signals that the judiciary may be taking a closer look at whether decades-old firearm restrictions still stand under modern constitutional scrutiny—especially after landmark rulings like Heller and Bruen reaffirmed that commonly used arms are protected under the Second Amendment.

In a move that’s sending shockwaves through the gun rights community, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has just signed Bill A00544B into law — a measure many are calling one of the most extreme and unconstitutional forms of gun control in the nation. The law, which went into effect immediately upon signing on October 16, grants law enforcement sweeping new powers to confiscate firearms without a warrant.

This latest move pushes New York from “bad to extreme”, according to critics, and represents an alarming new precedent in government overreach — one that could easily spread to other states if left unchallenged.

Under the new statute, if law enforcement responds to what’s called a “family violence situation,” they are now required to confiscate any firearms they encounter. This differs from the previous 2020 law, which merely allowed — but did not mandate — confiscation.

The troubling part? Officers can now seize firearms and even revoke carry permits without a judge’s order or warrant. All it takes is a “belief” or suspicion that there might be a threat — even if that belief comes from a false or third-party accusation.

In other words, this law essentially turns police into judge and jury over your Second Amendment rights.

Unlike existing red flag laws, which require judicial review and a signed affidavit, A00544B bypasses the courts entirely. A police officer’s subjective judgment alone is now sufficient grounds for confiscation.

Tom King, president of the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association (NYSRPA), issued a stark warning about this abuse of power:

“When the enforcement people also become the prosecution and are able to institute a warrant because of a perceived threat without any background check, it puts us all in danger.”

This new law also extends the time law enforcement can hold your firearms — from 48 hours to 120 hours — and you must prove you’re not a “prohibited person” before getting them back.

This law effectively criminalizes lawful gun ownership based on little more than a hunch or accusation. Critics argue that it tramples the Constitution and sets a terrifying precedent for nationwide confiscation under vague and subjective conditions.

Many fear that if the federal government or the courts do not step in, other blue states like California, Illinois, and New Jersey will soon follow suit — creating a domino effect of unconstitutional enforcement.

New York’s A00544B isn’t just another gun control measure — it’s a dangerous step toward government-authorized seizure without due process. If this law stands, it could redefine how easily citizens across the country lose their Second Amendment rights.

For now, the hope is that gun rights organizations and the courts intervene before this becomes the new national standard.

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.