Brown v. ATF: Gun Rights Groups Challenge NFA Registration After Tax Repeal

The Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, and Firearms Policy Coalition filed a supplemental brief in Brown v. ATF challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act’s remaining registration requirements now that President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the $200 tax on silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons,” according to a press release from the organization.

Prior to the legislation’s enactment, acquiring these items under the NFA required both paying the tax and registering the firearms with the federal government. Congress grounded this regime in its constitutional taxing authority. The gun rights organizations contend that by zeroing out the tax, the One Big Beautiful Bill stripped Congress of its constitutional basis for keeping the registration requirement in place.

“In response to our Motion for Summary Judgment, the court requested additional briefing, which highlight multiple critical elements of our claim,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “We are thrilled to have an additional opportunity to explain exactly why our claim is so strong. The brief highlights why SAF and our members have standing to bring this suit, and precisely how the merits analysis supports our position. As we always do, we make our positions as plainly and forthrightly as possible, and we post links to the entire docket for each case on our website so everyone can read the full arguments we are making on their behalf.”

Brown v. ATF is being litigated in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri under case number 4:25-cv-01162-SRC. Plaintiffs include the Second Amendment Foundation, American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two private citizens, Chris Brown and Allen Mayville. Named defendants are the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Acting ATF Director Daniel P. Driscoll, the United States Department of Justice, and Attorney General Pamela J. Bondi.

The supplemental brief, filed March 31, 2026, argues that suppressors fall within the Second Amendment’s plain text as integral components of firearms that facilitate their use and functionality. Plaintiffs contend that suppressors qualify as “arms” under the Second Amendment, drawing on historical precedent and practical applications including their capacity to reduce noise, muzzle flash, and hearing damage in self-defense situations.

The brief further challenges the NFA’s characterization as a tax-and-registration regime rather than a licensing system, arguing that registration requirements are constitutionally suspect. Plaintiffs maintain that the NFA’s operation amounts to a registry of constitutionally protected arms, which conflicts with the Second Amendment’s text and historical tradition.

The plaintiffs seek to possess, acquire, or manufacture NFA-regulated firearms without registration, asserting that the NFA’s provisions inflict concrete, particularized injuries and create a credible threat of prosecution, as the defendants have not disclaimed intent to enforce the law against them.

“For almost a century, the NFA has been used to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of citizens,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We now have a chance to remove these unconstitutional restrictions and look forward to fully restoring the right to keep and bear arms for the countless Americans who own silencers and short-barreled rifles across the nation.”

The NFA should be abolished entirely. Its passage in the 1930s represented an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms and established the legal framework for every subsequent gun control measure that followed. Americans should not need government permission to exercise a constitutionally protected right, and courts should recognize the NFA for what it always was and strike it down completely.

The who, what, and where of gun control

A Second Opinion is a recurring series by Haley Proctor on the Second Amendment and constitutional litigation.

My previous column examined what it means for a gun control measure to fit within “the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” This month I want to focus on how the court has analyzed gun regulations that limit (1) who may possess a firearm, (2) what arms people may own or carry, and (3) where they may take them.

Who may keep and bear arms?

As of writing, the court’s latest word on the Second Amendment concerns the “who” of gun control: may the government permissibly restrict the ability of certain types of people to keep and bear arms? The court provided important guidance on that question in the 2024 case of United States v. Rahimi, but significant questions remain open.

The Second Amendment secures to “the people” the right “to keep and bear Arms.” In District of Columbia v. Heller, the court held that “the people” refers “to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset.” This means that the “plain text” contains no limitation on the right that would permit the government to deprive some category of persons of firearms without meeting its burden to show that the deprivation is consistent with the “Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The court has occasionally used the phrase “law-abiding, responsible citizens” to describe “the class of ordinary citizens who undoubtedly enjoy the Second Amendment right.” Some have inferred that this phrase limits the category of people who may assert a Second Amendment right. The court’s decision in Rahimi made clear that this reading was mistaken. If the government wishes to limit the ability of any “member[ ] of the political community” to keep or bear arms – even those who break the law or might be thought to be irresponsible – it must point to a historical tradition that justifies doing so.

Rahimi recognized a historical tradition that “allows the Government to disarm individuals who present a credible threat to the physical safety of others,” “temporarily.”  And it identified one group of individuals who the government may disarm consistent with that tradition: individuals presently under a restraining order issued upon a finding that the recipient poses “a credible threat to the physical safety” of another.

This term, the court has taken up the “who” question once more. The case of United States v. Hemani requires it to decide whether the same tradition permits the government to disarm individuals who unlawfully use drugs. Several additional “who” questions are in the offing.

First, despite Heller’s holding that the “people” includes “all members of the political community,” and despite the fact that 18-to-20 year-olds are undoubtedly part of the political community (and many shoulder the responsibility to bear arms for that community), some courts have continued to hold that they are not part of the “people” who enjoy a right to keep and bear arms. These courts have therefore rejected challenges to laws restricting adults’ ability to purchase or carry firearms until they reach the age of 21. There is a circuit split on this question, and the  court has been holding several petitions since November. It could be that the court plans to grant, vacate, and remand these cases in light of Hemani, but given that they focus on the meaning of “people” and a different aspect of the historical regulatory tradition, it’s doubtful that Hemani will supply much guidance.

Continue reading “”

He can only be replaced with an equal for his rulings can hardly be bettered

‘Saint’ Benitez Steps Down From Bench

Almost 22 years after taking on the job, Roger T. Benitez has stepped down from his position as a U.S. district judge in California, much to the relief of anti-gunners like California Attorney General Rob Bonta and Gov. Gavin Newsom.

Benitez was deemed the patron saint of Cailfornia gun owners for his rulings recognizing the fundamental nature of our right to keep and bear arms, and was responsible for California’s “Freedom Week” in 2019. After Benitez ruled the state’s magazine ban a violation of the Second Amendment, he refused to stay his decision, and for seven glorious days California residents could once again legally purchase ammunition magazines that can hold more than ten rounds before the Ninth Circuit granted the state’s request to continue enforcing the law on magazine sales while the Duncan case was appealed.

Continue reading “”

If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government that is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. — James Madison

2026 National Rifle Association Board of Directors Election Results

The annual election of the National Rifle Association Board of Directors has concluded. The 2026 results are in and 36 director candidates have been elected to available one-to-three year terms.

Annually an election is held for the NRA Board of Directors. Under normal circumstances there are 25 three-year director spots up for grabs each year. An additional 76th director who is elected at the NRA Annual Meeting would serve a one-year term. Candidates in the 2026 election had a near clean sweep, with all but two securing a spot. Due to multiple resignations from the board during the 2025 – 2026 year, 36 candidates were able to take posts on the board — including the 76th director’s spot.

As previously reported, the NRA Nominating Committee selected 30 candidates they felt met requirements set forth by the committee in conjunction with input from the NRA president and first vice president. Of those 30 candidates, there were 13 incumbent directors.

There were eight candidates who ran successful petition campaigns. Also notable, there were three director candidates who were selected by the nominating committee and ran successful petition campaigns: incumbent directors Steven C. Schreiner, Amanda Suffecool, and newcomer Robert Beckman.

Between the petition candidates and those selected by the committee, a slate of 38 potential candidates was previously announced.

On April 2, 2026 the NRA announced the results of the Board of Directors election. The original notification stated 35 candidates were elected. An update to NRA’s announcement on American Rifleman indicated that one candidate who was eligible for 76th director withdrew from the slate — Isaac Demarest — leaving Lynn Gipson elected as the de facto 76th director.

The updated results are as follows:

Continue reading “”

Four worms were placed in four separate test tubes:
1st in beer
2nd in wine
3rd in whiskey
4th in mineral water

The next day, the teacher shows the result
The 1st worm in beer, dead.
The 2nd in wine, dead.
The 3rd in whiskey, dead.
The 4th in mineral water, alive and healthy.

The teacher asks the class: What do we learn from this experience?
And a child responds: Whoever drinks beer, wine and whiskey, does not have worms.

John  Konrad V

What if America is already far richer than anyone in the swamp is allowed to admit?

What if the real drag on the Republic isn’t taxes, isn’t debt, isn’t even the deficit, it’s Europe?

What if NATO was never a mutual defense pact, but a 75-year subscription America forgot to cancel?

What if “burden sharing” is the most expensive euphemism in the English language?

What if the City of London cabal is draining our banks?

What if the advice from globalists is terrible advice that’s costing us big?

What if every European basing agreement, every forward-deployed brigade, every Ramstein runway, every Aviano hangar, every Souda Bay pier is a tax American workers pay so Berlin can run a welfare state and Paris can run a 35-hour week?

What if foreign aid to Europe isn’t aid, it’s tribute, flowing the wrong way?

What if transporting the vast majority of trade on European owned ships costs more than we realize?

What if the NGO archipelago in Brussels, Geneva, and The Hague is just a money-laundering loop where US taxpayer dollars get rinsed through a “civil society” conference and returned as lectures about our democracy?

What if the UN isn’t a parliament of man, it’s a Manhattan timeshare with diplomatic plates, an accounting black hole, and a Human Rights Council chaired by people who’d jail you for tweeting this?

What if “the rules-based international order” was always code for: Americans build it, Americans pay for it, Americans bleed for it, and Europeans grade it?

What if $36 trillion in debt looks a lot smaller the second you stop underwriting a continent that sneers at you in three languages?

What if you zeroed out the Europe line, the NATO line, the UN line, the NGO line, and woke up tomorrow in a country with the fiscal headroom to rebuild every shipyard, every foundry, every rail line, and every Navy hull we’ve let rot since the Cold War ended?

What if American tourists went to American cathedrals, American opera, American museums, American cities instead.

I’m not saying I believe all of it.

I’m saying maybe, just maybe, we could pay down all our debt and wouldn’t have to pay taxes at all if we cut Europe loose.

To the Mayor of Chicago;
The US has been engaged in active military operations against Iran for 38 days.
13 Americans have died.
During that same period, over 40 Americans have died by homicide in Chicago.
Media silence….
So spare me your fake moral outrage!

Image

Trump Vows to Hunt Down, Jail Leaker Who Endangered Missing F-15 Pilot By Tipping Off Iran

President Trump vowed to hunt down and jail the leaker who revealed that U.S. forces could not initially reach the second American crew member of an F-15 fighter jet shot down over Iran.

Speaking in the White House briefing room on Monday, a clearly perturbed Commander in Chief declared that the media’s disclosure tipped off Tehran and directly endangered the airman’s life. Not to mention the lives of hundreds of troops searching for the missing crew member.

“We’re looking very hard to find that leaker,” he said. “They basically said that we have one, and there’s somebody missing. Well, [Iran] didn’t know there was somebody missing until this leaker gave the information.”

The President indicated he would pressure the media outlet that published the story to reveal their sources.

“We think we’ll be able to find it out,” Trump continued. “Because we’re going to go to the media company that released it, and we’re going to say, ‘National security. Give it up or go to jail.’”

The leak, first reported by Israel’s Channel 12 and quickly picked up by U.S. outlets including Axios and the Washington Post, came as the wounded second crew member was fighting for his life behind enemy lines.

The information prompted a race between our military heroes and the terrorist regime.

Iran’s state television, you may recall, quickly urged civilians in the area to hunt down the American airman, placing a bounty on his head. An anchor told residents to hand over any “enemy pilot” to the police with the promise of a “precious prize” if they do so.

“Those who succeed in capturing or killing hostile enemy forces will be specially commended by the Governor’s office,” the governor of Iran’s southern Kohgiluyeh and Boyer-Ahmad province announced, according to the BBC at the time.

“All of a sudden, they know that there’s somebody out there,” Trump told reporters at the briefing. “They see all these planes coming in. It became a much more difficult operation because a leaker leaked that we have one, we’ve rescued one, but there’s another one out there that we’re trying to get.”

“So actually, the country Iran, put out a major notice — you all saw it — offering a very big award for anybody that captures the pilot,” he added. “So in addition to a hostile, very talented, very good, very evil military, we had millions of people trying to get an award, so when you add that to it, but we have to find that leaker, because that’s a sick person.”

This wasn’t just a leak — it was a direct assist to the enemy that turned every member of the IRGC (Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps), not to mention every civilian looking for a quick payday, into a bounty hunter gunning for our airman.