The Fourth District Court of Appeal issued an 18-page unanimous opinion declaring that the right to bear arms is not a “second-class right” for legal adults under 21.

“The plain text of the Second Amendment covers the right of 18- to 20-year-olds to the public carry of firearms, which would include concealed carry as a manner of public carry.”

Republican Attorney General James Uthmeier drew criticism from gun-control advocates after he refused to defend the age restriction against a challenge brought by two public defenders in Broward County, the Orlando Sun-Sentinel reported in February.

The case involved Jalen Eubanks, who was arrested for carrying a concealed weapon after he told police he displayed the firearm to deter two men threatening him.

Judge Spencer D. Levine, writing for the panel, highlighted the contradiction of encouraging 18-year-olds to join the military while denying them the right to carry firearms for self-defense.

“All those who reach the age of 18 are able, and encouraged, for example, to join the military to defend our country,” Levine wrote. “Yet those very same law-abiding adults are burdened in their ability to exercise the same Second Amendment rights that other adults have.”

He continued: “Eighteen- to 20-year-olds can defend the country without restriction but can only utilize their Second Amendment right to self-defense with severe restrictions.”

In another win for the unalienable rights of Floridians, the 4th DCA agreed with our position that Florida’s law banning adults under 21 from conceal carrying a firearm is unconstitutional.

We will not seek further review and will work with @FDACS to implement the court’s order.

— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) June 17, 2026

The appeals court became involved after conflicting rulings in lower courts in Broward County involving 19-year-olds carrying firearms.

Uthmeier announced he would not appeal the ruling and would instead work with the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services to implement the court’s order.

“In another win for the unalienable rights of Floridians, the 4th DCA agreed with our position that Florida’s law banning adults under 21 from conceal carrying a firearm is unconstitutional,” Uthmeier posted on X.

Gov. Ron DeSantis signed legislation making Florida a constitutional carry state in April 2023, ending the permit requirement for concealed carry for those meeting certain criteria.

Polis signed HB26-1126 on June 2. The statute lets any peace officer inspect gun store records at any time, for any reason, with no warrant required.

The Colorado State Shooting Association (CSSA) and Colorado Federal Firearms Licensees Association filed the challenge on Fourth Amendment grounds. The law takes effect January 1, 2027.

“The statute provides no notice of regularity, empowers an overbroad class of inspectors with no nexus to firearms regulation, imposes no temporal or frequency limitations, and places no restrictions on the manner of inspections.”

Federal firearms law allows inspections only by ATF agents, only during business hours, and no more than once every 12 months absent narrow exceptions. Colorado’s statute imposes none of those limits.

Today we announced the filing of a federal lawsuit against House Bill 26-1126. This bill allows government agents to walk into gun stores and obtain the records of law-abiding citizens without a warrant, probable cause, or even a stated reason.

CSSA warned @GovofCO that signing… pic.twitter.com/EiME6krMqH

— Colorado State Shooting Association (@CSSA1926) June 13, 2026

Gun dealers who refuse to cooperate face misdemeanor charges under the new law.

Daniel Fenelson, CSSA director of operations, said the statute won’t stop criminals.

“Criminals do not follow gun laws. They never have and never will,” Fenelson said. “They steal firearms, obtain them on the black market and use other illegal means to obtain these weapons.”

Colorado already faces two DOJ lawsuits — one over its ban on magazines holding more than 15 rounds, another over Denver’s ban on modern semiautomatic firearms.

Polis did not respond to a request for comment.

Edward Cockerham pled guilty to possessing a firearm after his Mississippi felony conviction, but appealed. Fifth Circuit Judge James Ho, a Trump appointee, ruled the lifetime gun ban for a non-violent offense violated the Second Amendment.

The Supreme Court left in place a Fifth Circuit ruling that the federal felon-in-possession firearm law cannot be applied to a Mississippi man whose only felony conviction was nonpayment of child support. pic.twitter.com/C5HjWiTnp3

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) June 8, 2026

Ho distinguished Cockerham’s case from violent crime. The government compared failure to pay child support to theft, but Ho rejected that.

“The Government analogizes failure to pay child support to theft. But during the Founding era, thieves were treated differently from debtors. Thieves were subject to permanent disarmament. Debtors were not.”

Ho noted debtors could be imprisoned — and thus temporarily disarmed — but were released upon paying their debt. Cockerham was no longer delinquent when found with the firearm, the government acknowledged.

Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon told the Daily Caller News Foundation the DOJ routinely defends laws it may not agree with.

“I understand people have policy differences with DOJ’s enforcement of federal laws, but, in my opinion, and I’ve said this to many gun groups, the appropriate place to launch those policy discussions is in Congress, not with us,” Dhillon said.

Second Amendment Foundation Director of Legal Research Konstadinos Moros said the Fifth Circuit’s decision aligns with the Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling in United States v. Rahimi.

“SAF was happy to hear the Supreme Court declined to review this case, as the Fifth Circuit reached the correct ruling: dangerousness must be the standard for disarmament, and many nonviolent felons are not dangerous,” Moros told the DCNF. “That includes Mr. Cockerham, whose crime was failing to pay child support.”

Moros cautioned the Court’s refusal to review doesn’t necessarily mean it agrees with the lower court. Still, he said, it may signal the high court is sticking to the Rahimi standard: actual dangerousness is required to strip Second Amendment rights.

The upcoming ruling in US v. Hemani — a Fifth Circuit case overturning a conviction for firearm possession by a drug user — should clarify the Court’s position further. Arguments were heard in March; the decision is pending.

Patriots across Colorado are sounding the alarm as the state government makes a move against our Second Amendment rights. In a bold step, the Democratic leadership has pushed through Senate Bill 3, which could effectively ban up to 85% of rifles, marking a significant setback for gun owners in the state. This controversial law, signed by Gov. Jared Polis, specifically targets semiautomatic weapons with detachable magazines, such as the AR-15 and AK-47, alongside certain shotguns and handguns.

As reported by the Colorado Sun, these drastic measures will take effect in August 2026. The implications are concerning, especially for those who value their right to bear arms. The law mandates that firearms must now be sold with magazines permanently affixed and limited to just 15 rounds. Although existing Colorado laws restrict magazine capacity, these new regulations take it to a whole new level.

The impact on the arms industry in Colorado could be devastating. Ian Escalante, executive director of Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, predicts that the law will affect a significant portion of firearms, potentially crippling the industry. He warns that manufacturers would need to redesign firearms entirely, causing prices to soar and possibly driving businesses out of the state.

There are a few exceptions to this new rule, primarily for military, law enforcement, and certain security personnel. However, for the everyday citizen, acquiring a firearm with a detachable magazine will become a bureaucratic nightmare. The process involves vetting by a county sheriff, background checks, and mandatory classes to obtain a “firearms safety course eligibility card.” Even then, additional training and testing are required before purchasing a weapon.

While the law does not affect firearms currently owned by Coloradoans, the potential for future restrictions looms large. Gun-rights groups are already mobilizing to challenge the bill in court, seeking to defend the constitutional rights of citizens. The outcome could set a precedent for gun laws nationally, as any Supreme Court decision against the law would bolster the pro-gun movement.

As Escalante aptly put it, this legislation isn’t just about enforcing magazine bans. It’s about reducing gun ownership and eroding the pro-gun base within Colorado. The fight for our Second Amendment rights is far from over, and it’s crucial to stay informed and engaged in the ongoing battle for freedom.

Attention Gun Owners: Has this ever happened to you?

You’re all packed for a road trip or vacation, ready to set off into the great unknown, when suddenly it hits you—you’re armed but unsure about the local gun laws of your destination. As a law-abiding citizen, it’s your right to protect yourself and your loved ones. But navigating the complex web of gun laws across state lines can be daunting. Inadvertently breaking these laws can result in fines, handcuffs, and losing your firearm.

Thankfully, there’s a solution. A 100% free Gun Law Map is now available to every proud American gun owner. This invaluable resource provides answers to critical concealed carry questions, ensuring you’re well-informed no matter where you travel. Click here to discover the answers to crucial questions like:

• Which states honor my concealed carry permit?
• How do I legally carry a gun in my vehicle while traveling?
• Which states require me to disclose my firearm to a police officer during a traffic stop?
• How many rounds can my magazine legally hold?
• Can I legally carry in state and national parks and forests?
• Can I legally carry in bars or restaurants that serve alcohol?
• Can I legally carry at roadside rest areas?
• Can I legally have a gun in my hotel room?
• Are “No Weapons Allowed” signs enforceable by law in my state?

This interactive map is updated regularly to reflect the ever-evolving gun laws across our great nation. It empowers you to responsibly and confidently exercise your rights while ensuring compliance with local regulations. Don’t risk ruining your travel plans over an unintentional legal misstep. With this tool, you can focus on enjoying your journey without the worry.

Access your 100% free Gun Law Map today and travel with confidence. Click here to get started.

In a disturbing blow to defenders of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court has upheld a Biden Administration rule targeting “ghost guns,” the untraceable firearms that have long symbolized freedom for patriots and hobbyists across our great nation.

In a 7-2 decision, the court endorsed an audacious overreach by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), requiring serial numbers, background checks, and age verification for gun kits purchased online.

Previously, a three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, all appointed by former President Donald Trump, argued that a 2022 rule regarding weapons assembled from parts bought online without a background check overstepped the agency’s authority.

The rule has controversially redefined the legal meaning of “firearm,” “frame,” and “receiver” as defined in the Gun Control Act of 1968. Judge Kurt Engelhardt commented in the decision that, “law-making power—the ability to transform policy into real-world obligations—lies solely with the legislative branch.”

“An agency cannot label conduct lawful one day and felonious the next—yet that is exactly what ATF accomplishes through its Final Rule,” he wrote.

Judge Andrew Oldham, in a concurring opinion, lambasted the ATF with a barrage of sharp criticism.

“ATF’s overarching goal in the Final Rule is to replace a clear, bright-line rule with a vague, indeterminate, multi-factor balancing test. ATF’s rationale: The new uncertainty will act like a Sword of Damocles hanging over the heads of American gun owners,” Oldham wrote, drawing on an ancient tale of a deadly blade suspended by a single strand of horsehair.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court supported the Biden regime’s regulation imposing stringent controls on so-called “ghost guns.”

The pivotal case, Bondi v. VanDerStok, involved the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF)’s 2022 rule that redefined “firearm” under the Gun Control Act of 1968 to encompass certain weapon parts kits and unfinished frames and receivers—items that law-abiding hobbyists, veterans, and collectors have utilized for years to construct their own firearms legally at home.

Despite the clear language of the statute, the Supreme Court—led by Justice Neil Gorsuch and supported by the Court’s liberal bloc—determined that the ATF’s extensive interpretation was not “facially inconsistent” with the law. This decision represents a significant victory for the previous administration.

In plain terms, your semi-milled piece of aluminum is now a “firearm” because the ATF dictates it.

Even more perilous is the precedent this sets: if the government can label an unfinished product as a “weapon,” what’s to stop them from extending that logic to raw materials, tools, or even 3D printer files?

This 7-2 decision mandates that firearm kits sold online must include serial numbers and that purchasers must undergo background checks and age verification.

Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito stood firm, dissenting in their defense of constitutional gun rights.

Justice Thomas, in a powerful dissent, accused the Court’s majority of rewriting federal law to grant more power to the executive branch—specifically unelected bureaucrats at ATF. He warns that by accepting the ATF’s interpretation, the Court opens the door to further regulatory overreach without Congressional authorization.

Thomas rejects the majority’s reliance on the concept of “artifact nouns” (used to describe unfinished objects), asserting that this linguistic theory has no place in serious statutory interpretation.

Alito agrees with Thomas and adds that the ATF’s rule targets people who lawfully build firearms at home, with overly vague regulations. Alito criticizes the ATF for regulating not just nearly-complete frames, but also tools, jigs, and even instructions. He warns this is a massive expansion of power.

Alito highlights the risk of selective enforcement: lacking clear boundaries could mean innocent Americans may face prosecution without realizing they broke any law.

Read the full ruling below:

View Fullscreen

In a striking incident highlighting ongoing tensions between conservative values and liberal policies, Colorado State Rep. Ken DeGraaf was compelled to cover a “Shall Not Be Infringed – 2A” sticker on his laptop during a House session. The sticker, representing a staunch support for the Second Amendment, was labeled “offensive” amidst the heated debate over SB25-003. This bill aims to curb the manufacture, distribution, and sale of certain semiautomatic firearms, branding rapid-fire devices as “dangerous weapons.”

The legislation also proposes a Firearm Owner Identification (FOID) system, demanding verification of firearms safety courses by instructors, and requiring federal firearms licensees to ascertain a buyer’s eligibility for semiautomatic firearms.

Rep. DeGraaf, in a bold statement during the session, declared, “I had to cover up this, they couldn’t stand my sticker. It said ‘shall not be infringed’ and signed ‘2A’ and that was considered offensive, which I understand would be offensive to this bill.”

To give you an idea of what we are facing on the ground here in Colorado: A representative was forced to cover a sticker on his laptop that read “Shall not be infringed – 2A” because it was deemed “offensive”

— National Association for Gun Rights (@NatlGunRights)
March 21, 2025

During the fiery discourse, Rep. DeGraaf, known for his unwavering opposition to the bill, accused his Democratic peers of being perturbed by the U.S. Constitution itself. As reported by Fox News, DeGraaf expressed his indignation at being instructed to conceal the sticker. He was informed that such displays are prohibited in the chamber’s “well,” located between the front desk and the first row of member seats.

With a touch of sarcasm, Rep. DeGraaf retorted, “So OK, no displays of the Constitution in the well, got it.”

Concealed carry permit holders are stepping up to the plate, stopping active shooters more often than police! A recent study conducted by the Crime Prevention Research Center reveals that responsible, law-abiding gun owners are proving to be effective in neutralizing threats, ensuring the safety of those around them.

Dr. John Lott joins us to delve into these compelling statistics, showcasing how these gun owners are not only utilizing their firearms safely but also enhancing public security.

Meanwhile, the Department of Education is inching closer to dissolution. We explore why dismantling it is beneficial and discuss which agencies are poised to assume its responsibilities that cannot be devolved to individual states.

For more insightful commentary, tune into Grant Stinchfield, host of “Stinchfield Tonight” on Real America’s Voice, weeknights at 7 PM ET. Broadcasting from Dallas, TX, he stands firmly against the radical left. Catch him on AM870 “The Answer” in Los Angeles, CA. Reach out to Grant Stinchfield here and dive into more of his articles here.

Gun Owners, Does This Sound Familiar?

The car is finally packed, and you’re ready to hit the road. But then “it” hits you: You’re carrying a firearm, but you’re unsure about the gun laws in your destination. Vacations, road trips, or family visits should be relaxing for law-abiding citizens like you. You just want to protect yourself and your loved ones, but memorizing every state’s laws is no easy feat. Break just one, and you might find yourself facing fines, handcuffs, and potentially losing your gun.

That’s exactly why this 100% free gun law map is a must-have for every American gun owner. This newly updated resource is now available to help you navigate these complex laws seamlessly.

Click here to discover the answers to the most important concealed carry questions for every state like…

• Which states honor my concealed carry permit?
• How do I legally carry a gun in my vehicle while traveling?
• Which states require me to reveal that I have a gun to a police officer during a traffic stop?
• How many rounds can my magazine legally hold?
• Can I legally carry in state and national parks and forests?
• Can I legally carry in bars or restaurants that serve alcohol (even with my permit)?
• Can I legally carry at roadside rest areas?
• Can I legally have a gun in my hotel room?
• Are “No Weapons Allowed” signs enforceable by law in my state?

There are numerous other essential facts you should be aware of. If you ever cross state lines, this free gun law map is your best guide. It’s an interactive tool that provides current laws for any state you may visit, continually updated to ensure you have the latest information. Avoid the risk of being unexpectedly arrested for laws you weren’t aware of, and focus on enjoying your travels.

Click here to get your 100% free gun law map today.

In a bold move that’s causing ripples throughout Washington, a former Biden-era pardon attorney has publicly criticized the Department of Justice, asserting that her dismissal was tied to her refusal to restore Mel Gibson’s gun rights. Elizabeth Oyer, who was recently let go by President Trump’s newly appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, expressed her frustration in an interview with The New York Times.

According to Oyer, the controversy centers around Gibson, whose access to firearms was restricted following a 2011 “no contest” plea to a misdemeanor battery charge involving a former girlfriend. “Giving guns back to domestic abusers is a serious matter that, in my view, is not something that I could recommend lightly because there are real consequences that flow from people who have a history of domestic violence being in possession of firearms,” Oyer told The New York Times.

However, the Justice Department has countered Oyer’s claims. A DOJ official, speaking to ABC News, refuted the notion that the Gibson issue was linked to her removal. More details were shared in an ABC News report:

A top official leading the Justice Department’s Office of the Pardon Attorney said she was fired from her post one day after refusing to recommend that actor Mel Gibson’s access to firearms be restored, according to a new interview and a statement provided to ABC News on Tuesday.

In the interview, Oyer explained that the request to include Gibson’s name on a list of individuals whose gun rights should be reinstated came unexpectedly. This request followed a special appointment Gibson received from President Trump, prompting his attorneys to appeal directly to senior DOJ officials.

Oyer alleged that after her initial refusal, she received pressure from a senior official in Todd Blanche’s office to reconsider, emphasizing Gibson’s close ties with President Trump. Yet, a DOJ source, who wished to remain anonymous, insisted that this contention over gun rights had no bearing on Oyer’s dismissal.