Monday brought new developments from the United States Supreme Court as the justices released their latest orders list, revealing decisions on several high-profile Second Amendment cases. While some outcomes were disappointing, others remain very much alive and could still shape the future of gun rights nationwide.

Two important cases were officially denied certiorari. The first, Perez v. United States, asked whether the Second Amendment presumptively protects the right to acquire firearms. The second, Mares v. Massachusetts, involved interstate travel with firearms. Their denial means the Court declined to directly address those questions at this time.

However, there is still reason for cautious optimism. Three major cases—Duncan v. Bont (California’s magazine ban), Gators Customs Guns v. Washington (Washington’s magazine ban), and Vera Montes v. Cook County (Illinois’ rifle ban)—were not denied. Instead, all three were rescheduled for conference again, now set for later this week. While repeated rescheduling can be frustrating, it also means the Court has not closed the door.

Adding to the significance of this moment, a new case has entered the spotlight. NAGR v. Lamont, out of Connecticut, has officially received its first Supreme Court conference date. This case challenges both rifle bans and magazine bans simultaneously, and if accepted, it could have sweeping nationwide implications.

For now, the Supreme Court continues to deliberate, leaving several of the most consequential Second Amendment cases in limbo. While two petitions were denied, the survival of multiple magazine and rifle ban challenges keeps hope alive. As always, developments at the Court can move quickly, and these upcoming conferences could prove pivotal for the future of the Second Amendment.

A major Second Amendment victory quietly flew under the radar this week as the White House announced that the United States has withdrawn from dozens of international entities that do not serve American interests. Among the most significant moves: President Donald Trump formally ended U.S. participation in the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, including reporting related to small arms and civilian firearms.

This decision reinforces a fundamental constitutional principle—America does not answer to international bodies when it comes to the rights of its citizens, especially the right to keep and bear arms. By withdrawing cooperation with the UN arms registry framework, the Trump administration rejected the notion that civilian firearm ownership is subject to global oversight, international data collection, or foreign “best practices.”

The UN Register of Conventional Arms, originally created in 1991, has increasingly shifted focus from tanks and fighter jets to small arms and light weapons, the same category that includes firearms lawfully owned by American civilians. While participation is technically voluntary, the registry plays a key role in shaping global norms that treat gun ownership as a controllable risk rather than a protected right.

Supporters of the Second Amendment understand why this matters. History shows that registration often precedes restriction and confiscation, and international frameworks normalize the idea that civilian arms ownership should be monitored. Once accepted globally, those standards are frequently cited by domestic agencies, lawmakers, and advocacy groups to justify tighter controls at home.

By withdrawing from the UN arms registry, the United States drew a clear line in the sand. Firearms policy remains a domestic constitutional issue, not an international bargaining chip. The Second Amendment is not negotiable, not subject to global consensus, and not granted by government—it is a pre-existing right meant to keep power in check.

For gun owners and constitutionalists, this move wasn’t symbolic. It was a reaffirmation of American sovereignty, natural rights, and the principle that freedom does not require permission—especially from the United Nations.

A major shift is underway in the national conversation surrounding concealed carry and the Second Amendment. In a striking development, three prominent federal judges have publicly argued in favor of nationwide concealed carry, citing the confusion and danger posed by America’s patchwork of gun laws when traveling across state lines.

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Judges Elizabeth Branch (11th Circuit), Robert Wilkins (D.C. Circuit), and Trevor McFadden (D.C. District Court) endorsed Senator Tom Cotton’s Protect Our Prosecutors and Judges Act. The proposal would allow federal judges and prosecutors who complete firearms training to carry concealed nationwide—similar to existing protections under LEOSA for law enforcement.

Their argument is simple but powerful: judges travel frequently, face credible threats, and are often forced to disarm due to inconsistent state laws. In doing so, they unintentionally underscore the very problem gun owners have raised for decades—constitutional rights should not disappear at state borders.

While the proposal would apply only to judges and prosecutors, its broader impact cannot be ignored. As more members of the judiciary experience lawful concealed carry firsthand, it helps normalize armed self-defense and exposes the flaws in restrictive gun control narratives. That shift expands the Overton window toward nationwide reciprocity for all law-abiding Americans.

Although concerns remain about creating a two-tiered system of rights, this development signals growing institutional recognition that the current legal maze surrounding concealed carry is unworkable. Incremental change has already transformed the country, with nearly 30 states now recognizing permitless carry.

The trend is clear: familiarity breeds understanding. And understanding—especially within the judiciary—may ultimately pave the way for true nationwide concealed carry under the Second Amendment.

A major development at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals could reshape the future of Second Amendment jurisprudence nationwide. In Roodie v. Bonta, a case challenging California’s ammunition background check regime, momentum is rapidly shifting against the state’s restrictive gun laws.

California currently requires a background check and fee for every single ammunition purchase, bans direct-to-home delivery, restricts interstate purchases, and layers these rules on top of an additional 11% tax on firearms and accessories. The result is a system that conditions the exercise of a constitutional right on repeated government permission—one that has been shown to fail thousands of lawful buyers.

This week, the U.S. Department of Justice took the extraordinary step of not only filing an amicus brief supporting Olympic gold medalist Kim Roodie, but also formally requesting to participate in oral arguments before the Ninth Circuit. Oral arguments are scheduled for March, and the DOJ will argue that access to ammunition is inseparable from the right to keep and bear arms.

Even more significant, a massive coalition of states—including Texas, Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and more than 20 others—along with the Arizona State Legislature, filed a joint brief supporting Roodie. Major Second Amendment organizations have also weighed in, creating one of the largest pro–Second Amendment coalitions ever assembled in a Ninth Circuit case.

At its core, this case challenges whether a state can tax, fee, and regulate a constitutional right into near nonexistence. With the DOJ, a majority of states, and leading constitutional scholars aligned against California, Roodie v. Bonta may become the breakthrough case that finally cracks the Ninth Circuit’s long-standing resistance to Second Amendment protections.

The stakes are enormous—and this case is one to watch closely.

A newly proposed federal bill should alarm every American who values the Second Amendment. Senators Cory Booker and Andy Kim have introduced legislation known as the Federal Firearms Licensing Act, a sweeping proposal that would require citizens to obtain a federal license just to purchase, receive, or possess a firearm.

Under the bill’s language, firearm ownership would no longer be treated as a fundamental right, but as a government-granted privilege. Without a valid federal firearms purchasing license, possession itself would be illegal. This represents a complete inversion of the Second Amendment, which recognizes gun ownership as a pre-existing right—not one granted by the state.

The requirements to obtain this license are extensive and burdensome. Applicants would be required to complete mandatory firearms training, pass written and live-fire exams, submit fingerprints, undergo background investigations, provide proof of identity, and even disclose the make, model, serial number, and seller of the firearm they intend to acquire—before being allowed to purchase it. Even after completing these steps, the government would have up to 30 days to decide whether to issue the license, which would expire after five years and could be revoked at any time.

This type of licensing scheme mirrors gun control models seen in states like New York and New Jersey, where rights have steadily been transformed into permissions through regulation, fees, and administrative delays. While the bill may not advance in the current Congress, it serves as a clear warning of what could come with a shift in political power.

History shows that unconstitutional gun laws are often passed and enforced regardless of legality, forcing citizens to fight them in court after the damage is done. That’s why proposals like this cannot be ignored or dismissed as unlikely. They are trial balloons, signaling future attempts to federalize gun control.

Now is the time to stay engaged, contact lawmakers, and make it clear that the Second Amendment is not negotiable. Liberty is fragile, and once a right becomes a privilege, reclaiming it is far more difficult.

Virginia House Bill 217 is not a routine gun control proposal—it is a sweeping rewrite of firearm law that would fundamentally criminalize lawful gun ownership across the Commonwealth. Introduced after Democrats regained control, HB 217 represents one of the most aggressive state-level gun control efforts in the country.

The bill dramatically expands Virginia’s definition of so-called “assault firearms,” capturing most common semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns based on standard features such as detachable magazines, threaded barrels, adjustable stocks, pistol grips, and muzzle devices. These are not rare or unusual weapons—they are among the most commonly owned firearms in America.

HB 217 would make it a criminal offense to manufacture, sell, import, purchase, or transfer any firearm that falls under this expanded definition. Law-abiding citizens, dealers, and manufacturers alike would face misdemeanor charges simply for engaging in ordinary, previously lawful activity.

The bill also bans standard-capacity magazines over ten rounds, effectively outlawing common AR-15 magazines and many handgun magazines used for home defense. In addition, adults aged 18 to 20—who can vote, serve in the military, and sign contracts—would be prohibited from possessing firearms arbitrarily redefined by lawmakers.

Perhaps most troubling, HB 217 strips firearm rights after misdemeanor convictions, imposing a three-year prohibition on gun ownership and authorizing seizure and forfeiture of firearms, magazines, and accessories. This is not based on violent conduct, but on paperwork offenses and minor crimes.

HB 217 is not about public safety—it is about control. It punishes possession rather than behavior, turns ordinary citizens into criminals, and lays the groundwork for confiscation. While the bill would almost certainly face constitutional challenges under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard, the damage to gun owners would occur long before any court ruling.

What happens in Virginia rarely stays in Virginia. Bills like HB 217 set a dangerous precedent, and gun owners nationwide should be paying close attention.

A newly introduced bill in Utah should alarm every American who values self-defense as a fundamental right. House Bill 133, titled Use of Force Reporting Requirements, would require individuals who lawfully use force—including deadly force—in self-defense to report themselves to law enforcement or risk losing key legal protections.

On its face, the bill may sound administrative. In reality, it transforms self-defense into a conditional privilege, not a right. Under HB133, failure to promptly report a defensive use of force could bar an individual from asserting self-defense protections during critical pretrial proceedings, including justification hearings that can dismiss charges before trial.

This proposal is especially concerning because it applies even when force is clearly lawful. The “use of force” definition is broad and undefined, potentially encompassing everything from verbal commands to physical force or firearm use. Citizens who are injured, hospitalized, disoriented, or simply focused on getting to safety could find themselves punished not for wrongdoing—but for failing to meet a reporting requirement.

Utah has long been viewed as a strong self-defense state, recognizing no duty to retreat and providing presumptions of reasonableness in home and vehicle defense. HB133 undermines those protections by shifting the burden onto the victim and creating legal traps that prosecutors can exploit after the fact.

The bill also raises serious constitutional concerns beyond the Second Amendment. By conditioning legal defenses on compelled reporting, the state risks infringing on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. Citizens should never be forced to choose between remaining silent and preserving their constitutional protections.

This is how gun control advances in states that would never pass outright bans—through procedural hurdles, reporting mandates, and technical penalties that make people hesitate before defending themselves. And hesitation in a violent encounter can be deadly.

If this approach succeeds in Utah, it will not stay there. Mandatory self-defense reporting laws could quickly spread to other states under the guise of “reasonable” reform. Self-defense is not a bureaucratic process—it is a natural, constitutional right. Any law that conditions it on paperwork or timelines is an infringement, plain and simple.

In its first major Second Amendment action of 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice has taken a stunning position—supporting gun owners in a high-profile case challenging California’s ammunition background check system.

In Rhode v. Bonta, now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the DOJ filed an amicus brief arguing that California’s requirement for a background check every time ammunition is purchased is unconstitutional, historically unprecedented, and intentionally designed to frustrate the exercise of the Second Amendment.

The DOJ did not mince words, describing California’s system as “onerous,” “cumbersome,” and “unnecessarily complicated.” Under the law, gun owners must navigate multiple approval pathways, pay repeated fees, and deal with approvals that can expire in as little as 18 hours. Tens of thousands of lawful gun owners are wrongly denied each year due to bureaucratic errors—not criminal disqualifications.

Most importantly, the DOJ squarely rejected California’s claim that ammunition regulations fall outside Second Amendment protection. The brief makes a simple but devastating point: without ammunition, firearms are useless, and a right to keep and bear arms necessarily includes the right to acquire ammunition.

Applying the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, the DOJ concluded that buying ammunition is protected conduct and that California failed to identify any historical tradition supporting ammunition background checks. No such laws existed during the Founding, Reconstruction, or early 20th century—making California’s system constitutionally indefensible.

The DOJ also warned that constitutional violations do not require outright bans. Fees, delays, paperwork, and bureaucratic exhaustion can all amount to unlawful infringement when designed to discourage lawful conduct.

If the Ninth Circuit adopts this reasoning, the impact will extend far beyond California, threatening ammunition permit schemes and transaction-by-transaction controls nationwide. More importantly, it sends a clear message: governments cannot use administrative warfare to erode constitutional rights.

For gun owners across the country, this filing represents one of the strongest pro-Second Amendment positions taken by the DOJ in years—and a potential turning point in how courts evaluate regulatory abuse of fundamental rights.

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.