Category: Government

Trump’s Solicitor General Seeks 10 Minutes Before SCOTUS to Argue Against AR-15 Bans

President Donald Trump’s Solicitor General D. John Sauer is asking the Supreme Court of the United States to grant him ten minutes to argue in favor of AR-15 rifles when the Court weighs the constitutionality of “assault weapons” bans.

On June 30, 2026, Breitbart News reported that SCOTUS agreed to hear Grant v. Higgins, a case centering on whether AR-15 ownership is protected by the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. A second case, consolidated with Grant v. Higgins, is Viramontes v. Cook County, and it centers on Cook County’s “assault weapons” ban.

Oral arguments re: AR-15s and AR-15 ownership will take place before SCOTUS on December 2, 2026. The Solicitor General is seeking time before the Court to contend that bans on AR-15s are unconstitional.

In the motion for time before SCOTUS, Solicitor General Sauer wrote, “These cases present the question whether a categorical ban on the possession of AR-15 semiautomatic rifles infringes the right to keep and bear arms guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The United States has filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, arguing that such a ban is unconstitutional.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missouri AG Catherine Hanaway Sues ATF over Suppressor Registration

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adamiak’s defense attorney Calum Welch was thrilled Friday.

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

Flawed investigation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Show trial

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His trial became “literally theatrical.”

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

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

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

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

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

Grassroots Legislative Report—August 24, 2026

By Tanya Metaksa

What’s New— State Legislatures: California: for the final week of the session with six bills yet to be passed;; Politics: Remaining Primary Elections Calendar: End of August primary elections with listing of endorsed candidates. More primary elections to be held in September

State Legislatures: Still in session:

States running through to Dec. 31: Michigan, New Jersey, and Ohio. Pennsylvania session runs through Nov. 30.

California:  The legislature has been working through many bills including onerous gun bills. As we enter the final legislative week there are still bills waiting to be considered on both the floor of the Senate and the House. In the Senate

  • AB1753 – “Clarifies” Gun Violence Restraining Order rules by including ammunition in the same process used to seize firearms. In practice, it further bolsters red flag laws that have already taken away rights from lawful gun owners while avoiding basic due process.
  • AB1974 – California is still trying to confiscate firearms they hold for temporary safekeeping. This bill makes it even more difficult to get any back
  • AB2047 – Limits the sale of 3D printers unless they include “firearm blueprint detection algorithms.” This broad restriction on legal technology raises serious concerns about free speech, innovation, and the rights of everyday Californians— including countless STEM teachers and tech professionals who depend on these tools. But the legislators don’t care about the Bill of Rights violations when they concern gun owners.

In the Assembly:

  • SB948 significantly expands California’s Firearm Safety Certificate requirements by mandating a minimum four-hour class with live-fire and official instruction starting in 2028. Crime involving guns isn’t caused by a lack of rules, but this bill adds more time and expense for law-abiding gun owners while doing nothing to stop criminals.
  • SB1220 creates a new misdemeanor crime that bans guns and results in a 10-year firearm ban for anyone convicted of dealing with a gun that has altered identifying marks or a removed serial number. California already classifies this behavior as a misdemeanor; this bill just adds another way to lose your constitutional rights over a growing list of lesser offenses.
  • AB1743 after passing the Senate, requires a concurrence vote in the Assembly. This bill seeks to expand the access to firearms’ owners’ information. A concern since personal gun owner information was widely leaked in 2022.

Post Offices are no longer off-limits to gun carrying customers

The Office of Legal Counsel’s Aug. 12, 2026 opinion

The Office of Legal Counsel’s Aug. 12 opinion concludes that 18 U.S.C. § 930(a) does not criminalize an otherwise law-abiding person’s carrying of a constitutionally protected firearm for self-defense into a post office that is generally open to the public. OLC grounds that conclusion principally in § 930(d)(3), which exempts the “lawful carrying” of firearms in a federal facility “incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.”

Holding

OLC reads self-defense as a paradigmatic “lawful purpose.” Accordingly, a person may come within the statutory exception when:

  • The person may lawfully possess and carry the firearm under applicable federal and state law.
  • The person has a lawful reason to enter the particular post office—for example, it is open to the public.
  • The firearm is carried for a lawful purpose, such as self-defense.

The opinion rejects DOJ’s earlier, narrower litigation position that the “other lawful purposes” exception should be limited to purposes related to the facility itself, such as hunting-related activity. OLC says the statute requires a lawful purpose for both entering the facility and carrying the firearm, but does not require those two purposes to be related.

Statutory analysis

Section 930(a), enacted in 1988, generally makes knowing firearm possession in a “Federal facility” a misdemeanor, with enhanced felony consequences if the weapon is used in a crime. A post office falls within the statute’s definition because it is a federal building or leased space in which federal employees regularly work.

But § 930(d)(3) expressly excludes “the lawful carrying of firearms or other dangerous weapons in a Federal facility incident to hunting or other lawful purposes.” OLC gives the exception a broad, ordinary-language reading:

  • “Lawful carrying” excludes prohibited persons and those violating valid state carry laws.
  • “Other lawful purposes” includes self-defense, which is central to the Second Amendment under District of Columbia v. Heller.
  • The inclusion of hunting does not confine the exception to hunting-like or facility-specific activities; hunting and self-defense are commonly paired in federal firearms statutes and constitutional doctrine.

OLC also notes that its conclusion does not cover weapons independently forbidden by law, nor does it give carte blanche to carry at postal facilities that are not generally open to the public, such as facilities on military bases or beyond airport security.

Constitutional rationale

Although OLC says it need not formally decide § 930(a)’s constitutionality, it invokes constitutional avoidance: interpreting the exception broadly avoids serious Second Amendment questions. In OLC’s view, a general ban on carrying ordinary firearms for self-defense in public-facing post offices would presumptively burden conduct protected by the Second Amendment under Bruen and Wolford.

The opinion finds substantial historical difficulty with treating ordinary post offices as “sensitive places” analogous to legislatures, polling places, or courthouses:

  • The postal system has existed since the Founding, and mail-related violence was a recognized problem.
  • Yet early Congresses responded by punishing mail robbery and attacks on mail carriers, not by barring firearms in post offices.
  • Federal restrictions on firearms in federal buildings appeared only in 1964, and post-office-specific regulations appeared in 1972.
  • OLC concludes that the apparent absence of a founding-era or nineteenth-century analogue casts serious doubt on a categorical prohibition in public post offices.

Practical significance

The opinion is an authoritative Executive Branch interpretation for DOJ, not a Supreme Court ruling or a direct invalidation of the Postal Service’s existing firearms regulation, 39 C.F.R. § 232.1(l). Its practical position is that § 930(a) should not be used to prosecute a qualified, law-abiding person merely for carrying a constitutionally protected firearm for self-defense into a post office held open to the public. The opinion is expressly limited to that setting and does not resolve the legality of firearm restrictions at other federal facilities.

August 31 Primary Elections Calendar:

Oklahoma primary runoffs and a South Carolina Republican special-primary runoff

OKLAHOMA PRIMARY RUNOFF

GOVERNOR: Both candidates: Republican Mike Massei and Republican Gentner Drummon were given “A” by the NRA Political Victory Fund.

State Senate: District 18: Jack Stewart; District 34: Dana Prieto

State House: District 18: David Smith

SOUTH CAROLINA PRIMARY RUNOFF

Although the NRA-PVF has given both Senator Darline Graham (who was appointed Senator by President Donald J. Trump upon the death of her brother Lindsay Graham) and Ralph Norman who is running against her an A rating, on August 21 President Trump held a rally in South Carolina for Darline Graham.

Justice Department investigates College of William & Mary over alleged ‘race-based’ scholarships.

The College of William & Mary is under federal investigation this week over a series of scholarships and student programs that the U.S. Department of Justice says may be racially discriminatory.

Announced Monday, the investigation focuses, in part, on the Virginia public college’s “W&M Scholars” program, “which grants scholarships covering the ‘full cost of in-state tuition and fees’ to ‘academically distinguished students,’” the Washington Examiner reports.

Students who express an “interest in diverse people and perspectives” receive “top consideration” for the first-year scholarship, according to a department news release.

The department is investigating whether these and other scholarships and programs “include racial criteria that violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.”

>“Providing any educational benefits, including recruitment, scholarships, and support services, based on race violates the civil rights of all Americans,” the department stated in its letter to the college.

Another area of the investigation is the Holmes Scholars program for doctoral students. It offers mentorship, professional development, and career resources to “future education leaders of color,” according to the news release.

The investigation includes several other programs as well, the Examiner reports:

Other programs at the College of William and Mary also raised concerns for the DOJ including the Martha L. Muguira Fellowship which gave “preference” to Latino and Hispanic women, the Lemon Legal Scholars Program which allegedly was “exclusively earmarked for graduates of Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and the “Reaching Back Scholarship” which gave a “preference” to applicants from HBCU schools as well as those “who contribute to the diversity” of W&M Law.

“Awarding scholarships or offering coveted opportunities to students based on the color of their skin is illegal and offends the guarantees of our color-blind Constitution,” Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon stated in the news release.

The department also stated that although the programs are under investigation, it “has not reached any conclusions about the subject matter of the investigation.”

The college media relations office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The College Fix, asking for its response to the investigation.

 

The DOJ’s Surprising Response to two Machine Gun Cert Petitions

The United States typically does one of two things in response to a cert petition. It either files a short response in opposition that is either boilerplate, or it does not file a response. The end result is the same, the cert petition is denied.

In the case of Isaiah Jaqjan Fisher, Petitioner v. United States1 a justice (probably Justice Thomas) requested a response. The Question Presented to the Justices to decide is “Whether the federal statute that prohibits the possession of machineguns, 26 U.S.C. 584, violates the Second Amendment.”

Instead of the government’s typical boilerplate response saying that the petition should be denied, the government’s response was, in relevant part:

“Petitioner contends…that the federal statute prohibiting the possession of a machinegun, 18 U.S.C. 922(o), violates the Second Amendment. He requests…that this Court hold his petition for a writ of certiorari pending the resolution of Viramontes v. Cook County, cert. granted, No. 25-238 (June 30, 2026), and Grant v. Higgins, cert. granted, No. 25-566 (June 30, 2026), which present the question whether bans on the possession of AR-15 rifles violate the Second Amendment. The government agrees that Viramontes and Grant could affect the proper disposition of this case and that the petition should accordingly be held pending the resolution of those cases.”

The other machine gun case is Jamaion Wilson, Petitioner v. United States.2 The two Questions Presented are:

“First, whether the Fifth Circuit’s continued reliance on Hollis v. Lynch, 827 F.3d 436 (5th Cir. 2016) and refusal to require the government to prove a historical tradition of firearm regulation under this Court’s Second Amendment framework conflicts with N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)?

Second, should the Court hold this petition pending the outcome of Viramontes v. Cook County, No. 25-238 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), and Grant v. Higgins, No. 25-566 (U.S. Jun. 30, 2026), given lower courts’ determinations that for Second Amendment purposes, AR-15’s are indistinguishable from M16 machineguns?”

The government did not respond to the first question and waived any further response to the cert petition unless the Court requests a response.

To the best of my knowledge, the government has never before requested that a machine gun cert petition be held.

I have no doubt that the Supreme Court does not want to decide the questions presented. However, given that the government has asked the Court to hold the cases, they will be held. And once we have a decision in the two “assault rifle” ban cases next year, the Court will GVR the petitions, which is to say they will Grant the petitions, Vacate the decisions of the lower courts, and Remand them back to the lower courts for a do-over consistent with its decision in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgens.

Given that Fisher is out of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and Wilson is out of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, the Fourth Circuit will do what it always does (reaffirm its prior decision) and the Fifth Circuit will conduct a good-faith rehearing of its prior decision.

Both petitions have been distributed to the Long Conference on September 28, 2026. A decision in Viramontes and Grant will likely be published in June of 2027.

DOJ Says Lawful Gun Owners Can Carry in Post Offices

For decades, gun owners have generally been told that carrying a firearm into a U.S. Post Office is illegal.

The Justice Department now says that isn’t what federal law actually says.

In a significant legal opinion issued August 12, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that federal law permits otherwise law-abiding citizens to carry constitutionally protected firearms for self-defense inside post offices that are generally open to the public.

Even more importantly, DOJ concluded that the U.S. Postal Service cannot enforce its separate regulation that purports to ban firearms on postal property without a self-defense exception.

There are some important limitations here, and this isn’t the same thing as the Supreme Court striking down the post office gun ban. But this is a major change in the federal government’s position.

Continue reading “”

CMP Announces M14 Prices, 1897 Trench Guns

Shooting Sports USA got the CMP on record about the new M14 sales program, as well as some updates on other sales opportunities. This episode of the National Matches Update Show has an interview with CMP Chairman and CEO Jerry O’Keefe, where he answers the questions so many of us have had. Keep reading for the details.

We previously covered the announcement that semi-converted M14 rifles would be made available for purchase through the CMP. The initial announcement was light on details other than the general facts that these guns would be converted from full-auto to semi-auto. But the head of the CMP has some more info to share.

Mr. O’Keefe announced in an interview with Shooting Sports USA that the CMP will sell M14s for under $2,000. How far under that price, and whether there will be multiple grades at different price points, was not announced. But the price point being similar to commercial versions is certainly welcome news!

This price point is, at least in part, a reflection of how many guns will be available for purchase. More than 100,000 M14 rifles will be made available through the CMP purchase program. It will be a major process to convert all of those guns!

Public reaction to the M14 sales initiative has been overwhelming. Given that level of excitement, CMP will have purchase limits of 2 M14s per person per year. Initial sales have also been pushed back to the beginning of 2027 so there will be sufficient guns on hand to meet demand.

But the updates were not limited to the M14. We previously covered the announcement that CMP would be selling shotguns. Those will be coming from the various branches of the armed forces. The first batch will be 2,000-3,000 scatterguns from the Army coming in the Fall. About 400 of the legendary Model 1897 Trench Guns are part of that batch. Pricing info was not available, but it is a good guess that those will be put up for auction.

Purchase limits for the 1911 are also changing. The current system caps lifetime purchases at four pistols. Starting January 1st, 2027, the lifetime cap will be gone. Instead, purchasers can get two pistols per person per year.

We will be sure to share more details about the new guns coming from CMP as they become available. Which ones are you planning to pick up? And what military surplus guns would you like to see from CMP in the future?

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

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

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

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

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

The letter says:

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

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

The letter says:

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

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

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

The letter continues:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then the other day I posted this:

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

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

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

Why Fauci, and why now?

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

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

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

Another Win: DOJ Pulls Its Appeal of a Ruling that Carry Bans In Post Offices are Unconstitutional.

Another significant victory has emerged in the ongoing effort to roll back unconstitutional restrictions on the right to bear arms in places that millions of law-abiding Americans visit every day in every state in towns across the nation. This time, the challenge centers on one of the most familiar public institutions across the country: local post offices.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Justice voluntarily withdrew its appeal of a federal court decision that enjoined enforcement of the federal ban on carrying firearms at U.S. Post Office facilities. This withdrawal is yet another meaningful shift in the Trump administration’s approach to defending the Second Amendment by not defending firearm regulations that lack historical support as required by the U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.

For decades, federal law and Postal Service regulations have broadly prohibited law-abiding citizens from possessing firearms on postal property. Unlike courthouses or other secure government facilities, neighborhood post offices are buildings that millions of Americans visit daily to conduct routine business as they go about their day.

Yet federal regulations treated every post office as a categorical “gun-free” zone regardless of whether an individual possessed a state issued concealed carry permit or otherwise posed any type of threat to public safety. Of course, local post offices are not “gun free zones” in any meaningful way, as they do not screen for unauthorized weapons and count on criminals to follow the same “honor system” as law-abiding citizens.

Continue reading “”

BLUF
The end result is that Vang is out of the US and Walz exposed as a radical who will put children at risk to score cheap points on immigration. If Walz could have played this worse, someone will have to explain how.

Rubio and DHS Deported Child Molester Walz Tried to Keep In US.

I hate to say I told you so, but … naah, I love to say I told you so. Especially when it comes to kicking child molesters out of the country after Democrat governors attempt to keep them on the streets.

Last month, Tim Walz and his Board of Pardons issued a pardon to Tou Lue Vang, who had been in prison since pleading guilty to repeated sexual assaults on a girl for two years, starting when she was ten years old. The Board of Pardons, as David pointed out last week, consists of Walz, radical AG Keith Ellison, and Walz’ appointed chief justice of the state supreme court. Walz and his panel intended to keep Vang from deportation back to Laos, whence he came to the US illegally, by removing the only conviction on his record.

The Department of Homeland Security called the move “disgusting” at the time:

“Governor Tim Walz’s decision to pardon an illegal alien convicted child rapist so he can remain in our country is disgusting,” said Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis.

 “These are the criminal illegal aliens he and his Minnesota sanctuary politicians are protecting. Tou Lue Vang lost his legal status following his conviction for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl.

Following the conviction, he was placed in removal proceedings and issued a final order of removal by a judge. This pardon will take away this child rapist’s qualifying convictions that made him removable from the United States.”

Well, that was what Walz and Ellison hoped, anyway. They wanted to thumb their nose at DHS, ICE, and Donald Trump by, er … [checks notes] … releasing a child predator onto the streets of Minnesota. As I wrote at the time, that logic appeared to parallel the Labour Party’s decision to allow rape rings to operate for decades rather than run the risk of looking culturally insensitive by booting out the Muslim immigrants running them.

I also wrote that this very weird strategy likely wouldn’t work:

I’m not so sure this will work. A state pardon does not have any real impact on the status of an illegal alien at the federal level. Trump has said he wants to concentrate on criminal illegal aliens, but that doesn’t mean deportation is limited to that class. Furthermore, the government has every right to cite the details of Vang’s crimes as an argument about his fitness to remain in the country. Walz’ pardon does not vindicate Vang, nor does it erase the evidence of his crime, including his own statements admitting to them. And again, a state pardon only has impact on state-level consequences, not federal consequences.

As it turns out, Walz’ pardon did nothing to prevent DHS from kicking Vang out of the country. The agency announced Vang’s deportation in the last hour by e-mail:

The United States Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released the following statement confirming that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested and deported an illegal alien from Laos who had been pardoned by Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and his fellow sanctuary politicians despite a prior conviction for repeatedly sexually assaulting a 10-year-old girl.

Tou Lue Vang, an illegal alien from Laos, had been convicted in 2006 of first-degree criminal sexual conduct after he repeatedly assaulted a girl between 2002 and 2004, starting when she was just 10 years old. He once offered his victim $10 to keep quiet about the sexual assaults. When interviewed by police, he tried to justify his actions as “a cultural thing,” and even said that his victim was just as guilty as him and should also be arrested.

Following his conviction, a Department of Justice (DOJ) Immigration Judge issued Vang a final order of removal on October 31, 2006. …

“ICE deported Tou Vang, an illegal alien convicted child rapist. This monster repeatedly sexually assaulted a 10-year-old girl,” said Acting Assistant Secretary Lauren Bis. “Tim Walz pardoned this sex criminal in an attempt to allow him to remain in our country. These are the criminal illegal aliens he and sanctuary politicians are protecting. We will always put the safety of the American people first.”

Secretary of State Marco Rubio intervened to strip Vang of a legal status he never should have had in the first place. That allowed DHS to arrest Vang and kick him out of the US, as Rubio explained earlier today on X/Twitter:

What exactly did Walz, Ellison, and Democrats get out of this? They made it clear that they will let sex offenders on the street as a means to frustrate the enforcement of immigration law. At the same time, Walz also demonstrated his own incompetence to game out this situation more than a single step at a time. In fact, Walz may have made Vang more of a target for DHS and the State Department with his ham-handed abuse of the pardon process. Would DHS have made Vang a priority had Walz not turned him into some bizarre, pedophilic cause celebre?

The end result is that Vang is out of the US and Walz exposed as a radical who will put children at risk to score cheap points on immigration. If Walz could have played this worse, someone will have to explain how. 

DeSantis Officially Calls Antifa and CAIR What They Really Are.

It’s a sign of what Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and the rest of us are up against that the Miami area’s PBS station, WLRN, headlined its story about Florida’s new designation of Antifa and the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as terrorist groups this way: “DeSantis: Florida set to label Muslim civil rights nonprofit a terrorist group under new law.”

The obvious intent of that headline is to give WLRN’s remaining handful of readers, who are no doubt all already hardcore leftists, the impression that DeSantis, drunk on “Islamophobia” and right-wing “hate,” is gratuitously naming an innocent, and indeed, noble, civil rights organization a terrorist group just because it’s non-Christian and presumably full of “brown” people.

In reality, however, CAIR is an unindicted co-conspirator in a Hamas terror funding case — so named by the Justice Department. CAIR officials have repeatedly refused to denounce Hamas and Hizballah as terrorist groups. Several former CAIR officials have been convicted of various crimes related to jihad terror. CAIR’s cofounder and longtime Board chairman (Omar Ahmad), as well as its chief spokesman (Ibrahim Hooper), have made Islamic supremacist statements about how Islamic law should be imposed in the U.S. (Ahmad denies this, but the original reporter stands by her story.)

CAIR has opposed virtually every anti-terror measure that has been proposed or implemented, and the United Arab Emirates has declared it a terror organization. CAIR’s Hussam Ayloush in 2017 called for the overthrow of the U.S. government. CAIR’s national outreach manager in 2019 was an open supporter of Hamas. CAIR top dog Nihad Awad said the October 7 jihad massacre of 1,200 Israelis made him “happy.”

Awad and Omar Ahmad, two officials of the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), founded this Hamas-linked Muslim Brotherhood group in 1994. The federal government shut down the IAP in 2005 as a Hamas front. Over the years, several CAIR officials have been convicted of participating in violent jihad activities.

Meanwhile, CAIR has exhorted Muslims in the U.S. to refuse to cooperate with law enforcement. In Jan. 2011, it came to light that a CAIR chapter in California had circulated a poster reading “Build a Wall of Resistance” and “Don’t Talk to the FBI.” Cyrus McGoldrick, a former official of CAIR’s New York chapter, even threatened informants, tweeting with brutal succinctness: “Snitches get stitches.” Zahra Billoo of CAIR-San Francisco has declared that Muslims have no obligation to talk to the FBI and should contact CAIR if the FBI asks to talk to them.

Yet despite its connections to the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas, the terror convictions of several of its former officials, and its virtually unanimous opposition to counter-terror laws, investigations, and other initiatives, CAIR remains widely respected. Nearly everyone (particularly in Washington) assumes that it is exactly what it says it is: a Muslim civil rights organization, working for the rights of Muslims in the U.S. and deeply loyal to Constitutional principles and freedoms. The organization’s website features testimonials from congressmen and senators of both parties, as well as security and military officials, testifying to how the organization has perfected the art of deception.

So great is CAIR’s influence, and presumably Antifa’s as well, that WLRN’s report warned darkly that DeSantis’ move could blow up on the Republicans. Former Florida Panhandle state House Republican Joel Rudman said: “I think that when you give that much authority to an elected, or, in the case of this bill, sometimes non-elected officials, I think that’s very dangerous.”

Related: Arizona School Board Member in Hot Water for… Criticizing Islam

Rudman explained: “Now, my colleagues on the Republican side of the aisle, I’m sure they’re looking at this bill, saying, ‘These statutes. They can’t be warped. They can’t be abused. We have no intention of abusing them.’ But you have to understand that every bill you pass into law, there’s going to have some unintended consequences, and you have to be prepared for how those statutes are going to be interpreted when you’re not the majority party.… I think any constitutional conservative Republicans should have a problem with that bill.”

No one should ever allow himself to be intimidated into refraining from doing something right for fear that someone else will do something wrong in response. Nevertheless, Rudman was essentially predicting that Florida Democrats will, if they gain power, start declaring groups they dislike to be terrorist organizations, and indeed, the left is so morally bankrupt and power-mad at this point that this is a very real possibility.

Nevertheless, regarding CAIR and Antifa, DeSantis is absolutely correct and should stand his ground.

The Supreme Court lets the Trump administration end legal protections for Haitians and Syrians

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday allowed the Trump administration to end legal protections for migrants fleeing violence and natural disaster in Haiti and Syria, exposing hundreds of thousands more people to potential deportation.

The 6-3 decision overturns lower court orders and allows the Department of Homeland Security to swiftly end temporary protected status, a program that protects a total of 1.3 million people from 17 countries.

It marked another victory at the high court for Republican President Donald Trump’s sweeping crackdown on immigration. Though the conservative-dominated court has put the brakes on some of Trump’s immigration policies, it handed him a second win Thursday in a decision clearing the way for the revival of a policy restricting immigrants seeking asylum.

The court’s conservative majority found that the law doesn’t allow courts to question the process that immigration authorities use to revoke the protections.

Arizona’s Democrat Governor Signs Range Protection Bill Into Law

Milton Friedman once said that he didn’t believe that the solution to all our political problems is to simply to elect the right people. Instead, he claimed “the important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”

For Arizona gun owners, Gov. Katie Hobbs is hardly the right person for the job. She has used her veto power to block numerous pro-2A reforms during her time in office, including campus carry legislation and a measure blocking the use of industry-specific Merchant Category Codes for gun stores this year.

So it’s downright shocking that Hobbs has now signed HB 2763 into law. The bill, authored by State Rep.Quang Nguyen, puts some added protections in place for state-owned shooting ranges like the Ben Avery facility in Phoenix. Under the bill, the range could not be closed or shut down unless such a move receives the approval of the Arizona legislature, not just the the Arizona Game and Fish Commission, which oversees the range’s day-to-day operations.

In a press release, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms chairman Alan Gottlieb praised Nguyen for his work in protecting the world-class facility.

“I can say without fear of contradiction that protecting the Ben Avery shooting range and similar facilities around the Grand Canyon State is of paramount importance to Arizona gun owners,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “Future generations of Arizona hunters, competitors and recreational shooters will benefit from this bill’s passage.

“The Citizens Committee takes this opportunity to congratulate Rep. Nguyen for his tireless efforts to guide HB 2763 through the legislature and finally to the governor’s desk,” he added. “We’re disappointed that not a single Democrat lawmaker in either the House or Senate voted in support of this legislation, while we are proud of Rep. Nguyen and his Republican colleagues, led by House Speaker Steve Montenegro, who passed this important measure despite that partisan opposition.

“It should be noted that Rep. Nguyen has appeared at the Gun Rights Policy Conference, which is co-sponsored by the Citizens Committee, and I am personally grateful for his dedication to Arizona gun owners,” Gottlieb observed. “I have come to know him as a lawmaker who can be counted on to defend the Second Amendment and the rights protected by Article 2, Section 26 of the Arizona constitution, adopted way back in 1912 when Arizona achieved statehood. He can rightfully be proud of this achievement.”

It’s astounding to me that Nguyen’s bill couldn’t get a single Democrat to vote in support. After all, you don’t normally see lawmakers turn down the opportunity to exercise power.

It’s even more amazing that Hobbs signed HB 2763 given its lack of support among Democrats in the legislature.

With a six-seat majority in the state House and a four-seat majority in the state Senate, Republicans are now in a position to thwart any effort by AZ Game and Fish Commission leaders to shutter the shooting complex, at least in the short term. It’s still up to gun owners in Arizona, however, to ensure that the legislature remains as supportive of the Second Amendment as it is right now, and to replace Hobbs this November with a governor who will sign every single pro-2A measure that gets to her desk instead of selectively doing the right thing when it suits her political agenda.

Panic Setting In As Administration Moves to Bolster Americans’ Gun Rights Advance.

In the last 17 months, the Trump administration has delivered win after win for the nation’s most ardent gun-rights advocacy groups, chipping away at dozens of federal regulations. While many of these efforts target regulations from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives — the law enforcement agency within the Justice Department tasked with regulating the nation’s millions of firearms — the administration’s work stretches across the executive branch.

Supporters of tighter gun restrictions have pilloried the Trump administration, saying officials are acting recklessly and could endanger the public with a wholesale rollback of regulations. But gun rights advocates who portrayed the Biden administration as trampling on the Second Amendment have praised the current administration’s actions as a needed corrective.

Trump vowed on the campaign trail to be a pro-Second Amendment president and pledged that, under his leadership, “no one will lay a finger on your firearms.” He said he would roll back Biden-era ATF regulations and received the backing of the big gun rights groups.

Critics, however, have said that the Trump’s administration’s push to unwind gun regulations contradicts the president’s tough-on-crime political agenda. And, they say, the efforts could make it easier for potentially dangerous people to access firearms. …

[ATF general counsel Robert] Leider has been working on the regulations for more than a year. The plan had been to announce them July 4, 2025, at an Independence Day celebration, The Post previously reported.

But [Acting Attorney General Todd] Blanche has said the proposed changes took longer than expected to complete because lawyers had to scrupulously review them to ensure they passed legal muster. Justice Department officials expect them to face court challenges.

Because the Trump administration is making these changes through the regulatory process — and not by legislation passed in Congress and signed into law — the next administration could reinstate the scrapped rules. The goal, Justice Department officials said, is to ensure that the regulations do not run afoul of laws so that they can remain intact.

“We were very careful on how we did the rules,” Leider said. “Congress has decided that certain people cannot be trusted with firearms. ATF has to enforce those congressional judgments. It is not the agency’s job to amend Congress’s criteria in an effort to predict who will become violent.”

— Perry Stein in Inside the Trump administration’s rapid rollback of gun regulations