Category: Gun Schtuff
What are Dangerous and Unusual Weapons?
In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the United States Supreme Court said that the Second Amendment does not protect the right to keep and bear “dangerous and unusual weapons,” it protects only arms in “common use.” In support of its conclusion, the Court cited the following authorities and case law:
United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), at 179. 4 Blackstone 148-149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271-272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383-384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
Neither the Heller opinion nor any of the cited authorities and case law support that conclusion. Most of the Court’s citations are circular, but all invariably point to English common law and statutes that preceded the adoption of the Second Amendment.
Moreover, had the Court bothered to read its own citations, which in turn cited English common law and statutes, it would have discovered that England did not ban “dangerous and unusual weapons.” England’s prohibitions on the bearing of dangerous and unusual weapons (the citations point to body armor) did not prohibit the possession of those arms. What was prohibited was bearing those arms in public except for certain limited exceptions, such as quashing riots and stopping affrays (e.g., street fights).
Moreover, there was no “common use” test. England was a class-based society with restrictions on the arms one could keep and bear, depending on one’s class. For example, in feudal England, only the upper classes could keep and bear what we today call broadswords, except traveling merchants, whose social class would normally have precluded them from doing so. Not that English peasants and serfs could have afforded to purchase a broadsword.
Which isn’t to say that the lower classes never touched a broadsword. But it would have been in a public defense context, and they were not expected to purchase a broadsword or other weapons of war that they could not afford.
If there were a weapon in “common use,” it was the English longbow, which they could afford. The right to keep and bear arms, and the specific arms protected by the Second Amendment, which we American citizens have the right to keep and bear, simply cannot be reconciled with English statutory and English common law. At least not unless American citizens are analogous to Medieval English serfs and peasants. True, this is a view widely shared by judges and politicians, but it was not the view of the Founding Fathers who wrote the Second Amendment, or the American People who voted to enact the Second Amendment into law, or the view of those who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment that was likewise enacted into law by the American People.
During oral argument in my California Open Carry lawsuit, Judge Bybee put to me that the Second Amendment was based on the English Bill of Rights. I responded by saying that we expanded on those rights. Had I been given the time to elaborate, I would have reminded him that the English Bill of Rights applied only to Protestants (and only some of them), not to Catholics. And, of course, the English “right” to keep arms was a statutory right, not a fundamental right that we Americans have even if there were no enumerated Second Amendment right. Statutory rights exist at the whim of the legislature, and the English Parliament has long since ended any right to keep arms, let alone bear them for the purpose of self-defense.
Judge Bybee would go on to write the 7-4 en banc opinion in Young v. Hawaii (2021) that held there is no right to bear any concealable arm in public, openly or concealed, because their mere existence offends the king.
The United States Supreme Court vacated the Young v. Hawaii decision and threw the case back to the 9th Circuit in 2022.
With the exceptions of prohibitions on the use and/or carrying of concealed weapons, which existed from the 13th century, and throughout the history of American colonial and American states, Heller’s embracement of prohibitions on short-barreled shotguns and machine guns cannot be reconciled with the types of arms the American People intended the Second Amendment to protect when it was enacted in 1791 or when the Fourteenth Amendment was enacted in 1868.
19th-century Courts and legislatures disagreed on whether firearms that are easily and ordinarily carried concealed can be banned, but they were all in agreement that the Second Amendment protects arms used in battle.
And that included cannons, a type of arm that cannot be carried on one’s person. Heller’s exclusion of arms that one would take into battle is ahistorical and inconsistent with Heller’s first citation that justified prohibitions on “dangerous and unusual weapons” and seemingly limited the right to arms in “common use”—United States v. Miller (1939). A decision that makes no mention of “dangerous and unusual.” What Miller said was, “[O]rdinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”
Indeed, the Supreme Court in Miller adopted the view of many 19th-century courts that the Second Amendment protects only weapons of war—”Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon [short-barreled shotguns] is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”
In 2008, when the Heller decision was published, the M-16 machine gun was part of the “ordinary military equipment,” and certainly contributed “to the common defense.”
So how did we go from the Second Amendment only protects weapons of war to the Second Amendment does not protect weapons of war?
Technically, the Heller opinion did not say that “M-16 rifles and the like” are not arms protected by the Second Amendment, but the paragraph was so poorly worded that judges have leaped to the conclusion that Heller held that they are not.
In a Fox News interview with Chris Wallace, Justice Scalia said that the Court had not decided whether hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down an airplane or firearms that can fire 100 rounds per minute are, or are not, arms protected by the Second Amendment. In the interview, Justice Scalia gave an example of what the right to keep and bear arms did not protect—walking down Main Street while carrying an executioner’s axe in a manner intended to terrorize the townfolk, as that constituted an affray.
While an executioner’s axe may have been unusual, and is certainly deadly, it wasn’t the axe per se that was prohibited; it was the carrying of the axe in a threatening manner. A woodsman’s or shipwright’s axe was commonly carried, and for certain classes of Englishmen, the carrying (bearing) of swords was required by law and custom. It was not a crime to carry them in public unless they were carried in a threatening manner.
And contrary to the defendants’ position in my California Open Carry lawsuit, which claims that simply openly carrying a firearm is, in and of itself, threatening, I have centuries of English and American common law, as well as California statutory law, saying, and California Courts holding, that merely openly carrying a firearm is not threatening.
Some people hate the mere sight of guns, and concealed carriers hate Open Carry for different reasons, but, for now, there is no Heckler’s veto of the Second Amendment.
The Supreme Court could grant an “assault rifle’’ ban cert petition, and clean up the mistakes made in Heller and NYSRPA v. Bruen, and US v. Rahimi. But I fear that if the Court does, it will simply poke more holes in the Second Amendment.
Tommy Gun Chambered In 30-06 Springfield
The Thompson submachine gun is undoubtedly one of the most iconic SMGs of the 20th century, which proved to be an extremely effective tool whether used as a broom in the trenches of WW2 or a typewriter on the streets of Chicago. No wonder they decided to further explore the potential of its design and developed a version chambered in .30-06 Springfield. This one-of-a-kind experimental Tommy Gun in 30-06 is consigned to the upcoming December 2025 Rock Island Premier Firearms Auction.
Almost 1.3 Million Background Checks for Gun Sales in October
According to national background check data, Americans picked up over a million firearms last month, again.
October saw no less than 2,289,774 background checks logged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System. That is on par with the 2,298,383 checks done in October 2024.
After the National Shooting Sports Foundation crunched the data to remove gun permit checks and rechecks, the adjusted figure for likely retail sales stood at 1,299,312, which remains on par with the October 2024 NSSF-adjusted NICS tally of 1,302,857.
It should be noted that last October was on the cusp of the 2024 general election cycle, putting Presidents Biden and Trump, along with a swath of congressional, state, and local candidates, on the ballot amid concerns over gun control and political violence.
Firearms industry experts told Guns.com that the data is telling.
“October’s figures of nearly 1.3 million background checks for the sale of a firearm at retail are an encouraging sign that America’s desire to exercise Second Amendment rights remains strong,” Mark Oliva, public affairs officer with the NSSF, told Guns.com via email. “Historically, firearms sales during the fall hunting seasons are robust, and October’s figures hold true to that trend. Firearm manufacturers continue to produce the high-quality tools that today’s gun buyers have come to expect, and these figures bear that out.”
Henry’s Lever Action Supreme Named Rifle of the Year.
Henry Repeating Arms is no stranger to innovation, but their latest achievement has set a new industry benchmark. The company’s Lever Action Supreme Rifle (LASR) has been named 2025 Rifle of the Year by Guns & Ammo magazine, one of the most respected publications in the firearms world.
The award was announced as part of Guns & Ammo’s rigorous annual evaluation process, which includes field testing, performance analysis, in-store availability, and value assessments. Out of every rifle released in 2025, Henry’s LASR came out on top.
Printer Panic: Everytown 3D Gun Summit Targets Technological Advancement
Recently, Everytown for Gun Safety hosted a 3D Printed Firearms Summit in New York City with the goal being to “build cross-sector collaboration and chart actionable strategies to stem the tide of 3D-printed firearm (3DPF) related violence.” The gathering of gloom is seemingly a leftover from the Biden-Harris administration, which convened similar confabs of gun control absolutists. One positive note is that these kinds of anti-gun “summits” must now be funded with Everytown’s own money rather than by taxpayers through Biden’s defunct White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention.
Media hype ahead of the summit warned, “We’re at the start of a new public safety crisis and there is no time to waste,” and “3D-printed firearms are the new frontier in the fight against gun violence.” Everytown is apparently measuring this crisis by “recovery data from twenty U.S. cities submitted exclusively to Everytown” according to their Facebook post. Exclusive crime-related data given just to Everytown may raise its own kinds of red-flags to consider.
While 3D printing is a newer and developing technology, homemade firearms, or PMFs — privately made firearms — are not. Since the birth of our nation, citizens have enjoyed the right to create their own privately made firearms. A review of the basic facts on PMFs would have made for a helpful presentation at the summit.
As far as federal law is concerned, individuals can legally make firearms for personal use without a license as long as the person isn’t prohibited from possession of firearms, the firearm is detectable, and the firearm isn’t made or sold for profit. Firearms and related items that are illegal under federal and/or state law, however, are still illegal. Items that are already regulated by federal and/or state law are still regulated.
Firearms continue to be heavily regulated regardless of how they are manufactured. Articles referring to 3D printed firearms are a mishmash of terms interchanging 3D printed firearms with “ghost guns” and undetectable firearms. The National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, to name just a few, continue to govern firearms produced by 3D printing.
The mere absence of a serial number does not make a gun undetectable and if 3D printers were capable of producing undetectable firearms, such guns would already be illegal to manufacture and possess anywhere in the country.
ATF Drops CLEO Notification from Form 1 NFA Applications
The ATF just previewed a batch of housekeeping changes to Form 1 (ATF 5320.1)—the form gun owners use to make and register NFA items like SBRs and suppressors. Buried in the Federal Register notice is the big one: the agency plans to remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement for NFA registration.
The ATF’s filing also modernizes items in preparation for the upcoming changes to the NFA’s tax structure, as it will no longer collect a tax on SBRs and suppressors. It clarifies how you can pay the $200 tax for “machinegun(s) or destructive device” or $0 for “other types of firearms,” such as SBRs and suppressors.
There is also an update to accept additional types of digital signatures and let applicants attach a passport-style photo or ID copy instead of using a fixed photo box on the form. There’s also a cleanup of wording and new instructions for married couples registering as an “other legal entity.” All of that is in service of making the form easier to complete and aligning it with incoming tax changes.
The ATF says it is removing the CLEO notification requirement from NFA registration forms (among other changes): https://t.co/kXWi4XHPgb pic.twitter.com/bmNO2wOOqb
— Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy) October 29, 2025
Happy 167th Birthday
an article by a Shootist about another’s gun
Old Ugly
Beautiful In Its Own Way
Phil figured a light could come in handy, so he took a piece of
auxiliary rail, cut a hole, and epoxied it in the stock. Fluorescent o
range and glow-in-the-dark tape finish it off.
“Beauty is in the eye of the beholder” is nowhere better displayed than with two guns I recently saw at the NRA’s Whittington Center this past June. The guns couldn’t be more different, as are the owners, the first being a custom single-action sixgun built by Hamilton Bowen.
The other is a well-used, beat-up relic of a rifle nicknamed “Old Ugly” (OU) by famed Alaskan bear guide Phil Shoemaker. The rifle, a much-altered Whitworth Mark X .458 Winchester Magnum, is a prime example of Alaskan bushcraft and ingenuity.
Every alteration was performed with the goal of “customizing” the rifle by improving functionality, pointability, and more importantly, reliability for its owner. The rifle is used primarily for backing up clients hunting fierce Alaskan coastal brown bears. When facing a tenacious brown bear, this rifle is as beautiful as it gets — in its own way — especially during a charge!.
Two guns that couldn’t be more different from each other. One is built
by a well-known custom gunsmith while the other is a product of Alaskan
Bushcraft. Can you guess which is which?
Base Gun
When talking with Phil about one of the most famous “Bear Guide Rifles” of all time, he explained the basis for his gun started as an old Interarms Mark X barreled action chambered in .458 Winchester Magnum. When speaking of cartridge choice, Phil said, “The more I experimented with and used the other big bores, from the various 375s & 416s up to the 500 Jeffery and 505 Gibbs, the more I came to appreciate the standard .458 Winchester. Like the 45 ACP, it’s not the biggest or most powerful, but it is easily managed, having a long and proven track record of performance.”
Probably the most endearing feature that stands out — and one notices first — is the OU stock. Painted in different shades of browns and greens and consisting of different textures, the stock appears to have been constructed by Dr. Frankenstein on a patched-up boat oar. But, when looking closely, one sees the genius behind every alteration which made the stock very functional.
Most gunmakers would cringe at turning out such a finished product. But this is Alaskan bushcraft, where anything and everything is used to get the job done. What OU lacks in looks, it more than makes up for in functionality. The rifle is well-balanced, feeling good in the hands, as if epoxied to the stock.
Phil bought the Mark X action for around $300 back then, saying it was priced right for a seasonal guide with two young kids. He planned on bedding the barreled action in a Brown Precision stock as they were about the only game in town 43 years ago.
The only problem was the stock comb was too high for the bolt to function. No problem for a “Sourdough” like Phil. When living in Alaska, learning to make things work with what you have on hand is part of life — shipping from the lower 48 is expensive!
So, Phil simply shaved 1″ from the comb to provide the clearance needed for the rifle bolt. He also added epoxy to the bolt knob, rounding it and making it larger.
“I remodeled the Brown Precision stock by cutting the comb down, reshaping it with fiberglass cloth and then painting the grip and forearm with Aircraft Wing Walk coating for a better grip. When I bedded the action, I mixed Devcon Liquid Steel with iron filings from a machine shop. I’m not sure if it made it stronger, but figured it couldn’t hurt,” stated Phil. “I mounted a 2.5X Leupold scope using Weaver rings. Taking the scope off and putting it back on doesn’t seem to change zero much at all.
Weaver rings and bases are strong and easy to remove with repeatable zero.
Notice the Redfield Peep sight for a backup sighting system?
Bush Monster
Loaded with three rounds of ammo, the rifle is well-balanced, weighing 9 lbs., 4 oz., and is manageable recoil-wise. Phil stayed with the original Interarms trigger, as it is all-steel and rugged.
Phil used a Dremel tool to cut a thumb notch on the left side of the action to assist in seating cartridges in the magazine with his left hand. It may not be the prettiest job, but it sure is functional and that’s all that matters. Phil also made the barrel’s bedding lug from ¼” steel scrap. The barrel was cut down to 21″ from factory length, making the rifle easier to carry and wield in the alder thickets.
When the whole work was finished, Phil spray-painted the frankengun with different greens and browns to its current pattern. I like the name “Sourdough” for the pattern, or maybe “Alaskan Bushcraft”? Phil touches up the gun when needed. “I just want the metal covered to avoid rusting.”
I had the privilege of shooting Old Ugly several times, and what Phil says is true. For me, the gun felt like it weighed about 7 lbs. because it balanced so well. Busting rocks at 200 yards was both fun and easy, with the white rock dust exploding and drifting off with each shot.
While many of us dream of owning custom rifles, how many dream of making their own? What Old Ugly lacks in looks sure makes up for in other, more important ways. Phil has carried Old Ugly for 43 years. There’s no stronger endorsement than Phil’s own words: “Old Ugly remains THE rifle I choose when things absolutely have to die!” And die, they do …
Say Goodbye to Glock, Say Hello to Glock V
It’s official, Glock is relaunching most of its pistol lineup before the end of the year. I received an email this morning from Glock stating the following:
The GLOCK V Series is Coming
Yesterday, a retailer NOT affiliated with GLOCK Inc. made premature statements concerning the availability of certain GLOCK pistols.
The individuals making these representations are not authorized to speak for GLOCK.As part of GLOCK’s commitment to future innovations, we are making necessary updates to our product line to align with upcoming offerings.
Our dedication continues to be with maintaining the highest level of quality, reliability, and accessibility that you expect from GLOCK. The GLOCK V Series is here to establish a baseline of products while simplifying our processes.
Commercial models of the Glock V will include:
- G17 V
- G19 V
- G19X V
- G45 V
- G26 V
- G20 V MOS
- G23 V
- G23 V MOS
- G21 V MOS
- G44 V
And then there will be some that are distributor-exclusive:
- G19C V
- G45C V
- G17C V
- G19X V MOS TB
Note that compact models, such as the Glock 43, 43X, and 48 seem to be excluded from this relaunch. There is also no mention of many of the existing MOS models or of the recently released COA models.
The Marlin® Trapper Series Model 1894™ in 10mm Auto is launching in conjunction with Hornady Manufacturing Company’s new LEVERevolution 10mm Auto ammunition. This first-of-its-kind lever-action rifle blends Marlin’s legendary craftsmanship with the versatility of 10mm Auto, setting a new standard for lever-action innovation.
Already known for its power and versatility as a semi-auto pistol cartridge, 10mm Auto delivers even greater performance when paired with a rifle-length barrel. The Trapper Series Model 1894 in 10mm Auto boasts an increased velocity of up to 250 fps compared to its pistol counterpart.
The Trapper Series Model 1894 is a short, quick-handling carbine rifle ideal for small-to-medium game hunting, self-defense and plinking, making it an excellent companion to your 10mm pistol. Like other models in the Trapper Series line, it features a cold hammer-forged, 16.17” threaded barrel and receiver-mounted Skinner Sight™ system that provides rapid target acquisition. Additionally, the stainless steel receiver, lever, magazine tube and barrel feature an attractive non-glare, satin finish.
In addition to the great features for which the Trapper Series line is known, this new model also has an upgraded fire control system. The sear is now e-nickel Teflon-plated and the sear notch geometry in the hammer has been improved to create a smoother and more consistent trigger feel. Plus, in response to consumer feedback, the sear and trigger system have been redesigned to eliminate the trigger “flop.”
Optimized for lever-action rifles, the LEVERevolution 10mm Auto ammunition features a 150 grain FTX bullet that delivers great accuracy, making it a great option for any hunter. While engineered for lever-actions, the round is a great choice for revolvers and semi-auto platforms as well.
This collaboration underscores Ruger and Hornady’s shared commitment to innovation, performance and delivering products that enhance the shooting experience for customers everywhere.
NRA Puts Gavin Newsom on Notice: Lawsuit Coming over ‘Glock Ban’
The NRA put California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) on notice that a lawsuit is coming over AB 1127, the bill Newsom signed to enact a ban on new sales of Glock handguns.
AB 1127, the “Glock ban” bill, takes effect July 1, 2026.
Breitbart News reported that the “Glock ban” bill accomplishes its prohibition by labeling Glocks a “machinegun-convertible pistol.”
Such a definition sets the stage for other language in the bill, which says, “This bill would expand the above definition of ‘machinegun’ to include any machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter and, thus, prohibit the manufacture, sale, possession, or transportation of a machinegun-convertible pistol equipped with a pistol converter.”
The NRA pounced on the new ban, with NRA-ILA executive director John Commerford saying, “Gavin Newsom and his gang of progressive politicians in California are continuing their crusade against constitutional rights.”
He continued, “Once again, they are attempting to violate landmark Supreme Court decisions and disarm law-abiding citizens by banning some of the most commonly owned handguns in America.”
Commerford concluded, “This flagrant violation of rights cannot, and will not, go unchecked.”
Newsom Signs Glock Ban Bill Into Law
California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been calling himself a Second Amendment supporter for several months now, but if anyone had any doubts about his lack of sincerity those can now be put to rest. On Friday afternoon the governor signed AB 1127 into law, which will outlaw the sale of Glock handguns in the state starting in January.
In addition to AB 1127, Newsom also signed legislation that will require sales of gun barrels to go through an FFL and a background check, as well as AB 1078, which replaces California’s “1-in-30” handgun rationing law (which is already on hold thanks to a lawsuit) with a “3-in-30” law. The bill, however, states that California will return to its previous one-gun-a-month scheme if it’s ultimately upheld by the courts.
As you can imagine, gun control activists are thrilled to see California become the first state in the nation to outlaw the sale of some of the most popular pistols in the country, and they’ll be making a major push for other blue states to adopt similar bans in the months ahead. From Everytown for Gun Safety:
“We applaud Governor Newsom and state lawmakers for putting California at the forefront of the fight against DIY machine guns, which are just as scary as they sound,” said John Feinblatt, president of Everytown for Gun Safety. “It speaks volumes about the gun industry’s fixation on profits that only a new law can force it to take the most basic steps to prevent mass carnage.”
“Governor Newsom, state lawmakers, and California volunteers continue to prove that the days of putting gun industry profits over our lives are long gone,” said Angela Ferrell-Zabala, executive director of Moms Demand Action. “DIY machine guns should never have had a pathway onto our streets, and today, we’re taking a big step to get them out of our communities. Our movement will keep fighting to hold reckless gun manufacturers accountable — because they shouldn’t get to profit off our tragedies.”
AB 1127 theoretically allows for Glock to change the design of its Gen 3 model to block the installation of illegal switches, but even if the company could take that step CalDOJ would view the redesigned pistol as a new firearm subject to the state’s handgun roster, and it would be rejected due to a lack of a magazine disconnect feature. That’s the reason why newer Glock models haven’t been approved for sale in California, though the Gen 3 was previously grandfathered in to the roster.
The NRA is already vowing to sue Newsom over the ban.
My guess is most of the other national Second Amendment groups will soon be filing suit as well, and we’ll probably see a coalition or two combining forces to take on the new laws.
So far there’s been no word from Glock on the new legislation, which is part of a broader effort to prohibit the sale of the popular handguns. The cities of Chicago, Baltimore, and Seattle are also suing the company, claiming the gunmaker is willfully allowing the illegal conversion of their pistols into full-auto machine guns through the installation of illegal switches. New York also has a similar Glock ban bill pending in the legislature, and now that Newsom has signed AB 1127 into law that could start moving as well.
The gun control lobby can’t ban handguns outright, so their new strategy is to go after the most popular pistols on a piecemeal basis. In the short term, Glock sales will likely skyrocket in California, but unless AB 1127 is stayed via an injunction those sales will come to a screeching halt once the new law takes full effect.
A Handgun is No Longer Enough: The Evolving Standard for Armed Self-Defense
The Sovereign Citizen and the Imminent Threat
The right enshrined in the Second Amendment was not a mere allowance for hunting or personal security; it was a profound constitutional imperative designed to ensure the survival of the republic.
Our Founding Fathers deliberately vested the ultimate responsibility for public safety and the nation’s defense in an armed, prepared citizenry they called the American Militia. They understood that the collective strength of the people, armed with common, readily available firearms, was the most resilient check against tyranny, invasion, and civil catastrophe.
As Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story stated, the right to keep and bear arms “has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers.” Furthermore, James Madison argued that an armed citizenry, trained and ready, is “the best and most natural defense of a free country.” Their intent was clear: a free state is secured by a citizenry that is equipped to defend itself against the three distinct threats of tyranny, foreign invasion, and domestic unrest.
Today, this core mandate remains profoundly true, especially in the face of alarming official warnings. The National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC) recently issued a sobering advisory that the U.S.-designated terrorist group Al-Qaida and its Yemen-based affiliate (AQAP) remain intent on striking America. This is not a theoretical threat; it is a live intelligence concern.
READ MORE: US National Counterterrorism Center warns of threat from al Qaeda
This reality has been sharply articulated by law enforcement leaders. My local Butler County, Ohio, Sheriff Richard K. Jones, reflecting on warnings from the FBI regarding imminent terrorist threats, stated, “The terrorists are here… it is just a matter of time before they attack. The national government can’t take care of it all. There are more local police than the FBI. It all comes down to preparing for it.” To meet this level of threat, preparation must surpass outdated standards.
GOA, Partners Request Summary Judgement on NFA Provisions
We’re kind of in a special time right now. While the Hearing Protection Act and SHORT Act didn’t land quite like we wanted, with the new fiscal year, we can buy short-barreled rifles and suppressors without the $200 tax stamp.
The problem, though, is that we still need NFA paperwork, and those products will still be entered into the NFA database.
That’s a database whose stated existence isn’t about registering scary devices to keep them out of naughty hands. It’s about making sure whoever has them has paid the tax.
And the fact that there’s not a tax on these items anymore means there shouldn’t be a registration requirement.
While Congress insisted on leaving that in, unfortunately, Gun Owners of America and its partners have filed a lawsuit to try and fix the issue. Now, they’ve just filed a motion for summary judgment in the case.
From a press release:
Yesterday [October 7th], Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, together with a coalition of plaintiffs including Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition, Inc., Silencer Shop Foundation, B&T USA, LLC, Palmetto State Armory, LLC, SilencerCo Weapons Research, LLC, Brady Wetz, and fifteen states led by Texas, filed a motion for summary judgment in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas.
The motion seeks both a declaratory judgment that certain provisions of the National Firearms Act (NFA) are unconstitutional and an injunction to halt their enforcement as applied to newly “untaxed” firearms—including short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and so-called “any other weapons” (AOWs).
GOA’s coalition of plaintiffs challenged the NFA’s making, transfer, and possession restrictions on these “untaxed” firearms, arguing they are unconstitutional following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (Pub. L. No. 119-21) (“OBBB”), which President Donald J. Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025.
Effective January 1, 2026, the OBBB eliminates the NFA’s taxation requirements for these categories of firearms, leaving behind vestigial registration requirements that no longer serve as proof of payment of any tax. As a result, we argued that these excessive regulatory burdens go beyond Congress’s taxing power, cannot be defended under the Commerce Clause, and violate the Second Amendment.
With the filing of this motion for summary judgment, GOA and GOF now expect the Trump Administration to take an official position on untaxed firearm registration and file a response on or before November 6, 2025.
Erich Pratt, GOA’s Senior Vice President, issued the following statement:
“The National Firearms Act’s onerous registration requirements for untaxed firearms are a relic of a taxing scheme that no longer exists. These provisions violate the Constitution by exceeding Congress’s authority and infringing on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. We urge the Court to strike down these unconstitutional restrictions and protect the rights of our members, supporters, and millions of gun owners nationwide.”
John Velleco, GOF’s Executive Vice President, issued the following statement:
“The NFA is the strictest federal gun control law in the nation’s history. Even so, NFA-regulated weapons have proliferated in recent years, quickly becoming favored tools of the home defender, hunter, and hobbyist alike. This lawsuit takes aim at FDR-era restrictions that never should have been passed in the first place. We look forward to taking a big step towards restoring the Founders’ original vision for American gun owners.”
This is a bit of a test for the Trump administration.
They’ve already done more for the Second Amendment than any previous administration in my lifetime, but there have also been some cracks that I don’t like seeing. The DOJ has defended a few questionable gun control laws, for example. Here, they can make a clear position on the matter, and one that should make perfect sense in the long run. The registration is about a tax that no longer applies to suppressors and short-barreled firearms.
If the DOJ does the right thing here and agrees with GOA and its allies, then what we’ll see is a world where you can walk into a gun store, buy a suppressor with just a NICS check, then take it home without any further paperwork than you would buying a single-shot .22.
I’d say that’s how it should be, but it’s not. We shouldn’t even have to go through that, but it would at least be far more acceptable than the current status quo, where you go to the ATF with hat in hand and ask, “Mother, may I?”
That’s not how our rights should work. We should be able to buy what we want, when we want.
But this is just the first step in a process of getting to that point. The Department of Justice can help with that, but even if they don’t, there’s a long road ahead, and we can and should follow the process to the very end. We need this killed throughout the country and done so in a way that leaves no ambiguity, so states figure they can do their own registries on these devices.
Good luck to the plaintiffs on this one.