Category: Bureaucraps

ATF Issues New Rules for Gun Dealers Regarding Silencers

Suppressors are now legal for some of us, not for others, and a whole confusing mess now exists that many people want no part of. Believe me, I get it. What we’ve needed is clarification from the ATF about what’s happening.

And it seems the ATF has issued an open letter to FFLs… clarifying nothing about that.

But it’s still good news. The rules deal with suppressors and the repair or changing of the caliber it can fire. As it has long stood, doing any of those things was pretty much the same as making a brand new one.

Not anymore.

Open-Letter_All-FFLs_August-2026_Silencers

In other words, so long as the serial number is left alone, the ATF will view it as being the same suppressor, which is a ridiculously sensible thing to do, even with the NFA being enforced. The only thing about this that’s stupid is that this letter was ever needed in the first place.

Continue reading “”

Oklahoma pastor targeted by ATF thrilled by President Trump’s pardon

The Sunday after he decided to accept a federal plea offer, in which he agreed to plead guilty to one count of selling ammunition to a prohibited person, Pastor Russell Fincher submitted his resignation to the board of his small Oklahoma church, but the board refused to accept his resignation.

“You didn’t change,” he recalls one board member told him. “The government changed.”

Pastor Fincher has continued to preach the gospel to his small flock ever since.

“They kept me going,” Fincher said Tuesday. “God told me the whole time: ‘You trust me.’”

Like Patrick “Tate” Adamiak and others, Fincher was the victim of Joe Biden’s ATF.  

He recalls the hellish day in 2023 when a dozen ATF agents wearing tactical gear and carrying AR-15s stormed into his home.

They handcuffed him and laid him out on his porch. Several agents yelled and screamed at him for more than an hour while others ripped apart his home. He offered to relinquish his Federal Firearm License, and an agent quickly had him sign three forms.

The ATF took more than 50 of his personal firearms, including a Colt Commander, five Glocks and a mint AK—a Polytech Pre-ban milled under-folder, which was worth thousands of dollars.

“You’re done. We have to shut you down,” Fincher recalls the lead ATF agent saying. “You tell all your FFL buddies we are coming for them. We are shutting the gun shows down.”

Months later, a federal grand jury issued a three-count indictment charging Fincher with two felonies and one misdemeanor:

  • Count one: Engaging in the business of dealing firearms without a license, a felony.
  • Count two: Selling ammunition to a prohibited person, a felony.
  • Count three: Making false entry in records by a federal firearms dealer, a misdemeanor.

Fincher’s Federal Public Defender negotiated the plea agreement, which kept Fincher out of federal prison. Both sides agreed that three years of probation would be “the appropriate disposition of the case.” The plea agreement also specified that Fincher would not contest the forfeiture of his personal firearms.

Last week, Fincher received a letter from his Teachers’ Retirement Fund, which scared him.

“They said they were kicking me out—I spent 10 years as a teacher—because I was a felon,” he said.

Things changed just a few days later when he received a call from the Federal Public Defender who had handled his criminal case.

“You’re not gonna believe this, but you just got a full presidential pardon,” Fincher said the attorney told him.

President Donald Trump gave Fincher and several others a “full and unconditional” pardon last week.

Now, with no criminal record, Fincher has been busy answering calls from friends, family and supporters.

He hopes he can return to teaching and coaching, in addition to his pastoral work. However, he has no plans to return to selling guns.

“There’s no way I am going to invite the federal government back into my world,” he said. “I am still so petrified of the federal government.”

He hopes he can retrieve his personal firearms from the ATF, and he wants to meet and personally thank President Trump. “I never thought I’d be here,” he said. “I never thought I’d get a pardon. I serve a mighty God, and as much as I love President Trump, God orchestrated this pardon.”

Missouri AG Catherine Hanaway Sues ATF over Suppressor Registration

Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway filed a lawsuit against the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) Tuesday, seeking to end the requirement that law-abiding Americans must register suppressors and short barrel rifles and shotguns.
A press statement issued by Hanaway notes her argument that when Congress zeroed the National Firearms Act (NFA) taxes on suppressors and short barrel rifles and shotguns, the basis for any registration scheme was undone.

Yet, as the release points out, “Even so, the federal government continues to enforce extensive registration and data‑collection requirements, backed by criminal penalties, that Missouri argues no longer have a valid constitutional justification and conflict with the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment.”

 

Hanaway said, “Law and order and the Second Amendment go hand in hand. A government that respects the Constitution has empowered, law‑abiding citizens who can protect themselves and their families. It does not paper over rights with red tape.”

She added, “The ATF’s heavy-handed restrictions on suppressors threaten lawful firearm use and undermine the rights protected by the Second Amendment.”

Hanaway’s case, in which she is joined by plaintiff Dave Marshak, is filed with the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.

On August 5, 2026, Breitbart News noted that plaintiffs in the case brought by Silencer Shop, Palmetto State Armory, and others, secured a ruling that the suppressor registration requirements were unconstitutional. The ruling was handed down in the United States District Court Northern District of Texas San Angelo Division.

All eyes are now on the ATF as those licensed for suppressor and short barrel rifle and shotgun sales await implementation guidelines.

BREAKING: TATE ADAMIAK PARDONED
President Trump pardoned Patrick “Tate” Adamiak and several others Friday.

Former U.S. Navy sailor Patrick “Tate” Adamiak has been pardoned by President Donald J. Trump—effective immediately. He was one of several people pardoned by President Trump Friday.

Adamiak, who still had 16 years left to serve of his 20-year federal prison sentence, will soon be a free man.

Adamiak said he was “numb headed” after he was released. He was dreaming of eating a burrito.

“I am ecstatic. I can’t believe it. It’s been four years in the making. It feels great. I am grateful that so many people stood behind me and made it happen,” Adamiak said. “I am grateful to President Trump. He gave me a full pardon. It’s all a lot to take in. I might even be able to get back into the military if I choose to.”

He has said he plans to continue his legal fight against the government since he never committed a single crime, and with his felony convictions completely overturned he can now fight as a free man.

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project published more than 60 stories debunking Adamiak’s arrest, conviction and lengthy prison sentence.

“We are thrilled that he is free. He did nothing wrong and broke no law,” said SAF founder and executive vice president Alan M. Gottlieb. “It took a humanitarian like President Trump to rectify a government wrong.”

Adamiak’s defense attorney Calum Welch was thrilled Friday.

“I am very excited for Tate and couldn’t be prouder to have played a small role in his getting home where he deserves to be,” Welch said.

Flawed investigation

Adamiak never sold a single real firearm—not one—even though he sold thousands of dollars per month of military gear and gun parts legally on his former website.

He was one of Gun Broker’s top 500 dealers, until the ATF decided to target him personally and lie under oath about the facts of his case.

Adamiak enlisted in the Navy when he was 17 and eventually became an E-6 Master-at-Arms. He has a bachelor’s degree and was working on a master’s until his arrest. He was on track for an officer’s commission within Naval Special Warfare.

The confidential informant, or CI, that brought Adamiak’s freedom to an end was cooperating with the ATF to work off charges of his own.

While dropping off gear at Adamiak’s home, the CI saw a replica grenade launcher and belt-fed machinegun replicas. He asked Adamiak if he had an SOT (Class 3 FFL). Adamiak told the CI the items were replicas—toys incapable of firing live rounds.

From this point forward, Adamiak said he became the target of a “fishing expedition by the ATF.”

Adamiak did agree to broker the purchase of a PPSh-41-barrel shroud for a client, which does not qualify as a firearm.

“It was literally purchased in open commerce, with a business check, from a confirmed FFL as an unregulated part directly off of Gun Broker,” Adamiak said last year. “Evidently, the ATF must have realized this was the closest thing they could get from me to a firearm, but what they really wanted was to get in my house to see the Mark 19 and the M240 replicas that their CI was boasting about. When applying for their search warrant the ATF told the judge in a criminal complaint that at issue was the PPSh-41-barrel shroud that they said was a machinegun, but that was not even close, legally.”

Show trial

More than 40 federal agents and police officers raided Adamiak’s home and a rental property he owned. Agents came from the ATF, FBI, HIS, NCIS, SWAT, Bomb Squad and local police.

“They turned my house upside-down but did not find a single functional machinegun or destructive device,” Adamiak said last year.

The agents seized about 35 replica firearms and parts from Adamiak’s personal collection and labeled them “suspected machineguns and destructive devices.”

Most worrisome, the agents seized money and silver Adamiak collected as “proceeds of illegal activity,” including his antique currency collection, which was worth thousands of dollars. Eventually, hiring an attorney was difficult for Adamiak because law enforcement took all of his savings.

“It’s my opinion and that of my family’s that the ATF realized they had messed up after they didn’t find a single illegal weapon,” Adamiak said from prison last year. “So, they completely reinterpreted the statutes and implemented a new rule to spin the jury and get me convicted. They manufactured crime to convict me.”

The ATF’s first indictment charged Adamiak with possessing 33 machineguns. There were no destructive devices mentioned. To counter, Adamiak and his attorneys hired former ATF senior official Dan O’Kelly as a defense witness.

O’Kelly joined the ATF as a Special Agent in 1988 after serving 10 years as a sworn police officer. He became a legend within the agency, including a stint as the lead instructor of Firearm Technology on staff at the ATF National Academy. O’Kelly has taught internationally and co-wrote the program establishing the Certified Firearm Specialist for the ATF, while he was at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point.

The prosecutors knew that O’Kelly would make mincemeat of their charges, so they reindicted Adamiak, charging him with possession of one machinegun and four destructive devices.

“They knew we’d make them look like fools at trial with Dan’s testimony, so the AUSA filed motions to block his expert testimony saying, ‘Any testimony about the definition of a frame or receiver of a machinegun would be both irrelevant and confusing to the jury.’” Adamiak explained last year.

His trial became “literally theatrical.”

“The AUSA absolutely twisted every fact, cherry-picked messages to completely change the whole narrative, and blatantly lied about everything to make me look bad,” Adamiak has said.

  • 1. She claimed the down payment for Adamiak’s house were profits of illegal gun trafficking. Adamiak bought his house a year before he started his hobby business using his Navy pay.
  • 2. She claimed Gun broker was the dark web.
  • 3. She used his military training against him.
  • 4. She claimed he stole parts from the military, despite the fact that he had detailed records for every single part.
  • 5. She claimed his honest business strategy of buying low and selling for profit was “greed.”
  • 6. She attempted to make Adamiak look like a neo-Nazi because he had his grandfather’s WWII war trophies stored in his safe, some of which had German markings on them.

Throughout the trial, the ATF’s attorneys showed jurors pictures of Adamiak’s extensive personal collection, including random parts, barrel shrouds and MAC-10 flats.

“They told the jury these were all machineguns,” Adamiak said in a previous interview. “The worst was the M240. They displayed a photo of the ATF case agent holding the belt-fed M240 replica and testified that it was a machinegun, and also made filings saying the same thing, despite the fact that the ATF’s own report says it’s a replica and not a firearm at all.”

Rather than winning the trial as his attorneys had claimed they would do, Adamiak was found guilty and sentenced to 20-years imprisonment.

The point being earlier made:
This is ‘for now’. We’ll see what happens the next time a virulenty anti RKBA administration is in power.

Comment O’ The Day:
2 things can be true. I can take @ATFDirectorRC at his word, but I can also 100% believe that there are still anti-gun elements within the ATF that are keeping their powder dry, waiting for shift change. We only need the Adamiak case as evidence.

Robert Cekada, current ATF director

UPDATE>Jensen v. ATF
FACTS> CLICKBAIT.

There’s a lot of misinformation circulating about the recent NDTX ruling in Jensen v. ATF; including a headline claiming, “ATF is Furious and We Are Planning Brutal Revenge on Gun Owners.”

The source? You guessed it: unnamed anonymous sources. It’s completely FALSE.

**More importantly – ATF respects the Court’s ruling and the rule of law. We are following the order and will not take enforcement action against protected parties inconsistent with that ruling. We are working diligently on clear guidance. Getting it RIGHT matters more than getting it out fast.

That means carefully navigating federal and state laws so that manufacturers, FFLs, and law-abiding gun owners aren’t left with legal problems – today or under a future administration.

Thank you for your patience as we focus on developing the guidance. It will be posted online as soon as we are done. The American public and the 2A community deserve facts NOT clickbait.

Well, they ain’t Santa Claus; But

A 2A Lawyer Says the ATF’s Anti-Gun Wing Is Keeping a List

The registration-free suppressor you carry out of the shop today could become a federal headache the day the political winds in Washington shift. Here’s the actual exposure — and the three things that might blunt a “revenge tour.”

Nobody selling you a suppressor right now wants to dwell on the downside. The tax stamp is gone, a Texas court has the ATF on its heels, and in a growing list of states you can walk out with a can after nothing more than a Form 4473 and a NICS check. It feels like the war is over.

In a recent video — “Lawyer Warns: ATF Is Going Full Revenge Mode?” — he relayed what he says he’s hearing in off-the-record conversations with people who have contacts inside ATF and DOJ: the ideological, anti-gun faction within those agencies is privately promising a reckoning. Not today. Later — the next time their side is back in power. And the target, he says, is precisely the paper trail being generated right now by every registration-free suppressor transfer.

He’s transparent that he’s relaying what he’s being told, not reporting a confirmed plan, and he allows that it may amount to nothing. But strip away the “revenge tour” branding and the underlying legal exposure he’s describing is real, specific, and worth understanding before you assume the fight is won.

Continue reading “”

NSSF Guidance on NFA Transfers

On Aug. 8, 2026, a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ruled in Silencer Shop v. ATF that most of the National Firearms Act (NFA) is unconstitutional, stating that portions of the NFA that no longer collect tax revenue as a result of cuts in last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill can no longer be justified as a lawful exercise of Congress’s taxing authority. The court concluded that the registration requirements and other regulations on items like silencers (suppressors), short-barrel rifles (SBRs) and short-barrel shotguns (SBSs) that are ostensibly justified as part of the tax collection process are unconstitutional.

The court entered a permanent injunction providing relief to only the plaintiffs in the legal challenge, and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) declined to seek an emergency appeal or stay of that decision, which means that the injunction is now in effect. However, DOJ still has until Oct. 5, 2026, to appeal or seek a stay of the final judgment, and there are many unanswered questions about the implications of the injunction.

Continue reading “”

From different sources, this didn’t affect the E-File system.

ATF Confirms ‘Major’ Cyberattack Without Offering Details of What Was Targeted

While the ATF has confirmed that it was the target of a “major” cyberattack by the ransomware group known as Qilin, details of the data breach are still under wraps, and it’s unclear what information may have been stolen or compromised.

One of the concerns is that the details of potentially tens of millions of gun owners might have been accessed. The ATF has digital files of billions of documents from FFLs who have gone out of business, including the Form 4473s that were filled out by customers. If the hackers accessed that material, it could be used for a variety of nefarious purposes, from identity theft to providing criminals with a handy list of gun owners in their area. (though that would take a little bit of work on the part of the ransomware group).

“The NRA is deeply concerned about how data leaks can expose the privacy of gun owners,” a spokesperson for the National Rifle Association told the DCNF. “We are working with the administration to understand the scope and severity of the situation, and will keep our members updated as facts are confirmed.”

“If anything this reinforces why we feel it’s critical that the ATF compile as little information about gun owning Americans as possible,” Second Amendment Foundation Senior Director of Litigation William Sack said. “Not only should our government not have that information, but they’ve shown over and over again that it’s not even secure in their possession.”

At the moment, very little data is secure, whether it belongs to a government agency or a private company. Ransomware attacks have become increasingly common, with the Department of Justice announcing on Wednesday that it had taken control of the platforms QScan and QTRouter, which are connected to the Chinese government.

In a court filing, the DOJ revealed that it had been the target of attacks using the platforms, along with other government entities like NASA, the Federal Reserve, Department of Energy, U.S. Senate, Department of Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health.

The website Cyber News reports that the Russia-linked hackers targeted a system that contains information “tied to ATF investigations,” though the agency has not officially confirmed that detail.

The Bureau stressed that the impacted system operates separately from the ATF enterprise network, but that doesn’t change the fact that leaked information about ATF investigations could pose a serious national security risk.

ATF investigations can target a wide range of serious criminal activity – from illegal firearms trafficking and violent gangs to bomb makers, terror suspects, and even domestic violence offenders.

… If Qilin’s claims are legitimate – and data was stolen from the isolated ATF system – the potential fallout could be enormous.

Ongoing ATF investigations could be compromised, potentially undermining prosecutions and exposing hundreds, if not thousands, of informants, witnesses, and other law enforcement activities across the country.

There’s no shortage of bad actors who would love to get their hands on that kind of information, including Mexican-based drug cartels and foreign governments hostile to U.S. interests.

Again, as of right now we don’t know what information was accessed because the ATF is keeping those details to itself and the agencies investigating the cyberattack. Given the implications for gun owners, gun sellers, and firearm industry members, as well as ongoing ATF investigations, this “major” breach should be of major concern and spark major discussions on Capitol Hill about the amount of data that the ATF has compiled on those involved in lawful firearm transactions.

TSA Flags Child’s Cowboy Costume, Forces SC Woman to Miss Flight

The Transportation Safety Authority was created in the aftermath of 9/11. Its mission was to stop terrorists from taking dangerous weapons, which now includes box cutters, onto planes. Honestly, it’s an important mission, but TSA isn’t very good at its job. The stories of issues are legion, and when you look at who TSA recruits, it’s no wonder.

And really, the big problem is that there’s no exercise of common sense. I’ve seen some of the things TSA confiscates from people looking to board flights, and they’re not always actual weapons. Much of the time, it’s obvious they’re not weapons.

Like, for example, a cowboy costume for a woman’s nephew.

Passing through airport security lines when you are running short on time is already a high-wire stress management act. But what would you do if a miniature accessory in a toddler’s dress-up costume triggers a full-blown firearm protocol at the checkpoint? For South Carolina creator Lila Mack (@lilamack), that nightmare came true.

Mack’s routine transit day allegedly collapsed into an expensive overnight detour in Arkansas. The culprit? A gift she packed for her nephew. In a candid TikTok storytime, Mack broke down the agonizingly slow security confiscation that cost her a seat on her plane and forced an unexpected $160 layover.

Filming her debrief from the hotel bathroom, Mack showed off the gift, sarcastically dedicating the video to her nephew. “If you’re my two-year-old nephew watching this, I hope you love your new cowboy costume with gun holsters and no gun that cost me a flight and $160,” she joked.

A toddler’s cowboy costume triggered an unexpected firearm alert

The travel nightmare allegedly began while Mack was heading through security screening with her carry-on luggage. At this time, she was already rushing to make a tight boarding window. Inside her bag was a gift for her two-year-old nephew: a small cowboy costume complete with tiny faux holsters and a plastic toy prop.

Now, in fairness, Mack was kind of dumb for bringing that costume in her carry-on bag. I’m a big fan of packing important things in a carry-on, in part because I typically fly Delta, which a comedian once described as standing for Don’t Expect Luggage Today at All. So, my advice is keep a change of clothes and other important things in the carry-on, and be prepared to buy toiletries when you get to your destination, just in case.

But putting a toy gun in there? That’s just begging for a run-in with TSA.

On the flip side, they’re toy guns for a toddler. They’re not remotely real, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see that. No one is hijacking an aircraft, particularly in a world where air marshals are a thing, with a toy gun made for a toddler’s costume.

They’re just not.

Sooner or later, TSA needs to get its crap together and focus on legitimate security and not on trying to pretend they’re on top of things by screwing up travel plans over obvious toys.

An Airsoft gun? Maybe, because those look real enough to worry people, especially those unfamiliar with guns.

A couple of toy cowboy pistols, though?

Give me a freaking break.

Federal Judge: ATF’s ‘Frame and Receiver Rule’ Unconstitutional

A federal district court judge in Texas ruled Tuesday that the Biden-era “Final Rule” on Frames and Receivers as defined by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The case is known as Defense Distributed v Blanche (formerly known as VanDerStok v. Bondi).

In his 29-page ruling, Chief U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor at the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas writes, “The Final Rule does not merely lack supporting analogues. It contradicts the actual historical tradition of personal gunsmithing. Self-manufacture of firearms in America was common and indeed foundational to establishing our Nation…

“Thus, the Court ENJOINS Defendants from enforcing 27 C.F.R. § 478.11 and 27 C.F.R. § 478.12(c) against Defense Distributed, SAF, or any of SAF’s current or future members with respect to Defense Distributed’s M1911 80% Frames and G80 Build Kit, Unfinished Receiver, and Grip Module.”

According to a Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) news release announcing the ruling—SAF was a plaintiff in the case—”The court declared the rule unconstitutional as applied to all SAF members and issued a permanent injunction protecting Defense Distributed and current and future Second Amendment Foundation members as it relates to the specific gun kits involved in the case. SAF and its partners filed for a motion summary judgment in April of this year, which today, the Court granted.”

A jubilant SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan Gottlieb stated, “It was obvious from the outset that the Biden ATF’s definition of a ‘firearm’ was intentionally vague and provided no clear guidance to the average law-abiding American as to what was actually legal.

“As it stood previously,” he continued, “the updated definition, in essence, made a law-abiding citizen a criminal for nothing more than owning a piece of plastic that could be converted into a firearm. That isn’t how it works. Congress set the definition and the ATF can’t unilaterally trump up a revised version to suit their political agenda. The ruling also affirms that you are indeed allowed make firearms in your own home without fear of prosecution.”

In his ruling, Judge O’Connor—a 2007 George W. Bush appointee—criticized the ATF’s Final Rule for using “abstract and vague language.”

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

In theory.

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

From a press release:

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

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

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

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

The letter asks for a response to five separate questions:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A big one.

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

Then we’ve got the logistics of this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

Executive Summary

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

GOP Coalition Urges DOJ to Use Rulemaking to Adopt Jensen v. ATF Ruling Nationwide

A letter currently in the possession of Breitbart News shows Rep. Andrew Clyde (R) and a GOP coalition urging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to apply the Jensen v. ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] ruling nationwide, broadening its application via rulemaking to include all law-abiding Americans.

On August 5, 2026, Breitbart News reported that plaintiffs in Jensen v. ATF secured a ruling freeing them from the National Firearms Act’s (NFA’s) registration requirements for suppressors and short barrel rifles and shotguns.

Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF is consolidated with Jensen v. ATF, which means numerous plaintiffs — including Silencer Shop customers and members of certain gun rights groups — are free from the burdensome registration requirements if the ruling stands.

The DOJ was given a 7-day window in which to appeal the decision, and the letter from Clyde and 46 other GOP Senators and House members urges the department not to do so.

The letter says:

The court’s opinion tracks precisely the position this Congress articulated when we passed Section 70436 of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The court correctly recognized that the NFA’s registration, application, and reporting requirements for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and AOWs have rested only on the taxing power, and that a tax set to zero can no longer support the regulatory machinery built to collect it.

Instead of appealing, the signatories of the letter urge the DOJ to use rulemaking to adopt the various aspects of the ruling nationwide so the benefits it secured are not only applicable to customers of Silencer Shop, members of certain gun rights groups, etc.

The letter says:

The DOJ should apply the court’s constitutional holding as its nationwide operating position. The court held that the challenged NFA provisions — governing registration, application, and transfer of untaxed firearms — are unconstitutional because they no longer rest on any valid exercise of an enumerated power.

That holding does not turn on any fact particular to the named plaintiffs; it applies with equal force to every person subject to these same regulations. Therefore, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) should be directed to apply this ruling as its governing position to all transfers and makings involving untaxed firearms, regardless of whether the applicant is a party to this litigation, again effective immediately.

The signatories explained, “Immediate application of the ruling nationwide is necessary to avoid the untenable alternative in the interim: a split enforcement regime in which the DOJ applies these requirements to one gun owner while declining to apply them to his neighbor, solely because one person happens to be a customer of Silencer Shop or a member of Gun Owners of America.”

The letter continues:

The DOJ should initiate rulemaking to formally rescind or amend the challenged regulations as they apply to untaxed firearms. Rulemaking is necessary to make this outcome permanent.

We urge you to begin that rulemaking process without delay, so that the immediate, nationwide application of the court’s ruling is followed as promptly as the APA allows by a durable regulatory fix that does not depend on the discretion of any particular administration.

The letter concludes by focusing on the important role the Second Amendment has played, and continues to play, in protecting and preserving freedom:

The Second Amendment is the practical guardian of those God-given rights, ensuring that free citizens retain the ultimate means to defend their lives, their liberty, and their families.

When the DOJ defends unconstitutional gun regulations then the ATF becomes weaponized against law-abiding Americans and the government betrays its founding purpose. Restoring the Second Amendment is not merely a policy matter — it is a fulfillment of this nation’s oldest and most sacred promise to its people.

We stand ready to work with you and the Department of Justice to see these priorities enacted, and we are grateful for your continued commitment to our sacred Liberties and the Second Amendment that protects them.

The letter is addressed to Attorney General Todd Blanche and cc’d ATF Director Robert Cekada and will be released to both of them at some point today.

The GOP signatories in addition to Rep. Clyde are Sens. Steve Daines, Roger Marshall, Bill Cassidy, Cynthia Lummis, Mike Lee, John Cornyn, John Barrasso, and Mike Crapo, as well as House members Mary Miller, Keith Self, Diana Harshbarger, Eric Burlison, Eli Crane, John Brecheen, H. Morgan Griffith, Ben Cline, Clay Higgins, Michael Cloud, Ralph Norman, Scott Perry, Warren Davidson, Shari Biggs, Kat Cammack, Bruce Westerman, Derrick Van Orden, Tom McClintock, Mike Collins, Scott DesJarlais, Jimmy Patronis, Morgan Luttrell, Austin Scott, Richard Hudson, Randy Weber, Claudia Tenney, Pete Sessions, Andy Biggs, Riley Moore, Derek Schmidt, Wesley Hunt, Mark Harris, Tim Burchett, Brian Babin, Lauren Boebert, Victoria Spartz, Chip Roy, and Earl L. “Buddy” Carter.

Why Fauci Matters
He’s not just a powerful guy who acted in bad faith. He’s a totem to a whole class of people who don’t care about that.

This is old inside- baseball blogger stuff in part, but there’s a bigger lesson.

Old time (and I mean old-time) blog readers may remember Jeff Jarvis’s fierce post-9/11 warblogging, which pivoted rather suddenly into leftish pro-Democratic blogging in time for the 2004 election. Jeff and I were close before the pivot (he got me my long-ago MSNBC gig), and remained friendly even after. We were Facebook friends from the beginning, though our interactions over the past decade-plus were confined to the occasional like or happy birthday.

Then the other day I posted this:

Jeff’s response was “He saved lives. What have you done?” My reply was “Did he?”

A few of my friends came on to suggest, politely enough, that Fauci’s contribution was mostly negative and Jeff abruptly responded “Good-bye, Glenn,” and unfriended me.

Well, I will survive the shock of that blow, but it struck me — after all those years of disagreeing on politics, this was the straw that broke Jarvis’s back? Anthony Fauci? Especially now, when he’s the butt of self-incrimination jokes? In front of Congress, Fauci wouldn’t even say what color his tie was. (I’m trying to talk one of my distiller friends into putting out a limited run of Fauci whiskey, with the slogan “Take the Fifth!”)

Why Fauci, and why now?

I think the answer is that Fauci, and Faucism, represented the apotheosis of what the managerial/academic/journo class desires: An excuse for sweeping power, based on (alleged) expertise, in which they could ride roughshod over those stupid proles and flyover people while preening about the allegedly superior moral and intellectual qualities that justify their rule.

Then it turned out that they were wrong about nearly everything and — as Fauci’s diaries demonstrate — knew it at the time, at least at the top. And their overreach is one of the things that gave us Trump 47.

That this is out in public now produces cognitive dissonance. The easiest thing to do is to check out of the discussion. And so. Well, goodbye, Jeff, if by chance you’re reading this. I never stopped liking you, but I confess I liked the pre-pivot Jeff better. Enjoy your life as you are now.

Government Throws in Towel on Defending Post Office Gun Ban

The U.S. Justice Department this week signaled it would no longer defend against a challenge to the federal ban on firearm possession, storage, and carry at U.S. Post Offices.

The government filed a motion with the U.S. Fifth Circuit in New Orleans to voluntarily dismiss its appeal of FPC v. Blanche, a gun rights group’s victory against the post office gun ban. A lower court in Oct. 2025 found the ban unconstitutional, citing that the first mail service in America was established in 1639, but the USPS waited until 1972 to specifically prohibit firearms on postal property.

Until this week, the government was still doggedly standing by the ban on appeal.

“The Trump DOJ spent far too long defending an immoral and unconstitutional ban that treated peaceable Americans like criminals,” said FPC President Brandon Combs in a statement. “Now, after losing on the merits and failing to gut the relief protecting our members, the government is finally waving the white flag. Good.”

For now, the victory in FPC v. Blanche protects members of the FPC and the Second Amendment Foundation, pending further challenges, rulings, and possible repeal of the ban by the USPS.

No Tax, No Excuse: NFA Suppressor and SBR Registry Gun Rights Next Target

New filings argue that three Supreme Court decisions have stripped away the government’s excuses for maintaining a zero-tax federal gun registry. The tax is gone. The registry remains.

The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have opened a coordinated, three-court attack on the National Firearms Act registration requirements for suppressors and short-barreled firearms. Supplemental filings in Brown v. ATF, Jensen v ATF, and Roberts v. ATF argue that three recent Supreme Court decisions leave the federal government with neither a valid taxing-power excuse nor an easy escape from the Second Amendment.

The Jensen filing is part of the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF litigation in Texas, where Silencer Shop Foundation and allied plaintiffs are pursuing a parallel challenge to the NFA registry.

Congress Zeroed the NFA Tax but Kept the Registry

Congress reduced the NFA making and transfer tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons” to zero in the One Big Beautiful Bill. Washington, however, kept the paperwork, fingerprints, registration, prior approval, and felony penalties.

That creates the question now confronting federal courts: If the registry existed to collect a tax, what constitutional authority supports it when Congress no longer collects that tax?

SAF says the Supreme Court’s decision in Landor v. Louisiana Department of Corrections & Public Safety reinforces the answer: none. Congress cannot stretch the Necessary and Proper Clause into an independent police power, then impose a burdensome registration scheme on Americans who owe no tax.

The Jensen filing puts the point bluntly. Maintaining registration on untaxed citizens, plaintiffs argue, would permit Congress “to regulate in minute detail the activities of untaxed Americans.”

That should concern every gun owner. A federal agency should not be able to preserve a national weapons database merely because the database once accompanied a tax.

Supreme Court Rulings Strengthen the Second Amendment Challenge

The Second Amendment attack may be even more consequential. SAF argues that Wolford v. Lopez and United States v. Hemani require courts to apply the Supreme Court’s text-and-history test instead of inventing special exemptions for NFA regulations.

According to the filing, a suppressed firearm is a form of an arm, while a short-barreled rifle is “indisputably” a form of an arm. Once protected conduct is implicated, the government bears the burden of proving that its restriction is consistent with America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

The filing also takes direct aim at the Fifth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Peterson, which treated NFA registration as comparable to a presumptively lawful shall-issue licensing system. The plaintiffs contend that Wolford “leaves no room for a carveout” from the required Second Amendment analysis and therefore abrogates Peterson on that point.

That licensing comparison was always strained. Licensing evaluates whether a person is legally disqualified. Registration creates a government record of particular weapons and their owners. As the Jensen filing explains, “Registration, by contrast, focuses on tracking firearms and who owns them.”

Three NFA Lawsuits Target the ATF Registry

In a press release, SAF Senior Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack said: “When the Supreme Court rightly ruled in favor of Landor, Wolford, and Hemani, the precedent set had a direct impact on SAF’s ongoing NFA challenges.

With those rulings in hand, we are now able to better explain to the courts exactly why the remaining registration scheme left in the NFA lacks constitutional authority and is a direct violation of Americans’ Second Amendment rights. We are hopeful these cases will move expeditiously and rightfully restore the full constitutional rights of gun owners across the nation.”

“There is no doubt the Supreme Court’s rulings this past term have direct bearing on our current challenges to the NFA’s remaining registration scheme,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb.

“The relevant district courts should recognize the rulings for what they are – binding precedent that bolsters SAF’s arguments in these three cases.

The One Big Beautiful Bill eliminated the tax for suppressors and short-barreled firearms, and it’s now time to remove the registration burden so citizens can exercise their right to keep and bear arms without fear of being placed on some government list.”

The burden is now where Bruen put it: on the government. ATF must identify a historical analogue, not wave at modern licensing practices and demand judicial deference. The government now faces a problem it cannot solve with slogans about licensing or administrative convenience.

No tax means no taxing-power excuse. Protected arms mean the Second Amendment applies. And a government list of firearms and their owners is exactly what it looks like: registration.

They’re still bureaucrap

NYT Sounds The Alarm on the ‘Drastic Retrenchment’ Going On at ATF.

Proponents of the changes [to ATF rules] point out that some of the reversals would return regulations to what they were only a few years ago, before President Joseph R. Biden took office. After a series of deadly mass shootings, Mr. Biden signed into law gun control measures, ending nearly three decades of gridlock over whether and how to regulate firearms.

The divisiveness illustrates the complicated landscape for gun policy.

“With the Biden regulations that we got and put in place, we advanced the ball,” said Kris Brown, the president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, one of the country’s biggest gun control organizations.

But the Trump administration’s approach “takes us back 100 years,” she said. “It’s really decimating A.T.F.’s ability to regulate this industry.”

A White House official said the administration’s policies reflected Mr. Trump’s commitment to ensuring that Americans could exercise their Second Amendment rights, accusing the Biden administration of bypassing Congress and using the regulatory process to restrict gun rights. …

Since his first run for office, Mr. Trump has positioned himself as an ardent supporter of gun rights. In the run-up to the 2024 election, he vowed to be “the best friend gun owners have ever had in the White House.” Days after being inaugurated, he signed an executive order instructing the attorney general to scrutinize what he described as “ongoing infringements of the Second Amendment rights of our citizens.”

— Aishvarya Kavi in Trump Administration Rolls Back Dozens of Gun Regulations

 

GOA Has Major Problem With New Rules From ATF

The ATF is changing rules aplenty, and they’re a massive departure from years gone by, when everyone in leadership there was as anti-gun as they came. It’s almost universally good news for us, to say the least.

Yes, I’m happy overall with where things are headed.

However, things aren’t perfect, and Gun Owners of America is a little less than pleased by what we’re seeing.

In particular, they have one problem, but it’s kind of a big one.

The pro-gun rights group Gun Owners of America is calling out the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives over what GOA calls a “fake rollback” of the Biden Administration’s “Engaged in the Business” rule.

GOA has been battling the Trump Administration Department of Justice over the rule ever since President Donald Trump took office for his second term. And while it looked like the DOJ had decided to do away with the rule in recent proposed rulemaking, GOA says there’s more to the story.

GOA: The replacement rule keeps the Biden framework in place

“That rule tried to twist the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to impose backdoor universal background checks by redefining who counts as a ‘dealer,’” GOA said in a recent news release on the rule. “Now, ATF has proposed a replacement rule that claims to ‘rescind’ the Biden rule, but in reality keeps key parts of its legal framework in place and leaves gun owners exposed.”

Your firearms list could still be used against you

“ATF still treats everyday behavior by gun owners as suspicious: keeping a simple list of your firearms, reselling the same model within a short window, or even just offering to sell a firearm can be used as evidence that you are ‘engaged in the business’ without a license,” GOA explained in the release. “The agency continues to push the idea that intent alone can be enough evidence to prosecute law-abiding gun owners as illegal firearms traffickers, despite the court’s ruling and the clear limits Congress placed in law.”

Consequently, GOA said, the ATF cannot keep the Biden-era “Engaged in the Business” framework on the books.

“The rule must be rescinded in its entirety,” GOA wrote.

I mean, that’s fair.

Have you ever had a turn of your fortunes in a short period of time? One month, you’re doing great, then a couple of months later, everything went to crap?

I suspect most of you have to some degree or another.

One of the problems with this “engaged in the business” rule is that it’s too easy to take someone who is in this kind of situation, who bought a gun in March, then needs money for rent in June, and sells the gun, could be considered an illegal dealer when that’s not what’s happening.

Literally no one would say that about someone who bought a car, then sold it in a short window of time. They’re not an unlicensed car dealer or anything. That’s true of any other physical product out there. People buy, then sell later on, and if money gets tight, they’re going to do it a bit quicker than they might otherwise.

The idea that selling a firearm could get you hammered as an illegal dealer is stupid, and it’s stupid even if it’s not about money getting tight. If I buy a product, it’s mine. I should be able to do what I want with it so long as no one else is endangered by my actions. That includes selling my property because I want to sell it.

It might be different if I’m selling dozens of guns in that short window, but the problem with the rule, as I understand it, and as GOA understands it, is that it doesn’t differentiate between one sale and a hundred. That’s a big problem.

For the most part, I like the new rules. Leaving this, however, isn’t one of them.