Category: Bureaucraps

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

Why do you think I call them ‘bureaucraps’?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

‘Sword Of Damocles’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the full letter HERE.

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

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

Lawmakers Question an Illegal Gun Registry

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good riddance.

Continue reading “”

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

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

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

How are you justifying the existence of this registry?

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

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

President Trump’s ATF pick clears Senate hearing easily

by Lee Williams

New York state native turned Floridian Robert Cekada spent just over two hours Wednesday along with four judicial candidates testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is chaired by Iowa Republican Senator Chuck Grassley.

By all accounts, Cekada passed the test, and he will likely become the next Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

“Mr. Cekada has had an extensive career protecting Americans at the state and federal level,” Grassley said. “He served a decade as a police officer, receiving numerous awards. He has also spent two decades at the ATF. He knows how to lead the Bureau because he’s worked tirelessly throughout the chain of command.”

Grassley noted that his committee has received dozens of letters endorsing Cekada for the ATF leadership position, and that Cekada worked closely with his office after an ATF whistleblower revealed ATF’s misclassification scheme and other improper practices.

“Mr. Cekada worked closely with my staff to bring this resolution forward, to make sure no more taxpayer dollars were wasted,” Grassley said. “I commend his fine leadership and aggressive actions to find a solution for this brave whistleblower, and I encourage him to allow more whistleblowers to come forward, to help him understand what’s going on in the Bureau.”

Cekada started his law enforcement career in 1992 as a cadet for the New York City Police Department, where in 1999 he became a detective assigned to the department’s Organized Crime Control Bureau. He has also worked as an officer in Florida, until he joined the ATF in 2005, as a special agent in the Baltimore Field Division. His rise up ATF’s chain of command was swift. In May of last year, he became the ATF’s Deputy Director—it’s number two position.

Cekada’s testimony

Continue reading “”

DOJ and ATF Overreach: Weaponizing Patent Law Against the 2A

It’s no surprise to see the federal government trample on gun rights time and again. But the latest stunt from the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) takes the cake. On January 26, 2026, the ATF filed a “Statement of Interest” in a purely civil patent infringement lawsuit between Rare Breed Triggers and Hoffman Tactical. This isn’t about crime or national security; it’s a business dispute over intellectual property. Yet here comes Uncle Sam, sticking his nose where it doesn’t belong, all in the name of “public safety.” If this doesn’t scream anti-2A overreach, I don’t know what does.

Let’s back up and break this down for those who might not be knee-deep in the gun world. Forced reset triggers, or FRTs, are engineered triggers that allow for faster semi-automatic firing by mechanically resetting the trigger after each shot. They’re not machine gunssince they require a separate trigger pull for every round, as affirmed by multiple courts. Rare Breed Triggers pioneered the FRT-15, a popular model that lets law-abiding citizens like you and me shoot fasterwithout converting semi-automatic firearms into fully-automatics. Hoffman Tactical, run by inventor Timothy Hoffman out of Tennessee, developed his own version called the Super Safety. It’s similar in concept but differs in design details. Notably, his design has been promulgated via open-source 3D-printable files that empower DIY enthusiasts to make their own.

The beef started when Rare Breed sued Hoffman in late 2025, claiming patent infringement. Rare Breed argues Hoffman’s design copies their tech too closely, while Hoffman counters that his is distinct enough and that no one owns the broad idea of forced resets. This should be a straightforward intellectual property/patent fight in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee (case number 1:25-cv-00389-CLC-CHS);  No criminals, no threats to society, just two companies hashing out who gets to profit from a clever invention.

Enter the ATF, stage left. In their Statement of Interest, they declare a “strong interest in promoting the safe use of firearms by the public, and in this particular case, in discouraging unregulated manufacture of forced reset triggers that allegedly infringe Rare Breed’s patents.” They’re urging the judge to grant Rare Breed a preliminary injunction against Hoffman, effectively shutting him down. Why? Because in the DOJ’s rationale, fewer FRTs mean less “danger.” This isn’t neutral advice; it’s a blatant push to limit access to these triggers through the backdoor of patent enforcement.

To understand this meddling, we need to rewind to the ATF’s long war on FRTs. Back in 2021, the agency sent a cease-and-desist to Rare Breed, classifying the FRT-15 as a machine gun under the National Firearms Act.  Rare Breed fought back, and in a landmark 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Cargill v. Garland, the justices struck down the ATF’s bump stock ban, setting a precedent that devices like FRTs aren’t machine guns.  By July 2024, a Texas district court applied this to FRTs, ruling they require multiple functions per shot—not the single pull that defines a machine gun.

Undeterred, the ATF kept up the pressure, seizing triggers and dragging Rare Breed through lawsuits. But in May 2025, under the self-described “most pro-2A administration in history,” the DOJ settled. The feds dropped their cases, agreed to return seized FRTs (including those from Wide Open Triggers, a similar product), and Rare Breed resumed sales. Sounds like a win, right? Not so fast. The settlement had strings attached: Rare Breed promised not to develop FRTs for pistols and, crucially, to “enforce its patents to prevent infringement that could threaten public safety.” In other words, the ATF outsourced its infringement agenda to a private company.

Now, Rare Breed is suing not just Hoffman but several manufacturers of Super Safety designs. YouTube creators and gun forums are buzzing—some call it a betrayal, with Rare Breed torching community goodwill to appease the feds. Hoffman himself received a cease-and-desist in February 2025, pulling his files offline. And the ATF’s intervention? It’s the cherry on top, admitting in essence they’re using this civil suit to curb “unregulated manufacture.”

The ATF has no statutory authority to regulate firearm accessories like triggers in this way. They were created to enforce existing laws, not invent new ones via proxy. Patent law is for protecting innovation, not as a tool for disarmament. Whether Republicans or Democrats are in charge, the bureaucracy finds ways to chip away at our rights. Remember, this “pro-2A” admin settled with conditions that force Rare Breed to police the market, effectively creating a monopoly that limits options for Americans.

The implications are chilling. If the government can hijack private lawsuits to advance gun control, what’s next? Banning aftermarket parts through intellectual property? Ignoring the First Amendment and stifling 3D printing innovations that empower self-reliance? Hoffman’s open-source approach democratizes gun tech, putting power in the hands of the people, not corporations or the state. By backing Rare Breed, the ATF is signaling they want fewer triggers out there, period, regardless of legality.

We can’t let bureaucrats weaponize the courts. Support organizations like Gun Owners of America who broke this story, contact your reps, boycott companies that cave to government pressure, and stay vigilant. The Second Amendment isn’t negotiable; it’s our birthright.

Finally: Trump Pulls the US Out of United Nations’ International Gun Registry Scheme

President Donald Trump just delivered a long-overdue message to the global gun confiscation cartel: America is not taking orders from the United Nations.

In a major move for national sovereignty and Second Amendment freedom, the Trump administration has formally withdrawn the United States from the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms, a UN-run reporting system that gun rights advocates have warned for years is part of the international bureaucracy’s long game to pressure nations into “standardized” gun restrictions.

What Is the UN Register of Conventional Arms?

UNROCA is a so-called “voluntary” United Nations registry where participating countries report information about weapons transfers, including categories of conventional arms and, in many cases, small arms and light weapons.

Supporters claim it promotes “transparency.”

But gun owners know how this game works.

Transparency is always the excuse and control is always the goal. Because once international bureaucrats start collecting data, they don’t stop at tracking tanks and fighter jets.

Continue reading “”

RESPONSE BRIEF FILED IN SAF’S SECOND NFA CHALLENGE

BELLEVUE, Wash. — Jan. 21, 2026 — The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) and its partners have filed a response brief in the second of the organization’s two lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of the National Firearms Act (NFA) registration scheme.

Filed with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, the brief voices the organization’s opposition to the Government’s motion for summary judgment in Brown v. ATF.

Until President Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the NFA established a $200 tax and registration regime on certain classes of firearms including silencers, short-barreled firearms and “any other weapons” (AOWs), drawing from Congressional authority to levy taxes. SAF and its partners filed lawsuits challenging the remaining registration requirements because without the tax, Congress’ reliance on their taxing authority is no longer justifiable.

“The passage of the Big Beautiful Bill kicked the already questionable constitutional authority for the NFA right out from under the ATF,” said SAF Director of Legal Operations Bill Sack. “With its actual purported authority now eliminated, the government has resorted to borrowing taxation authority from elsewhere in the statute, or entirely different constitutional authority rarely asserted to justify the NFA. Today’s brief explains exactly why neither tactic is persuasive.”

SAF is joined in Brown v. ATF by the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique and two private citizens.

“For the second time this week SAF and its partners have filed opposition briefs in response to the government’s insistence on defending the NFA,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “We’re better situated now than we have been in almost 90 years to relegate significant chunks of the unconstitutional NFA to the dustbin of history. Today’s brief is a major step toward that goal.”

Glenn Beck

I said I would give Pam Bondi a year to prove herself as an Attorney General who would dismantle the Deep State, let Americans see the truth, and finally bring to justice the criminal elites who have been “too big to jail.”

Today, that year is up, and I haven’t seen evidence that she has done ANY of that.

Bondi’s handling of the Epstein case was one of the worst fumbles I have ever seen. But we all remember that.

What about the lack of prosecution against anyone who tried to weaponize the justice system against political opponents like Trump?

Or the failure to prosecute the perpetrators of the Russiagate hoax like Clapper and Comey? That’s not weaponization. We’ve had the EVIDENCE for years that they lied and colluded with the press!

Where are the prosecutions related to the Mar-a-Lago raid? We keep finding out that it was even WORSE than we were told, but NOTHING has happened yet?

Can we get an update on any George Soros investigations? Why has it taken so long to go after him?

Or how about investigating the Clintons for NON-Epstein related scandals: Gazprom? Uranium One? Benghazi? Hillary’s email server? Claims of fraud in Haiti? Anything the Clinton Foundation has touched?!

How about the failure to drain the Swamp of Deep State actors working against the American people and their elected officials?

Or the PROVEN lies from Capitol Police about Jan. 6?
Or the FBI’s lies about the number of agents in the crowd?
Or investigations into possible 2020 election fraud?
Or follow-up on DOGE’s fraud findings?

Sure, the DOJ is looking into the Somali fraudsters. But what about everyone in the banks, state government, and federal offices that HAD TO have known about the fraud?!

What about Biden’s autopen scandal? Who signed off on everything if it wasn’t Biden?

And the Biden administration was FULL of government weaponization worth prosecuting: the COVID lockdowns and vaccine mandates, the unjust FACE Act arrests, everything the Twitter Files exposed. Where is a SINGLE arrest?

And speaking of COVID, what about investigations into AMERICA’S role in creating the virus and covering up its true origins? And dare I mention Fauci?

To be fair, I understand that you can’t just rush to prosecute cases as massive as Epstein, Russiagate and COVID. It takes years if you want to do that right. We’re not looking for show trials. But all I’ve seen so far is hearing after hearing with NO results.

Maybe there’s a reason for that. But – and I believe this alone is enough to FIRE her – Bondi has failed to communicate any of this to the American people. We want results. But even more so, we want the HONEST TRUTH.