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.

In a stunning admission that undercuts decades of gun control arguments, anti-gun outlets have now confirmed what Second Amendment advocates have said all along: magazines holding more than 10 rounds are overwhelmingly common and widely owned by law-abiding Americans.

According to a recent article published by The Trace in partnership with Rolling Stone, at least 717 million detachable firearm magazines holding more than 10 rounds were produced and distributed in the United States between 1990 and 2021. Even more significant, the report acknowledges that roughly 443 million of those magazines hold 30 rounds or more, based on data from the National Shooting Sports Foundation.

This matters legally. Under Supreme Court precedent, an arm can only be banned if it is both dangerous and unusual. With hundreds of millions of standard-capacity magazines in circulation, these devices are clearly not unusual, and therefore cannot be constitutionally banned.

The Supreme Court has also made clear—most recently in Bruen—that any instrument which facilitates armed self-defense is protected under the Second Amendment. Magazines are essential components of modern firearms, widely used for lawful purposes such as home defense, sport shooting, and training.

Ironically, by attempting to criticize gun owners, these outlets have instead provided powerful evidence that magazine bans are unconstitutional. Their own reporting confirms that standard-capacity magazines are in common use across America, reinforcing the legal case against 10-round limits and similar restrictions.

Sometimes the truth comes from the least expected places—and when it does, it only strengthens the Second Amendment.

Gun owners received a major Christmas gift this year as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit delivered one of the most important Second Amendment rulings of 2025. In a landmark decision, the court dealt a crippling blow to gun waiting periods by allowing a ruling against New Mexico’s seven-day “cooling-off” period to stand.

New Mexico’s law, enacted in 2024, forced most law-abiding citizens to wait a full week before taking possession of a firearm—even after passing a background check. Gun rights groups immediately challenged the law, arguing that a right delayed is a right denied.

In August, a three-judge panel ruled that the waiting period likely violates the Second Amendment, finding no historical tradition supporting blanket delays on firearm acquisition. This week, the full Tenth Circuit refused to rehear the case en banc, making the ruling binding precedent.

The Tenth Circuit covers Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming, meaning courts throughout the region must now follow this guidance. The ruling also strengthens challenges to waiting periods in other states, including California, Washington, and Hawaii.

The court made clear that the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to acquire arms, and that governments cannot impose arbitrary delays without historical justification under the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard.

If other circuits adopt this reasoning—or if conflicting rulings emerge—this case could force the U.S. Supreme Court to finally address waiting periods nationwide.

For now, New Mexico’s law is effectively dead, and the decision stands as a powerful reminder that constitutional rights cannot be paused, postponed, or placed on hold by the government.

Merry Christmas to the Second Amendment.

Just days before Christmas, gun owners received a massive legal win. In a historic decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit dealt a major blow to firearm waiting periods, ruling that New Mexico’s seven-day “cooling-off” period likely violates the Second Amendment.

Waiting periods—sometimes lasting up to ten days—are imposed in roughly a dozen states and are justified by lawmakers as a way to force citizens to “cool off” before exercising a constitutional right. Courts have long dismissed these delays as minor burdens. That changed this week.

In August, a three-judge panel ruled that New Mexico’s waiting period unlawfully prevents the lawful acquisition of arms and lacks any relevant historical analog. This week, the full Tenth Circuit refused to rehear the case en banc, allowing the pro-Second Amendment ruling to stand.

The court ordered the case sent back to the district court with instructions to enter an injunction, making New Mexico’s waiting period unenforceable.

This decision is now binding precedent within the Tenth Circuit, which covers Colorado, New Mexico, Kansas, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming. It also strengthens challenges to waiting periods in other states—including California’s 10-day delay.

If the Ninth Circuit upholds California’s law, this ruling could create a circuit split, dramatically increasing the chances that the Supreme Court takes up the issue.

For the first time, a federal circuit court has clearly recognized what gun owners have long argued: a right delayed is a right denied. This landmark victory could mark the beginning of the end for waiting periods across the country.

Merry Christmas indeed.

In a first-of-its-kind move, the U.S. Department of Justice has officially filed a lawsuit challenging a ban on commonly owned semi-automatic firearms, including AR-15–style rifles. This marks a historic shift in federal legal strategy and a major development for the Second Amendment.

The lawsuit, United States of America v. District of Columbia, directly challenges Washington, D.C.’s so-called “assault weapon” ban. According to the DOJ, these firearms are protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment and long-standing Supreme Court precedent, including District of Columbia v. Heller.

For the first time, the Department of Justice has taken the official position that bans on firearms in common use for lawful purposes are unconstitutional. The DOJ argues that D.C.’s law violates both the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings that explicitly prohibit banning commonly owned arms.

This lawsuit was filed by the DOJ’s newly created Second Amendment Section within the Civil Rights Division—an office designed to target constitutional infringements nationwide.

This case is significant for several reasons:

• The AR-15 is the most popular semi-automatic rifle in America, clearly meeting the “common use” standard.
• A favorable ruling could create a circuit split, increasing the likelihood of Supreme Court review.
• It represents a dramatic shift from past DOJ positions that often defended restrictive gun laws.

Attorney General Pam Bondi stated that living in the nation’s capital should not strip law-abiding citizens of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms—a principle that could have nationwide implications.

While skepticism toward the DOJ remains warranted, this action deserves recognition. The federal government is now affirmatively defending the Second Amendment in court, something that has not happened before at this level.

This case could be a major turning point—and one worth watching closely.

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.