The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear a pair of closely watched cases that could determine whether state and local bans on AR-15-style rifles and other semiautomatic firearms violate the Second Amendment. The justices will review challenges to assault weapon bans in Connecticut and Cook County, Illinois, with oral arguments expected this fall.

The cases mark the latest major Second Amendment dispute to reach the Court since its landmark 2022 decision expanding gun rights. Similar assault weapon bans are currently in effect in roughly a dozen states, as well as major cities including New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C., making the Court’s eventual ruling likely to have nationwide implications.

Connecticut enacted its law after the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, while Cook County’s ordinance has been in place since 1993. Lower courts upheld both laws, finding they are consistent with the Constitution. Gun rights organizations argue the bans target firearms legally owned by millions of Americans, while those in support contend they are necessary public safety measures because of their use in some of the nation’s deadliest mass shootings.

This case has the potential to become the most consequential Second Amendment ruling since the Supreme Court expanded gun rights in 2022. Unlike previous cases that focused on who can own or carry firearms, this particular case asks whether governments can ban an entire class of rifles that millions of Americans legally own. The Court's answer will shape the constitutional limits of gun regulation for the near future, although potentially much longer…

The AI boom has created a power crisis. Data centers are devouring electricity, and the solution everyone’s converging on is nuclear, from fusion startups to next generation reactors.

Here’s what most investors don’t know: advanced nuclear runs on enriched lithium isotopes, namely Lithium-6 and Lithium-7, and the U.S. has almost no domestic supply.

EnergyX just launched NUKE-it™, a platform built on its lithium technology to produce nuclear grade lithium isotopes and other strategic materials for fusion and advanced reactors, sitting squarely at the intersection of AI, clean energy, and national security.

It’s the same company already producing battery grade lithium in Texas, backed by GM, POSCO, Eni, and the DOE, with 50,000+ investors and $180M+ raised. One company, three of the biggest themes in the market: lithium, nuclear, and AI.

Shares are $13/share before July 16.*

[Invest at the intersection of lithium, nuclear & AI →]

The decision could also determine the future of assault weapon bans across the U.S. Roughly a dozen states have enacted similar laws, and several others have considered them in recent years. If the Court rules those bans violate the Second Amendment, existing laws could be struck down, and future bans would face steep constitutional hurdles.

If the bans are upheld, states would have a stronger legal footing to adopt similar restrictions. It’s a situation where either outcome will influence lawmakers, lower courts, and ongoing legal challenges nationwide, making this one of the most consequential gun rights cases the Court has considered in decades.

The Court’s decision could eventually determine what firearms you can legally buy, own, or transfer depending on where you live. If the bans are struck down, residents in states with assault weapon restrictions could regain access to AR-15-style rifles and similar firearms that are currently prohibited. If the laws are upheld, states considering similar legislation would have a stronger legal foundation to move forward, potentially expanding the number of places where those rifles are restricted.

The ruling will also heavily influence the legal strategy behind future gun laws, as lawmakers will have clearer guidance on what types of firearm regulations are likely to survive constitutional challenges, while gun owners and advocacy groups will better understand which restrictions can be challenged in court. Rather than ending the national debate over firearms, the decision is likely to define its boundaries, setting a strong legal precedent that future legislatures, courts, and gun owners will have to operate within.

*Disclaimer: Energy Exploration Technologies, Inc. (“we”, “us”, “our”, and “EnergyX” is conducting an offering of securities pursuant to Regulation A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. An offering statement covering this offering has been qualified by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”). Neither this communication nor any of its content constitutes an offer to sell, solicitation of an offer to buy or a recommendation for any of our securities by our company or any third party. Offers and sales of the securities are being made solely by means of the qualified offering circular. Investing in our securities involves significant risks. Before investing, you should consult with your financial advisor, accountant, and/or attorney legal, and carefully review the qualified offering circular (including the “Risk Factors” section) and any offering circular supplements.

The most recent qualified offering circular is available at https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1830166/000149315226017123/form253g2.htm. The most recent qualified offering circular and any supplements can also be found on the SEC’s EDGAR filing database, available at www.sec.gov/edgar/search/. Prospective investors should note that neither the SEC nor any federal or state securities commission or regulatory authority has approved or recommended our securities or determined that our offering circular is truthful or complete. Any representation to the contrary is unlawful. We are not a broker-dealer or investment adviser registered under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 or the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. No communication made by us or any of our affiliates, through this communication or any other medium, should be construed as a recommendation to purchase, sell, or hold any securities, or as investment, tax, financial, accounting, legal, regulatory, or compliance advice. Neither this communication nor any of its content constitutes an offer to sell, solicitation of an offer to buy or a recommendation for any of our securities by our company or any third party. The content presented here is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to solicit the purchase of securities or to be used as investment, legal or tax advice. Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements The information presented herein may include forward-looking statements, estimates, or projections regarding our anticipated future performance. If present, these statements are subject to risks, uncertainties, and assumptions. In some cases, you can identify these statements by forward-looking words such as “may”, “might”, “will”, “should”, “expect”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “estimate”, “predict”, “potential”, “future” or “continue”, the negative of these terms, and other comparable terminology. Such forward-looking statements are based on current plans, estimates and expectations and are made pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These statements, estimates and projections, if any, are based upon various assumptions made concerning our anticipated results and industry trends, which may or may not occur. We are not making any representations as to the accuracy of any such forward-looking statements, estimates or projections. Our actual performance may be materially different from any such statements, estimates or projections. We are under no duty to update any of these forward-looking statements to conform them to actual results or revised expectations.