Category: Bureaucraps

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.

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.

DOJ Reverses Course on Defending Biden’s ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule for Gun Sales

Gun Owners of America is celebrating a win in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals after the Department of Justice abruptly reversed course in a lawsuit challenging the ATF’s expanded definition of who is “engaged in the business” of dealing firearms that was put into effect under the Biden administration and then-ATF Director Steve Dettelbach.

The rule was explicitly designed to get as close as possible to “universal” background checks without a new law being passed by Congress, and treated the vast majority of private, person-to-person sales as those that should be conducted by a federally licensed firearms dealer. The attorneys general of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Utah, along with GOA, the Virginia Citizens Defense League, and Tennessee Firearms Association filed a lawsuit to block the law from being enforced, and a district court granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement against the plaintiffs in June, 2024.

Biden’s DOJ appealed that decision, though, and the Trump administration continued to defend the rule even as officials said that virtually every one of Biden’s executive actions on firearms were in the process of being undone.

On Thursday, however, the DOJ filed a request with the Fifth Circuit to voluntarily dismiss its appeal with the plaintiffs’ consent. In their request, the DOJ’s attorneys said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives “plans to revisit” the rule and “revis[e] the guidelines for determining who is considered ‘engaged in the business’ of selling firearms.”

The DOJ also informed the court (and the rest ofus) that a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing the “engaged in the business rule” is “forthcoming”, and that in light of the proposed rule on the horizon the government “has determined that it is not appropriate to continue this appeal.”

Continue reading “”

Gun Rights Orgs Align Behind Harmeet Dhillon to Replace Pam Bondi as Attorney General

With Pam Bondi out as Attorney General, no-compromise gun rights groups are already making their preference crystal clear: Harmeet Dhillon is the choice. And unlike the usual political jockeying in Washington, this push isn’t coming from establishment insiders, it’s coming from grassroots organizations that have spent years fighting the gun confiscation agenda head-on.

Bondi’s Exit Opens the Door for Real Change

For many gun owners, Bondi’s tenure represented a familiar frustration. While running the Department of Justice, her record was seen as a mixed bag at best, with lingering defenses of federal gun control policies and a lack of urgency in dismantling the anti-gun bureaucracy embedded throughout DOJ. That’s why her removal is being viewed not as a setback, but as a long-overdue opportunity.

Why Harmeet Dhillon Is the Clear Upgrade

Harmeet Dhillon represents something very different. She has built a reputation as a legal fighter who . . .

  • Treats the Second Amendment as a civil right
  • Has taken on anti-gun policies in court
  • Has helped shift DOJ toward going on offense, not just playing defense

Gun rights groups like the National Association for Gun Rights and Texas Gun Rights are rallying behind her because they see someone who won’t manage decline, but will actively push to restore rights.

A Legal Team Already Aligned

Dhillon’s potential elevation wouldn’t happen in a vacuum. White House Chief Counsel Dave Warrington and Harmeet Dhillon both left Dhillon Law to join the Trump administration at the same time, signaling a coordinated effort to place strong constitutional attorneys in key roles.

Barry Arrington, former Chairman of the Texas Gun Rights Board, recently stepped down to join the DOJ’s Second Amendment Section. These aren’t isolated moves. They’re part of a broader shift — one that suggests the executive branch is finally beginning to take the Second Amendment seriously at a structural level.

Not a Silver Bullet, But a Major Step Forward

At the same time, gun rights leaders are making it clear: replacing the Attorney General alone isn’t a silver bullet. The Department of Justice is still packed with layers of the entrenched bureaucracy, thousands of anti-gun holdovers, and institutional resistance to reform

But here’s the difference: Harmeet Dhillon has already been working to dismantle that system from within. And if she moves up, whoever steps into her current role in the Civil Rights Division would be positioned to continue that work — potentially with fewer obstacles.

Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt didn’t mince words:

Gun owners don’t need another Attorney General who’s going to ‘manage’ the Second Amendment’s decline. We need a proven fighter, and that’s exactly what Harmeet Dhillon has been inside the DOJ. President Trump has a real opportunity here to appoint someone who will take the fight directly to the gun confiscation agenda and start cleaning house.

The Push Is On

With momentum building, groups like NAGR and TXGR are actively encouraging President Trump to make the call. Because for gun owners who have watched too many “Republicans” fall short, this moment is about more than just filling a position.

It’s about whether the Department of Justice will finally have leadership willing to defend the Second Amendment without compromise.

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.

NSSF Calls Out Real Threat to Public Safety, and It’s Not Guns

To hear the urban elite tell it, the problem in our country is that there are just too many guns. We need to curtail that, to discourage people from exercising their right to keep and bear arms, and make it so that only certain, approved parties have firearms lawfully.

It’s funny how they keep saying it despite the fact that we’ve got more gun ownership than ever before, more people carrying guns than ever before, and violent crime is down over the last few years. Weird.

Yet it is an unfortunate fact that horrible things do keep happening. There are bad people out there who want to hurt others.

And yeah, something needs to be done about them. As the NSSF’s Larry Keane recently pointed out, though, the problem isn’t lawful gun owners. It’s the people who refuse to prosecute those who provide guns unlawfully.

Continue reading “”

Why do you think I call them ‘bureaucraps’?

Why is ATF Still Leaving Its Options Open for Prosecuting Owners of Braced Pistols?

The saga of ATF’s enforcement of the National Firearm Act’s “short barreled rifle” provisions against braced pistols has been a roller coaster ride of shifting interpretations. NRA-ILA has been keeping up with, reporting on, and advocating for reform the entire time. It seemed we had reached a low point with the publication of the rule Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached “Stabilizing Braces” during the Biden-Harris administration. Yet NRA, along with other pro-Second Amendment groups, successfully challenged that rule in court, and its enforcement was enjoined against NRA members, as well as other plaintiff groups in similar suits. Eventually, the rule was vacated in its entirety. Unfortunately, that did not provide the lasting relief many had hoped.

Last year, we reported on ATF audaciously claiming, in the waning days of the Biden-Harris administration, that all braced pistols were subject to the NFA. It then quickly walked backed that position as “overbroad.”

But then NRA exposed the ongoing prosecution of Taylor Taranto for possession of an unregistered SBR, based on allegations concerning a CZ Scorpion EVO 3 S1 pistol with an attached SB Tactical stabilizing brace. Taranto moved to have the charge dismissed. In its opposition to the motion, filed during the Biden-Harris administration, the government claimed:

Although the rule is stayed (and, now, vacated), ATF is not barred from continuing to enforce the underlying statute as it always has: by making case-by-case determinations about whether particular braced firearms constitute “rifles” under the statute. And of course, because the rule reflects ATF’s best understanding of the statute, those determinations will naturally tend to look substantially like the determinations that would follow from applying the clear framework outline in the rule.

We reported on that case in February of 2025, and the SBR charged against Taranto was dismissed, “in the interest of justice,” under the Trump administration that April. The dismissal of Taranto’s NFA charge followed an April 7, 2025, announcement by the U.S. Department of Justice and ATF of a “comprehensive review of [the] stabilizing brace regulations.” This was supposed to include “consultations with stakeholders, including gun rights organizations, industry leaders and legal experts,” with the goal of ensuring the resulting policies are “constitutional and protective of Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

In the meantime, though, ATF continued to resist attempts by litigants in cases remaining against the rule to obtain final judgments on the rule’s illegality, claiming the issue was rendered moot by the final judgement in the case vacating the rule. This, the agency claimed, rendered the rule “formally nullified and revoked[.]”

A March 16 government filing in the ongoing case of Texas v. ATF has now renewed concerns that the agency reserves the right to continue bringing felony prosecutions under the NFA for possession of unregistered braced pistols. The passage in question is meant to rebut the plaintiffs’ claims that there are still live issues in the case that deserve a final judgment on the merits, rather than dismissal on mootness.

Continue reading “”

ATF Says Brace Rule Case Is Moot, Warns Some Braced Pistols Still Face NFA Enforcement

In a blunt court filing from Monday, March 16, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) urged a federal judge to dismiss a high-profile challenge to its now-defunct pistol stabilizing brace rule, arguing the case has become completely moot. At the same time, the agency made clear it has no intention of abandoning enforcement against certain braced pistols under the National Firearms Act (NFA) and Gun Control Act (GCA).

The 6-page reply brief, filed in State of Texas et al. v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives et al., marks the latest twist in a legal saga that began three years ago. The plaintiffs, led by the State of Texas and joined by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and several Texas citizens, had sued to block the ATF’s January 31, 2023, “Factoring Criteria for Firearms With Attached ‘Stabilizing Braces’” rule (88 Fed. Reg. 6478). That rule used a complex points-based system to reclassify many popular braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs), subjecting owners to NFA registration, a $200 tax stamp, and potential felony charges for non-compliance.

But the landscape changed dramatically when another federal court issued a universal vacatur of the entire rule, a decision that became final in mid-2025. With the rule formally nullified and revoked nationwide, the ATF now argues that nothing remains for this Texas court to enjoin or declare unlawful.

“The case became moot,” the ATF’s lawyers wrote. “Plaintiffs appear to accept that the Court can no longer grant them meaningful relief in relation to the Rule, which has already been formally nullified and revoked through universal vacatur.”

The agency’s earlier motion to dismiss cited Fifth Circuit precedents holding that, once an agency rule is vacated, APA challenges lose their live controversy. Plaintiffs’ opposition brief sought to keep the case alive by insisting the court could still block the “legal theories” that underpinned the rule, specifically the ATF’s position that at least some pistols equipped with stabilizing braces qualify as NFA-regulated short-barreled rifles.

Continue reading “”

Judge Denies DOJ Request to Limit Injunction on Post Office Carry Ban

In June, 2024 the Firearms Policy Coalition and Second Amendment Foundation filed a lawsuit challenging the federal ban on firearms in U.S. postal facilities. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor ruled in favor of the plaintiffs last September, but the DOJ has tried to keep that ruling on hold while it appeals to the Fifth Circuit.

The appellate court denied the DOJ’s request back in January, but at that point the DOJ had also settled on a secondary strategy; asking O’Connor to limit the scope of the injunction so that it would only cover those who were FPC and SAF members at the time the lawsuit was filed. Since late October, the two sides have been filing back-and-forth briefs on the DOJ’s request, and today O’Connor handed down his decision.

O’Connor’s decision covers present and future members of Second Amendment Foundation as well. From today’s order:

The Government asserts that the Court’s injunctive relief should be limited only to individuals who were members of Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”) and the Second Amendment Foundation (“SAF”) as of June 18, 2024—the date Plaintiffs filed their complaint—because FPC and SAF “did not have standing to represent and obtain relief for members who did not yet exist.”

The Government argues that to obtain relief for members who join after June 18, 2024, Plaintiffs should have sought class certification. Otherwise, the Government argues, nearly any organization could evade the Supreme Court’s prohibition of nationwide injunctions in Trump v.CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 861 (2025) by using associational standing as a “backdoor way” to grant universal injunctions.

But despite its arguments, the Government has not provided, and the Court has not found, a case limiting injunctive relief to only those members of an association at the time a lawsuit is filed. And while Plaintiffs could have sought class certification, they apparently also relied instead on associational standing—which the Government seemingly agrees they have in some form.

The DOJ’s attempt to limit the scope of the injunction has less to do with the 2A issues involved in the case and much more to do with its concern about nationwide injunctions in non-2A cases dealing with, say, immigration efforts. The DOJ can’t really argue that some broad injunctions are okay but others are not, so this is at least a consistent position on the part of the Trump administration.

Of course, there’s nothing requiring DOJ to continue to defend the carry ban in postal facilities either. The administration could simply drop its appeal and let O’Connor’s decision stand. It could also voluntarily rescind the ban of its own accord… and I’d argue that’s exactly what the Trump administration should do now.

So what are the real world implications here? It sounds to me like all current FPC and SAF members are covered by the injunction, which means that they should be allowed to carry in postal facilities (as customers, not as employees). I would suggest having something identifying you as a member if you do so, though, and be prepared to explain the contours of the lawsuit and Judge O’Connor’s decisions to those public-facing employees who have no idea that the injunction is in place.

Wyoming’s Second Amendment Preservation Act Passes Despite Law Enforcement Opposition

While the current threat to our gun rights from the federal government is minimal, it was just a couple of years ago when we had to worry about all sorts of things. President Autopen was a big fan of gun control, and if he’d gotten his way, we’d just be left with nothing but double-barreled shotguns to shoot at bad guys through the door.

As a result, some pro-gun states started looking at ways to protect the gun rights of the people who live there. Missouri led the charge, and while that law ran into some judicial issues, the sentiment remains.

Wyoming, however, just passed a law that is essentially the same thing, but with a couple of tweaks, and law enforcement isn’t thrilled with this.

After a lively debate on the Wyoming House floor Thursday, a bill aimed at keeping federal agents from seizing Wyoming residents’ guns passed its final vote.

Having previously passed the Senate, Senate File 101, the Second Amendment Protection Act (SAPA), passed the House on third reading by a vote 40 to 21.

It must pass concurrence with both chambers before heading to Gov. Mark Gordon’s desk. Gordon vetoed a similar bill during the 2025 legislative session.

If it becomes law, SAPA will forbid Wyoming law enforcement officers from assisting federal agents in seizing residents’ firearms, ammunition or firearms accessories.

It would also allow residents whose guns have been unjustly seized to seek civil damages.

‘Sword Of Damocles’

Law enforcement officials say SAPA would undermine their joint operations with federal agents on drug busts, tracking illegal immigrants and similar cases.

During debate leading up to the vote on Thursday, dissenting lawmakers reiterated law enforcement’s concerns.

Rep. Art Washut, R-Casper, a retired peace officer, said the bill rests on a false premise.

“A false premise that the only way we can keep our Wyoming peace officers from violating your constitutional rights and your next-door neighbor’s constitutional rights is to hang the sword of Damocles over their heads with a $50,000 civil judgment on it,” he said.

Now, I get some of why law enforcement organizations dislike this bill. One argument against it is that an officer could well be sued for an action that was, at the time he carried it out, presumed to be constitutional, only for it to be ruled later as unconstitutional. That’s a fair concern, in my book, though I also think that maybe people need to understand that any gun control law should be presumed as unconstitutional until proven otherwise, but that’s just me.

However, Rep. Washut has a lot more faith in some of his former colleagues than I do.

I’m not anti-cop. I was raised by a police officer and around police officers. I know that most are good people who are trying to do a difficult job in a very difficult time.

But I also know that a lot of them are also likely to just keep their heads down and do what they’re told in way too many instances. That’s just human nature, and to think that every police officer in the state will do otherwise is naive, at best.

Others argued that this is a bill trying to solve an issue that simply doesn’t exist.

My response is that it may not exist at the moment, but it will exist sooner or later unless we’re very careful.

Of course, those who say this isn’t solving a real issue are the very same people who support making this a very real issue, so take that as you will.

Senator Eric Schmitt Urges ATF to Repeal Three Biden-Era Gun Regulations

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) wrote to Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Deputy Director Robert Cekada to congratulate him on his nomination to lead the Bureau and follow-up on their discussion during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee urging him to repeal three major Biden-era gun rules that infringed law-abiding gunowners’ Second Amendment rights and exceeded ATF’s statutory authority.

“In the past, ATF often relied on Chevron Deference to expand its regulatory remit and restrict the liberties of law-abiding Americans. But, thankfully, the era of deference to the administrative state is over. It is time for the ATF to adjust its regulations accordingly. I therefore strongly encourage the ATF to repeal the Biden-era Frame or Receiver Rule, Stabilizing Brace Rule, and ‘Engaged in the Business’ Rule. As I explained during the hearing, these rules exceeded the ATF’s statutory authority, threatened to turn law-abiding gunowners into felons overnight, and contained such vague standards that even those who tried to comply with them in good faith were left without sufficient notice of the scope of ATF’s mandates,” Senator Schmitt wrote.

Senator Schmitt is calling for the repeal of the following rules:

  1. Frame or Receiver Rule: Biden’s ATF re-interpreted the Gun Control Act to cover weapons parts kits as well as any “partially complete, disassembled, or nonfunctional” “frame” or “receiver.” That re-interpretation usurped Congress’s legislative power and threatened to turn legal gunowners into felons overnight.
  2. Stabilizing Brace Rule: Biden’s ATF re-interpreted “rifle” and “short-barreled” rifle under the National Firearms Act to include some pistols with stabilizing braces. Because possession of a non-compliant short-barreled rifle bears significant regulatory consequences, this rule imposed a significant burden on American gunowners. A federal court previously held that this rule was illegal because it was “arbitrary and capricious.”
  3. “Engaged in the Business” Rule: Biden’s ATF drastically expanded when an individual is “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms, and thus subject to the Gun Control Act’s regulations for licensed dealers. In this rule, the ATF violated Congress’ clear statutory instructions and imposed an unlawful burden on gunowners through a vague, difficult-to-comply-with regulation.

Read the full letter HERE.

The ATF Created a Backdoor Gun Registry. Lawmakers Want an Explanation.
Federal law bans the creation of a gun registry, but regulators made one anyway.

It has been illegal since 1986 for the federal government to establish a national firearms registry. As you might expect of the sort of people who gravitate to government employment, the bureaucrats at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), enabled by Biden-era policy changes, have taken that as a challenge. Now, members of Congress want answers from the federal gun cops about a vast gun registry database that could threaten the liberty and privacy of firearms owners. They have been stonewalled so far.

Lawmakers Question an Illegal Gun Registry

Continue reading “”

ATF Backtracks On Permit Denials After Backlash From Pro-Second Amendment Group

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) backtracked Tuesday after Gun Owners of America (GOA) posted screenshots on X of the denial of an application for items covered by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

The reconciliation bill signed into law by President Donald Trump in July 2025 contained provisions that reduced the taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and guns described as “any other weapon” to $0. According to screenshots posted on X by GOA from legal documents filed Monday, a member of the gun-rights group requested tax stamps for a suppressor and a short-barreled Winchester 1300 shotgun, leading ATF to respond on the social media site.  (RELATED: Chris Murphy Wants To Jack Up Taxes On Certain Accessories And Guns Sky High)

“On January 28, 2026, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (‘ATF’) ‘disapproved’ two Form 1 Applications to Make and Register NFA Firearms related to making a suppressor and a short-barreled rifle that had been submitted by a member of Plaintiff Gun Owners of America,” GOA said in its Monday filing. “As Plaintiffs explain in the attached notice of supplemental authority, ATF’s disapproval of these Form 1s demonstrates that the National Firearms Act is not a ‘shall-issue’ scheme as Defendants argue. And it shows that ATF determined that the exercise of Second Amendment rights an illegitimate reason to acquire a firearm.”

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The administrative state spent decades expanding its power through creative interpretations of old laws never meant to address modern policy debates. Trump is finally pushing back, and the establishment can’t stand it.

Trump Just Ended the EPA’s Climate Power Grab, and the Left Is Losing It

President Donald Trump just delivered a knockout punch to Obama-era climate hysteria, and the bureaucrats are having a total meltdown.

On Thursday, the Trump administration finalized rules repealing the EPA’s endangerment finding — that dubious 2009 determination claiming six greenhouse gases threaten human health under the Clean Air Act. “We are officially terminating the so-called endangerment finding,” Trump announced, calling the policy exactly what it was: “disastrous.”

This wasn’t just some regulatory tweak. The endangerment finding was the entire foundation for the EPA’s power grab over climate policy under the Barack Obama regime. It allowed unelected bureaucrats to impose crushing regulations on the oil and gas industry, power plants, and vehicles, all without Congress ever voting to grant them that authority. Essentially, it let EPA staffers reshape the entire American economy based on a single “finding” they issued themselves.

Trump’s repeal also axes those vehicle emission rules, since they all stem from the same flawed finding.

In addition, the Trump administration will finalize a repeal of rules that regulate greenhouse gas emissions from vehicles, since they stem from the finding. Under former President Joe Biden, the EPA sought to tighten those standards to prod the auto industry to make more fuel-efficient hybrids and electric vehicles — an effort the industry has since backtracked on.

The full text of EPA’s repeal of the endangerment finding wasn’t made available before the Trump administration announced it, but the justification will likely rely far more on legal arguments that climate pollution cannot be regulated by the landmark Clean Air Act than an outright rejection of climate science, legal experts told CNN.

Good riddance.

Continue reading “”

Bondi dodges the question. And from her time as a Florid’s AG, we knew she was no fan of RKBA.
The real question no one seems to have the sense to ask is WHo DECIDED to litigate this?
Was it Bondi, and Trump is too loyal to her to bring her too heel, or is it Trump being his NOO YAWK self?

Rep. Ben Cline: The Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans, last year President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into law which included the Hearing Protection Act — part of it — which was sponsored by myself and Congressman Clyde. It reduced the national firearms tax, $200 tax on suppressors and short-barreled firearms, to zero and while the tax has been eliminated, the NFA’s registration and paperwork requirements remain in effect.

And your DOJ has said that would, even though the tax has been reduced to zero, that the registration requirement is still somehow necessary even though with regard to Obamacare, the Affordable Care Act, when that tax penalty was reduced to zero, you decided that the mandate was no longer necessary.

How are you justifying the existence of this registry?

AG Pam Bondi: Congressman, that’s pending litigation right now.

Rep. Cline: It is and I would hope that you would reconsider that.