Momentum is building in the fight against the National Firearms Act. In a significant development, members of the U.S. House and Senate have formally put pressure on Attorney General Pam Bondi, demanding that the Department of Justice drop NFA registration and transfer requirements for firearms now subject to a $0 tax.

Led by Congressman Andrew Clyde and supported by dozens of lawmakers, the signed letter makes Congress’s intent unmistakably clear: NFA registration requirements were inseparably tied to taxation, and once those taxes were eliminated, the constitutional justification for registration collapsed with them.

Congress explains that the NFA was upheld by the Supreme Court solely as a tax statute, not as a standalone gun registration scheme. With the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapon” firearms were reduced to zero.

According to the letter, continuing to enforce registration without a tax:

• Contradicts Supreme Court precedent
• Violates Congress’s clear legislative intent
• Risks transforming the NFA into an unconstitutional federal gun registry

Lawmakers also point out that the DOJ has previously refused to defend laws that lost their constitutional footing—most notably when the Obamacare penalty was reduced to zero.

This is not speculation or political rhetoric. It is a formal congressional directive, signed, dated, and delivered, putting the DOJ and ATF on notice. If the Department continues to defend NFA registration in court, it risks overstepping its authority and rewriting law that Congress explicitly altered.

The outcome of this standoff could determine the future of:

• Federal gun registration
• Suppressor and SBR ownership
• Limits on executive agency power

For gun owners and constitutional advocates, this letter represents a potential turning point in the long battle over the National Firearms Act—and a clear signal that Congress expects the DOJ to follow both the Constitution and legislative intent.

Here we go again. Members of Congress are once again openly signaling their intent to push new gun control legislation—treating the Constitution as an inconvenience rather than the supreme law of the land. This time, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer is using recent tragedies overseas and at home to revive the left’s anti-gun agenda, and a video of his remarks is now going viral.

When Schumer talks about gun control, many people instinctively tune it out. But what matters isn’t just what he says—it’s what he’s implying. He’s framing gun control as “unfinished business” for Democrats and portraying it as a moral obligation for Congress once political power shifts back in their favor. The so-called Bipartisan Safer Communities Act was never the end goal—it was just the opening move.

The timing of this message is no accident. With midterm elections on the horizon, gun control remains one of the most reliable turnout tools for the left. Schumer’s remarks aren’t meant to persuade undecided voters—they’re designed to energize a base that already supports bans, restrictions, and expanded federal authority over firearms.

By pointing to Australia’s gun laws and recent statements from its leadership, Schumer is once again holding up foreign disarmament policies as a model for the United States—despite the fact that those countries do not recognize gun ownership as a constitutional right.

If Democrats expand their control of Congress, gun owners should expect renewed pushes for:

• So-called “assault weapon” bans
• Magazine capacity restrictions
• Increased federal pressure on states
• Expanded DOJ and ATF enforcement

But the larger goal goes beyond specific legislation. The real objective is to normalize the idea that public safety concerns override constitutional rights—shifting the conversation from whether gun bans are constitutional to when and how they should be imposed.

This isn’t just political rhetoric—it’s a preview of what lawmakers intend to do if given the opportunity. By reframing gun control as policy rather than a direct attack on fundamental rights, the left hopes to make future restrictions easier to accept.

That’s why paying attention now matters. The messaging is clear, the strategy is familiar, and the stakes couldn’t be higher.

In a major victory for the First Amendment, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has ruled against the University of Washington for unlawfully retaliating against a professor over his speech. The decision is a clear rebuke of woke administrative overreach and a strong affirmation of free expression on public university campuses.

The case involved Professor Stuart Reges, a computer science professor at the University of Washington, who criticized and mocked the university’s mandated “land acknowledgment” language in his course syllabus. Rather than parroting the administration’s political messaging, Reges expressed his own viewpoint—a constitutionally protected act of speech.

Because the University of Washington is a public university, it is a government actor and therefore fully bound by the First Amendment. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that public universities cannot punish professors simply because their views offend students or administrators.

Following student complaints, the university investigated Reges, delayed his pay, and threatened discipline—actions the court found amounted to unconstitutional retaliation for protected speech.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that discomfort or disagreement with a professor’s views is not a valid justification for punishment. Colleges, the court explained, are meant to be the “marketplace of ideas,” where debate and dissent are not only tolerated but essential.

By allowing a “heckler’s veto” to influence discipline, the university violated core First Amendment principles.

This decision is a significant win for academic freedom, free speech, and constitutional rights more broadly. Without robust First Amendment protections, the ability to defend other fundamental liberties—including the Second Amendment—quickly erodes.

The ruling sends a clear warning to public universities nationwide: ideological conformity cannot be enforced through retaliation. Free speech still matters—and the Constitution still applies.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has signed two executive orders aimed at “gun violence prevention” after failing to secure legislative support for new gun control laws. Issued on December 16, 2025, the orders signal what gun owners may face heading into 2026.

Executive Order 25-12 expands the state’s focus on red flag laws, directing agencies to promote wider use of Extreme Risk Protection Orders and publish ERPO data by county. It also launches state-funded safe storage campaigns through schools and public agencies and orders firearm-related data collection from homeowners insurance companies, a move critics warn could lead to future regulation.

Executive Order 25-13 creates a statewide safety council tasked with studying gun violence and recommending new laws—without requiring Second Amendment representation.

While the orders do not ban firearms, gun rights groups argue they lay the groundwork for future restrictions, including magazine and rifle bans. Minnesota gun owners are being urged to stay alert as the state moves closer to another major gun control push.

There’s been a lot of confusion surrounding California’s new gun laws set to roll out in 2026, and today we need to clear the air—especially when it comes to SB74, the controversial firearm barrel background check and registration bill.

In a recent video, I mentioned that SB74 would not take effect until July 1, 2027, and since then I’ve heard from many viewers saying the law actually starts on January 1, 2026. The truth is, both statements are technically correct, and that confusion is not accidental.

SB74 officially becomes law on January 1, 2026. That means the statute will exist in California’s penal code as of that date. However, the core enforcement provisions—including background checks, fees, and registration requirements for firearm barrels—are delayed until July 1, 2027.

This distinction matters. While certain definitions and requirements (such as mandatory in-person transfers through an FFL, including private party transfers) begin in 2026, the most burdensome parts of the law are not enforceable for another 18 months.

California often uses this delayed-operative strategy when passing laws that are likely to face constitutional challenges. By postponing enforcement, the state makes it harder for advocacy groups to immediately file lawsuits, since plaintiffs must show actual harm from enforcement—not just the existence of the law.

Under SB74:

• Firearm barrels can no longer be shipped directly to your home
• Buyers must undergo an eligibility/background check
• Personal identifying information and barrel details are collected
• Transaction data is sent to and stored by the California DOJ

In short, it creates another registry and another barrier to exercising Second Amendment rights.

If history is any guide, the rollout will likely be messy. Previous eligibility check systems in California were plagued with delays, false denials, and data mismatches—problems that are already being challenged in court. Lawsuits against SB74 are expected once the law becomes fully operative in July 2027.

SB74 takes effect January 1, 2026, but its main registration and background check requirements will not be enforced until July 1, 2027. Californians have roughly 18 months before another sweeping firearm registry comes online.

As always, stay informed, stay engaged, and make sure you understand what’s coming—because California lawmakers are counting on confusion.

Breaking news continues to emerge from the U.S. Supreme Court, and this time the Court is signaling serious interest in multiple high-profile Second Amendment cases. Most notably, the Supreme Court has ordered the state of Illinois to submit a brief explaining why certiorari should not be granted in Shoenthal v. Raoul, a challenge to Illinois’ ban on carrying firearms on public transit under so-called “sensitive place” laws.

This demand alone is significant. When the Supreme Court asks a state to justify why it should not hear a case, it’s a clear sign that the Justices are actively considering stepping in.

The Court has already granted certiorari in two major Second Amendment cases this term:

• United States v. Rahimi – A challenge to 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3), which bans firearm possession by unlawful drug users. While the individual defendant is unlikely to prevail, the Court’s reasoning could reshape how prohibited-person laws are evaluated.
• Wolford v. Lopez – A challenge to Hawaii’s “vampire rule,” which effectively bans lawful carry on most private property open to the public without express consent. This case is widely expected to strengthen carry rights nationwide.
• Several cases were denied cert, including challenges to the National Firearms Act and Commerce Clause challenges to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Meanwhile, numerous cases involving non-violent felons and young adults aged 18–20 are likely being held by the Court pending decisions in Rahimi and Wolford, setting the stage for future remands.
  

The biggest unanswered question remains: when will the Supreme Court take an AR-15 ban case? Justice Brett Kavanaugh has already signaled that the issue must be resolved “soon.” While the Court may not grant cert this term due to an already packed docket, strong candidates are lining up for next term—including cases out of the Seventh and Third Circuits involving AR-15 and magazine bans.

With sensitive-place laws, carry rights, prohibited-person statutes, and hardware bans all moving through the Court simultaneously, the next 6–12 months could define the future of the Second Amendment. The Supreme Court’s actions suggest not hesitation—but preparation.

Gun owners should pay close attention. Major decisions are coming.

Major breaking news out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit just delivered a significant win for Second Amendment jurisprudence. In United States v. Escobar Tejimal, all three judges agreed that illegal aliens have no Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms—but one opinion stands out for its long-term importance.

Judge Amul Thapar, one of the most influential feeder judges to the U.S. Supreme Court, wrote a powerful concurring opinion explaining why the case begins and ends with the text of the Constitution. His conclusion is clear: illegal aliens are not part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

While the two-judge majority (an Obama appointee and a Biden appointee) reached the same result, they did so using flawed reasoning—claiming illegal aliens are part of “the people” but can still be disarmed due to historical firearm regulations. Judge Thapar rejected that approach outright, emphasizing that courts must first ask whether the Second Amendment’s text even applies. In this case, it does not.

Judge Thapar grounded his analysis in constitutional text, history, and Supreme Court precedent, citing Blackstone, the Founders, English common law, early state constitutions, and even George Washington’s Farewell Address. The Founders consistently distinguished between citizens and aliens, reserving the right to keep and bear arms for those who consented to—and bore responsibility for—self-government.

The facts of the case further underscore the ruling. Escobar Tejimal, a Guatemalan national illegally in the U.S. for over a decade, was found in possession of firearms during a criminal investigation and charged under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5)(A). His attempt to invoke Second Amendment protections failed at every level.

This decision is critical not just for the outcome, but for the methodology Judge Thapar articulated—one that aligns squarely with Bruen and is likely to guide lower courts for years to come. The message is unmistakable: the Second Amendment protects American citizens, not illegal aliens, and that conclusion is dictated by the Constitution itself.

Last Friday was a major conference day at the U.S. Supreme Court, with several high-profile Second Amendment cases on the docket. These included challenges to magazine bans, rifle bans, short-barreled firearms regulations, and suppressor restrictions from states like California, Washington, and Illinois. As expected, the firearms community was watching closely to see whether the Court would finally step in.

Unfortunately, the news was mixed—and mostly disappointing.

According to the Court’s orders list released Monday morning, Rush v. United States was officially denied certiorari. That means the lower court ruling from the Seventh Circuit stands, ending that particular challenge involving short-barreled rifles and the National Firearms Act. Because Rush came to the Court through a criminal appeal, the denial shuts the door on that case entirely.

The good news—if it can be called that—is what didn’t happen.

Key cases such as Duncan v. Bonta (California’s magazine ban), Gators (Washington’s magazine ban), and Vera Montes (Illinois’ rifle ban) were not denied. While the Court also declined to grant certiorari on these cases for now, they appear likely to be rescheduled for a future conference, possibly as soon as January 9, when the Court returns from its break.

This delay matters. A denial in cases like Duncan could instantly criminalize millions of law-abiding gun owners. For now, existing injunctions remain in place, and no new bans go into effect as a result of this orders list.

Once again, the Supreme Court’s reluctance to take Second Amendment cases stands in stark contrast to how frequently it addresses First Amendment issues. While some Justices have suggested that a major 2A case will be taken in an upcoming term, gun owners are left waiting—and watching—yet again.

For now, Rush is lost, but Duncan, Gators, and Vera Montes are still alive. January may be the next critical moment.

Two major legal challenges aimed at dismantling the National Firearms Act (NFA) were just denied review by the United States Supreme Court, and yes—it’s frustrating. But before writing this off as a total loss, it’s critical to understand what the Court didn’t say, and why that matters for the future of the Second Amendment.

The cases, United States v. Rush (Seventh Circuit) and United States v. Robinson (Florida), both challenged NFA restrictions on short-barreled rifles. In each case, defendants argued that the NFA’s registration and tax requirements violate the Second Amendment under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework and that the 1939 precedent United States v. Miller should no longer control. Lower courts rejected those arguments, and SCOTUS declined to take the cases—without explanation.

Here’s the key point many headlines miss: a denial of certiorari is not a ruling on constitutionality. The Supreme Court did not uphold the NFA. It did not reaffirm Miller. It simply chose not to hear these cases at this time.

Lower courts leaned on three familiar arguments: claiming short-barreled rifles are “dangerous and unusual,” framing the NFA as a tax and registration scheme rather than a ban, and asserting historical analogues support regulation. Whether those arguments survive future scrutiny is very much an open question—especially post-Bruen.

Strategically, these cases had weaknesses. They arose from criminal convictions, which the Court has historically been reluctant to use as vehicles for sweeping constitutional change. Future challenges are already taking a different approach: civil cases, facial challenges, and lawsuits attacking NFA registration as an unconstitutional prior restraint—especially now that the NFA tax has effectively been reduced to zero.

With millions of suppressors and hundreds of thousands of short-barreled firearms lawfully owned today, “common use” arguments are growing stronger. Multiple well-funded cases from groups like GOA, SAF, and NRA are moving through the courts right now—and they may present a much cleaner path to Supreme Court review.

California’s controversial gun control bill AB 1263, signed into law in October, officially takes effect on January 1, 2026—and the fallout is already beginning. Often called an online parts ban, AB 1263 goes much further than most people realize, creating serious problems not only for consumers, but also for brick-and-mortar gun stores across the state.

Under AB 1263, Californians attempting to purchase firearm-related items online will face a maze of new requirements. Buyers must provide valid ID, ensure their shipping address matches their ID, sign for every delivery, and acknowledge state-mandated disclosures. Even after jumping through these hoops, a transaction can still be denied. Shipping costs are expected to rise sharply, and many companies may simply stop doing business in California altogether.

What hasn’t been widely discussed is how local gun stores get hurt too. Most California gun shops rely on online distributors to stock their shelves. Now, those distributors must also comply with AB 1263’s “reasonable controls,” forcing them to demand affidavits from FFLs before shipping anything into the state. Major distributors like RSR have already begun restricting shipments, catching many shops off guard.

The result? Potential shortages, empty shelves, and widespread confusion—especially for shops that don’t yet realize these distributor requirements exist. Add in AB 1263’s regulation of 3D printers and digital code, and the bill raises serious First and Second Amendment concerns.

Once again, law enforcement is largely exempt from these rules, creating a two-tiered system of rights. Meanwhile, lawsuits are already being prepared, but as usual in California, enforcement will begin long before the courts weigh in.

AB 1263 is shaping up to be a nightmare for gun owners, retailers, and small businesses alike. If you know someone who works at a gun shop in California, now is the time to make sure they understand what’s coming before January 1, 2026 hits.