Once again, headlines scream that a “Donald Trump appointee” has ruled against him. The latest example? Judge Karen Immergut of the U.S. District Court for Oregon, who recently blocked President Trump’s authority to deploy federalized National Guard troops in Portland — a decision the Trump team is expected to appeal.

But this same judge also upheld Oregon’s Ballot Measure 114, the sweeping anti-gun referendum that banned so-called “large-capacity magazines” and imposed restrictive licensing requirements.

So, how does a judge like this get labeled a Trump appointee? The answer lies in an obscure but powerful Senate tradition known as the “blue slip process.”

Under Article III of the Constitution, federal judges are appointed for life by the President, but only after being confirmed by the U.S. Senate. For district court nominees — judges who serve within individual states — a long-standing Senate courtesy comes into play:

When a President nominates a judge for a district court seat, the Senate Judiciary Committee sends a blue slip to the two home-state senators. Each senator can either:

• Approve the nomination
• Reject it
• Ignore it altogether

If the home-state senators (for example, both Democrats from Oregon) don’t return the blue slip with approval, the Judiciary Committee won’t even hold a hearing on that nominee.

That means a Republican president, like Donald Trump, cannot appoint a solid conservative to a federal bench in a blue state unless the Democrat senators sign off.

In deep-blue states like Oregon, California, and New York, Trump couldn’t get conservative judges through this process. Instead, political deals were made. The White House would nominate candidates pre-approved by Democrat senators — individuals who could sail through the confirmation process.

That’s why judges like Karen Immergut — who later issued rulings upholding gun control laws and blocking Trump administration actions — are “Trump appointees” in name only.

Yes, their official appointment papers were signed by President Trump, but their selection was dictated by Democrat senators through the blue slip system.

So when mainstream outlets claim that “Trump’s own appointees are turning on him,” they’re leaving out critical context. These judges were never Trump’s personal picks for the bench — they were politically negotiated compromises to fill vacancies in blue states.

This misunderstanding fuels a false narrative that even Trump’s own judiciary doesn’t support him, when in fact, these judges were effectively chosen by Democrats under Senate rules that predate his presidency.

Understanding this process makes you the smartest person in the room when legal pundits talk about “Trump-appointed judges.”

It also explains why rulings in cases involving the Second Amendment, federal authority, or state gun laws often seem out of step with Trump’s judicial philosophy — even when the judge was appointed during his term.

In short:

• Yes, Judge Karen Immergut is technically a Trump appointee.
• No, she wasn’t a conservative originalist chosen by Trump himself.
• Yes, the blue slip process ensured only Democrat-approved judges could fill Oregon’s federal bench.

When you hear that another “Trump-appointed judge” has ruled against him, remember the blue slip backstory. It’s not betrayal — it’s bureaucracy. And it’s one of Washington’s best-kept secrets about how judicial appointments really work.

If you thought Gavin Newsom’s record on gun rights was bad, buckle up — because things in California could get even worse. Javier Becerra, the former Attorney General of California and Health and Human Services Secretary under President Biden, is now running for governor. And according to recent polls, his campaign is gaining traction.

For gun owners, this is a red alert moment. Becerra has a long, well-documented history of fighting to restrict the Second Amendment — and if elected governor, he could deliver the final blow to gun rights in California.

Before joining the Biden administration, Becerra served as California’s Attorney General, where he defended and enforced some of the state’s most restrictive firearm laws.

He was instrumental in supporting Proposition 63, the sweeping gun control measure that banned “large-capacity” magazines and imposed background checks for ammunition purchases.

“With the help of Prop 63 and the champions who made it possible, we’ll keep our communities safer,” Becerra said at the time. “This is California — we don’t backslide.”

Becerra also pushed for strict federal action on “ghost guns” and advocated for controversial microstamping technology, which would mandate firearm components that mark bullets with unique codes — a policy critics say is expensive, ineffective, and unconstitutional.

Gun owners across the nation may recognize Becerra’s name from one of the biggest 2A legal battles in recent memory: Duncan v. Bonta (originally Duncan v. Becerra).

That case — which challenges California’s ban on standard-capacity magazines — began under Becerra’s leadership at the Department of Justice. He fought aggressively to defend the ban, arguing against gun owners’ rights even as federal courts found similar laws unconstitutional.

And his anti-gun stance isn’t new. Becerra has been in politics for decades and voted for the 1994 Clinton “assault weapon” ban when he served in Congress.

“I was in Congress back in 1993 when Joe Biden was a senator, and we passed that assault weapon ban,” Becerra once proudly recalled.

According to the latest polling (cited by the Becerra campaign itself):

• Sheriff Chad Bianco (Riverside County) currently leads the race. Known for his pro–Second Amendment stance, Bianco has streamlined CCW permits and defended Californians’ right to self-defense.
• Katie Porter (D), once the frontrunner, has seen her numbers drop sharply following several staff mistreatment scandals.
• Steve Hilton (R) holds a strong third position.
• Javier Becerra (D) trails closely behind but remains within the poll’s margin of error, meaning he could overtake Porter at any time.

In short — Becerra’s rise is real, and his history suggests that if he wins, California’s gun laws could become even more restrictive than under Gavin Newsom.

For those who value the right to self-defense, Becerra’s candidacy is a major warning sign. His record shows a consistent pattern of prioritizing government control over individual freedom, especially when it comes to the Second Amendment.

If elected, Californians can expect:

• Expanded bans on popular firearms and magazines
• Tighter restrictions on concealed carry
• More aggressive enforcement of “ghost gun” regulations
• Continued erosion of lawful gun ownership rights

Javier Becerra isn’t just another California politician — he’s Gavin Newsom 2.0, with an even deeper anti-gun record.

With Sheriff Chad Bianco and other pro–Second Amendment candidates rising in the polls, gun owners have a rare opportunity to make their voices heard. The key will be supporting candidates who respect constitutional rights and staying informed as this race unfolds.

Florida — often called the Gunshine State — is once again at the center of the national gun rights debate. A group of Second Amendment activists recently conducted an open carry audit near Florida State University in Tallahassee to test whether police and the public would respect their right to bear arms under the state’s newly clarified open carry law.

The activists legally carried visible firearms through the popular College Town area near FSU, filming the experience as part of a broader civil rights audit — a peaceful test to see how law enforcement reacts when citizens exercise constitutional rights in public.

While open carry without a permit has been legal in most public places across Florida since September 25, 2025, the state still prohibits it in sensitive locations such as schools, courthouses, polling places, and bars. The activists stayed within the law, but that didn’t stop the media from erupting in outrage.

Local outlets ran alarmist headlines about “men with guns near campus,” while students voiced fear and administrators raised safety concerns. But what most coverage ignored was the fact that these citizens broke no laws and were peacefully exercising a constitutional right.

The reaction highlights a deeper cultural divide: in modern America, the sight of a firearm — once a symbol of independence and civic duty — now sparks fear. As the video’s creator argued, that fear isn’t accidental; it’s the result of decades of conditioning that equates gun ownership with danger rather than responsibility.

Whether you agree with the tactic or not, open carry audits serve a purpose. They test whether officers know and respect the law. They reveal how society reacts to visible freedom. And they push conversations about the Second Amendment out of the shadows and into the public square.

As the speaker noted, “Rights are meaningless if society conditions you to fear them.” When citizens openly carry firearms responsibly, it normalizes gun ownership and challenges the narrative that only criminals or extremists carry guns.

The Founders didn’t write the Second Amendment to say “the right to keep and conceal arms.” They said “the right to keep and bear arms.” To bear means to carry — openly and confidently.

Critics argue that open carry audits are provocative, but so was freedom itself. From the Sons of Liberty to the Minutemen, every generation of Americans has had to confront what liberty looks like in practice — and it’s often uncomfortable.

The real story isn’t that armed citizens walked peacefully near a campus. The real story is how quickly society panics when freedom is visible.

As the speaker concluded, “The fear you’re seeing isn’t fear of violence. It’s fear of responsibility. Because an armed society is a responsible society.”

The long-running Duncan v. Bonta case has reached a critical turning point. After nearly a decade of legal battles, the Supreme Court of the United States has officially set a conference date for November 21st, marking what could be a historic decision for gun owners across California and the nation.

This pivotal case challenges California’s ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds, often referred to as the state’s standard capacity magazine ban. The case has journeyed through every level of the judicial system — from the district court to the Ninth Circuit, up to the Supreme Court, and back again after the Bruen decision reshaped the Second Amendment landscape.

District Judge Roger Benitez has twice ruled the ban unconstitutional, citing that it violates the rights of law-abiding citizens under the Second Amendment. Despite that, enforcement remains on hold under an injunction, preventing California from enforcing the ban — for now.

On November 21st, the Justices will decide whether to accept or deny the case. If the Supreme Court refuses to hear it, the lower court ruling upholding the ban will stand — effectively outlawing all magazines over 10 rounds in California. This outcome would impact an estimated one million-plus magazines purchased during the state’s brief “Freedom Week.”

If the Court accepts the case, it could become the most significant Second Amendment showdown since NYSRPA v. Bruen, with nationwide implications for magazine capacity laws.

Unlike other 2A challenges, Duncan v. Bonta is fully developed, with a complete record ready for review. Advocates argue it represents the best opportunity yet for the Supreme Court to clarify limits on state restrictions regarding arms and capacity.

Though the Court has already taken up two Second Amendment cases this term, supporters believe Duncan’s clean record and broad impact make it too important to ignore.

The New York Times published a high-profile piece testing blast pressures (measured in PSI) from various firearms fired at indoor ranges — and while the story warned about risks to shooters’ brains and bodies, it quietly highlighted the clearest solution: suppressors. The paper’s own tests showed that adding a suppressor or blast regulator can dramatically reduce blast pressure (an AR-15 example fell from 1.7 PSI to under 0.5 PSI with a regulator), and the article recommends outdoor shooting, smaller calibers, or suppressors to reduce exposure.

That buried endorsement is a strategic boon for advocates and litigators: a mainstream outlet describing how suppressors lower dangerous blast levels gives a strong, science-based talking point for lawmakers and courts weighing Second Amendment and safety issues. Whether you care about hearing, health, or policy, the takeaway is simple — the New York Times accidentally handed suppressor supporters a powerful public-safety argument.

Shadow Systems’ DR920P (full-size, compensator) and MR920 (compact) are solid, well-finished pistols that bring match-grade barrels, generous slide serrations, optics cuts and ergonomic Gen-4 style frames to California buyers — with roster-required safety changes like a magazine disconnect and a loaded-chamber indicator (LCI).

Quick Highlights:

• DR920P: The non-threaded, pinned compensator is effective — noticeably flatter recoil and very shootable as a full-size pistol (≈4.5" barrel). Robust sights, multi-optic footprint, and comfortable stippling. Very few malfunctions in the reviewer’s ~1,000 rounds.
• MR920: Compact (≈4.18" barrel, 15+1) with the same high-quality fit and feel. Early stove-pipes/FTFs cleared up after ~150 rounds. One LCI on the MR920 stuck upright; the reviewer removed it and experienced no further problems — a reminder that LCI mechanisms can fail and shouldn’t be the sole safety check.

California legal context: AB1127 affects designs that use a certain cruciform trigger bar; Shadow is re-engineering affected models to meet a roster carve-out (manufacturers on the roster before Jan 1, 2026 can modify designs and re-certify). Transfers will be restricted starting July 1, 2026 unless changes are made, but Shadow reports they’re working on compliant updates and expect a prompt return.

Bottom line: Both pistols offer excellent ergonomics, optics readiness and competitive accuracy for their classes. The reviewer’s experience was largely positive but limited to a small sample — do further research and handle examples yourself before relying on any firearm for self-defense.

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.