In an unexpected but welcome development, the Ninth Circuit may be facing a turning point in Second Amendment litigation. In Rhode v. Bonta, a long-running challenge to California’s ammunition background check system, the U.S. Department of Justice has officially entered the fight—on the side of gun owners.

The case, brought by the California Rifle & Pistol Association, challenges California’s requirement that residents undergo a background check and pay a fee for every single ammunition purchase. Originally filed in 2018, the lawsuit highlights how the law has denied lawful Californians access to ammunition through excessive fees, repeated checks, bureaucratic errors, and outright rejections.

A federal district court first struck the law down as unconstitutional, with the judge famously noting that California’s “experiment” had failed and gravely injured Second Amendment rights. A three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit later agreed, ruling the law was designed to discourage lawful participation. As expected, the full Ninth Circuit vacated that ruling and granted an en banc rehearing, with oral arguments scheduled for March.

What changes everything is the new amicus brief filed by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. In unusually direct language, the DOJ described California’s ammunition background check system as “onerous,” “cumbersome,” “Byzantine,” and historically unprecedented. The brief makes a critical point: the Second Amendment protects operable arms, and firearms are useless without ammunition. As a result, the ability to acquire ammunition is squarely protected by the Constitution.

The DOJ flatly rejected California’s argument that ammunition regulations fall outside the Second Amendment and emphasized that no historical tradition exists for background checks on every ammo purchase. Tens of thousands of lawful gun owners are wrongly denied each year due to paperwork errors—not criminal disqualification—underscoring that the system burdens rights rather than promoting safety.

While a win is never guaranteed at the Ninth Circuit, the DOJ’s support gives this case new momentum. If the court rules in favor of gun owners en banc, it would represent a rare and significant shift—one that could reshape how courts view bureaucratic restrictions on constitutional rights nationwide.

A newly reintroduced bill from Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim should alarm every American who values the Second Amendment. Known as the Federal Firearm Licensing Act, this proposal would fundamentally transform gun ownership from a constitutional right into a federally licensed privilege.

At its core, the bill would make it illegal to purchase, receive, or even possess a firearm without first obtaining a federal license issued by the U.S. Attorney General. No license would mean no gun—period. That alone flips the Second Amendment on its head.

The licensing scheme goes far beyond background checks. Applicants would be required to complete mandatory training, pass written and live-fire tests, submit fingerprints, undergo extensive background investigations, and pre-identify the exact firearm they wish to purchase by make, model, and serial number. Each license would apply to one firearm only and expire after 30 days if unused, forcing Americans to repeat the process for every purchase.

Even more concerning, the Attorney General would have broad discretion to revoke licenses based on subjective criteria, including arrests without convictions, accusations, or any information deemed “relevant.” Once revoked, the bill mandates procedures to remove firearms from the individual, without requiring a criminal conviction—an outright reversal of due process.

The proposal also establishes ongoing federal monitoring of license holders and effectively creates a national gun registry by requiring detailed reporting of every transfer, including private sales. States would be pressured to adopt similar systems or submit their residents to federal control.

There is no historical tradition supporting federal gun licenses, pre-approval for specific firearms, or confiscation without conviction. Under Supreme Court precedent in Heller, McDonald, and Bruen, this bill would be constitutionally indefensible.

Even if it never passes, the danger lies in normalizing the idea that the federal government gets to decide who may exercise a fundamental right. Once a right requires permission, it is no longer a right—it’s a privilege, and privileges can be revoked.

Staying informed about proposals like this is essential, because rights only survive when people are willing to defend them.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has just delivered a major victory for the Second Amendment, striking down California’s effective ban on open carry in a landmark ruling that reaches far beyond the state.

In Baird v. Bonta, the court held that California’s prohibition on open carry in counties with populations over 200,000 is unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, the panel found that open carry is deeply rooted in the nation’s history and tradition and was clearly protected at the time of both the Founding and Reconstruction.

Writing for the majority, Judge VanDyke emphasized that California failed to produce any historically relevant analog justifying its urban open carry ban. The court made clear that banning open carry outright cannot survive constitutional scrutiny, especially when history shows open carry was common—and often preferred—during the founding era.

While the ruling leaves California’s rural licensing scheme intact for now, it sends the case back to the district court with instructions to enter judgment against the state’s urban open carry ban. A concurring opinion further criticized California for effectively denying open carry licenses altogether, despite claiming they are available.

This decision affects every state within the Ninth Circuit’s jurisdiction, including Hawaii, Oregon, Washington, Alaska, and others. Although California may seek an en banc rehearing or attempt further delays, the ruling represents a powerful affirmation that the right to bear arms includes public carry.

For gun owners across the Ninth Circuit, this is a significant step forward—and one that reinforces the Supreme Court’s message in Bruen: the Second Amendment is not a second-class right.

What should have been a historic win for Second Amendment supporters quickly turned into a familiar government failure.

On the very first day that suppressors and short-barreled shotguns became tax-free, the ATF’s eForms system crashed for hours under overwhelming demand. For the first time in nearly a century, Americans were able to exercise this right without paying a $200 federal tax—yet the system meant to process those applications couldn’t handle the volume.

The tax stamp was never about safety or crime. It was always a deterrent, designed to discourage everyday Americans from exercising a constitutional right. With that barrier finally removed, demand surged exactly as expected—something the ATF had months to prepare for after the law was signed on July 4th. Instead, users were met with login failures, error messages, and stalled submissions.

Industry sources report that the influx of applications overwhelmed the system, raising serious questions about why proper scaling and redundancy were never implemented. Some applicants are already reporting approvals in as little as 24 hours, while many others still can’t access the system at all.

This chaotic rollout reinforces what gun owners have long argued: the delays surrounding NFA items were never necessary. Past approvals in hours or days prove the system can work—when the government wants it to.

Despite the frustration, this moment still represents real progress. One of the central pillars of federal gun control has been cracked, and the surge in demand proves Americans are ready to exercise their rights when artificial barriers are removed.

The rollout may be messy, but the direction is clear—and it only happened because people refused to stop pushing.

For once, California gun owners may be heading into the new year with a bit of good news—and surprisingly, it’s being driven by the state’s budget crisis.

After a brutal year that saw the passage of major gun control measures like SB 74, AB 1078, AB 1263, and AB 127, a bipartisan bill is resurfacing in 2026 that could finally ease the burden on concealed carry permit holders. That bill is AB 1092, and it would extend California CCW permits from two years to four years.

Currently, California’s two-year permit system creates a never-ending renewal cycle. Many applicants wait a year or more just to receive their permit, only to begin the renewal process almost immediately. AB 1092 would significantly reduce that burden by extending permit validity, easing pressure on applicants, law enforcement agencies, and state resources.

Under the bill, the change would roll out gradually. New and renewed permits would first move to a three-year term, then to a full four years the following cycle. Existing permits would keep their current expiration dates until renewal.

Although AB 1092 initially failed committee in April 2025, it was reinstated just one week later and passed with a 7–1 bipartisan vote, signaling strong support once lawmakers recognized the potential cost savings. With California facing a massive budget shortfall, reducing administrative workload and expenses may be enough to push this bill across the finish line in 2026.

While many still believe constitutional carry should be the standard, extending CCW permit duration would be a meaningful improvement under California’s current system. With no real public safety downside and clear fiscal benefits, AB 1092 could represent a rare, common-sense reform in a state known for restrictive gun laws.

As the legislature returns to session, this is one bill worth watching closely.

The Department of Justice has taken a new position in a major Second Amendment case—and it should concern every American who values the right to keep and bear arms.

In Knife Rights, Inc. v. Bondi, currently before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ is defending the federal ban on switchblades. While the case centers on knives, the language used by the DOJ goes far beyond blades and directly impacts firearms and other bearable arms.

In its brief, the DOJ argues that “there is no constitutional right to carry concealed or inherently concealable weapons.” Let that sink in. According to the DOJ, if an arm is capable of being concealed, it may fall outside Second Amendment protection.

That interpretation would place nearly all modern pistols, folding knives, and other commonly carried defensive tools at risk. The Second Amendment makes no distinction based on size, method of carry, or concealability. It simply states that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Bill of Rights was never meant to regulate the people—it was written to restrain the government. Yet this DOJ position suggests history supports broad bans on arms solely because they can be concealed, a claim that contradicts both constitutional text and long-standing precedent.

Whether this argument ultimately succeeds or fails, its implications are serious. If accepted, it could open the door to future restrictions on everyday carry weapons nationwide.

This case is one to watch closely. The DOJ’s stance represents a troubling shift—and one that gun owners should not ignore.

A newly filed amicus brief in Wolford v. Lopez raises a chilling question: Will simply exercising the right to keep and bear arms be labeled dangerous and disruptive conduct?

Submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the brief—authored by Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg and other gun control advocates—argues that lawful public carry should be presumed undesirable by default. According to the brief, the mere presence of a firearm, regardless of behavior or intent, is inherently destabilizing and something the state should restrict preemptively.

This argument directly supports Hawaii’s so-called “no carry default” rule, often called the vampire rule. Under this policy, firearms are banned on any private property open to the public unless the owner gives explicit permission. Silence means no carry. No sign means no carry. The result is a near-total ban on lawful public carry without ever passing an outright prohibition.

Gun owners are not accused of misconduct or criminal behavior. Instead, the act of exercising a constitutional right is treated like loitering, trespassing, or public intoxication. That flips the Constitution on its head. Rights do not require permission, and they are not privileges granted by third parties based on comfort or feelings.

The Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen made clear that the right to keep and bear arms extends beyond the home and cannot be reduced to discretionary approval. If Hawaii’s rule is upheld, states will have a roadmap to nullify public carry nationwide while pretending to respect the Second Amendment.

This case is bigger than Hawaii. States like New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and California are watching closely. If carrying a firearm can be redefined as “disruptive conduct,” then no constitutional right is truly safe.

A right that exists only where it is welcomed is not a right at all. It is a revocable privilege—and that should concern every American.

A major firearms manufacturer has officially announced it is pulling out of the California civilian market, and the reason comes down to the state’s newest gun laws: AB 1263 and SB 74. As January 1, 2026 approaches, the real-world impact of these laws is becoming impossible to ignore.

While neither AB 1263 nor SB 74 explicitly bans barrels or accessories, both laws impose sweeping new compliance requirements and liability risks across the entire supply chain. Manufacturers, distributors, and sellers can now be held responsible if a product is later used to make a firearm non-compliant under California law. The threat of fines and even criminal prosecution has proven to be enough for some companies to walk away entirely.

On December 19, 2025, Geissele issued a letter stating that all sales and shipments of its arms and accessories to California residents will cease as of December 31, 2025, unless prior written approval is granted. Notably, the policy appears to apply only to the civilian market, continuing a familiar pattern where law enforcement remains unaffected by restrictions imposed on the general public.

This decision highlights a troubling trend. Rather than adapting to California’s laws to continue serving lawful gun owners, several major brands are choosing to exit the state while preserving government contracts. The result is exactly what critics warned about: everyday Californians lose access to products, while state agencies face no meaningful restrictions.

As more companies announce their departure, gun owners in California may be in for an unpleasant surprise come the new year. Whether viewed as corporate self-preservation or a betrayal of the consumer base that helped build these brands, the list of companies leaving California continues to grow—and that is a win for lawmakers pushing these policies.

Most Americans today have forgotten what the Founders meant by the militia—and that loss of understanding was something they explicitly warned against.

In 1788, George Mason asked a simple but profound question: “Who are the militia?” His answer was equally clear: “They consist of the whole people, except a few public officers.” To the Founding generation, the militia was not a government program, not a uniform, and not a standing army. It was the people themselves.

The Founders deeply distrusted standing armies. History had shown them that professional, centralized military forces inevitably become tools of power rather than servants of the people. As Joseph Warren warned in 1775, standing armies are always dangerous to liberty—not sometimes, not only under tyrants, but always.

Instead, the Founders believed liberty depended on an armed and trained citizenry. James Madison called a well-regulated militia the antidote to standing armies, while Patrick Henry insisted that every man be armed. This was not rhetoric—it was a foundational principle of a free society.

During the ratification debates, Anti-Federalists raised a critical concern: if government controlled who was armed, it could render the militia useless by disarming the people. George Mason’s warning proved prophetic. In 1903, the Militia Act formally divided the militia into an “organized” force—the National Guard—and an “unorganized” one: everyone else.

What was once the whole people became a select force, exactly as the Founders feared.

The militia was never meant to belong to the state. It was meant to be a condition of liberty itself. The Founders trusted the people, not power, and they warned that once that responsibility was surrendered, it would not be easily reclaimed.

The militia was never them.

It was always us.

Millions of Americans waiting on NFA items need to hear this immediately. Just days before the $200 tax stamp drops to $0, the ATF has quietly stopped sending approval emails to purchasers—and they didn’t tell anyone.

After Christmas, I learned the hard way that two suppressors I had been waiting on were actually approved days earlier. The only reason I found out? My FFL texted me. Normally, buyers receive an approval email directly from ATF—often before the dealer even notices. That’s no longer happening.

Here’s why this matters: if you’re waiting on a Form 4 or Form 1, you may already be approved and have no idea. The ATF is now only notifying the FFL, not the purchaser. If you’re past the typical 3–10 business day window, call your FFL and ask them to check their email. Your item could be sitting there ready for pickup.

This change comes as eForms went partially dark after Christmas, with Form 1s and Form 4s temporarily inaccessible in the portal. Despite ATF claims that submissions made before the shutdown would continue processing, the lack of buyer notification creates confusion and unnecessary delays—especially with a massive influx of applications expected in January.

Approval times are already creeping up, and reports suggest they could skyrocket once the $0 tax stamp takes effect. Whether you agree with the process or not, if you’re participating in it, staying proactive is now essential.

If you’re waiting on an NFA approval, don’t assume no news means no approval. Contact your FFL directly. The ATF isn’t telling you anymore.

Stay vigilant, support the channels fighting for your rights, and don’t let bureaucratic games cost you time—or your property.