What’s New— California: AB1743 seeks to expand who can access firearm tracing information: Colorado: SB26-004 is on its way to the Governor; SB26-043 failed on its Second Reading in the House 22-39; HB26-1126 passed the House on March 16, 34-28; Florida: In the case of Morgan v. State of Florida, the Attorney General has restated the position of Florida; Georgia: only two days left to pass SB499; Hawaii: Expanding red flag laws is on the legislative agenda this week. SB2517 and HB2062 are on the move; Kansas: HB2501 on its way to Governor Kelly; Kentucky: HB78 on its way to Governor Beshear; Maine: The Joint Judiciary Committee voted against passing LD1831 but more votes are scheduled; Minnesota: 5 out of 6 bills are moving through the legislature; New York: S5813A, which proposes an 11% excise tax on the sale of firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition, has been introduced; Utah: Governor Cox signed HB214; Washington: Governor Bob Ferguson signed both HB2521 and HB2320; Pistol Brace Updates
State Legislatures
Legislatures adjourned sine die: Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
State legislatures not in session: Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Texas.
California: AB1743 seeks to expand who can access firearm tracing information held in the state’s Department of Justice Automated Firearms System (AFS). Currently, it has passed the Assembly Public Safety Committee with a Do Pass.
- However, CRPA describes AB1743 as part of a pattern where laws passed under a “protect public safety” banner initially seem like reasonable restrictions but are then expanded “past all common sense simply to hassle law-abiding gun owners.”
- That framing supports an argument that the real aim is to burden a disliked, politically unpopular group (gun owners and Second Amendment supporters), suggesting viewpoint‑or identity‑based targeting disguised as neutral safety regulation.
- This highlights the core of a chilling effect. People who would normally lawfully acquire or own firearms will reasonably hesitate if doing so requires permanently entering a database that the Legislature plans to expand to include non-law enforcement entities. The Constitution does not permit the State to suppress the exercise of a fundamental right by instilling fear of disclosure.
Colorado: SB26-004 expands Colorado’s already dangerous red flag law, passed both Houses, and is on its way to the Governor. SB26-043, requiring sales or transfer of a barrel through a federally licensed dealer, failed on its Second Reading in the House-22-39 HB26-1126: The Gun Store Annihilation Act would force every gun store in Colorado to keep a running registry of every customer who buys anything, passed the House on March 16, 34-28.
Florida: In the case of Morgan v. the State of Florida, an appeal from his conviction in Florida for being a felon in possession of a firearm, Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a supplemental brief on March 12, 2026. In this brief, Uthmeier reiterated Florida’s position on disarming felons. The State now argues that the Second Amendment permits disarming felons whose convictions indicate dangerousness, but not all felons categorically. Morgan’s licensing felony, the State contends, does not demonstrate danger, threat to public safety, or a tendency toward violence or disturbance of the peace. Therefore, the State claims that section 790.23 is unconstitutional as applied to Morgan, because his only nonviolent licensing felony does not fall within the historically disarmed categories.
Georgia: SB499, which removes firearm suppressors from the list of dangerous weapons, needs to be passed in the House on the last two days of the session—March 31, and April 2.
Hawaii: Expanding red flag laws is on the legislative agenda this week. SB2517, a constitutionally concerning expansion of Hawaii’s red flag laws, passed the Senate and is in the House Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs Committee. On March 20, HB2062, the appropriation needed to fund red flag law promotion, passed the House, and the Senate Committee on Public Safety and Military Affairs recommended that it DO PASS.
Kansas: HB2501, which removes suppressors and short-barreled firearms from the Kansas Controlled Weapons Act, was passed by both Houses of the legislature on March 26. It now awaits Governor Laura Kelly’s signature.
Kentucky: HB78, which increases protections for the firearms industry against lawsuits, has passed the Senate and now moves to Governor Andy Beshear’s desk.
Maine: The Joint Judiciary Committee voted against passing LD1831. Legislative leaders have scheduled floor votes for March 30 and 31. This bill places costly burdens on Maine’s FFL dealers, in addition to BATFE regulations and inspections.
Minnesota: Current state of anti-gun bills:
SF3836 re-referred to Senate Finance on March 18.
SF3661 moved in the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety, but no floor vote.
SF4200 second reading in the Senate.
SB3655 Advanced out of Judiciary and Public Safety to Senate Finance on a 6–3 party‑line vote. Pending before Senate Finance.
SF3572 re‑referred to Education Policy.
SF2320 No movement on this bill.
New York: The state that introduced Bruen now plans to tax gun purchases. S5813A, which proposes an 11% excise tax on the sale of firearms, firearm parts, and ammunition, has been introduced. Besides the financial impact, it will also require firearm registries and inspections of gun dealers. All the funds collected will go into a Gun Violence Prevention and School Safety Program (perhaps NYC Mayor Mamdani can divert it for free housing for illegals).
Utah: On March 27, Governor Cox signed HB214 in a signing ceremony attended by supporters and firearms advocates. The Utah firearms industry now has protection against abusive litigation tactics
Washington: Within the week of adjournment, Governor Bob Ferguson signed both HB2521, which removes the current fee cap on background checks, and HB2320, which expands restrictions on 3D printers.
Pistol Brace Updates
Attorney Tom Grieve recently uploaded a YouTube video explaining that, even though a federal court vacated the ATF’s 2023 pistol brace rule, the ATF still considers many brace-equipped pistols as unregistered short-barreled rifles under existing laws and continues to enforce against some owners.
Core point
In a recent filing in the Gun Owners of America v. Garland pistol‑brace lawsuit in Texas, ATF informed the court that while the brace rule is “dead,” the underlying National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA) provisions remain in effect, and ATF has not changed its interpretation that many braced pistols are SBRs. ATF also acknowledged in that filing that it continues to enforce NFA/GCA requirements against “some brace-equipped pistols,” meaning owners can still face felony exposure despite the rule’s vacatur.
Backstory on braces and the rule
Initially, in 2012, ATF sent letters to gun owners stating that braces do not turn a pistol into an SBR. Later, it issued clarifications about shoulder stocks, and in 2023, during the Biden administration, it introduced a brace rule that effectively classified most brace-equipped firearms as SBRs needing registration. Although millions of braces are in circulation, very few comply with the “free registration” window—only single-digit percentages—and subsequent lawsuits led to a 2025 ruling that voided the rule and a joint dismissal in the Mock v. Garland case.
What ATF is arguing now
In this case, GAat ATF from using the now‑vacated rule’s criteria to classify braced pistols as SBRs, but ATF argues that the case is moot because the rule no longer exists, and GOA’s challenge was filed under the Administrative Procedure Act. ATF maintains that, regardless of the rule’s status, it still has delegated authority to interpret and enforce the NFA/GCA, and it has continued to do so with certain braced pistols, which it considers irrelevant to whether the APA challenge is now moot.
Practical implications
In practice, this leaves millions of brace owners in renewed legal uncertainty because ATF effectively says, “the rule is gone, but our interpretation isn’t,” and courts cannot use this APA case to block ATF’s ongoing enforcement actions. To clarify the court strategy, Grieve uses a sports analogy to demonstrate that lawsuits are meant for specific goals, and GOA’s suit was narrowly focused on the rulemaking process rather than the underlying statutory interpretation itself. Because of that strategic framing, ATF now argues that once the rule was vacated, GOA lost standing to seek broader relief, allowing ATF to maintain and enforce its pre-existing interpretation of what qualifies as an SBR.
