The legal fight to dismantle the National Firearms Act (NFA) has escalated after plaintiffs introduced new evidence showing how the ATF is operating in practice following the recent $0 tax change. The case, brought by major gun rights organizations, manufacturers, and more than a dozen states, challenges whether the NFA can still stand without a tax to justify its authority.

After the tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and short-barreled shotguns was reduced to zero, the Department of Justice filed briefs defending the NFA as a lawful “shall issue” registration system. However, plaintiffs responded with newly obtained ATF records that appear to contradict that claim.

The evidence shows ATF examiners denying Form 1 applications based not on statutory violations, but on subjective judgment. In one example, an application was denied because the applicant stated they wanted to exercise their constitutional rights—an action critics say reflects open-ended discretion rather than objective standards.

This directly challenges the government’s argument under New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which allows shall-issue systems only when they rely on narrow, objective criteria. Discretionary denials, plaintiffs argue, turn the NFA into an unconstitutional barrier to exercising Second Amendment rights.

With the DOJ now facing procedural disputes and substantive constitutional challenges, the case is shifting from theory to documented real-world impact. The outcome could have sweeping implications for the future of the NFA and federal firearm regulation nationwide.

California lawmakers have introduced SB948, a sweeping new gun control bill that critics say would dramatically expand the state’s already burdensome firearm regulations. Written by the same legislator behind last year’s controversial background check expansion, SB948 builds on California’s firearm safety certificate system—what many gun owners view as a de facto permit to purchase.

Under current law, Californians must pass a test, pay a fee, and renew their firearm safety certificate every five years. SB948 would significantly raise the bar by requiring mandatory training similar to concealed carry courses, including at least eight hours of instruction and live-fire shooting. The added cost, time commitment, and limited availability of instructors could delay firearm purchases for weeks or even months.

The bill also targets people moving into California. New residents would be required to submit detailed information to the Department of Justice within 60 days, potentially including photographs of their firearms for approval. Those who fail to comply could be forced to transfer, store out of state, or surrender their firearms for destruction.

Unlike past proposals, SB948 avoids budget obstacles by shifting all implementation costs onto gun owners themselves, explicitly stating that no state reimbursement is required. Opponents argue this makes the bill especially dangerous, as it prices many low- and middle-income residents out of exercising their Second Amendment rights.

As the first major gun bill of the year, SB948 signals another aggressive push by California lawmakers. Gun owners are urging residents to contact legislators and submit formal opposition comments before the bill advances further.

New Mexico lawmakers are advancing Senate Bill 17 (SB17), officially titled the Stop Illegal Gun Trade and Extremely Dangerous Weapons Act, a proposal that has ignited intense debate among gun owners, firearms dealers, and Second Amendment advocates nationwide. Critics argue the bill goes far beyond crime prevention and instead represents a sweeping restriction on lawful firearm ownership and commerce.

SB17 redefines a broad range of commonly owned firearms and accessories as “extremely dangerous,” including gas-operated semi-automatic rifles, magazines over 10 rounds, and .50 caliber rifles and ammunition. These firearms are among the most widely owned in the United States for lawful purposes such as self-defense, sport shooting, and hunting, placing the bill squarely in the center of constitutional scrutiny.

The legislation also imposes extensive new requirements on federally licensed firearms dealers. Mandates include state-approved security systems, reinforced buildings, continuous video surveillance with long-term data retention, frequent reporting requirements, and expanded law-enforcement access to business records. Opponents warn these measures could force small and rural gun stores out of business, effectively limiting access to firearms without direct confiscation.

Additionally, SB17 includes provisions restricting who may handle firearms in a retail setting, requiring ongoing state-approved training and background checks for employees, and permanently retaining transaction records—raising concerns about the creation of a de facto firearm registry.

As the bill continues through the legislative process, SB17 is being closely watched beyond New Mexico’s borders. Supporters frame it as a public safety measure, while critics view it as a model for future firearm restrictions in other states. The outcome could have significant implications for gun policy, firearms commerce, and Second Amendment challenges nationwide.

California’s controversial AB 127, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10, has triggered one of the most significant firearm lawsuits in recent years. Just days after the bill was signed, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition, and the NRA filed James v. Bonta, challenging what critics describe as an unconstitutional ban on the most popular pistols in America—commonly referred to as the “Glock ban.”

AB 127 targets a specific internal component used in many modern pistols, effectively removing entire product lines from California’s handgun roster. The law was designed to roll out in phases, with importation restrictions taking effect first, followed by complete removal from the roster on July 1. Law enforcement exemptions remain in place, leaving millions of California residents impacted by the ban.

Since the lawsuit was filed, most activity has been procedural. In January, the court issued a scheduling order laying out the roadmap for the case, with key dates extending through late 2026 and beyond. This confirms what many expected: the case will move slowly, likely stretching into 2027 and eventually facing review by the Ninth Circuit.

Complicating matters further, Glock discontinued its roster-approved models before key deadlines, raising questions about how the case will proceed when the affected firearms are no longer in production. Despite these challenges, the lawsuit is officially moving forward, even if meaningful relief remains far off.

For now, the fight over California’s handgun roster and AB 127 continues. While immediate injunctions appear unlikely, related cases challenging the roster itself may ultimately determine the fate of California’s sweeping handgun restrictions.

Recent comments made by U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Janine Pirro during a Fox News interview have sparked controversy within the Second Amendment community. While discussing crime reduction efforts in Washington, DC, Pirro stated that individuals who bring firearms into the district unlawfully could face jail time, regardless of whether they are licensed gun owners in other states.

The remarks raised concerns among gun owners who argue that the phrasing suggested lawful firearm carry could lead to arrest. Washington, DC does allow both residents and non-residents to carry firearms, but only if they comply with the district’s specific licensing and registration requirements. Failure to meet those requirements can result in criminal penalties under current law.

Following the backlash, Pirro clarified her position, stating publicly that she supports the Second Amendment and personally owns firearms. She emphasized that her office is focused on prosecuting individuals who carry guns illegally, particularly those tied to criminal activity, rather than targeting responsible gun owners who follow local laws.

The situation highlights ongoing tensions surrounding firearm reciprocity and the patchwork of gun laws across the United States. While constitutional rights do not disappear at state lines, gun owners traveling between jurisdictions must navigate varying regulations that can create legal risk. As debates over nationwide reciprocity and constitutional carry continue, Washington, DC remains a focal point in the broader conversation about balancing public safety, enforcement, and Second Amendment protections.

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.