<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
		>

<channel>
	<title>Arms Directory | Armed Attorneys | Favorites</title>
	<link>https://armsdirectory.com/members/armedattorneys_youtube/activity/favorites/</link>
	<atom:link href="https://armsdirectory.com/members/armedattorneys_youtube/activity/favorites/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<description>Activity feed of Armed Attorneys's saved posts.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2026 02:39:25 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>https://buddypress.org/?v=2.7.20</generator>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<ttl>30</ttl>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>2</sy:updateFrequency>
		
								<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">b25c7b23af310b2f34a2f46b35039955</guid>
				<title>Armed Attorneys posted an update: With the first day of the new term for SCOTUS behind us, [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://armsdirectory.com/activity/p/34596/</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 05 Oct 2022 21:50:20 -0800</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>With the first day of the new term for SCOTUS behind us, the Second Amendment community is reeling due to their decision to kick the can down the road regarding 2A cases. Does this mean the ATF wins, or is there more than meets the eye with SCOTUS declining to rule on the pending bump stock cases?</p>
<p><a target='_blank' href="https://youtu.be/HWOuIO0-vy0" rel="nofollow">https://youtu.be/HWOuIO0-vy0</a></p>
<p><iframe class="lazy" title="SCOTUS Kicks The Can. ATF Wins." width="640" height="360"  data-lazy-type="iframe" data-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HWOuIO0-vy0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">0fe49c9e5c122122b4e401d656041002</guid>
				<title>Armed Attorneys posted an update: The next 2A rights showdown is headed our way, with New [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://armsdirectory.com/activity/p/34437/</link>
				<pubDate>Mon, 03 Oct 2022 21:50:26 -0800</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The next 2A rights showdown is headed our way, with New York again at the center. In wake of the NYSRPA v. Bruen decision, New York is scrambling to limit gun rights in new ways due to the loss of their &#8220;may issue&#8221; status. 2A rights are now being infringed upon by New York with a newly expanded list of sensitive places where gun owners may&hellip;</p>
<p><span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-34437"><a href="https://armsdirectory.com/activity/p/34437/" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span><iframe class="lazy" title="Next 2A Rights Showdown for Sensitive Places" width="640" height="360"  data-lazy-type="iframe" data-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/FQeVntjks5U?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">f8c2450f3099c6cc525fed2a1a4555db</guid>
				<title>Armed Attorneys posted an update:   The case against
Texas Constitutional Carry [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://armsdirectory.com/activity/p/34013/</link>
				<pubDate>Wed, 28 Sep 2022 21:52:02 -0800</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>  The case against<br />
Texas Constitutional Carry rights expansion to 18, 19, and 20-year-olds is<br />
headed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. Could we see an even greater<br />
expansion of constitutional carry rights as a result? Armed Attorneys Emily<br />
Taylor and Richard Hayes provide an update on the Texas Constitutional Carry<br />
age expansion case.</p>
<p> &hellip;</p>
<p><span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-34013"><a href="https://armsdirectory.com/activity/p/34013/" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span><iframe class="lazy" title="Why is Texas Against Constitutional Carry Rights Expansion?" width="640" height="360"  data-lazy-type="iframe" data-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/RnaAVt15O8o?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
					<item>
				<guid isPermaLink="false">f9a63018e6756ebb74a078b239880d72</guid>
				<title>Armed Attorneys posted an update: What is ATF Operation Reticent Recall? What questions [&#133;]</title>
				<link>https://armsdirectory.com/activity/p/31876/</link>
				<pubDate>Tue, 06 Sep 2022 00:23:50 -0800</pubDate>

									<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What is ATF Operation Reticent Recall? What questions are ATF agents asking when going door to door? How does Operation Reticent recall implicate forced reset triggers (FRT) (considered machine guns) and solvent traps (considered suppressors)? How could the questions associated with Operation Reticent Recall lead to being charged with&hellip;</p>
<p><span class="activity-read-more" id="activity-read-more-31876"><a href="https://armsdirectory.com/activity/p/31876/" rel="nofollow"> Read more</a></span><iframe class="lazy" title="ATF at it Again. Here is the Playbook." width="640" height="360"  data-lazy-type="iframe" data-src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/iTVltXgT-q4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe></p>
]]></content:encoded>
				
									<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
				
							</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
		