Archive for the 'Gun Control' Category

Source.

Why do Americans protected by the 2nd Amendment still need to get permission and approval from the ATF to have a rifle with a barrel under 16 inches, or a particular brand of stock, or a suppressor that, in most cases, doesn’t silence a firearm at all but simply makes shooting it easier on a person’s hearing?  Why, for 92 years, have citizens had to pay for a tax stamp and send their fingerprints to the government for guns that should be considered a constitutional right?

This is largely due to the National Firearms Act of 1934, passed under the highly overrated Franklin D. Roosevelt Administration.  The law became a permanent annoyance to every gun owner in the US and a lucrative revenue stream for federal agencies; at least, until now.

Finally, after nearly a century, the law is being erased.  But how?

The legality of the NFA relies heavily on the existence of a $200 tax stamp.  The government did not ban covered items outright in order to avoid a clash with 2nd Amendment protections.  Instead, they added a tax to various firearms and related accessories, then made the processing of the tax and approval on the purchases an arduous affair.  Until the Trump Administration stepped in, NFA approval on any particular item could take up to a year.

This clunky process was deliberately designed to dissuade citizens from purchasing certain firearms and attachments.  For people suspicious of government lists, the fingerprinting and applications made them not want to bother.  Possession of any of the items covered under the NFA is considered a serious federal crime with a penalty of up to 10 years in prison.

However, when Congress passed Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” in 2025, this included a provision which lowered the NFA transfer tax to $0.  With the tax stamp gone, the legal loophole which made the NFA possible was eliminated.  Now, an army of legal challengers have brought their case to federal courts to remove the NFA entirely, and they have succeeded (for the most part).

Expectations within the gun community were reserved (gun rights advocates have long waited for this moment and remain anxious that the DOJ will try to ruin the party with an appeal).  But, this does not seem to be the case.  Trump’s DOJ missed the first 7-day deadline for an appeal.  They also have another 60-day deadline, but reports suggest that the DOJ has no intention of interfering with the court’s ruling.

Rumors are swirling that Trump was personally involved in the DOJ decision to support the removal of the NFA by refusing to appeal.  Reportedly, according to Rep. Andrew Clyde who has been leading the charge on the legal fight, Trump has confirmed that there will be no further DOJ challenges to the NFA decision.

So what does this mean?  The federal government will be issuing guidance over the next 60 days on how FFL holders and gun shops can proceed with the transfer of items listed in the NFA.  At first, coverage is limited to the plaintiffs involved in the court ruling (and their customers), however, the DOJ has the power to nationalize the court’s decision, effectively making the NFA null and void for everyone everywhere (this is now a likely outcome).

This means, suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) and other items could be purchased without tax stamps, fingerprinting and wait times.  A basic background check (Form 4473) will remain in place.  It may take another couple of months, but it appears that the NFA is effectively dead thanks to the Trump Administration.  Gun owners had to suffer for nearly a century, but the long battle is ending.

Meanwhile, the Hughes Amendment is still a problem, preventing the sale or transfer of machine guns made after 1986.  But it’s all about winning one fight and moving on to the next, and the end to the NFA is an epic accomplishment; one which most gun owners never thought they would see in their lifetime.

This is good news but I live in a non-free state where there has to be a Form 4 to purchase a suppressor. So we’ll see if the DOJ does away with such a form for suppressors or if my state undoes this requirement.

As for the Hughes Amendment abomination, I think FRTs have largely made that irrelevant.

Stephen Halbrook.

Jonathan Goldstein, Adjunct Professor at University of Pennsylvania Law School, has published a comprehensive analysis of the power of Congress to “grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water,” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 11.  Historically, this meant that private citizens could possess cannon and ships and could wage war at sea on enemies approved by Congress.

“You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed,” President Joe Biden quipped in 2022.  Well, actually you could, and you still can.  Cannon were never restricted until included in the revision of the National Firearms Act in 1968, which taxes and requires registration of “destructive devices,” defined as weapons that expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or other propellant, the barrel of which has a bore of more than one-half inch in diameter, excluding sporting arms.

According to Heller, “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.”  The Marque and Reprisal Clause was adopted in the original Constitution prior to ratification of the Second Amendment, and it has an interesting history of its own.

For fresh insights into the obscure Marque and Reprisal Clause, see Prof. Goldstein’s new article “The Militia of the Sea: The Marque and Reprisal Clause as Textual Proof of Private Heavy-Arms Ownership at the Founding.”  Here’s the Abstract:

Courts and litigants increasingly say the Second Amendment reaches only the weapons one person can carry. The Constitution refutes that twice, in a single Article.

Article I, § 8, cl. 11 lets Congress “grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.” That is a license to send a private citizen to war at sea in his own ship, with his own cannon, for profit. A license presupposes what it licenses. The Clause takes a privately owned, cannon-armed fleet as given; nothing in the Constitution creates it. Two clauses later, Article I, § 10 forbids a state to “keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace” without the consent of Congress. The Framers made a sovereign ask permission to keep a warship. They made the shipowner ask no one.

Under Article I, the only power over private armed force at sea that Congress received was power over the commissioning of that private force on behalf of the United States. Congress did not give permission for the ship owner to arm the ship with cannon. The Founders who ratified the Constitution’s Article I in 1788 and the Second Amendment three years later in 1791 did not appear troubled that private parties owned heavily armed ships. Indeed, they took the widespread ownership of such heavily armed ships as a given, so much so that Congress principally concerned itself not with the private ownership of significant armaments, but rather with the transformation of that private ownership into a lawful use on behalf of the federal government itself.

With textual support from a documented record of roughly 1,700 Revolutionary-era privateering commissions — granted per voyage, in the years before the Constitution was ratified — this Article refutes the modern categorical claim that heavy arms were never “arms.”

This idiotic legislation (the NFA) is the reason I know an FFL who was contracted by the U.S. Navy to build a precision 20mm rifle for use at sea. As if 50 caliber is the only think the founders would have ever allowed a citizen to own.

It’s disgusting to me, and it should be to you too.

Source.

Kathy Hochul didn’t hide the goal. New York’s left-wing Democrat governor praised the Supreme Court after the justices declined to hear a challenge to her state’s gun industry lawsuit law. Gun makers didn’t lose a ruling on the merits, but New York kept its legal weapon alive.

Gun owners should clearly see the threat.

The case is National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Letitia James, Attorney General of New York. The Supreme Court declined review yesterday, leaving a Second Circuit ruling in place.

For now. From Just the News:

The Supreme Court did not explain its reasoning for rejecting the case. The decision comes the same day the highest court also declined to take up over a dozen cases as it winds down the term, including an appeal from a 98-year-old federal judge who had been suspended amid mental fitness concerns.

“NSSF sincerely believes that those criminals who illegally misuse lawful products should be held responsible for the harms they ‌cause when they commit their crimes,” ‌Mark Oliva, a spokesperson for NSSF told Reuters. “Holding the firearm industry responsible for the criminal misuse of a firearm is akin to holding Anheuser-Busch and Ford Motor Company ‌responsible for damages from drunk-driving crimes.”

And this, when there is a federal law in place that prohibits this behavior by plaintiffs. Just amazing, the lack of courage by the high court.

I’m telling you, there is an answer to all of this. If gun manufacturers want to stop this dead in its tracks, pull legal ownership of their weapons from LEOs in states where this legal warfare is allowed. They can do this through distributors like Sports South, Lipsey’s and other major warehouses.

Source.

A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Firearms Act (NFA) no longer applies to suppressors and other items whose taxes were reduced to $0 in July 2025.

United States District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas, a Trump appointee, granted a motion for summary judgement from attorneys representing the Silencer Shop Foundation Wednesday. In the 66-page opinion, Hendrix said that because taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and other items had been reduced to $0 by legislation signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025, the registration and paperwork imposed by the NFA exceeded Congress’ authority under the taxation power.

I suspect that the fifth circuit will uphold this ruling and then it will go to the SCOTUS. With Ms. Barrett and Ms. Roberts on the court, it’s anyone’s guess what they do.

As best as I am aware, this is the first split we’ve seen on AR bans. They make it clear that although the SCOTUS has granted certiorari to an AR ban case, they aren’t waiting for them.

It seems strange that this split would come from the third circuit. But here it is.

It’s a long-winded read and I haven’t gone through it all, but my first glance makes me happy that there is a circuit split, but disappointed that the militia angle was downplayed so much.

CMMG.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

CMMG, INC. statement regarding law enforcement sales to restricted states with LE exemptions.

Our country’s founders made a bold stance 250 years ago, a position of opposition to the overbearing restrictions placed onto them. They put their lives, their reputations, their possessions and their futures on the line. The Rights so boldly listed in that Declaration were listed and penned specifically to announce our freedoms and liberties. Over time, those words seem to have faded and our liberties have eroded slowly.

At this time, CMMG would like to renew our statement on sales of products to states that restrict the freedom of it’s citizens. Simply put: CMMG will only fulfill state and local government agencies and officers to the same configurations as they restrict to their own citizens. We do not have 2 classes of citizens in the country; we are ALL subject to the constitution. CMMG will fulfill orders in restricted areas if the Chief of Police or Sheriff of that respective department makes a public and written statement refusing to enforce those unconstitutional restrictions on the citizens in that jurisdiction. This includes firearms, parts, magazines and suppressors. If a state cannot trust us with equipment, we cannot and will not trust them.

They do make it clear in the comments that this doesn’t include fully automatic firearms. They have to maintain their FFL in order to be a company that does what they do.

But if the other large manufacturers would follow suit this become something special.

See SCOTUSBlog.

Whether the Second and 14th Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles … Petition GRANTED. The petition for a writ of certiorari in No. 25-566 is granted as to the question presented by the petition in No. 25-238.

The supreme court order is found here.

I have long advocated that the supreme court take up an AR ban case and decide this issue once and for all. Delaying this has done nothing good for either citizens or jurisprudence.

However, there is no reason to necessarily conclude the supreme court will decide this issue in the affirmative, especially with Barrett and Roberts having to be persuaded. But what it will do is stop this incessant whining in state legislatures over the issue. Either the supreme court judges in the affirmative and the issue of decided, or they don’t and states pick off God-granted rights one by one and citizens have to decide whether to fight the political battle (rather than reflexively lean on that tired platitude that “we aren’t voting our way out of this”), or decide to be ready when the SWAT teams come to the front door in the middle of the night.

This will be an extremely clarifying moment in American history.

The attorneys arguing the case are Cooper and kirk.  They did the Peterson 5^th circuit NFA case and a bunch of others, including Vanderstok, which lost. I don’t know much about them beyond that.

But I do know that if they argue the ridiculous trope about ARs being just some other firearm with extra cosmetic features and that those cosmetic features don’t really have any effect on the use of the weapon, they will lose. It’s not about that. It was never about cosmetic features. It’s about effective firearms for the amelioration of tyranny. “Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tench Coxe, an American political economist and delegate to the Continental Congress, best known for his passionate defense of the right to bear arms. In a 1788 article published in the Pennsylvania Gazette under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian.”

This notion of military style weapons is and always has been a misdirect and a bald and stupid emotional appeal. There is no such thing as a non-military style weapon. Every weapon was at one time a military style weapon, from rocks to spears and then to knives and swords and then on to bows and then to muskets, bolt action rifles, and semiautomatic and fully automatic rifles.

The U.S. Marine Corps used Benelli shotguns for room clearing in Now Zad, Afghanistan, and I can prove it.

Door gunners used revolvers in Vietnam, and I can prove it.

MACV-SOG used revolvers and Marlin .444 lever action rifles in Laos, and I can prove it.

And bolt action rifles are still in use today with snipers. Make no mistake about this issue. It’s about disarming the public, not “military style weapons.”

And it’s about far more than just all of the above. A high-powered optic will convert a bolt action deer rifle into a sniper rifle if certain gun controller states get their way.

Source.

A federal appeals court’s Thursday ruling could force the Supreme Court to decide if suppressors and magazines fall under the definition of “arms.”

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled Thursday in Comeaux v. United States that suppressors fall under the category of “arms” and are protected under the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment Foundation noted the “circuit split,” when two appellate circuits disagree on similar cases, in a series of posts on X, while SAF Director of Legal Research and Education Konstadinos Moros specifically mentioned the Ninth Circuit case Duncan v. Bonta.

“There is now a circuit split on whether suppressors are arms,” Moros posted. “This is of critical importance to those of us in states that totally ban them. While everyone else is arguing about whether registration is constitutional, we can’t even register them under the NFA if we wanted to!”

So what? The cowardly SCOTUS will ignore the circuit split just like they’ve ignored trampling 2A rights by failing to grant certiorari to AR ban cases.

Reminder: I still favor a complete 1-for-1 swap between the Fifth Circuit and the supreme court.

David Codrea.

“The Court is currently persuaded that both the history and practice surrounding Sec. 13 establish no individual right to possess military style weapons by members of the unorganized militia,” Glover states.

“The public is entitled to the implementation of laws” created by the representatives and approved by the Governor, Glover concludes. If the ban is struck down later, “the balance between the legislature judiciary is maintained [but] to enjoin the legislature preliminarily is not… in the public interest.”

He’s left the door the chicken coup wide open. All weapons are or were once used in military endeavors and thus have military style at some point, from knives to shotguns (see Marine Corps operations in Now Zad, Afghanistan), pistols, bows, bolt action rifles, high powered scopes, etc., etc.

That’s intended, by the way. The judge wants to leave the door open for the legislature to ban all firearms whether for militia use or not.

Shooting News.

In the last 17 months, the Trump administration has delivered win after win for the nation’s most ardent gun-rights advocacy groups, chipping away at dozens of federal regulations. While many of these efforts target regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — the law enforcement agency within the Justice Department tasked with regulating the nation’s millions of firearms — the administration’s work stretches across the executive branch.

Supporters of tighter gun restrictions have pilloried the Trump administration, saying officials are acting recklessly and could endanger the public with a wholesale rollback of regulations. But gun rights advocates who portrayed the Biden administration as trampling on the Second Amendment have praised the current administration’s actions as a needed corrective.

Trump vowed on the campaign trail to be a pro-Second Amendment president and pledged that, under his leadership, “no one will lay a finger on your firearms.” He said he would roll back Biden-era ATF regulations and received the backing of the big gun rights groups.

Right. That’s why we’re still fighting to get access to the SCOTUS on an AR ban case. Apparently, the DOJ hasn’t had the guts and fortitude to demand certiorari for any AR ban cases.

And this is why we got the big, ugly, awful bill without the hearing protection act. Because the administration is the most pro-2A administration in history.

Right.