Category: Bureaucraps

FPC Pushing 15 NFA Mandate States to Suspend Enforcement, Repeal Their Now Antiquated Laws.

If you were doing other things — working, playing, turning money into noise at the range — you may have missed the news that ATF made yesterday [OCT 9TH ed.] afternoon. After two months of trying to figure out the new lay of the land in the wake of the Jensen ruling regarding suppressors (and SBRs, SBSs and AOWs), ATF released new guidance as to how they’ll enforce the National Firearms Act going forward.

The Jensen ruling (and DOJ’s decision not to appeal it) has created a complex patchwork of makers, dealers and gun owners who were and weren’t covered by the ruling’s injunction. If you bought a can made by SilencerCo or B&T, no Form 4 needed any more. If you wanted to buy suppressor made by someone else, you could…if you’re a GOA or FPC member. Or you could buy one from Palmetto State Armory or Silencer Shop, both of which were named plaintiffs in the case.

You can probably see the issue from both a compliance and an enforcement perspective. What we had was a fraught, confusing situation for FFLs and individuals who wanted to take advantage of the ruling, but didn’t want to inadvertently wind up a test case in federal court.

So yesterday, ATF released new guidance on how they will be enforcing the NFA under Jensen. And they’ve done it in the most expansive way we could have hoped for. In effect, ATF has applied the ruling to everyone, nationwide.

If you’re a law-abiding person who can own a firearm, you can saunter into your local gun store, pick up a silencer or a short-barrel rifle (or both!), fill out a 4473, pass your background check and walk right out with it. Easy-peasy.

UNLESS, of course, you live in one of 15 states (see the list below) which have laws on the books that require NFA registration of any can, SBR, SBS or AOW you buy or make. You’ll still have to go through the NFA song and dance with all of the paperwork, fingerprints, and a wait time for ATF processing.

The new guidance has taken those people into account, however, and the agency will continue to process Form 1’s and Form 4’s for the people in those states who want to buy the covered products.

In the mean time, the Firearms Policy Coalition has wasted no time going to work to try to convince those 15 states to get their acts together and suspend their enforcement of their NFA mandate laws and start the process of repealing them.

This, from FPC . . .

Following the historic end to the NFA’s unconstitutional federal registration scheme for untaxed firearms and suppressors, Firearms Policy Coalition announced today that lawyers for the organization sent letters to the attorneys general of 15 states that still tie the legality of silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, or other covered arms to compliance with the federal National Firearms Act registration process. FPC is asking those states to immediately stop enforcement while lawmakers repeal the laws for good.

The effort follows FPC’s major victory in Silencer Shop/Jensen v. ATF, where the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the federal government could no longer use Congress’s taxing power to sustain the NFA’s making, registration, and transfer requirements for firearms Congress made subject to a $0 tax. The court enjoined enforcement of the challenged provisions as to the plaintiffs and others covered by its judgment.

The basic problem was fatal to the government’s regime: Congress eliminated the tax, and with it the constitutional basis the government had relied on for the machinery built to collect that tax.

That should have been the end of it. But in 15 states, it wasn’t. Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington, and Wisconsin still have laws that tie the legality of some NFA-classified arms to compliance with federal registration requirements.

For people covered by the Silencer Shop/Jensen injunction or otherwise able to act without federal enforcement under ATF’s new policies, those laws can still require compliance with a federal process the court has enjoined, leaving them unable to fully benefit from the federal victory without risking violation of state law.

“The states that require compliance with this unconstitutional and now-defunct federal scheme should immediately end enforcement and repeal their laws as soon as possible,” said FPC President Brandon Combs. “We certainly hope they will put liberty and their citizens first, and we stand ready and willing to partner with them to protect the rights of their citizens. But no matter what, one way or another, FPC and our Grassroots Army will Fight Forward until people can exercise their rights without fear of arrest or prosecution, full stop.”

FPC’s proposal gives the states a direct path forward: make an immediate commitment to non-enforcement so people are protected now, then work through the legislative process toward full repeal of state laws separately regulating these categories of arms.

For this critically-important effort, FPC retained Holtzman Vogel partner David P. Johnson to lead the attorney-general outreach. Johnson, who focuses on state attorney general matters and litigation, was previously the Policy Director and General Counsel to the Republican Attorneys General Association and worked closely with Republican attorneys general and their offices to advance policy priorities.

“This effort to secure an immediate commitment to non-enforcement is a common-sense way to protect people while these laws work through the legislative process toward what should be their full repeal. We truly hope this reasonable request will be met with consideration for the People and the rights at stake so that we will not need to litigate. As long as these states are taking meaningful steps to address this issue, we will gladly work with them as partners to address these legal issues. But our responsibility is to protect the People and their rights, and we will do what is necessary to fulfill it,” said attorney and FPC Action Foundation President Cody J. Wisniewski.

The Federal Fight Is Not Over

Also today, following the federal injunction, ATF announced an important nationwide change in its enforcement position. As a matter of enforcement discretion, ATF will no longer enforce many of the NFA’s making, registration, transfer, possession, and related restrictions for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, silencers, and other covered $0-tax arms—even against people who are not covered by the Silencer Shop/Jensen injunction. In its guidance, ATF also expressly acknowledged the state-law problem, noting that state laws may continue to require federal compliance or registration even where federal enforcement has ceased.

Notably, ATF’s nationwide policy rests on executive enforcement discretion. ATF itself warns that enforcement could resume if circumstances change—including if the Department rescinds the policy, the injunction is overturned or dissolved, or Congress imposes a new tax. Its guidance further states that federal law does not automatically grandfather unregistered arms if enforcement later resumes.

That is why FPC is not leaving the People’s liberty dependent on the discretion of a future administration. Instead, FPC is continuing multiple federal efforts—including Brown v. ATF, which FPC is a party to, and the FPC-backed Roberts v. ATF—to secure durable, nationwide relief from the NFA’s remaining unconstitutional restrictions. Brown and Roberts challenge the NFA under both Congress’s enumerated powers and the Second Amendment.

One Fight. Three Fronts.

FPC’s strategy is straightforward: end the federal regime, eliminate state laws that depend on it, and directly attack state bans on constitutionally protected arms wherever they exist.

At the federal level, FPC is pressing forward toward durable nationwide relief.

At the state level, today’s 15-state initiative attacks laws that still tether the People to the federal NFA registration system.

And where states independently ban the arms themselves, FPC is attacking those prohibitions head-on.

That includes cases like FPC v. Davenport, FPC’s challenge to New Jersey’s ban on short-barreled rifles. The case builds on FPC’s en banc Third Circuit victory in Cheeseman v. Davenport, where the court held New Jersey’s semiautomatic-rifle ban unconstitutional—a decision FPC says also materially strengthens its SBR challenge.

FPC’s Viramontes v. Cook County case is now before the United States Supreme Court, where FPC is challenging a ban on so-called “assault weapons.” Oral argument in the landmark Second Amendment “hardware” case is set for December 2, 2026.

“Jensen is not a one-off lawsuit—it is one part of a broader strategic plan,” Combs said. “That plan has already killed federal NFA registration for these untaxed arms. We are fighting to make that victory permanent and nationwide, and now we are working to eliminate the state laws that try to keep those restrictions alive. At the same time, our arms-ban cases are attacking the bans themselves. FPC and our Grassroots Army will Fight Forward until all of these unconstitutional and immoral restrictions are eliminated throughout the United States.”

FPC thanks its Grassroots Army members and supporters for making this important work possible. Individuals who want to join FPC and support its lawsuits and other programs to restore liberty can join the FPC Grassroots Army at JoinFPC.org.

[Representative text of the letter sent by Holtzman Vogel attorneys David Johnson and Daniel Bruce is below:]

Dear [Attorney General]:

We write on behalf of our client, Firearms Policy Coalition (“FPC”), regarding recent federal court developments with significant and immediate implications for firearms law in your State. In Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-056 (N.D. Tex. Aug. 5, 2026) (consolidated with the FPC-backed Jensen v. ATF, No. 6:26-CV-227), the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that various provisions of the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) are unconstitutional because they no longer comport with Congress’s taxing power. This decision has created an urgent legal question for law-abiding firearms owners, firearms manufacturers, and law enforcement officials and legal officers in states, including yours, with laws that condition the legality of certain firearms on compliance with the NFA: Must state residents still comply with unconstitutional, enjoined federal regulations to exercise their right to keep and bear the arms under state law? In order to protect your citizens’ rights, we respectfully request your Office’s attention and offer FPC’s partnership in crafting a prompt resolution.

Background

The NFA, enacted in 1934, imposed a tax on the transfer and making of certain regulated firearms—including silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.” To facilitate collection of this tax, Congress erected a regulatory framework requiring registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record, submission of applications with fingerprints and photographs, local law enforcement notification, and prior ATF approval. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b), 5822, 5841(a)–(c), (e), 5842(b), 5861(b)–(f), (i); 27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62(a)–(d), 479.84(a)–(d).

On July 4, 2025, Congress enacted the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Pub. L. 119-21, 139 Stat. 72 (2025), which, effective January 1, 2026, reduced the federal transfer and making taxes to $0 for silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons.”  Critically, Congress left the NFA’s entire regulatory apparatus—registration, application, approval, and recordkeeping—fully intact despite eliminating the revenue.

On August 5, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that the challenged NFA regulatory provisions are unconstitutional. Because a $0 tax raises no revenue—the “essential feature of any tax”––the regulatory provisions can no longer be sustained under Congress’s taxing power, the sole constitutional basis on which the NFA was enacted. The court entered a party-specific injunction barring the ATF and DOJ from enforcing the challenged provisions (26 U.S.C. §§ 5812(a)–(b), 5822, 5841(a)–(c), (e), 5842(b), 5861(b)–(f), (i); 27 C.F.R. §§ 479.62(a)–(d), 479.84(a)–(d)) against untaxed firearms held by the plaintiffs. Additional challenges are progressing in other circuits. See, e.g., the FPC-backed cases of Brown v. ATF, No. 4:25-CV-1162 (E.D. Mo.) and Roberts v. ATF, No. 2:24-CV-091 (E.D. Ky.).

The Problem

This creates a problem for many states, such as yours, that have enacted firearms statutes that condition the lawful possession, transfer, and/or making of NFA-regulated items on compliance with the federal NFA registration requirements. These provisions make it lawful for a person to possess NFA-regulated items only if that person has complied with the NFA’s registration, application, and approval requirements.

The Silencer Shop Foundation/Jensen decision has fundamentally disrupted this framework. The federal government is prohibited from enforcing the NFA’s registration, application, and approval requirements as to the covered plaintiffs. And the court held that those provisions are facially unconstitutional. Yet your State’s law still requires compliance with those facially unconstitutional federal procedures as a prerequisite to lawful possession under State law.

The Department of Justice recently notified Congress that it does not intend to appeal the decision. Letter from D. John Sauer, Solicitor General, to Sen. Charles Grassley, Chairman, Sen. J. Comm. (Sept. 24, 2026), Silencer Shop Foundation, No. 6:26-CV-056 (ECF No. 145-1). And the trend of litigation nationally suggests other challenges, see Brown, No. 4:25-CV-1162; Roberts, No. 2:24-CV-091, will reach the same or a substantially similar result. Accordingly, this issue is likely to persist until state legislatures act.

The result is an untenable legal limbo. Through no fault of their own, law-abiding citizens face state criminal exposure for possessing items they have a constitutionally protected right to possess and that the federal government is barred from regulating under the current statutory framework. Such uncertainty will chill law-abiding citizens’ rights to keep and bear arms. And worse, it will also inevitably lead to confusion for state and local law enforcement officials who must determine whether to enforce state laws that incorporate unconstitutional federal registration, application, and approval requirements. This would not only put peaceable people at risk, but it would also inevitably lead to the expense of litigating challenges to your State’s laws in civil and criminal cases. Thus, FPC encourages your Office to take action now to begin addressing this critical issue.

Proposed Solutions

FPC respectfully proposes the following two urgent, prioritized solutions to protect citizens’ constitutionally protected rights, liberty, and property:

    1. Immediate Non-Enforcement Guidance. We request that your Office immediately cease enforcement of applicable State laws and issue a formal statement, opinion, or memorandum to State and local law enforcement and prosecutors directing them to not enforce your State’s NFA-tethered provisions for possession, making, or transfer of untaxed NFA items—silencers, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and “any other weapons”—without federal registration and approval under the unconstitutional provisions. Such guidance would safeguard citizens’ constitutionally protected rights, provide clarity for law enforcement, avoid the expenditure of State resources on prosecutions premised on State laws tied to unconstitutional federal requirements, reduce your State’s legal exposure, and serve as a prudent interim measure while the State legislature acts. 
    2. Permanent Legislative Fix. We further urge your Office to develop an appropriate legislative proposal and work with your State’s Legislature to permanently untether lawful acquisition, possession, use, and disposition of affected arms from the unconstitutional, enjoined federal registration requirements. A full repeal of such State requirements is encouraged to show your State’s commitment to its citizens’ constitutionally protected rights.

* * *

FPC and its counsel stand ready to serve as resources and partners to your Office to address this issue, including analyzing the impact of the unconstitutionality of the NFA’s provisions on your State’s firearms law and providing model statutory language for permanent legislative solutions. Thank you for your time and consideration. We look forward to your response and to working together in service of the people of your State.

Respectfully,

/s/

David Johnson 

/s/

Daniel Bruce 

ATF issues guidance on National Firearms Act transfers for short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors, and certain other firearms

WASHINGTON – The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives today released an Open Letter and Frequently Asked Questions explaining how it will treat ownership, transfer, and transportation of the National Firearms Act firearms for which Congress eliminated the making and transfer taxes in the One Big Beautiful Bill.

The guidance follows an announcement by Attorney General Todd Blanche that the Department of Justice will not appeal an August decision made by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, which held that certain provisions of the NFA were unenforceable. In that decision, the court enjoined enforcement of those NFA provisions only for the plaintiffs in the suit; however, using the Department’s enforcement discretion, the Attorney General in his announcement made the policy decision to apply the guidance to everyone, and not only to those covered by the injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF, No. 6:25-cv-056 (N.D. Tex.).

“The direction from the President, Congress, and the courts is clear,” said ATF Director Rob Cekada. “ATF is now following suit with our enforcement posture while continuing to ensure we remain focused where we are needed the most: combatting violent crime in American communities.”

Under ATF’s guidance, ATF will not enforce the requirements for individuals to apply and receive ATF approval before making or transferring short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, suppressors (silencers), and certain other concealable firearms known in the law as “any other weapons.” ATF also will not enforce the NFA’s registration, tax-stamp or related requirements for those covered items. The $200 tax remains in place for machine guns and destructive devices. The NFA requirements apply in full to those weapons.

The guidance does not supersede state and local laws that restrict NFA firearms. Because many state laws require individuals to register NFA firearms, ATF will continue to process NFA applications that are submitted. The guidance also does not affect the Gun Control Act’s requirement to obtain ATF approval before transporting short-barreled rifles and short-barreled shotguns in interstate commerce. Individuals may obtain that approval by filing a Form 20, whether or not the item is registered under the NFA.

Under the guidance, licensed dealers must still complete Form 4473s, run NICS background checks, keep records, and follow all other Gun Control Act requirements. Those engaged in the business are required to pay any special occupational tax. Individuals must also continue to comply with state law, which may be more restrictive.

ATF urges anyone with questions to closely read the frequently asked questions, available at atf.gov. Licensees and members of the public with questions may contact the Firearms Industry Programs Branch at FIPB@atf.gov.

BREAKING: Huge News for Gun Owners As DOJ and ATF Release Guidance and FAQ for NFA Items

The Department of Justice and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives have released the long-awaited guidance for gun owners and firearm industry members in response to the federal injunction on NFA registration requirements for suppressors, short-barreled firearms, and “Any Other Weapons.” While the scope of the injunction imposed by U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix applies only to the plaintiffs (along with their members and customers) in the Jensen and Silencer Shop cases, the guidance released by the ATF on Friday applies “to everyone, and not only to those covered by the injunction.”

A FAQ released by the DOJ and ATF explicitly lays out the changes that are now in effect.

Continue reading “”

The CDC Corrects its Post on Defensive Gun Uses

At the request of gun-control activists such as Mark Bryant, founder of the Gun Violence Archive, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed its defensive gun-use data in May 2022. Bryant had complained that gun-rights advocates frequently cited the estimates to “stop [gun-control] legislation,” In July 2026, the Trump administration restored the post as it originally appeared before the CDC removed it and has now corrected an error in the original version. This was the CDC’s original post.

Gun control organizations, such as Michael Bloomberg’s The Trace were outraged, with titles such as “Inflated Claim About Guns and Self-Defense Returns to CDC Website.” The “inflated” claim was that the range of defensive gun uses ranged from 60,000 to 2.5 million.

The 60,000 estimate is from an earlier NCVS. The problem is that 2013 National Academies of Sciences (NAS) report warns the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) estimates are “difficult to interpret because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use.” The report noted that estimates from national surveys as cited by Kleck ranged from about 500,000 to more than 3 million defensive gun uses per year.

The CDC has now corrected the information that had been posted and eliminated the lower estimate of defensive gun uses that the NAS report had noted was problematic..The NAS report didn’t make it clear that the 500,000 number was just for handguns, and the top estimate from the NAS report was 3.7 million. But this is a big improvement over what had originally been put up at the CDC website.

What was in the 2013 National Academies of Sciences report.

 

Senators Demand DOJ Probe and Destruction of ATF’s 1.4 Billion Out-of-Business Records

Eight U.S. senators are demanding that Attorney General Todd Blanche investigate what they call an illegal national gun registry built from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives’ out-of-business records (OBRs). Those records now number 1,414,088,513.

The Sept. 24 letter, led by Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) and sent to Blanche at the Department of Justice, also went to ATF Director Robert Cekada. Joining Risch were Sens. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.).

Gun Owners of America (GOA) and the senators treat the OBR holdings as a registry of guns and gun owners, not a passive archive.

“We write to alert you to an illegal national gun registry now containing 1,414,088,513 records of guns and gun owners,” the letter states. “These records, maintained by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) at its Martinsburg, West Virginia facility, were obtained from out-of-business firearms dealers and include names, addresses, Social Security numbers, and the specific firearms purchased.”

 

The Three Demands

The senators argue federal law already forbids what ATF is doing and that Congress does not need to pass another statute before the executive branch acts. They cite the Firearm Owners’ Protection Act of 1986, which prohibits “any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions,” and annual appropriations riders that bar ATF from centralizing the records and searching them by name.
They urge Blanche to:

  1. Direct an immediate, independent investigation of ATF’s Martinsburg database;
  2. Order the prompt and verifiable destruction of any records maintained in violation of the 1986 Firearm Owners’ Protection Act and the appropriations prohibitions; and
  3. Ensure that any final rule on record retention fully complies with those same prohibitions.

“Congress has already spoken. The American people need executive action to enforce that law,” they wrote. “American citizens are entitled to exercise their Second Amendment rights without the federal government compiling searchable lists of their names and firearms. We ask for your decisive leadership to end this registry and prevent its expansion.”

Risch has separately pushed the No REGISTRY Rights Act, which would require ATF to delete existing firearm transaction records and block any future registry.

Continue reading “”

ATF Says Suppressor and SBR Guidance Could Arrive Within Weeks

During “The Briefing,” an FFL compliance event hosted by FastBound, several high-ranking officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) attended, including ATF Director Robert Cekada, who answered industry questions.

Most attendees wanted guidance on transfers of suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs). Director Cekada could not give specifics, but he offered hints about what is coming down the pike.

The biggest question is when the ATF will release the guidance. According to Cekada, the rule is not done, but it is close. He highlighted that the ATF is only one stakeholder involved in the new guidance. The other two are the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the White House. AmmoLand sources believe the White House is delaying the guidance’s release. According to the director, he believes the guidance will be released in the next couple of weeks.

 

The goal of the guidance is to cover as many Americans as possible while protecting the gun owners covered by it from future anti-gun administrations.

The ATF will most likely not expand the injunction to a universal level. The guidance will address several big questions and issues. With more than 2.3 million suppressors sold this year, according to former NFA Chief Steve Albro, the need for guidance is immense.

One issue the guidance will address is the transfer of SBRs and SBSs. Currently, although these items are protected under the Silencer Shop Foundation case, an ATF Form 4 is required to transfer them because of the Gun Control Act (GCA) attorney general notification requirement. The guidance will “fix” that carve-out, which seems to imply that SBRs and SBSs can be transferred on a Form 4473 alone.

Cekada was clear that these items, and long guns in general, are not an issue. At the Briefing, Cekada called out groups whose goal is to demonize these guns.

Another issue the guidance will address is interstate travel with covered NFA items. The regulation will cover those situations. Also, 15 states require buyers of some covered items to comply with federal law. According to Cekada, the guidance may address that issue, although ATF Chief Legal Counsel Robert Lieder clarified that the ATF cannot force these states to take the bureau’s advice.

AmmoLand asked Director Cekada about guidance for industry operations inspectors (IOIs) on how to handle dealers they find transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 during an inspection. Cekada was adamant that a federal firearms licensee (FFL) found to be transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 will not be cited for violations. Former NFA Chief Albro later echoed this, saying the ATF’s policy is to presume all suppressors transferred via a Form 4473 were legally transferred.

One interesting topic that was brought up was forced reset triggers (FRTs). Cekada said some FRTs are true FRTs, but some on the market are machine guns, and he declined to name the specific FRTs the ATF thinks might be machine guns. He said the ATF has to look at how the trigger mechanism works but will go by the statutory definition of a machine gun.

Throughout the meeting, the ATF discussed changes to Form 4473. Those changes are still in progress. Things like the “County” box will be eliminated. According to Lieder, the ATF is making changes to the forms to comply with court rulings such as the Supreme Court’s Hemani case, which invalidated the firearms prohibition on marijuana users. The new Form 4473 will not be out until after the holiday season.

Mr. Lieder also covered the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion letter on sales of handguns and handgun ammunition to 18- to 20-year-olds. Lieder says the ATF is working on its systems to allow those transfers. The ATF was not informed that the letter would be issued.

Although the ATF will allow transferring handguns to these young adults, the ATF is likely to keep the age for transferring machine guns and destructive devices at 21. The ATF will release guidance in the coming weeks, according to Lieder.

The ATF will continue working on NFA rules dealing with suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. He wanted to make it clear they are not working on these rules despite the injunction. The goal of these rules is to backstop the current injunction in case something changes in the future. It is basically trying to future-proof against a future anti-gun administration. During this discussion, someone asked whether the ATF has plans to make the injunction “fairer” to those not covered. Lieder said their goal is to try to make any guidance as fair as possible without exceeding its power.

Mr. Lieder sees the biggest threats to the Second Amendment as private regulations and lawsuits. He highlighted monopolies and duopolies like common carriers and ride-share companies. He highlighted Waymo calling the police on a rider for having a gun. He also pointed to state lawsuits against firearm manufacturers.

Another hot topic was internet sales. According to Lieder, the industry is split. They are still considering comments from the rulemaking process, but he said those transfers are already legal under the law. The roadblock was ID verification, which is no longer an issue.

Another rule was hinted at but not confirmed: changes to “sporting purposes.” Lieder said they have been researching the law and might be reaching out for comments soon. These statements point to the rulemaking process, although nothing was confirmed.

Overall, the ATF answered many questions throughout the day, though some remain.

SAF Wants to Know Why ATF Thinks Rare Breed’s Patent Litigation Is Any Of Its Business.

First came the warning. Then came the admission. Now come the questions.

In August, the Texas Gun Rights Foundation warned that Rare Breed Triggers’ sweeping patent campaign risked turning a hard-won victory over ATF into a government-assisted chokepoint over lawful forced reset trigger technology.

Two weeks later, that concern stopped being theoretical. As we reported on August 31, the Justice Department told a federal court in Texas that ATF has an interest in “limiting the sale and distribution of FRTs.”

DOJ went further. In its August 31 Statement of Interest, the government argued that successful patent injunctions obtained by Rare Breed Triggers and ABC IP could support ATF’s public-safety efforts by restricting third-party FRT activity. DOJ told the court that the public-interest factor in the preliminary injunction analysis should weigh heavily in the plaintiffs’ favor.

Different motives. Same injunctions.

Now the Second Amendment Foundation has taken the next logical step.

In a September 23 letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche, SAF asked DOJ to explain the factual and legal basis for ATF’s position, including why the agency claims an interest in limiting FRT distribution and why the federal government is inserting itself into private patent litigation in a way that could favor one marketplace participant over others.

Those questions matter because DOJ has already established the basic premise. ATF sees Rare Breed’s private patent litigation as useful to its own policy objectives. What SAF wants to know is why that should be ATF’s business in the first place.

Continue reading “”

May they freak out so far as to go into a permanent vegetative state.

Gun Control Activists Freak Out Over ATF’s Plan to Destroy Old Records

Gun tracing is one of those things that no one paid much attention to until privately made firearms became a lot more common. Then, one defense for attempted bans was that tracing these firearms would be impossible, that bad people would get them, and that we wouldn’t be able to track them down.

Spare me.

But now The Smoking Gun, which is a mouthpiece for Everytown for Gun Safety, is beating the tracing drum again, this time to attack a move by the ATF.

ATF practice has always been to keep out-of-business dealer records indefinitely. But in its “Firearm Records Retention Periods” rule, the ATF is proposing — for the first time ever — to destroy those records either 20 or 30 years after they were turned over to the agency. The ATF’s offered justification for this change is to “significantly reduce the volume of records retained by ATF and alleviate concerns that ATF might have established or will establish a registry of firearms, firearm owners, or firearms transactions.”

The ATF proposal would also allow gun dealers that remain in business to destroy sales and inventory records after 20 or 30 years because “[r]educing the records retention period for licensee [records] from permanent to 20 or 30 years would benefit” federal firearms licensees, or FFLs. The rule would even go so far as allowing gun makers to destroy their disposition records after 20 or 30 years, meaning no one would have any idea what happened to a gun after it left the factory.

As the ATF explains, the record retention requirement for dealers has changed a few times over the last few decades. Prior to 1985, dealers were required to keep all inventory and sales records permanently until they went out of business. The requirement was changed in 1985 to mandate keeping records for 20 years, then was changed back to permanent retention in 2022. The ATF explained at the time that requiring permanent retention of such records was justified “[g]iven advancements in electronic scanning and storage technology, ATF’s acceptance of electronic recordkeeping, the reduced costs of storing firearm transaction records, the increased durability and longevity of firearms, and the public safety benefits of ensuring that records of active licensees are available for tracing purposes.” In its current proposal, the ATF fails to explain how all of these reasons for permanent record retention have disappeared in just four years.


Maybe because the reasons were BS in the first place?

See, writer Chelsea Parsons is very upset that these guns will no longer be traceable because of this rule change, but that’s really a case of “tell me you know nothing about gun tracing without telling me you know nothing about gun tracing.

The way gun tracing works is that when a firearm is recovered at a crime scene, the authorities use the tracing to determine who bought it originally. They can reach out to the manufacturer, who tells them which distributor bought it, who then tells them which gun store it was sold to, and finally the gun store says, “Yeah, Joe Smith bought this in 2016.”

That’s it.

It doesn’t magically tell them who has the gun now.

Even with states that have mandatory background checks on all gun transfers, it still doesn’t do much, because if the previous owner has moved, particularly out of state, or died, there’s no way to pick up where that trail might go. Plus, no one is required to remember which store they went to, which means another dead end.

Then, the moment a gun is stolen or illegally transferred in some other way, the chain is broken yet again.

In other words, tracing is a thing, but there’s little evidence I’ve seen that it’s actually solved any crime anywhere. Some have actively looked and been unable to find them.

That was always the case, and it’s why those supposed reasons no longer apply. It was because it was a wish for the anti-gunners, the same people that Parsons fails to acknowledge as a real threat to our gun rights, as she pretends our concerns about a national registry, even if it weren’t called such, were nothing more than gun group fearmongering.

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.”

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.