In a major win for the Second Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has ruled that a non-violent felony conviction cannot automatically justify a lifetime firearm ban under federal law. The decision limits how 18 USC § 922(g)(1)—the federal felon-in-possession statute—can be applied after Bruen.

The case involved a Mississippi man with a single prior conviction for meth possession. Years later, federal prosecutors charged him under § 922(g)(1) after he possessed a firearm. While a lower court upheld the conviction, the Fifth Circuit unanimously reversed it, finding no historical tradition that supports permanently disarming someone based solely on non-violent drug possession.

Applying the Bruen framework, the court held that firearm possession is plainly protected by the Second Amendment and that the government failed to prove a founding-era analogue allowing lifetime disarmament for simple drug possession. The panel emphasized that only the elements of the conviction—not unproven allegations—can be used to justify disarmament.

The ruling deepens a growing split among federal circuits over how felon gun bans should be analyzed, with some courts allowing blanket bans and others requiring individualized or offense-based assessments. For now, the Fifth Circuit’s decision marks a significant shift toward restoring gun rights for non-violent offenders—and signals that federal gun laws face increasing constitutional scrutiny moving forward.

It’s been a frustrating few days for Second Amendment supporters, and for good reason. In the wake of recent high-profile shootings, several politicians who have long supported gun control are suddenly talking like defenders of the Second Amendment. At first glance, that might sound encouraging—but history tells a very different story.

In Georgia and beyond, lawmakers with records of backing magazine bans, carry restrictions, and firearm prohibitions are now claiming they want to “work with gun owners.” This sudden shift isn’t leadership—it’s political theater. Timing matters, motives matter, and past actions matter. Real defenders of gun rights don’t wait for tragedy or headlines to speak up; they’ve been consistent all along.

The same pattern is playing out nationally. California Governor Gavin Newsom has recently claimed to support the Second Amendment, despite overseeing some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country and previously proposing a constitutional amendment that would have embedded sweeping gun control measures into the Constitution itself.

For gun owners, the takeaway is simple: words are cheap, records are not. Rights are lost when people become complacent and accept rhetoric instead of demanding real action. Staying informed, vigilant, and willing to call out hypocrisy—regardless of party—is essential to protecting the right to keep and bear arms.

A major Second Amendment lawsuit against California has taken an unexpected twist. In Hoffman v. Bonta, gun rights advocates initially scored a major victory when a federal judge ruled California’s ban on non-resident concealed carry unconstitutional and issued a permanent injunction. That ruling opened the door—briefly—for non-residents to apply for carry permits in the state.

However, that injunction has now been dissolved after California enacted Assembly Bill 1078, which took effect on January 1, 2026. The new law rewrote the carry statutes challenged in the case, prompting the court to erase the earlier injunction. While this technically ends the lawsuit, it doesn’t fully erase the win.

Under AB 1078, California was forced to create a statewide pathway for non-resident carry permits. While the process remains expensive, time-consuming, and restrictive—including firearm registration and extensive training—it does allow non-residents to apply without belonging to specific gun rights organizations.

In short, California’s non-resident carry ban was ruled unconstitutional, lawmakers changed the law to sidestep that ruling, and gun owners are left with a difficult but viable path forward. It’s not reciprocity or constitutional carry—but for now, it’s the only legal option for visitors who want to exercise their right to self-defense in California.

Recent comments from top DOJ officials following a Minnesota incident have sparked intense backlash from Second Amendment supporters across the country. According to critics, statements made in the media suggested that Americans do not have a constitutional right to carry firearms at protests—a claim many argue is flatly incorrect.

The Bill of Rights was not designed to grant rights selectively or conditionally. Instead, it exists to protect rights that predate government itself. Carrying a firearm while lawfully exercising First Amendment rights, such as protesting, represents the practice of two constitutional freedoms at the same time—not a crime.

Gun rights advocates argue that equating peaceful carry with criminal intent dangerously undermines the Second Amendment. They point out that the mere possession of a firearm does not justify violence, nor does it invalidate a person’s constitutional protections. Treating the Second Amendment as subordinate to other rights, critics warn, sets a precedent that erodes all freedoms.

As debate continues, this controversy highlights a familiar concern among gun owners: support for the Second Amendment often fades when it becomes politically inconvenient. For many Americans, the issue is simple—constitutional rights apply to everyone, everywhere, especially when they are most inconvenient to those in power.

A newly uncovered Department of Justice filing has ignited outrage among gun owners after revealing an aggressive new strategy to restrict forced reset triggers (FRTs)—not through legislation, but through civil patent litigation. Buried inside a private lawsuit between Rare Breed Triggers and Hoffman Tactical, the DOJ openly stated its interest in limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs, despite Congress never banning them.

The filing is especially troubling in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Garland v. Cargill, which ruled that the ATF exceeded its authority by classifying bump stocks as machine guns. Forced reset triggers operate on similar mechanical principles, yet the DOJ appears to be seeking indirect control by encouraging patent enforcement to eliminate competitors and dry up supply.

Gun rights advocates argue this approach amounts to regulation without legislation and enforcement without due process. Rather than relying on historical precedent or statutory authority—as required under the Bruen standard—the DOJ leans on vague “public safety” interests, a rationale the Supreme Court has already rejected.

Critics warn that if this tactic succeeds, it could set a dangerous precedent allowing the government to suppress lawful firearm components through proxy actions instead of constitutional processes. For many in the Second Amendment community, this filing signals a deeper concern: when agencies lose in court, they may simply change tactics rather than respect constitutional limits.

Virginia’s sweeping package of gun control bills just took a sharp turn for the worse. What was already one of the most aggressive collections of firearm legislation introduced in a single state has now been amended to include outright bans on magazine possession, eliminating previous grandfather clauses and dramatically expanding the scope of restrictions.

At the center of the controversy is Senate Bill 749, the companion to House Bill 27. While earlier versions focused on banning future sales, recent amendments now criminalize possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds. Gun owners would be forced to surrender or remove legally purchased property from the state—with no compensation—raising serious constitutional concerns.

At the same time, lawmakers shifted grandfather language to so-called “assault weapons,” allowing current owners to keep them if possessed before July 1, 2026, while banning all future availability. Critics argue the broad definitions used in the bills would impact more than half of the firearms commonly owned in Virginia.

With Governor Spanberger signaling full support and urging lawmakers to send the bills to her desk, opponents warn these measures directly conflict with Supreme Court rulings such as Bruen, Heller, and McDonald. Gun rights advocates are urging Virginians to contact legislators and support legal organizations, warning that court challenges may be the last line of defense against what they see as an unprecedented assault on the Second Amendment.