2 If By Sea Tactical Weekly Round Up — Week of 5/18–5/24/2026

Another week, another series of major developments in the fight over the Second Amendment. This week saw anti-gun lawmakers in Illinois targeting some of the most common pistols in America, a new federal bill aiming to dismantle more of the National Firearms Act tax structure, and the Second Amendment Foundation asking the Supreme Court to step back into the national battle over “sensitive places” restrictions.

The legal and political battlefield surrounding gun rights continues evolving rapidly—and this week may have been one of the clearest examples yet of just how divided the country has become on firearm policy.

Illinois Lawmakers Set Their Sights on Pistols Like Glocks

Illinois lawmakers are reportedly considering new legislation aimed at restricting semiautomatic pistols like Glocks, and gun owners nationwide should be paying very close attention.

At the center of the debate are illegal conversion devices often referred to as “Glock switches,” which can unlawfully convert certain pistols into fully automatic firearms. The problem? Those devices are already illegal under federal law.

That has not stopped lawmakers from exploring broader restrictions involving the pistols themselves. That is where many gun owners are becoming concerned. Because Glock pistols are not niche firearms. They are among the most common handguns in the country for lawful concealed carry, self-defense, law enforcement, and sport shooting. Millions of Americans own them legally.

Critics of the proposal argue this reflects a growing trend among anti-gun lawmakers. For years, restrictions focused primarily on rifles like the AR-15. Now some states appear increasingly willing to target handguns themselves. That is a major shift.

The Supreme Court’s Heller decision specifically recognized handguns as the core self-defense arm protected under the Second Amendment. That means any broad attempt to ban or heavily restrict common semiautomatic pistols would almost certainly trigger immediate constitutional challenges.

After Bruen, states now face a much tougher burden when defending modern firearm restrictions in court. The bigger issue here is one gun owners keep pointing out repeatedly: criminals already ignore existing laws. Illegal conversion devices are already banned. Machine gun possession without federal registration is already a felony.

So why are lawmakers discussing restrictions on lawful pistol ownership instead of focusing directly on violent criminals? That question continues getting harder for anti-gun lawmakers to answer.

New Federal Bill Would Remove Remaining NFA Taxes — And Could Shake the Entire NFA System

One of the biggest firearm stories of the week came from Washington D.C., where Lauren Boebert introduced the “Freedom from Taxes Act.”

The bill would eliminate the remaining taxes imposed under the National Firearms Act, including taxes on machine guns, destructive devices, and the Special Occupational Tax paid by licensed dealers and manufacturers. If passed, the consequences could extend far beyond tax relief.

Many legal scholars and Second Amendment advocates are now openly arguing that the NFA itself becomes constitutionally vulnerable if its taxation structure disappears.

That is a massive development.

Historically, the NFA survived constitutional scrutiny largely because it was framed as a tax law rather than a direct firearm ban. But if Congress removes the taxes entirely, opponents argue the government loses one of the central justifications underpinning the law itself.

That could open the door to major constitutional challenges involving suppressors, short-barreled rifles, machine guns, and other NFA-regulated items. The bill also comes after the huge rollback of NFA taxes on suppressors and short-barreled firearms under last year’s H.R. 1 package. Since then, suppressor ownership has exploded nationwide, with over six million suppressors reportedly now in circulation.

That matters because “common use” has become increasingly important after Bruen and Heller. The more common these items become among lawful Americans, the harder it becomes for governments to argue they fall outside constitutional protections.

To be clear, the bill does not suddenly legalize newly manufactured machine guns for ordinary civilian ownership. But it absolutely signals something larger happening politically:

The conversation surrounding the NFA is shifting dramatically. For the first time in decades, the momentum appears moving in a direction favorable to lawful gun owners instead of against them.

SAF Asks Supreme Court to Take Up Major “Sensitive Places” Fight

Meanwhile, the Second Amendment Foundation officially asked the United States Supreme Court to review a major case involving “sensitive places” carry restrictions.

This could become one of the most important Second Amendment cases currently developing in the country.

After the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision struck down New York’s old “may issue” carry system, anti-gun states immediately began trying new tactics. Instead of denying carry permits outright, states started massively expanding the number of places where lawful carry was prohibited.

Restaurants, Parks, Public transportation, Entertainment venues, Houses of worship, Parking lots, and Private businesses would be affected. In some states, lawmakers effectively tried making lawful carry impossible almost everywhere people actually go.

SAF is now asking the Supreme Court to step in and clarify how far states can stretch the concept of “sensitive places.” That matters enormously. Because if states can simply label nearly every public area “sensitive,” then the right to bear arms stops functioning like a real constitutional right.

The Bruen framework requires governments to justify firearm restrictions through historical tradition—not modern political preference. And historically, there is very little evidence supporting broad location-based carry prohibitions like many states are now attempting.

Courts nationwide are increasingly split on these issues, which means the Supreme Court may soon feel pressure to intervene again.

And if they do, the ruling could reshape public carry laws across the country.

Final Thoughts

Yet another week full of 2A news. The fight to regain our rights continues and the momentum is building. While some states continue pushing aggressive new restrictions, even targeting some of the most common handguns in the country. We are seeing at the same time, federal lawmakers and major Second Amendment organizations are increasingly challenging the very foundations of long-standing firearm regulations.

The post-Bruen legal landscape continues changing everything. Courts are scrutinizing gun laws more aggressively. States are testing constitutional boundaries. Gun owners nationwide are watching some of the biggest Second Amendment battles in modern history unfold in real time. One thing is becoming increasingly clear, the legal and political war over firearm rights is far from over. In many ways, it is only beginning.