Blog - page 2

Armed Scholar - Nationwide Block of Suppressor & SBR Tax Passed & Full NFA Block Now Pushed!

02/17/2026

A major development just dropped in the nationwide effort to dismantle parts of the National Firearms Act (NFA). The Trump Department of Justice has filed its reply brief in Jensen v. ATF, doubling down on its defense of the NFA—even after Congress reduced the $200 tax stamp on suppressors and short-barreled rifles to $0.

Historically, the Supreme Court upheld the NFA as a valid use of Congress’s taxing power. Plaintiffs in Jensen argue that once the tax was eliminated, the constitutional foundation collapsed. They’re asking the court to strike down the remaining registration and transfer requirements for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs.

In its new filing, the DOJ makes several aggressive arguments:

The NFA remains valid under Congress’s taxing power because the Special Occupational Tax (SOT) on manufacturers and dealers still exists.
Even if taxing authority fails, the law is justified under the Commerce Clause.
The lawsuit is a facial challenge, meaning plaintiffs must prove there is no constitutional application of the law—a very high bar.
Second Amendment precedent, including United States v. Miller and District of Columbia v. Heller, supports continued regulation of certain NFA items.

The DOJ’s strategy is clear: build multiple constitutional defenses so the NFA survives even if one argument fails.

No matter how the district court rules, this case is likely headed to the Fifth Circuit—and possibly the Supreme Court. With suppressor tax stamps now set at $0, Jensen v. ATF could become one of the most significant federal gun law cases in decades.

Copper Jacket TV - Major Supreme Court Mag Ban News

02/13/2026

Breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court could dramatically reshape the Second Amendment landscape nationwide. Four major gun rights cases are now scheduled for the same Supreme Court conference date, raising hopes that the justices may finally take up the issue of magazine bans and semi-automatic firearm restrictions.

The cases set for consideration include:

Duncan v. Bonta – A high-profile challenge to California’s magazine capacity ban.
NAGR v. Lamont – A case challenging both magazine and semi-auto restrictions in Connecticut.
Gator’s Custom Guns v. Washington – Targeting Washington State’s magazine ban.
Viramontes v. Cook County – Addressing semi-automatic firearm restrictions in Illinois.

These cases represent some of the most significant constitutional challenges to state-level firearm bans in years. At issue are laws that restrict magazine capacity and ban certain semi-automatic firearms—regulations that critics argue violate the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s text-and-history framework established in Bruen.

For Californians especially, the stakes are high. If the Court declines to hear Duncan v. Bonta, the Ninth Circuit’s ruling upholding California’s magazine ban would remain in place, potentially impacting not only California but other western states within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction.

There is cautious optimism among Second Amendment advocates. In prior statements, Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested the Court may address so-called “AR-15 issues” in the near future. Meanwhile, Justice Clarence Thomas has previously questioned how commonly owned semi-automatic rifles could fall outside constitutional protections.

If the Supreme Court grants certiorari in even one of these cases, it could set the stage for a nationwide ruling on magazine capacity limits and semi-automatic firearm bans—issues that have divided lower courts across the country.

The official decision may appear in the Court’s upcoming orders list following the conference. For gun owners, constitutional scholars, and policymakers alike, the coming days could mark a pivotal turning point in modern Second Amendment jurisprudence.

Copper Jacket TV - Stunning: Major “Safety Concerns” For Glock

02/12/2026

A major class action lawsuit against Glock, Inc. is currently moving through the courts — and if you own certain Glock pistols in California, you may have already received a court-approved legal notice in the mail.

The case, Johnson v. Glock, Inc., centers on allegations that certain Glock handgun models contain an “unsupported chamber design” (UCD). According to the plaintiffs, this design may increase the risk of casing failure under specific conditions, potentially leading to catastrophic malfunctions. The lawsuit claims Glock has known about the alleged issue for decades and failed to disclose it to consumers.

Importantly, the case does not currently involve a recall, criminal charges, or any admission of wrongdoing. Glock has denied the allegations, maintaining that its pistols are safe, properly designed, and fit for their intended purpose. The company disputes claims that consumers were misled or that the firearms are defective.

At the heart of the lawsuit is an economic argument. Plaintiffs contend that because of the alleged chamber design issue, consumers in California overpaid for their firearms and that the pistols were “devalued” due to undisclosed risks. The case is still in litigation, and no trial date has been set. The plaintiffs must still prove the design is defective, that Glock had a legal duty to disclose additional information, and that buyers suffered measurable economic harm.

Guns & Gadgets - Gun Accessory Company Forced to Pay $1.75 MILLION Over Their AR-15 Magazine Lock

02/12/2026

A major legal development out of New York is sending shockwaves through the firearms industry. Nearly four years after the tragic 2022 Buffalo supermarket shooting, accessory manufacturer Mean Arms (MEAN LLC) has reached a $1.75 million settlement with the state of New York.

The case centers on the company’s MA Lock device — a magazine locking mechanism designed for AR-style rifles. The product was marketed as a way to help firearms comply with New York’s strict assault weapons laws, which prohibit semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

According to New York Attorney General Letitia James, the lawsuit alleged that Mean Arms not only marketed the device as compliant but also included instructions showing how it could be removed. The state claimed this effectively provided a method to bypass New York’s firearm restrictions. Prosecutors argued the Buffalo shooter removed the device and used detachable magazines during the attack.

While the settlement does not necessarily establish an admission of wrongdoing, Mean Arms has agreed to:

Pay $1.75 million in restitution to victims’ families and survivors
Permanently cease selling the MA Lock in New York
Remove claims that the device makes rifles compliant with state law
Require packaging and resellers to clearly state the product cannot be sold in New York

Copper Jacket TV - California Tries To Enforce Its Laws Nationwide And Gets Checked

02/12/2026

A major constitutional battle is unfolding after Florida-based defendants in a California gun lawsuit officially fired back in federal court. Control Pew LLC and Alexander Holiday have filed a lawsuit against California Attorney General Rob Bonta and San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, challenging what they call unlawful extraterritorial enforcement of California gun and speech laws.

The dispute stems from California’s recent civil enforcement action targeting online publication of firearm-related digital files and technical guides. Although the content was created, published, and maintained entirely in Florida, California officials argued that because the material is accessible online to California residents, it falls under the state’s regulatory authority.

Now, in a newly filed case in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida, the plaintiffs are seeking declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U.S.C. §1983. They argue that California’s actions violate the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the Fourteenth Amendment by attempting to regulate speech that occurs wholly outside of its borders.

At the heart of the lawsuit is a fundamental question: Can one state impose its laws on out-of-state individuals simply because their online content is accessible within that state?

The complaint asserts that if accessibility alone creates jurisdiction, then any state could effectively regulate nationwide internet speech. Critics warn that such a precedent would allow states with restrictive laws to control speech across the country, creating a patchwork of conflicting regulations.

The plaintiffs also argue that California’s enforcement efforts have already caused self-censorship, including halting copyright registrations and limiting publication activities due to fear of penalties.

This case could become one of the most significant First Amendment and Second Amendment battles in recent years. The outcome may determine not only the limits of state authority over online speech but also how firearm-related digital information is treated under constitutional protections.

As this legal fight progresses, courts will now have to decide whether California’s enforcement strategy crosses constitutional boundaries — and whether states can extend their regulatory reach beyond their own borders in the digital age.

The Four Boxes Diner - AI COULD DESTROY 2ND AMENDMENT...

02/12/2026

Major breaking news is drawing national attention after Alex Karp, CEO of Palantir Technologies, warned that if the United States loses the artificial intelligence race to China, America’s core constitutional freedoms could be at risk.

Speaking at the Hudson Institute, Karp framed the AI competition as a defining global battle. According to Karp, only two powers are positioned to dominate artificial intelligence in the coming years: the United States or China. And whichever nation leads in AI will shape the global rules governing technology, security, and civil liberties.

Karp emphasized that AI is a “dual-use” technology—capable of civilian innovation but also military and surveillance applications. He argued that America must lead in semiconductor production, large language models, data infrastructure, and advanced computing to maintain not only national security but also the constitutional order embodied in the First four amendments.

His warning goes beyond economics. The broader concern is geopolitical: if an authoritarian regime sets global AI standards, the values embedded in American constitutional culture—free speech, due process, and the right to keep and bear arms—could lose influence on the world stage.

The AI race has increasingly been described as the technological equivalent of the atomic arms race during World War II. Just as radar, rockets, and nuclear capability reshaped global power structures, artificial intelligence is now positioned to redefine defense systems, intelligence gathering, cybersecurity, and digital governance.

For constitutional advocates, the takeaway is clear: preserving American rights may depend not only on courtroom litigation but also on technological leadership. As Karp put it, if the United States does not control the technological frontier, it may not control the legal and cultural framework that protects its freedoms.

With U.S.–China tensions intensifying, the AI competition is no longer theoretical. It is unfolding in real time—and its outcome could influence the future of constitutional rights for generations.

Guns & Gadgets - Suppressors in Common Use — South Dakota Calls the Bluff

02/11/2026

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.

Guns & Gadgets - ATF Denies Gun Owner for “Exercising His God Given Right”

02/10/2026

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.

Copper Jacket TV - California Now Enforcing Its "Gun Laws" Nationwide

02/10/2026

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, alongside San Francisco City Attorney David Chiu, has launched a controversial lawsuit that is drawing national attention. The case targets companies and individuals accused of distributing digital firearm-related files online — not selling firearms, not trafficking weapons, but sharing computer code.

At the center of the lawsuit is the claim that certain digital files used in 3D printing firearm components violate California’s so-called “ghost gun” laws. However, critics argue the lawsuit goes far beyond firearm regulation and directly challenges First Amendment protections.

For decades, U.S. courts have recognized computer code as protected speech. Legal precedent has consistently held that digital files, source code, and technical data fall under the umbrella of free expression. That’s why this case has alarmed constitutional advocates across the country.

The lawsuit, titled People of California v. Gatalog Foundation LLC, seeks to block distribution of online firearm-related files nationwide. Opponents warn that if California succeeds in restricting digital information because it could potentially be misused, it sets a dangerous precedent. Today it may be firearm CAD files — tomorrow it could be encryption software, engineering schematics, or other technical publications.

Supporters of the defendants argue this is not about crime prevention but about expanding state power over speech. They emphasize that the individuals named in the lawsuit are not accused of violent acts or unlawful firearm transfers. Instead, the dispute centers entirely on the sharing of information.

The broader concern is federalism and constitutional limits. States traditionally cannot enforce their policies beyond their borders, especially when doing so affects constitutionally protected speech. If courts allow California’s approach to stand, it could reshape how governments regulate online content related to lawful activities.

As this case moves forward, it will likely test the balance between public safety arguments and core constitutional protections. Regardless of where one stands on gun policy, many legal analysts agree: when the government attempts to regulate knowledge itself, the implications reach far beyond a single issue.

Guns & Gadgets - This Lawsuit Could End Second Amendment INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE

02/09/2026

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.

Latest News

Sitemap

Phase 5 Social Media