The DOJ’s Surprising Response to two Machine Gun Cert Petitions

The United States typically does one of two things in response to a cert petition. It either files a short response in opposition that is either boilerplate, or it does not file a response. The end result is the same, the cert petition is denied.

In the case of Isaiah Jaqjan Fisher, Petitioner v. United States1 a justice (probably Justice Thomas) requested a response. The Question Presented to the Justices to decide is “Whether the federal statute that prohibits the possession of machineguns, 26 U.S.C. 584, violates the Second Amendment.”

Instead of the government’s typical boilerplate response saying that the petition should be denied, the government’s response was, in relevant part:

“Petitioner contends…that the federal statute prohibiting the possession of a machinegun, 18 U.S.C. 922(o), violates the Second Amendment. He requests…that this Court hold his petition for a writ of certiorari pending the resolution of Viramontes v. Cook County, cert. granted, No. 25-238 (June 30, 2026), and Grant v. Higgins, cert. granted, No. 25-566 (June 30, 2026), which present the question whether bans on the possession of AR-15 rifles violate the Second Amendment. The government agrees that Viramontes and Grant could affect the proper disposition of this case and that the petition should accordingly be held pending the resolution of those cases.”

The other machine gun case is Jamaion Wilson, Petitioner v. United States.2 The two Questions Presented are:

“First, whether the Fifth Circuit’s continued reliance on Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2016) and refusal to require the government to prove a historical tradition of firearm regulation under this Court’s Second Amendment framework conflicts with N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)?

Second, should the Court hold this petition pending the outcome of Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), given lower courts’ determinations that for Second Amendment purposes, AR-15’s are indistinguishable from M16 machineguns?”

The government did not respond to the first question and waived any further response to the cert petition unless the Court requests a response.

To the best of my knowledge, the government has never before requested that a machine gun cert petition be held.

I have no doubt that the Supreme Court does not want to decide the questions presented. However, given that the government has asked the Court to hold the cases, they will be held. And once we have a decision in the two “assault rifle” ban cases next year, the Court will GVR the petitions, which is to say they will Grant the petitions, Vacate the decisions of the lower courts, and Remand them back to the lower courts for a do-over consistent with its decision in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgens.

Given that Fisher is out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Wilson is out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fourth Circuit will do what it always does (reaffirm its prior decision) and the Fifth Circuit will conduct a good-faith rehearing of its prior decision.

Both petitions have been distributed to the Long Conference on September 28, 2026. A decision in Viramontes and Grant will likely be published in June of 2027.

DOJ Says Lawful Gun Owners Can Carry in Post Offices

For decades, gun owners have generally been told that carrying a firearm into a U.S. Post Office is illegal.

The Justice Department now says that isn’t what federal law actually says.

In a significant legal opinion issued August 12, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that federal law permits otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense inside post offices that are generally open to the public.

Even more importantly, DOJ concluded that the U.S. Postal Service cannot enforce its separate regulation that purports to ban firearms on postal property without a self-defense exception.

There are some important limitations here, and this isn’t the same thing as the Supreme Court striking down the post office gun ban. But this is a major change in the federal government’s position.

Continue reading “”

1945 –
Even after the Commander of the First Imperial Guards Division, Lieutenant General Takeshi Mori, is killed for refusing to join the conspirators, who then issue false orders in his name, an attempted coup d’état against the Japanese government fails by early morning, when the vast majority of the Imperial Guards remain loyal to Emperor Hirohito.
The leaders of the failed coup commit suicide.
After signing the surrender document the previous night, the Imperial War Minister, General Korechika Anami commits suicide by seppuku.
The recording of Hirohito’s surrender announcement –The Jewel Voice Broadcast– is aired as scheduled.

Plaintiffs in NFA Challenge Press DOJ for Clarification After Injunction Takes Effect

As of Thursday, certain people could buy suppressors and short-barreled long guns without a Form 1 from the ATF. While the tax stamp died, we still had to have those products registered with the feds to avoid breaking out in handcuffs. However, a federal court ruled that with the tax gone, the registration is unconstitutional, and a temporary stay in that ruling’s impact expired at midnight Wednesday. Thursday was a brand new world.

At least, it’s one on paper.Right now, no one seems to know precisely what the hell any of it means. The people covered are numerous, but the people who aren’t covered are also numerous. Some gun stores aren’t covered, but individuals are. Then there are affiliated groups that have an exemption because they’re affiliated with a plaintiff organization, even if they weren’t part.

In theory.

It’s all very confusing, and the Second Amendment Foundation, which is one of those plaintiff organizations, is asking the DOJ for some clarification.

From a press release:

The plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF, a challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) supported by Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), today submitted a letter to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Department of Justice (DOJ) seeking clarity in the case after a judge last week ruled the remaining registration scheme under the NFA was unconstitutional.

Last week, a judge for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled that the remaining registration scheme for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, any other weapons (AOW’s) and suppressors under the NFA is unconstitutional and gave the government one week from the date of the ruling to file a stay pending appeal. The government failed to meet the judge’s deadline, and the permanent injunction went into effect earlier this morning. It should be noted, however, that the government has 60 days from the date of judgment to file an appeal.

“We share in the liberty community’s excitement in the receipt of this permanent injunction, and that the government did not seek to have the initial stay extended,” said SAF Executive Director Adam Kraut. “With the massive first step of having these elements of the NFA struck down now in hand, we need guidance from the government on all the details that will come with law-abiding Americans seeking to avail themselves of this injunction.

To better help educate anyone covered under the ruling, Plaintiffs and their counsel determined the best path forward was to ask the ATF and DOJ directly about how the government plans to comply with the court’s judgment. We’re hoping for a speedy response so the public can better understand how this ruling affects them.”

The letter asks for a response to five separate questions:

  1. Will the Government be providing guidance to regulated entities and individuals on how it plans to ensure compliance with the injunction?

  2. If the Government will be providing guidance, what form will it take, and when will it be provided?

  3. Does the Government intend to continue enforcing the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities or individuals who are not covered by the injunction?

  4. If so, what will the Government do to ensure that it does not seek to enforce the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities and individuals across the country who are covered by the injunction?

  5. If the injunction is later stayed, modified, dissolved, or otherwise made ineffective, how will the Government treat NFA items made or transferred while the injunction was in effect?

“Plaintiffs met with counsel over the course of the day and felt the best move for their members, supporters and the public at large is to ask direct questions to the government as it relates to the ruling,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “It’s much better to get answers straight from the source than to rely on second- and third-hand information online. We’re hopeful we receive a quick response from the government so the public will be better educated on what is – and is not – allowed under the injunction.”

I mean, let’s be real for a moment. These are all valid questions, because if the government is going to keep enforcing these unconstitutional rules against people who aren’t part of particular organizations, that’s a problem.

A big one.

First, there is the constitutional issue here. We know that the court ruled the registration of these items as unconstitutional, and the fact that the DOJ didn’t appeal before the deadline at least hints that they agree on some level. They’re fine with allowing at least some people to avoid this enforcement. While it’s an objective standard, it’s still a case of enforcing laws that, on some level, the DOJ seems to know are unconstitutional.

Then we’ve got the logistics of this.

As it stands, there are a lot of organizations that are plaintiffs in this case, and a lot of other groups are affiliated with those organizations. I doubt anyone can keep track of who is covered and who isn’t, at least not off the top of their head. That’s going to create problems for dealers who are trying to figure out just who is covered and who isn’t.

For example, in a statement yesterday, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms noted:

CCRKBA is joined by FPC Action Foundation, Texas Rifle Association, Hot Shots Custom and three individuals. Our case is supported by our sister organization, the Second Amendment Foundation.

“In plain language,” Gottlieb explained, “if you are a current CCRKBA member, this is a good reason to keep your membership from lapsing. If you join CCRKBA as a new member, you are automatically covered under the language in Judge Hendrix’s ruling.

“We filed this lawsuit last year because it was the right thing to do,” he recalled, “and the Justice Department’s decision to not pursue the case clearly underscores just how right we were.”

Seems simple enough, but as noted on Thursday, the NRA is affiliated with the Texas Rifle Association, but that doesn’t mean NRA members are automatically covered, too.

Then we have the issue of states. My home state of Georgia was party to this, so does everyone in Georgia enjoy the protection? Does every dealer?

And then we’ve got the question of what happens if things shift back to how they were on Wednesday. What happens if I throw a short-barreled upper and a suppressor on my AR lower today, but the DOJ appeals and wins? How will that be handled? I didn’t break the law, but the items aren’t registered, and I shouldn’t be forced to register them after the fact, but I also shouldn’t be punished for obeying the law.

There are a lot of questions, and we deserve answers for them so no one gets jammed up for doing what they legitimately believe is legal based on what we know.

DFW Airport Dumps Islamic Foot-Washing Station Plan After Abbott Pushback

The Dallas-Fort Worth Airport has reportedly scrapped plans to install Islamic footwashing stations, Fox News reported.

The news follows Texas Gov. Greg Abbott directing a review of state grants that operate airports in Texas after Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport reportedly planned to build ablution facilities for Islamic washing rituals.

Abbott posted on X.

“Government-owned airports cannot favor one religion over all others.

DFW plans to install Islamic wudu washing facilities are illegal. I’ve directed a review of all state grants to both airports for possible revocation, and referred DFW & IAH to USDOT for investigation.”

Abbott said he referred DFW and the George Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston to the Department of Transportation for investigation.

“That is illegal. Both airports are government-owned facilities.3 Both the federal and state constitutions prohibit government from facilitating this sort of discrimination. Just as the government cannot favor the secular over the sacred, it also cannot favor one religious view of the sacred over all others in our “pluralistic society.”

 DFW Airport Authority Letter FINAL  by  scott.mcclallen 

“DFW was in the process of evaluating an internal proposal to add a set of ablution washing stations on the pre-security side of Terminal D, the international terminal. Like all proposed projects, the airport ultimately considers the operational benefits, customer service impacts, operational risks and costs before approving them,” the airport told Fox News.

The Militia of the Sea

A new scholarly article argues that the Marque and Reprisal Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution directly undermines the modern judicial claim that the Second Amendment extends only to weapons a single person can carry. The paper, published on SSRN in 2026, is the work of Professor. J. Goldstein.

The article locates its constitutional argument in two clauses of Article I. The first, Article I, § 8, cl. 11, authorizes Congress to ‘grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.’ The second, Article I, § 10, forbids any state from keeping ‘ships of war in time of peace’ without congressional consent.

Professor. Goldstein’s reading of those two clauses is compact: a sovereign needed permission to keep a warship; a private shipowner did not. The Constitution, on this account, simply took cannon-armed private vessels as an existing feature of the world it was organizing, and the Marque and Reprisal Clause proceeded accordingly.

Justice Department Says You Can Carry for Self-Defense in a Post Office, and the Postal Service Ban Cannot Be Enforced

WASHINGTON, DC — The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel says the federal law that makes it a crime to bring a gun into a federal building does not apply to a law-abiding person who walks into a post office carrying for self-defense. The opinion, titled Application of 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) to Post Offices, is dated August 12, 2026. It is addressed to the Attorney General and signed by Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Lanora C. Pettit.

Here is the law in question. Under 18 U.S.C. § 930(a), knowingly bringing a firearm or other dangerous weapon into a federal facility can bring a fine, up to a year in prison, or both. A post office counts as a federal facility because the building is federally owned or leased and federal employees work there. The opinion puts the number at almost 31,000 retail post offices nationwide as of fiscal year 2025.

But the same statute carries exceptions. The one that matters to ordinary citizens is 18 U.S.C. § 930(d)(3), which says the ban does not apply to “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”

The Department reads that exception as having two parts. The carrying has to be lawful, and it has to be for a lawful purpose.

Continue reading “”

To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.
[Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)]

Texas NFA Injunction Is Now in Effect—But Major Compliance Questions Remain for FFLs

Executive Summary

On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix held that specified National Firearms Act registration and advance-approval requirements exceed Congress’s enumerated powers as applied to suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” whose making and transfer taxes Congress reduced to $0.

The court stayed its final judgment for seven days to permit the federal defendants to seek appellate relief. That stay expired at the end of August 12. As of August 13, the publicly available dockets reflect no additional district-court or Fifth Circuit stay, no notice of appeal, and no order otherwise suspending the injunction. The latest publicly indexed district-court filing is an August 12 notice of attorney appearance, which did not alter the injunction or extend the stay. The injunction is therefore presently operative. District-court docket

That does not mean the NFA registration system has disappeared for everyone.

  • The injunction is not universal. It protects the named plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, actual current and future members, and qualifying current and future customers.
  • An individual is not protected merely because he or she lives in one of the fifteen plaintiff states.
  • Customer protection is transaction-specific. It applies to qualifying transactions with a protected commercial plaintiff or a commercial member of a plaintiff association; it is not a blanket exemption covering everything the customer owns, makes, transfers, or possesses.
  • Supporters, donors, spouses, children, and other household members are not protected unless they independently qualify.
  • A person’s association membership should not automatically be assumed to protect a separate trust, LLC, corporation, or other legal entity.
  • The consolidated Jensen plaintiffs did not obtain relief regarding AOWs, although they received additional relief concerning individual-maker marking requirements.
  • Machineguns, destructive devices, the Gun Control Act, federal licensing requirements, Form 4473 requirements, prohibited-person laws, and state and local laws remain unaffected.

Continue reading “”

CMP Announces M14 Prices, 1897 Trench Guns

Shooting Sports USA got the CMP on record about the new M14 sales program, as well as some updates on other sales opportunities. This episode of the National Matches Update Show has an interview with CMP Chairman and CEO Jerry O’Keefe, where he answers the questions so many of us have had. Keep reading for the details.

We previously covered the announcement that semi-converted M14 rifles would be made available for purchase through the CMP. The initial announcement was light on details other than the general facts that these guns would be converted from full-auto to semi-auto. But the head of the CMP has some more info to share.

Mr. O’Keefe announced in an interview with Shooting Sports USA that the CMP will sell M14s for under $2,000. How far under that price, and whether there will be multiple grades at different price points, was not announced. But the price point being similar to commercial versions is certainly welcome news!

This price point is, at least in part, a reflection of how many guns will be available for purchase. More than 100,000 M14 rifles will be made available through the CMP purchase program. It will be a major process to convert all of those guns!

Public reaction to the M14 sales initiative has been overwhelming. Given that level of excitement, CMP will have purchase limits of 2 M14s per person per year. Initial sales have also been pushed back to the beginning of 2027 so there will be sufficient guns on hand to meet demand.

But the updates were not limited to the M14. We previously covered the announcement that CMP would be selling shotguns. Those will be coming from the various branches of the armed forces. The first batch will be 2,000-3,000 scatterguns from the Army coming in the Fall. About 400 of the legendary Model 1897 Trench Guns are part of that batch. Pricing info was not available, but it is a good guess that those will be put up for auction.

Purchase limits for the 1911 are also changing. The current system caps lifetime purchases at four pistols. Starting January 1st, 2027, the lifetime cap will be gone. Instead, purchasers can get two pistols per person per year.

We will be sure to share more details about the new guns coming from CMP as they become available. Which ones are you planning to pick up? And what military surplus guns would you like to see from CMP in the future?

No one can read our Constitution without concluding that the people who wrote it wanted their government severely limited; the words “no” and “not” employed in restraint of government power occur 24 times in the first seven articles of the Constitution and 22 more times in the Bill of Rights.
— EDMUND A. OPITZ