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.

California’s newly passed AB1263, often referred to as the “online parts ban,” officially takes effect on January 1, 2026—and it’s already creating ripple effects far beyond what most gun owners expected. While much of the early discussion focused on how the law will restrict online purchases of firearm parts and accessories, a newer and more concerning twist is emerging: California gun shops and FFLs may soon face major shortages due to distributor-level compliance requirements.

Starting in 2026, California residents ordering gun parts online must:

• Provide a matching ID and residential address
• Receive shipments only at the address on that ID
• Sign for every single delivery
• Acknowledge a state-mandated statement
• Comply with restrictions covering parts, accessories, 3D printers, and even digital files

Even if a company is still willing to ship to California, every transaction now involves additional hoops—and retailers must comply too.

Most California gun shops source their inventory online from major distributors. That means AB1263’s requirements now apply not just to consumers, but to FFLs bringing inventory into the state.

One major distributor, RSR, has already notified California shops that it will only ship to FFLs who complete and file a new compliance affidavit. This is their method of meeting AB1263’s “reasonable controls” requirement before the law kicks in.

Shops that don’t know about the affidavit—or don’t submit it in time—may soon find themselves cut off from inventory, leading to:

• Empty shelves
• Delayed restocking
• Increased prices
• Widespread confusion in early 2026

With lawsuits already being prepared, the industry expects legal challenges—but courts can take years, and the law will be enforced in the meantime.

AB1263 doesn’t just impact online shoppers. It threatens the entire supply chain for California firearm retailers. Add in exemptions for law enforcement and sweeping restrictions on parts, accessories, and even code, and the law is poised to create:

• A two-tier system of rights
• Major constitutional battles
• Possibly the worst inventory disruptions California gun stores have seen in years

If you buy parts in California—or work at an FFL—January 1, 2026, is shaping up to be chaotic. With distributors already tightening requirements, shortages and confusion are almost guaranteed. Staying informed and preparing early will be critical.

The DOJ has announced a new Second Amendment Section within its Civil Rights Division—an unprecedented move aimed at challenging state-level gun restrictions, excessive permit fees, long delays, and bans on commonly used firearms. Assistant Attorney General Har Dylan says the DOJ will now treat the right to keep and bear arms as a fundamental civil right and has already taken action against states like California, Hawaii, and Illinois.

However, the announcement clashes with the DOJ’s recent decision to defend the National Firearms Act’s registration requirements—despite Congress effectively eliminating the tax foundation the NFA relies on. Members of Congress argue the DOJ is ignoring legislative intent and attempting to preserve an unauthorized federal gun registry.

This mixed messaging leaves gun owners skeptical. While the new 2A section is a major step forward, many question why the DOJ fights state infringements while protecting federal ones. Supporters hope the new division will lead to bold, lasting protections for Second Amendment rights—not just partial measures or political optics.

This documentary-style deep dive traces how a small tax unit inside the U.S. Treasury evolved into the modern ATF—an unelected, unaccountable federal agency wielding far more power than America’s founders ever intended. Beginning in the Prohibition era, the video explains how tax collectors enforcing alcohol laws became the unexpected enforcers of the 1934 NFA, marking the first federal entanglement of firearms and bureaucracy. From the sweeping Gun Control Act of 1968 to the shocking abuses at Ruby Ridge and Waco, the ATF grew through political deals, mission creep, and crisis-driven expansions.

The episode examines how the agency’s authority expanded again after 9/11 and accelerated under the Obama and Biden administrations through aggressive rulemaking—pistol braces, bump stocks, frames and receivers, forced-reset triggers, and more—often bypassing Congress entirely. Courts are now pushing back, striking down ATF overreach and questioning its legal authority to redefine criminal law through regulation. Today the agency is larger, more powerful, and more intrusive than ever, raising urgent questions about accountability, constitutional limits, and the future of the Second Amendment.

The episode concludes by arguing that the ATF has far exceeded its original mandate and now operates as a constitutional threat—one that the founders would have rejected outright. The solution, the narrator says, lies in courts, Congress, the states, and above all an informed citizenry willing to defend natural rights and demand a government that serves the Constitution—not unchecked bureaucracy.

Late last night, it happened again. The Department of Justice—calling itself the “most pro–Second Amendment DOJ ever”—filed a massive 48-page brief defending the National Firearms Act in the high-stakes lawsuit Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. And the lengths they went to in order to keep the NFA alive reveal exactly how the federal government plans to protect gun control during the Trump presidency, even as Congress moves to dismantle it.

This case may become the most important Second Amendment battle in nearly a century—and what the DOJ just filed makes that clearer than ever.

Filed moments after President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill on July 4, 2025, Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF challenges the NFA’s regulations on:

• Suppressors
• Short-barreled rifles (SBRs)
• Short-barreled shotguns (SBSs)
• “Any Other Weapons” (AOWs)

The plaintiffs argue that because the bill zeroed out the NFA’s taxes, the entire regulatory structure collapses. If Congress removed the tax, they argue, the federal government no longer has the constitutional authority to enforce registration, approvals, and criminal penalties.

The lawsuit is a facial challenge—meaning the plaintiffs claim the NFA is unconstitutional in every circumstance for everyone.

At the start of the year, gun owners were promised big wins—national reciprocity, constitutional carry expansion, NFA repeal, and a rollback of federal gun regulations. Instead, Congress delivered minimal reforms, and the DOJ under Pam Bondi has now taken a hard turn in the opposite direction.

After Congress zeroed out the tax on certain NFA items—effectively eliminating the legal basis for the NFA registry—lawmakers sent a letter to the DOJ clarifying that their intent was to deregister these items. The DOJ ignored the letter.

This week, the DOJ filed its response in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, and it shocked the 2A community. In a 48-page memo, the DOJ aggressively defended the NFA using arguments typically heard from anti-gun administrations. They described NFA items as “weapons of war,” claimed short-barreled rifles and shotguns are primarily used by criminals, and even offered logic that could justify banning nearly any firearm.

To the frustration of many, the DOJ even cited Ninth Circuit precedent—one of the least gun-friendly courts in the country.

Despite the DOJ’s stance, Silencer Shop still has a strong case. Both sides are seeking summary judgment, and the outcome could reshape federal gun regulation.

For many gun owners, this filing represents the biggest betrayal yet, proving that the so-called “most pro-2A DOJ ever” is fully committed to preserving the NFA instead of dismantling it.

The Ninth Circuit just heard oral arguments in Sanchez v. Bonta, the major challenge to California’s statewide suppressor ban—and things did not go well for the state. What unfolded in the courtroom on November 18th was a revealing moment that highlighted just how thin California’s legal footing is when defending its prohibition on suppressors.

During the hearing, the attorney representing the state appeared unprepared, uncertain, and unable to articulate a consistent constitutional defense. His core claim was that suppressors are not “weapons” and therefore fall outside the Second Amendment’s plain text, meaning they can be banned outright without historical analogs.

But the real bombshell came when the state’s attorney openly admitted:

• Suppressors are rarely used in crime
• Magazines are “widely owned and rarely used in crime”
• California still banned them anyway

This admission unintentionally reinforced the argument that the state has adopted a pattern of banning commonly owned firearm accessories simply because it prefers to—not because history or facts support the restrictions.

At one point, the state began leaning into a prohibited “interest balancing” approach, essentially saying:

Even if suppressors aren’t used criminally, the state’s desire for safety outweighs any Second Amendment concerns.

This directly contradicts Bruen, which bars courts from weighing government interests against constitutional rights.

In contrast, the attorney for Mr. Sanchez delivered a clear, fact-driven argument grounded in:

• Bruen’s text, history, and tradition test
• The Ninth Circuit’s own precedent in BNL Productions
• The “integrated whole” concept from Duncan, noting that suppressors are part of the operation of a suppressed firearm

His position was simple and strong:

Banning suppressors meaningfully restricts lawful firearm use, and no historical tradition supports California’s ban.

Unfortunately, this wasn’t the strongest three-judge panel gun-rights supporters could have hoped for in the Ninth Circuit. Based on historical patterns, the likely outcome is a 2–1 ruling against Sanchez, though a surprise win isn’t impossible.

Regardless of the panel’s decision, this case is almost guaranteed to be appealed—and it could become a strong candidate for Supreme Court review. With clear conflicts between California’s arguments and the Bruen standard, this case raises foundational questions about states banning an entire class of firearm accessories widely owned nationwide.

Major breaking news rocked the Second Amendment world as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments in Sanchez v. Bonta, a pivotal case challenging California’s statewide ban on suppressors and silencers. Despite the Ninth Circuit’s long history of hostility toward gun rights, two of the three judges on the panel appeared notably sympathetic to the arguments made by the attorneys representing Gary Sanchez, raising real hope for a potential 2–1 pro-2A ruling.

The State of California argued that suppressors are “dangerous” accessories that make it harder for potential victims and law enforcement to detect gunfire or locate a shooter. Their claim hinges on the idea that suppressors have little self-defense utility and are primarily tools that increase criminal capability — despite little to no evidence of suppressors being used in crime nationwide.

Sanchez’s legal team countered with a powerful constitutional argument grounded in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi. Their case centers on several key points:

• Suppressors are arms, or at minimum, directly regulate “arms-bearing conduct,” which falls under the Second Amendment’s protection.
• Millions of suppressors are lawfully owned across the United States, and they are overwhelmingly used for safe, lawful purposes.
• The devices provide critical hearing protection, improve safe firearm handling, enhance self-defense by preventing disorientation during defensive gunfire, and support safer training — something the Supreme Court has expressly recognized as part of the Second Amendment.
• Even under the Ninth Circuit’s own flawed precedent (Duncan v. Bonta), the suppressor ban cannot stand because it prohibits an entire class of commonly owned, constitutionally protected firearms accessories.

California, under questioning from the judges, struggled to provide real-world examples of criminals using suppressors, effectively conceding the point.

A decision could split 2–1 either way, but the tone of the questioning strongly suggests a possible victory for the Second Amendment — at least at the panel level. Whether the Ninth Circuit attempts to rehear the case en banc remains an open question.

For now, gun owners nationwide are watching closely. A win here could open the door for future challenges to suppressor bans across the country.

Two of the nation’s largest police organizations—the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP)—issued a joint letter urging Congress to reject H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, arguing it threatens officer safety, increases legal exposure, and undermines state gun laws.

The unions claim the bill would prevent officers from detaining or arresting individuals solely for firearm possession and would expose officers to lawsuits under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by restricting qualified immunity in gun-related encounters. They also warn that the legislation would require officers to make real-time judgments about 50 different state carry laws, including permitless carry states with no physical permit to verify.

Second Amendment advocates strongly dispute these arguments, noting that mere firearm possession is not a crime and cannot legally justify detentions, searches, or disarmament under the Second, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendments. Critics argue the unions are opposing H.R. 38 not for safety reasons, but because it strengthens civil rights protections and increases accountability when officers overstep constitutional limits.

Supporters of the bill say H.R. 38 simply affirms that lawful gun owners retain their rights when traveling across state lines and prevents states from treating out-of-state carriers as second-class citizens.

The debate highlights a growing national divide between police leadership and gun-rights advocates as Congress weighs whether to advance the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act.

In the post-Heller and post-Bruen era, the Supreme Court has made the Second Amendment’s meaning unmistakably clear: the right to keep and bear arms cannot be treated as a second-class right. Yet in many blue-state jurisdictions, lower courts are finding new ways to limit gun rights despite that guidance.

Today, two major tactics are shaping this resistance.

1. The “Facial Challenge” Game

Some courts are misusing the Salerno rule, which requires a law to be unconstitutional in all applications for a facial challenge to succeed. Instead of evaluating the actual statute, judges are inventing hypothetical, narrower versions of gun laws to save them.

Example: Fairfax County, VA

• The county banned guns in all 420 parks.
• Only four parks have preschools.
• The Fourth Circuit used those four parks to uphold a county-wide ban—imagining a version of the law the legislature never wrote.

This contradicts Heller, where the Supreme Court struck down D.C.’s handgun ban even while acknowledging other permissible restrictions. Courts must evaluate the law as written, not rewrite it to uphold it.

2. Mislabeling Legislative Facts as Adjudicative Facts

This tactic forces gun owners into long, expensive litigation.

• Legislative facts determine constitutionality (history, tradition).
• Adjudicative facts deal with case-specific details (witnesses, experts, trials).

Supreme Court Second Amendment cases—Heller, McDonald, Bruen, Caetano, Rahimi—never required trials or expert testimony. They relied solely on legislative facts. But many lower courts now demand full evidentiary records, delaying decisions for years and leaving unconstitutional laws in place.

These tactics—rewriting laws and dragging cases out—create obstacles designed to weaken the Second Amendment without openly defying the Supreme Court. Following Bruen means:

• Courts must evaluate statutes as written
• Constitutional questions must rely on legislative facts, not trial-style litigation

Only then can the Second Amendment receive the full protection the Supreme Court intended.