Category: Courts

MOTION FILED IN THIRD SAF-SUPPORTED NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT LAWSUIT

BELLEVUE, Wash. — April 27, 2026 — Plaintiffs have filed a motion for summary judgment in Roberts v. ATF, one of the Second Amendment Foundation’s (SAF) three supported lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act’s (NFA) registration requirements for short-barreled firearms and silencers.

Until President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the NFA established a $200 tax and registration regime on certain classes of firearms including silencers and short-barreled rifles, purportedly drawing from Congressional authority to levy taxes. After the One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the $200 tax on those arms, SAF and its partners filed three lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements, because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing power is no longer justifiable.

“As we’ve stated in each of our three National Firearms Act challenges, Congress lacks the authority to continue requiring the registration of protected arms under the NFA,” said SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “The Court has everything they need to put this case to bed and end this infringement on the rights of Americans nationwide.”

SAF itself is a named plaintiff in the NFA lawsuit Brown v. ATF and is now backing two additional challenges – Jensen v. ATF and this case, Roberts v. ATF. Filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the named plaintiffs in Roberts are Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, Center for Human Liberty, American Suppressor Association Foundation, Buckeye Firearms Association, Meridian Ordnance and two private citizens.

“We have the best opportunity in almost a century to end the registration scheme for silencers and short-barreled rifles under the NFA,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “SAF is seizing this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity by supporting three separate cases challenging the unconstitutional law, and we’re optimistic this Second Amendment infringement will finally be lifted.”

BLUF
Nowhere in Bruen does the Supreme Court suggest that the only purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the individual right of self-defense. That’s a ludicrous argument, given both the text and history of the amendment and how the right to keep and bear arms has been exercised since 1791.

Gun Control Advocates: About Those Hunting Rifles We Said Were Okay…

Fifty years ago, the gun control lobby’s position was that handguns should (and could) be banned without violating the Second Amendment, but they had no interest in going after “sporting” arms. Even today it’s not uncommon for anti-gun politicians to argue that nobody “needs” a particular firearm to hunt deer or turkey, which insinuates that they believe those guns are okay to possess, at least in limited circumstances.

In court, however, the gun control lobby is making a very different argument.

The brief filed by Baltimore, Maryland; Columbus, Ohio; Harris County, Texas; Everytown for Gun Safety; Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence; and Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in support of the BATFE does indeed claim that the Second Amendment only protects those arms that are in common use for self-defense; essentially reversing decades of public statements and policies promoted by the anti-gunners.

Bruen establishes that the “common use” question under the Second Amendment is whether an arm is lawfully “‘in common use’ today for self-defense.” Applying that standard requires consideration of a weapon’s actual use and objective design and features, which establish the uses for which it is suited. Weapons that are commonly used in and suitable for lawful self-defense fall within the scope of the Second Amendment right, but those that are “most useful in military service,” or “ill-suited and disproportionate to the need for self-defense,” do not. That limitation follows sensibly from the “‘common use for self-defense’ rationale for the private right to bear arms.”

In Heller, the Supreme Court held that “The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess afirearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” That language clearly indicates that self-defense is not the only lawful purposes for keeping and bearing arms, as the gun control advocates (and several federal courts) have asserted.

In their recent amicus brief, the gun control groups and their allies in local government claim that this is a foregone conclusion, which is why “Bruen itself, in analyzing step one, asked specifically whether handguns were ‘in common use’ today for self-defense.’”

That’s too cute by half. The reason why the Supreme Court noted that handguns were in common use today for self-defense is because the case dealt with the licensing of carrying handguns for self-defense. Two of the individual plaintiffs in the case were actually granted New York permits “that allowed them to carry handguns only for purposes of hunting and target shooting,” but they wanted unrestricted licenses that, in the language of the New York statute, would “allow them to carry concealed handguns ‘for personal protection and all lawful purposes.’”

Nowhere in Bruen does the Supreme Court suggest that the only purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect the individual right of self-defense. That’s a ludicrous argument, given both the text and history of the amendment and how the right to keep and bear arms has been exercised since 1791. But the next time an anti-gunner tells you that no one needs an AR-15 for deer hunting, ask them if they really believe that a bolt-action rifle is protected by the Second Amendment. They might tell you yes, but Everytown, Brady, and Giffords would beg to disagree.

Attor­ney Gen­er­al Ken Pax­ton Secures Legal Vic­to­ry to Pro­tect Gun Own­ers from Fed­er­al Over­reach by Block­ing Biden-Era Gun Sale Rule

Attorney General Ken Paxton secured a landmark legal victory for gun owners, preserving an injunction that prevented enforcement of a Biden Administration Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“ATF”) rule that unlawfully sought to violate Americans’ constitutional right to privately buy and sell firearms.

For decades, Congress has deliberately protected the ability of law-abiding Americans to engage in private firearm sales. In doing so, Congress narrowly defined who qualifies as a “dealer” to prevent federal agencies from overreaching into private, non-commercial transactions. The Biden-era rule attempted to upend that framework by broadly expanding the definition and threatened to subject hundreds of thousands of law-abiding gun owners to presumptions of criminal liability for engaging in constitutionally protected conduct.

This unlawful rule exceeded the authority granted to the ATF by Congress and represented a direct violation of the Second Amendment.

In May 2024, Attorney General Paxton led a multistate coalition to sue the ATF over the unlawful regulation. Attorney General Paxton obtained a temporary restraining order followed by an injunction against the rule that prevents enforcement in all states party to the lawsuit. The injunction identified that the ATF rule likely violated federal law by “requiring that firearms owners prove innocence rather than the government prove guilt” which could “trigger civil or criminal penalties for conduct deemed lawful just yesterday.”

Now, the Trump Administration has moved to dismiss its appeal of the preliminary injunction, ensuring that gun owners will continue to be protected.

“The Second Amendment is a cornerstone of American freedom, and I will never allow it to be undermined by unlawful federal overreach,” said Attorney General Paxton. “This Biden-era rule was a blatant attempt to violate our Constitution and criminalize law abiding Americans for engaging in lawful private firearm sales. I am proud to have led this coalition to stop it, and I fully support the Trump Administration’s decision to abandon this appeal and restore the rule of law for gun owners across the country.”

To read the order, click here.

Looks like he is one of those ‘refugees’ imported from Somalia.

Minneapolis man sentenced to 8.5 years in prison over support for ISIS.

MINNEAPOLIS — A Minnesota man was sentenced in federal district court to more than eight years in prison Wednesday for supporting the efforts of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham (ISIS), a designated terrorist organization rooted in the Middle East.

A statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Minnesota said 23-year-old Abdisatar Ahmed Hassan, of Minneapolis, was handed eight-and-a-half years in prison, followed by 15 years of supervised release, after he pleaded guilty in September to attempting to provide material support and resources to ISIS.

Court documents show that in 2024, Hassan began collecting and redistributing ISIS propaganda, while obtaining various manuals about sniper-training skills and how to make “highly explosive” materials and ammunition. Officials said Hassan also researched articles online related to gun ranges, weapons and “ISIS-inspired attacks and terroristic acts.”

Prosecutors found Hassan engaged with ISIS media wings and recruiters in Somalia for months before he decided to quit his job and liquidate his savings, cashing in on a one-way ticket from Minneapolis to Somalia in early December 2024. Hassan was actually turned away from that flight after airport officials discovered he lacked the proper travel documents, but just a few weeks later, he was granted the same one-way ticket with the proper documentation.

According to the district attorney’s office, Hassan made his first flight to Chicago, but was stopped and questioned by Customs and Border Control agents, missing his flight to Somalia and later admitting to his ties to the terrorist organization.

Hassan returned to Minnesota and continued to praise ISIS through his social media accounts until being arrested by the FBI in February 2025. A grand jury then indicted Hassan on one count of attempting to provide material support and resources to ISIS.

“The sentence handed down today takes a would-be terrorist off the streets and sends a clear message that the FBI and our partners will unremittingly pursue anyone seeking to join or support a foreign terrorist organization,” said FBI Minneapolis Division Special Agent in Charge Christopher D. Dotson.

Pirro turned out to be a two faced liar

After Pirro’s Urging, D.C. Court of Appeals Grants Review of Decision Striking Down Magazine Ban

The D.C. Court of Appeals will re-litigate the District’s ban on magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, after a three-judge panel on the court ruled the ban unconstitutional.

A number of anti-gun attorneys general around the country submitted amicus briefs in support of the D.C. government’s request for a re-hearing, but the U.S. Attorney for D.C. raised some eyebrows when she too asked the court to grant the en banc request, even though her office hasn’t prosecuted violations of the magazine ban for more than six months.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro’s motion suggested that some capacity on magazine size might be constitutional, but Pirro was more concerned about the panel’s decision and its impact on D.C.’s gun registration law and ammunition restrictions. The panel threw out Tyree Benson’s charges for possessing a “large capacity” magazine, but also held that Benson could not have legally registered his handgun with the District because it was equipped with an illegal magazine, and tossed those charges as well.

The judge, however, gave D.C. a roadmap on how to enforce those statutes while keeping the magazine ban on ice, and the Metropolitan Police Department has taken those steps in order to keep enforcing the registration requirements. Pirro’s concerns were essentially moot by the time she asked the appellate court for an en banc review, but many Second Amendment advocates (including myself) were also critical of Pirro’s support for the gun registration and ammo restrictions to begin with.

Technically, the D.C Court of Appeals decision didn’t create a circuit court split because its a court of local jurisdiction, with the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals serving as the federal appellate court for D.C. Still, the Benson case generated nationwide interest, and if the court had allowed the matter to rest with the panel’s decision intact, Benson would be cited in virtually every magazine ban case going forward.

The decision to take Benson en banc doesn’t guarantee that the full Court of Appeals will reverse the panel’s decision, but the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of reversal. Presumably, the court wouldn’t have granted the request unless the votes to reverse were already there.

As Moros says, now we’ll have to wait for the Third Circuit’s decision in ANJRPC v. Platkin to be released. That opinion, which could come out at any time, is expected to say New Jersey’s ban on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines violates the Second Amendment, which would create a legitimate circuit court split.

To be fair to Pirro, the D.C. Court of Appeals was probably already leaning towards granting the District’s en banc request even before she asked them to do so. Once she made it clear that she supported the District’s request, though, an en banc review was virtually guaranteed. At the very least it was an unforced error on the part of the U.S. Attorney, but given Pirro’s past statements and support for gun control laws (including bans on so-called assault weapons), it’s easy to understand why so many 2A supporters see her request as an outright betrayal of the DOJ’s professed support for and defense of the Second Amendment.

But the gun-grabbers yammer for more gun control..

Report: Gunman Who Killed Eight Children Was Given Probation for Gun Charge in 2019 Plea Deal

The man who shot and killed eight children in Shreveport, Louisiana, on Sunday was reportedly given probation for a gun charge in a 2019 plea deal.

Breitbart News pointed out that the Shreveport gunman was a 31-year-old Army veteran and that seven of the eight deceased children were his.

KTBS reported that the gunman was “was arrested in March 2019 on a charge of illegal use of weapons and carrying a firearm on school property.” The incident for which he was arrested “took place less than 300 feet from the fence line at Caddo Magnet,” where he allegedly “fired in the direction of the school while children were playing outside.”

KUTV noted that in October 2019, the gunman “pleaded guilty to the illegal weapons charge and was placed on 18 months’ probation; the firearm charge was dismissed.”

The shootings on Sunday occurred in three different residences and left two adults critically wounded, in addition to the eight children who were fatally shot.

The 31-year-old gunman then carjacked a vehicle and was killed by police.

Gun Rights Group Files Brief To Rebut DOJ’s Misleading Arguments In NFA Challenge

Arguments by the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice for continuing the registration portion of the National Firearms Act (NFA) now that the tax has been eliminated have drawn the ire of a major gun-rights group.

Congress killed the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs) when it passed President Donald Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill last summer. Gun-rights groups immediately filed a handful of lawsuits challenging the remainder of the NFA, and the DOJ is unexpectedly fighting those lawsuits, despite the administration’s promise to battle anti-Second Amendment laws.

In one of the cases, Brown v. ATF, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) recently filed a supplemental reply brief countering the federal government’s arguments in support of the NFA.

“This reply brief gave us the perfect opportunity to rebut the government’s arguments in support of the NFA,” Bill Sack, SAF director of legal operations, said in a news release announcing the filing. “We were encouraged the court requested targeted supplemental briefing that addressed key elements of the proper Second Amendment analysis. In our principle brief, we laid out in detail why the answer to every question posed supported our position. And now with this reply brief, we have driven home the point and dismantled each of the government’s arguments to the contrary.”

 

Continue reading “”

Machine Guns in “Common Use”: A realistic strategy

I have some good news and some bad news. The bad news is that the United States Supreme Court is not going to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear machine guns. The justices made this clear in Garland v. Cargil (2024).

In the District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) oral argument, the attorney representing the District of Columbia correctly argued that machine guns are arms protected by the Second Amendment. It was Justice Scalia who pushed back. In the view of the late justice, only arms that are in “common use” are arms protected by the Second Amendment.

The good news is that there is a strategy to bypass the 1986 de facto Federal ban on civilians acquiring machine guns, which would result in their becoming “in common use.”1

But we won’t be able to rely on the courts. We will have to come up with a political solution that will withstand the inevitable legal challenges.

In February, Senate Bill 1071 was filed in West Virginia. Reportedly, “A West Virginia lobbyist working for WVCDL threatened to kill the bill over the weekend in a verbal exchange in front of multiple lawmakers. The lobbyist threatened to kill the bill in other states as well, including Kentucky.” In any event, the bill died.

There were two problems with the bill. The first problem was that the bill relied exclusively on 18 U.S.C. § 922(o)(2)(A), a Federal law that exempts “a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof…”

That argument failed recently in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in U.S. v. Kittson. You can read the decision as well as Judge Van Dyke’s dissent below.

U.S. v. Kittson 23-4132
433KB ∙ PDF file

Download

The second problem is that West Virginia is in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A Circuit that has long vied with the 9th and 2nd Circuits for being the most anti-gun circuit.

The correct strategy is to rely on the Militia Clause of the Second Amendment.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) held that the Second Amendment protects the individual right to keep and bear arms, independent of service in a militia. All of the Second Amendment cert petitions granted since then have likewise been cases unrelated to the Militia Clause.

Instead of using the state to transfer machine guns to basically anyone via a Federal statute, one the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has already held only applies to “government personnel,”2 simply make the transfers to members of the state militia or similar state organization, and do it first in a Circuit, such as the Fifth Circuit, where any legal challenge would face an uphill battle.

The Texas State Guard is such an organization. Unlike the National Guard, members of the Texas State Guard report only to the governor.

Members of the Texas State Guard (TXSG) are required to attend monthly drill weekends, four days of Annual Training, and emergency State Active Duty deployments when ordered.

That is an important element to defending against any legal challenge. A state that simply said every able-bodied adult who is a citizen of the state of Texas and who is between such and such an age is a member of the State militia would be hard pressed to defend its passing out or selling machine guns to the general public.

Were it up to me, machine guns would be as easy to purchase as firing reproductions of Revolutionary War muskets. But it is not up to me.

Around half of the states are “Red States,” with a combined population of about 150 million. If you want machine guns to become “in common use,” then you will have to organize and start lobbying the Red State legislatures to revitalize their state militias, and in those states like Texas, utilize the existing infrastructure.

An Alternative Strategy Recently Appeared

Speaking of Texas, a Federal lawsuit was filed on March 10th in the Northern District of Texas that claims 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) “is unconstitutional on its face and as applied to Plaintiffs because it exceeds Congress’s enumerated powers…” The case is Temple Gun Club, Inc. v. Bondi.

Given the recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in McNutt v. Department of Justice et al., which held that the ban on the home distillation of alcohol is unconstitutional, if I were the Plaintiffs in Temple Gun Club, I would file an amended complaint.

Two More 2A Cases Make Their Supreme Court Conference Debut Tomorrow Today

Earlier today I covered why one Supreme Court-watcher is optimistic about the justices taking up bans on so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines next term, but those aren’t the only 2A issues that will be discussed in tomorrow’s conference. There are two cases making their first appearance in the justice’s closed door meeting that could be granted cert (or denied) as early as next Monday, and both are worth taking up… and talking about.

The first case is U.S. v. Peterson; a challenge to the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on suppressors. Specifically, the attorneys for plaintiff George Peterson are asking SCOTUS to address two questions: First, whether the National Firearms Act’s taxation-and-registration scheme for covered firearms can be justified as a licensing law, and whether the National Firearms Act’s taxation-and-registration scheme violates the Second Amendment with respect to firearm suppressors.

The Trump administration waived its right to reply to the cert petition, and it’s not a great sign for the plaintiffs that not a single justice asked the DOJ to reply anyway. To date, though, Trump’s DOJ has argued that, while suppressors may be protected “arms” under the Second Amendment, the $200 tax (which has now been zeroed out by the One Beautiful Bill Act) and registration requirement (which is still in place) represent “modest” burdens on our right to keep and bear arms.

The plaintiffs have made strong arguments about why that is not the case, but they weren’t able to prevail in the fairly conservative and 2A-friendly Fifth Circuit, which treated the taxation-and-registration scheme as akin to a shall-issue-licensing law. I’ll be thrilled if I’m wrong, but my hunch is that the justices aren’t ready to wade into the thorny questions posed by the plaintiffs here. If SCOTUS grants cert to a case dealing with bans on “assault weapons” and “large capacity” magazines the odds of a cert grant in Peterson would improve, but I can’t see SCOTUS addressing the constitutionality of the NFA and its treatment of suppressors before it takes up gun and magazine bans… at least not with an outcome that gun owners will appreciate.

The other Second Amendment case making its first Friday appearance in conference is Gardner v. Maryland, which poses three questions to the Court:

1. Does Maryland’s prohibition on carrying a handgun without a state permit, as applied to an interstate traveler with a valid Virginia concealed carry permit who displayed a loaded firearm in self-defense against an assailant’s vehicular assault and physical advance, violate the Second Amendment under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen… by lacking a historical tradition of disarming law-abiding citizens in such circumstances?

2. Did the Maryland courts’ reliance on a video showing the assailant’s calm demeanor upon police arrival, without his testimony or other witnesses to corroborate the incident, while disregarding Petitioner’s evidence of the assailant’s PIT maneuver, vehicular coercion, and physical advance, violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause by denying Petitioner a meaningful opportunity to present a self-defense claim?

3. Does Maryland’s refusal to recognize Petitioner’s valid Virginia concealed carry permit for interstate travel violate the Full Faith and Credit Clause, U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1, or the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (18 U.S.C. § 926A), despite the firearm being loaded and Pennsylvania’s non-recognition of the permit at the time of the incident?

Continue reading “”

DC Circuit Slams Brakes on Boasberg’s Criminal Contempt Probe of Those AEA Flights

Judge James Boasberg, Chief Judge of the D.C. District Court, has become a bit of a household name over the past year or so — in large part because of the rather notable rulings he’s made in the case arising from the now infamous flights removing suspected Tren de Aragua members to El Salvador, pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, in March of 2025.

The J.G.G. v. Trump case has already made its way up to the Supreme Court once, and while the case is still working its way through the courts on the merits, there’s been a contemporaneous contempt proceeding, in which Judge Boasberg has been assessing whether he’d hold certain members of the Trump administration in criminal contempt over its actions following his order to effectively turn the planes (already in transit to El Salvador) around.

In connection with that, the administration sought a writ of mandamus from the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, essentially asking that Boasberg’s contempt inquisition be shut down. On Tuesday, the D.C. Circuit granted the writ and halted the district court’s ongoing contempt investigation into the administration’s March deportation flights, blocking further testimony and fact-finding aimed at determining whether officials defied a temporary restraining order.

In a 2-1 decision, the appellate court ordered Boasberg to terminate the criminal contempt proceedings in the case. Judge Neomi Rao (Trump) authored the majority decision, with Judge Justin Walker concurring (Trump), and Judge J. Michelle Childs (Obama) penning a lengthy dissent.

The crux of the majority decision is this:

The Supreme Court vacated the district court’s order because it was premised on a legal error and the plaintiffs’ suit was brought in the wrong court. Nonetheless, the district court threatened to hold government officials in criminal contempt unless they complied with the now-vacated order by, for instance, taking back custody of the plaintiffs. We issued a writ of mandamus vacating the court’s first contempt order.

Undeterred, the district court is proceeding with criminal contempt for the government’s decision to transfer the plaintiffs to the custody of El Salvador. To cooperate, the government identified then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem as the official responsible for the transfer decision. The district court previously said this was the only information it required to make a referral for prosecution. But the district court has now expanded its inquest and ordered hearings to extract more information from government counsel about exactly what happened last March. The government petitions for mandamus.

The widening gyre of the district court’s investigation again calls for the extraordinary remedy of mandamus to halt the judicial “impairment of another branch in the performance of its constitutional duties.” Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 542 U.S. 367, 390 (2004) (cleaned up). The district court proposes to probe high-level Executive Branch deliberations about matters of national security and diplomacy. These proceedings are a clear abuse of discretion, as the district court’s order said nothing about transferring custody of the plaintiffs and therefore lacks the clarity to support criminal contempt based on the transfer of custody. Moreover, the government has already provided the name of the responsible official, so further judicial investigation is unnecessary and therefore improper. In these circumstances, mandamus is appropriate to prevent the district court from assuming an antagonistic jurisdiction that encroaches on the autonomy of the Executive Branch.

 

Continue reading “”

Maine: Federal Appeals Court Upholds 3-Day Waiting Period Law For Firearm Purchases

A federal appeals court has ruled that Maine’s law requiring a three-day waiting period between firearm purchases and taking possession of a gun to be constitutional.

On April 3, a three-judge panel of the Boston-based 1st Circuit Court of Appeals reversed last year’s decision by Maine’s chief federal judge that blocked enforcement of the law on Second Amendment grounds. In a nutshell, the circuit court ruled that the law is a “burden on, but not an infringement of, the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.”

In what seems to be strained logic, the court ruled that the law regulates conduct before a person keeps and bears arms, thus not infringing upon actually keeping and bearing arms.

“We agree with the Attorney General’s view that laws regulating the purchase or acquisition of firearms do not target conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s ‘plain text,’” the court wrote in the case Beckwith v. Frey. “The Amendment’s plain text guarantees an individual’s ability to keep and bear arms, which means to have a carry guns. The Act does not address this conduct. Rather, the Act imposes a limitation in some circumstances on when a person can acquire a firearm after the person purchased it. The act thus regulates conduct that occurs before a person keeps or carries a gun.”

Of course, anti-gun supporters of the law cheered the court’s ruling as a major step for so-called “gun safety.” Continue reading “”

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.

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 “”

Petrolino Sues New Jersey State Police for Violating 1st and 2nd Amendments.

For decades the New Jersey State Police have maintained a “good ol’ boy” culture, according to one man who is trying to bring sunlight into the darkened corridors of police power. “I have a tremendous amount of respect for police, but they are not more special than you or me,” said New Jersey resident and SNW contributor, John Petrolino.  

Petrolino is a U.S. Merchant Marine Officer, author, board member of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, husband and father of a nine-year-old son.  

John Petrolino
New Jersey resident John Petrolino (Photo: John Petrolino)

Problems first began when Petrolino attempted to obtain a New Jersey carry permit. The four-month process cost him hundreds of dollars for the permit itself plus training and background-check fees and must be renewed every two years. “I have both First and Second Amendment permits,” he said Monday. “Don’t forget they make journalists get a New Jersey press card, too.” 

Petrolino became curious about the Second Amendment rights New Jersey residents have compared to those of retired state police officers, so he sent a series of three public records request to the state’s Attorney General and to the New Jersey State Police.  In one of his requests, he asked for the number of state carry permits obtained by retired police officers. 

His goal was simple. 

“I wanted to compare how retired police officers were treated versus civilians,” he said. “Are retired police officers having the same trends that civilians get? Is there the same potential bias in their denials? Is there favoritism?” 

The New Jersey State Police first asked for an extension, but then denied his request, claiming it was overly broad and that he asked for information that wasn’t an actual record. 

Petrolino emailed the state police records bureau, stating he did not understand why they were denying such a simple request. “They said they can’t make firearm information public,” he said. “Our next course of action was to sue the state.” 

Petrolino and his attorney filed a lawsuit in February. His first court date is next month. 

“The public deserves to know if there is some sort of perceived bias or preferential treatment going on here,” he said. “It needs to be exposed and talked about. It’s strictly a Sunshine issue. The New Jersey State Police have denied every single public records request I’ve made. Even the New Jersey AG’s Office has fulfilled my records requests, whereas the state police have never once returned a single one.”

Petrolino, a Second Amendment journalist, has made public records requests in other states, which have complied with his requests. “But for some reason, the New Jersey State Police do not want to give any records to the public,” he said. 

Regardless of the outcome, Petrolino said he has no plans to ever leave New Jersey and move to a free state.  “Someone has got to be here to fight or shut the lights off when it’s over,” he said. 

Florida AG, NRA argue nonviolent felons should keep Second Amendment rights

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. – Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier, with support from the National Rifle Association, is arguing that nonviolent felons should not lose their Second Amendment rights.

“My duty is to protect and defend the rights of the people as enshrined in our Constitution because those rights are nonnegotiable. As Attorney General, my commitment is to the people, no matter the cost,” Uthmeier said in a post on X.

The Attorney General’s position mirrors efforts by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, the organization’s legal and lobbying arm, which has long worked to defend Second Amendment rights through litigation and policy advocacy.

“The NRA has long held that firearm bans for nonviolent felons violate the Second Amendment, and Uthmeier is now advancing that argument in a state case, underscoring that such individuals are not barred from exercising their constitutional rights,” the advocacy arm of the NRA wrote on its X account.

Uthmeier made the case in Morgan v. State of Florida, which is now before the state’s First District Court of Appeal. The case involves Morgan, who was convicted in 2007 of a third-degree felony under Pennsylvania law for carrying a firearm without a license.

During a traffic stop in 2022, Morgan told officers he had a gun in his car’s center console. He was charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. Morgan challenged the law as unconstitutional. After a trial court upheld his conviction, he appealed.

The state initially defended the conviction but changed course on Feb. 13, 2026. On March 18, Uthmeier filed a supplemental brief explaining the shift.

The brief leans on the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test, arguing that prohibiting gun ownership for nonviolent felons isn’t justified. It says Morgan, despite his felony, remains part of “the people” protected by the Second Amendment.

It also points to historical examples, noting that English, Founding-era, and Reconstruction-era laws only disarmed people who were demonstrably dangerous or posed a public safety risk. Uthmeier’s brief argues that a felony conviction alone shouldn’t automatically strip someone of their gun rights.

While the brief notes that most felonies suggest some level of dangerousness, it says Morgan’s record shows no evidence he posed a threat.

Chief Justice John Roberts Refuses to Clarify the “Historical Tradition” Test in Second Amendment Litigation

Pro-Second Amendment groups, industry leaders, and attorneys often argue that getting the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a ruling that strengthens the natural law right of the people to keep and bear arms is a glacially slow, systematic, and intricate process.

That is, unfortunately, true. But why?

It’s true because the Supreme Court, under Chief Justice John Roberts, has orchestrated a judicial review process designed not only to slow the review of Second Amendment cases but also to indefinitely impede the review of the most significant cases.

As Chief Justice, he sets the tone and theme of the Court. It’s simplistic to think of Roberts as just one of nine Justices with equal say in the handling of cases that come before the Court on a petition for review.

Yes, he has one vote to grant or deny review of a case, as do each of the other eight Justices, but he has a profound say concerning the cases to be voted on. See, e.g., the article in “Legal Clarity.”

“The Chief Justice influences the Court’s docket, the list of cases the Court will hear. While any four justices can vote to grant certiorari and hear a case, the Chief Justice’s vote can hold outsized influence in this selection process.”

Continue reading “”