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.

Every year, California rolls out another wave of restrictive gun laws, and 2026 is shaping up to be one of the worst yet. Multiple new laws are set to take effect that directly impact Second Amendment rights—and in some cases, First Amendment rights as well. From online gun parts to handgun availability and firearm transfers, California politicians have once again doubled down on sweeping regulations.

One of the biggest changes arrives on January 1, 2026, with AB 1263, commonly referred to as the “online gun parts ban.” This law targets everything from firearm components and accessories to tools, 3D printers, and even digital files and code. The requirements include ID verification, signed delivery, and strict address matching—effectively cutting off access for many Californians and causing some major retailers to stop shipping to the state altogether.

Another massive law is AB 1078, which impacts concealed carry permits and firearm transfers. While it creates a pathway for non-residents to obtain a California CCW, the process is expensive and burdensome. More notably, it introduces a new three-firearms-per-month limit, taking effect April 1, 2026, despite recent court rulings stating that the government cannot ration constitutional rights.

Gun owners will also feel the effects of AB 1127, often called the “Glock ban.” This law removes many popular handguns from California’s roster based on trigger design claims. The first phase begins January 1, 2026, with a complete cutoff for the general public by July 1, 2026, dramatically shrinking handgun options statewide.

Also taking effect in mid-2026 is AB 725, which expands lost or stolen firearm reporting requirements to include precursor parts and unfinished frames or receivers. Failure to report missing items—whether stolen or misplaced—could result in criminal penalties for the victim.

Finally, SB 241 targets Federal Firearms Licensees (FFLs), requiring annual firearms training for employees who handle guns. This mandate places additional financial and operational strain on small businesses already struggling under California’s regulatory environment.

With even more laws queued up for 2027, including background checks on barrels, California gun owners must stay informed. Knowing what’s coming—and when—can help avoid serious legal trouble in an increasingly hostile regulatory landscape.

The fight over the Second Amendment doesn’t exist in a vacuum. What we’re witnessing today is a much larger battle—one for Western civilization itself, Judeo-Christian values, ordered liberty, and the cultural foundations that gave rise to the Bill of Rights in the first place.

That’s why discussions about the right to keep and bear arms can’t always be limited to court rulings and legal doctrine. The Second Amendment flows directly from Western philosophy, moral tradition, and the belief that free people retain the natural right to defend themselves. Undermine that culture, and the rights built upon it inevitably weaken.

Across the West—from American universities to Europe and Australia—we’re seeing growing social disorder paired with calls for more government control. History shows this pattern clearly: when violence rises and trust in society collapses, political elites respond by demanding censorship, surveillance, centralized power, and gun control. Disarmament is not the cause—it’s the consequence of societal breakdown.

Australia offers a stark warning. After sweeping gun confiscation and extreme firearm restrictions, authorities are now calling for even more gun control following high-profile violence. At the same time, the same governments aggressively restrict individual liberties while importing instability and refusing to enforce cultural assimilation. The result is less safety, not more.

Here in the United States, the stakes are even higher. The Founders understood that the right to self-defense was inseparable from the preservation of liberty. If social cohesion erodes, if law enforcement fails, or if government monopolizes force while failing to protect citizens, every constitutional right is placed at risk—not just the Second Amendment.

This is the reality Americans must face: there is no place to flee, no safer Western nation waiting in reserve. The fight for freedom, constitutional rights, and the American way of life will be decided here. Preserving the Second Amendment requires preserving the culture that made it possible.

The war for the West is real—and the right to keep and bear arms is only one front in that battle.

Major breaking news out of Florida as Gun Owners of America (GOA) secures another massive legal victory for the Second Amendment. A newly finalized federal court settlement effectively confirms that Florida is now both an open carry state and a permanent concealed carry state, marking a historic win for gun owners statewide.

The lawsuit, filed by GOA in 2024 against multiple Florida sheriffs, challenged the state’s long-standing prohibition on openly carrying handguns. In a decisive settlement, the defendants conceded that open carry is protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment and that there is no historical tradition supporting a ban on open carry under the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework.

As part of the agreement, Florida officials acknowledged that the state’s open carry statute is unconstitutional and agreed not to enforce it going forward. The settlement also requires payment of attorneys’ fees, underscoring the strength of GOA’s legal position.

This federal court win builds on a prior Florida appellate court ruling that struck down the open carry ban and aligns with guidance previously issued by the Florida Attorney General instructing law enforcement not to enforce the statute. Taken together, these developments make it increasingly clear that law-abiding Floridians may openly carry firearms without fear of prosecution.

GOA’s victory represents a powerful affirmation of the Second Amendment and further solidifies Florida as one of the most firearm-friendly states in the nation. While gun owners should always stay informed about local regulations, this ruling marks a major shift in Florida’s legal landscape—and a significant win for constitutional rights nationwide.

The long-awaited $0 tax stamp for suppressors and short-barreled firearms goes live in just 20 days — but a new ATF announcement may complicate things for buyers hoping to submit late-December e-Forms.

The ATF has confirmed a temporary shutdown of the e-Form portal beginning at midnight on December 26, 2025. This blackout allows the agency to update internal workflows, prepare for the $0 tax stamp transition, and clear remaining backlogs. But for anyone trying to file Form 4 applications this month, timing is now critical.

As of December 11, 2025, approval speeds remain shockingly fast:

• Individual e-Form 4: ~3.8 business days
• Trust/Corporate e-Form 4: ~5.4 business days

These are some of the quickest NFA approval times in modern history — but they likely won’t stay this low as the shutdown approaches and filings spike.

From Dec. 26 through year-end, no new e-Form submissions will be accepted. Drafts that aren’t submitted by the cutoff will be deleted. Forms submitted before the blackout will continue processing, though delays should be expected as the ATF braces for the January surge.

If you want to beat the shutdown and don’t mind paying the $200 tax stamp while it still exists, submit your application before Dec. 24. Many dealers plan to stop accepting submissions by mid-day on the 24th to avoid system lockouts.

When e-Forms reopen in early 2026, all Form 4 submissions will qualify for the $0 tax stamp. While the ATF claims approval speeds may eventually become even faster under the updated workflow, expect a significant rush. Processing times may jump before stabilizing.

If you want the fastest possible approval and don’t want to wait in the 2026 surge, now is the time to file. If you prefer to save the $200, wait until January — but expect longer queues as tens of thousands move to take advantage of the free tax stamp.

Stay informed, stay safe, and stay free.

The biggest gun control organizations in America—Brady, Everytown, and Giffords—just filed a major amicus brief defending the National Firearms Act (NFA) in Silencer Shop v. ATF, and their arguments reveal exactly how far they’re willing to go to protect federal gun regulations.

In the Northern District of Texas, these groups are backing the DOJ and ATF as they fight to preserve the NFA’s registration and background check requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.” Their filing frames the NFA as a “public safety” tool, claiming these items are uniquely dangerous and supposedly favored by criminals.

But here’s the problem: the data doesn’t support their claims. Suppressors are almost never used in crimes, and SBRs and SBSs are standard tools for home defense, competition, and lawful firearm owners who benefit from more compact, controllable platforms. Meanwhile, the amicus brief leans heavily on fear-based rhetoric and Hollywood-style assumptions rather than real statistics.

Most revealing is their defense of the NFA’s federal registration system. Even though Congress reduced the NFA tax to $0, these groups insist that full registration must remain in place—despite lawmakers publicly stating the opposite. Their position reinforces what critics have warned for decades: federal registration isn’t about safety. It’s about control.

The amicus also avoids the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard altogether, falling back on the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and New Deal-era reasoning. Why? Because there is no historical tradition of federal firearm registration, fingerprinting, background checks, or permission slips for constitutionally protected arms. None existed in 1791. None existed in 1868. And none existed during any founding-era period relevant to the Second Amendment.

For 90 years, the NFA has survived as a “tax law,” not a gun law. But when the tax drops to zero, that justification evaporates. What’s left is a federal gun control statute with no historical foundation—exactly what Bruen prohibits.

This case could mark the most significant challenge to the NFA in modern history. And based on this brief, the gun control lobby knows it.

The Fifth Circuit has issued yet another opinion in the George Peterson suppressor case, marking the third time the court has upheld the National Firearms Act despite significant legal and factual errors. In this latest ruling, Judge Jennifer Elrod relies on a deeply flawed analysis that misinterprets the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard, incorrectly treats suppressors as if they fall outside Second Amendment protection, and stretches historical licensing analogies far beyond their limits. Critics argue the decision ignores clear precedent, misstates key facts in the record, and threatens to create new hurdles for future gun-rights litigation. As the case continues to draw national attention, the Fifth Circuit’s mistakes raise serious questions about how lower courts are handling major Second Amendment challenges—and whether the Supreme Court will need to step in.