A shooting just happened at Virginia State University. It's sad, and I already prayed for the injured. However, this is also a sign of our political divide:
Dems: "How many unarmed, law-abiding Americans do our criminals (always known to law enforcement) need to shoot before… pic.twitter.com/v0iOZxup7Q
— Happy Granddadddddd (@PlotWeaver) August 15, 2026
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.
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.
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:
Will the Government be providing guidance to regulated entities and individuals on how it plans to ensure compliance with the injunction?
If the Government will be providing guidance, what form will it take, and when will it be provided?
Does the Government intend to continue enforcing the enjoined provisions of the NFA against entities or individuals who are not covered by the injunction?
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?
- 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.
A new scholarly article argues that the Marque and Reprisal Clause of Article I of the U.S. Constitution directly undermines the modern judicial claim that the Second Amendment extends only to weapons a single person can carry. The paper, published on SSRN in 2026, is the work of Professor. J. Goldstein.
The article locates its constitutional argument in two clauses of Article I. The first, Article I, § 8, cl. 11, authorizes Congress to ‘grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water.’ The second, Article I, § 10, forbids any state from keeping ‘ships of war in time of peace’ without congressional consent.
Professor. Goldstein’s reading of those two clauses is compact: a sovereign needed permission to keep a warship; a private shipowner did not. The Constitution, on this account, simply took cannon-armed private vessels as an existing feature of the world it was organizing, and the Marque and Reprisal Clause proceeded accordingly.
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.
🚨 BREAKING: I’ve received confirmation from the Trump Administration that the DOJ will NOT appeal our historic court victory against the NFA.
THANK YOU, PRESIDENT TRUMP and Attorney General Blanche, for delivering the most significant Second Amendment win in OVER 90 YEARS!
— Rep. Andrew Clyde (@Rep_Clyde) August 13, 2026
My cynical side makes me believe that Stunnedtater Sheehy’s bill is just another act of political Kabuki Theater grandstanding.
Why the Senate’s Newest Carry Reciprocity Bill Should Be Rejected
The Second Amendment is the only enumerated right that stops at the border of the state where you live. You don’t have to beg permission from Florida to exercise your First Amendment rights if you’re taking your family to Disney World. You don’t lose your Fourth Amendment protections when you go experience Mardi Gras in New Orleans. But if you want to keep and bear arms once you cross your state line, you need to have pre-approval from the state where you plan on carrying.
National right-to-carry reciprocity is the answer, and there are several bills in Congress that would address this problem, including HR 38, also known as the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. A new bill introduced in the Senate by Montana Sen. Tim Sheehy, on the other hand, is a step in the wrong direction.
A retired Army special operations veteran is urging Congress to give qualified former special operators nationwide concealed carry privileges enjoyed by retired U.S. law enforcement officers, arguing the elite troops are uniquely trained to protect themselves and Americans.
“It needs to happen,” Gavin Glasenapp, who served 20 years and 12 combat deployments in the Army, told Fox News Digital on Monday.
The Special Operations Forces Concealed Carry Act was put forward last week by Sen. Tim Sheehy, R-Mont., months after a companion bill by the same name in the House was introduced in April by Rep. Pat Harrigan, R-N.C.
“These are proven men and women,” Glasenapp, the training operations manager at Delta Defense for the U.S. Concealed Carry Association (USCCA) said, adding “they’re specially selected, uniquely trained.”
“I can think of no better group of people to be equipped to defend themselves and others around them. In fact, that’s part of our core values here at Delta Defense.
“We believe every American has the inalienable right to self-defense, and I can think of no better group that to really emulate that and really show you what that looks like.”
I appreciate Glasenapp’s service and I’ll take him at his word when he says that he believes every American has the inalienable right to self-defense, but if that is the case then I don’t see how he can square that position with support for a bill that would allow only a chosen few to exercise their right to carry in all 50 states.
Glasenapp says he can’t think of a better group of people to be equipped to defend themselves and others around them than special forces. I can. It’s a group called “the people,” and they’re the ones whose right to bear arms is explicitly protected by the Constitution. The Second Amendment doesn’t exist for the “specially selected” or “uniquely trained.” It exists for the ordinary American citizen.
My objections to Sheehy’s bill are no different than the ones I raised when Rep. Harrigan introduced his version of the legislation back in April.
The right to keep and bear arms is a right of “the people,” and whether he realizes it or not, Harrigan’s bill (like the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act that’s already in place) turns that right into a privilege reserved for a chosen few. In the case of LEOSA, it’s current and former police officers. Harrigan’s bill would apply that same selective standard to special operators. In both cases, the framework elevates certain members of our society above we the people, and that’s not how our Constitution works. I’d argue that to say that police officers and/or special operators have “earned” the ability to carry a concealed firearm in all 50 states actually undercuts the basic premise of the Second Amendment.
Does it make sense to “trust retired police officers to carry concealed nationwide”? Sure, and it makes sense to allow current and retired special operators to do the same. It also makes sense to allow every lawful gun owner to carry concealed in all 50 states, because that’s what a right of the people looks like; it applies equally across the land, and not just to select individuals or groups.
I don’t have a problem with law enforcement or special ops warriors carrying nationwide. My problem is a system where only law enforcement and operators have the ability to do so.
The counter argument is that this bill, like LEOSA, still moves the ball forward. Once lawmakers see that national right-to-carry reciprocity for these groups hasn’t led to mayhem, the theory goes, they’ll be more likely to support national right-to-carry reciprocity for the rest of us.
The problem with that argument is that we heard the same thing when LEOSA was making its way through Congress 22 years ago, and it doesn’t appear to have made a lick of difference in the years since.
Like Harrigan, Sheehy is also a co-sponsor of the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. I would encourage the senator, just as I encouraged the congressman in April, to stick with the legislation that recognizes the Second Amendment rights of we the people and forget about the bill that (intentionally or not) treats this right as a privilege reserved for a chosen few.
So far, most Republicans in Congress are sticking with reciprocity for all. Harrigan’s bill has just six co-sponsors, compared to 189 for H.R. 38. Sheehy’s companion bill will hopefully receive the same cool reception on Capitol Hill, and we can continue pushing forward for a true national right-to-carry reciprocity law.
Nowhere in the Second Amendment does the word “permit” exist.
29 states across the nation have already restored their citizens’ right to bear arms. It is beyond time to make that nationwide.@TheAKGuy is the man to help make it happen. pic.twitter.com/BEIzJpDLt2
— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) August 11, 2026
Larry Correia
@monsterhunter45
Looks like it is time to once again post my A to Z Guide to Anti-Gun Vulture Talking Points!
A. Gun owners are never trained enough so are dangerous and shouldn’t be armed at all.
B. Gun owners who do train are crazy psychos living out their wannabe fantasies itching to shoot someone.
C. Even though it takes orders of magnitude more effort to become marginally effective with martial arts than a gun, you are better off using martial arts and not having a gun.
D. *Real Men* use their hands. This is why your mom and grandma shouldn’t have guns either.
E. Twitter randos who have never been punched in the face are experts on real life violence, and whatever you have personally experienced doesn’t count.
F. No matter how trained you are, it is never enough for the hypothetical attacker they make up. Sure, your concealed handgun might be enough to stop a regular robber or rapist, but what about if you get attacked by 20 Chechen terrorists with AKs, huh? Huh? (we call this the Dracula Riding Godzilla rule)
G. If the anti-gun vulture was ever in the military, this makes them a Military Trained Expert. Even though most of the time this means they got to put 20 rounds through an M-16 once in 1992.
H. No matter how many certified MMA bad asses or combat vets go “lol wut, dork? I’d rather have a gun.” the anti-gun Twitter vulture will remain undeterred.
I. Goldilocks Rules apply. No matter how much you know about guns, you’re either too ignorant and dangerous, or you know too much and that makes you dangerous. Whatever amount the anti-gun zealot knows is Just Right.
K. Whatever stats they pull out are sacrosanct. If you cite any numbers they reflexively scream “SOURCE?!” and then have some reason they won’t accept that source when provided. “The actual FBI Crime Statistics? LAME!”
L. At some point they’ll need to talk about how big our penises are, because guns are for compensation. Obviously the female gun owners are compensating for their tiny uteruses.
M. “I believe in the Second Amendment BUUUUUUUUT-” (insert statist BS here)
N. If you insist on using terms correctly and words having actual definitions, clearly this demonstrates you are a fanatic. Words mean whatever they need to mean in that moment, especially legal ones.
O. “Castle Doctrine” is a secret right wing code word that means that you can just shoot whoever you want.
P. Get ready for a history lesson about “what the founders really intended” from some dummy who was stoned through every history class in high school.
Q. Everybody knows big blue cities are way safer than the scary red state flyover country.
R. Gun control isn’t racist! Sure, historical gun control was all about keeping guns out of the hands of the “undesirables” like freed slaves, Indians, and the Irish, but that’s totally different now!
S. AR-15s are the most dangerous gun that’s ever existed. It can fire ten thousand ultra deadly murder bullets a second and each one can explode a moose from a thousand yards away. There is nothing this miracle death machine can’t do.
T. lol your AR-15s are utterly useless against a tyrannical government.
U. The NRA is an all-powerful, super evil entity which has tricked innocent Americans into wanting ultra deadly assault rifles, to satisfy their incessant blood lust. They do this through their ultra powerful marketing, like giving out free hats.
V. Anti-gun organizations are all totally innocent grass roots movements made up of moms, orphans, and kittens, funded entirely by bake sales, who just want the best for all Americans.
W. “I grew up around guns” makes you an unassailable subject matter expert on the topic.
X. The gun industry is made up of giant soulless mega corporations who make trillions of dollars off of selling Glocks to preschoolers. This message was brought to you by benevolent small businesses like the six companies that own most of the world’s media.
Y. Even though everything the anti-gunner proposes is ass backwards and would just make the problems they are crying about worse, and everywhere they get their way good people are disarmed while evil doers are empowered…they CARE HARDER than we do. So we’re the real bad guys.
Z. “You sound angry.”
Armed Defense is Simple, Hard, and Necessary
We go along and then something happens to us that changes our perspective. I was talking to a young man not long after I wrote about armed defense. Each of the ordinary stories I covered included an advanced self-defense skill. The young man said he wanted to make his family safer. We talked about it for a minute. I think that is where emotion raised its head, where truth and fantasy parted company. Let me state the obvious. Protecting your family takes work. Knowing what to do is the first layer of defense. Armed defense is also a skill that takes practice.
We often think that we can buy skill. I’ve felt that way myself. It is true that some firearms will fit your hands better than others. That said, is the problem that your hands are not doing what you want them to do, or is the problem that your brain doesn’t know what your hands and feet should be doing? Hardware won’t replace study and practice. Sometimes we have to climb over our ego and admit we have some homework to do. Let me give you a window into armed defense by looking at the examples from my recent podcast.
In the first story, male and female intruders entered an apartment and attacked the occupants. This happened on a Sunday morning. What could be more ordinary.
On a Sunday morning, it is easy to imagine that our children would be home and that they would open the door if someone knocked and shouted. When you read through this story, there were also children in the apartment but they didn’t open the door.
Right there is our first dose of reality. We need a safety plan at home. We have to talk with our family about what all of us will do. We have to talk with our roommates or frequent guests. We also have to walk through that plan. The walk-through does several essential things. It changes words into habits. It also uncovers the errors that seemed good at first but didn’t work well in practice.
Who is going to call 911? Who is armed or going to be armed, and where will they be positioned to defend the rest of the occupants? It sounds simple, but I’m sure your third attempt will be vastly better than your first rehearsal. It is easier to learn in the daylight than to discover problems at night when a stranger is hitting you.
Staying with this first story, a female roommate shot the attackers while they were hitting the male roommate who opened the door. Shooting at moving targets is beyond what we learned in basic marksmanship. In this case, the attackers and the victim were both moving. Speed, distance, and motion work together to determine how accurate we will be with our shots. Even though a gun works at a distance, we might have to get closer so we are sure to shoot the attackers and not shoot our roommate. Do you know what you can do and how much time you need?
Your safety plan should also include calling your lawyer and getting help as you fill out the final police report. That also includes your roommates knowing what to say, and what not say, to the police. That information is only lightly covered in most concealed carry classes.
In the second story, the defender had to move out of the way to avoid being shot. The defender then had to present his concealed firearm on the move. He had to shoot at his attackers who were likely moving as well. Firearms instructors teach classes where the students move and shoot. Some competition includes moving targets and multiple attackers. Have you practiced moving from one target to another? Have you practiced shooting while most of your body was hidden behind a wall or a car?
In the third story, the defender was being robbed at work. The robber tried to push the victim into a back bathroom. That is horribly dangerous for the victim, and he decided to fight. The defender had to turn so that the attacker couldn’t reach the defender’s gun. The defender then had to create enough distance between himself and his attacker so he could rotate his firearm and point it at his attacker. That means the defenders support arm was in front of his muzzle and between him and the the bad guy. You want to see how that works before you have to perform it on your own. At first, you want to practice with an instructor making sure you’re safe.
In the fourth and last story, an elderly woman was trying to stop a strange dog from biting her dog. In that case, it is best practice to grab your attacker and hold on tight so you both move together. That keeps you from shooting your dog or shooting yourself as the attacker moves.
I said that armed defense was both simple and hard. The contrast is complex and easy. Fortunately, we can decompose a new lesson into small incremental steps so that each new skill is relatively straightforward. The hard part is admitting we won’t suddenly become John Wick when we hear glass break at night.
Many of us have taken some form of firearms class. Please review those skills so they remain available when you need them.
What is “trapped in amber”?An originalist explanation
Anyone watching the Supreme Court this past term may have remarked on the frequency with which the justices talk about fossilized tree resin. Consider:
The expression has become increasingly popular in the lower courts, too. Earlier this week, law professor Richard Re traced the history of the metaphor and its rapid spread over the past two years.
As Re correctly recognizes, though early uses of the phrase evoked a living Constitution – one whose meaning evolves over time – each of the references collected above traces back to a line in the Supreme Court’s originalist decision in United States v. Rahimi, in which the court upheld a federal law that disarms those under a domestic violence restraining order. There, the court used the phrase to clarify that its Second Amendment precedents “were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.” The court continued:
[T]he reach of the Second Amendment is not limited only to those arms that were in existence at the founding. Rather, it “extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not [yet] in existence.” By that same logic, the Second Amendment permits more than just those regulations identical to ones that could be found in 1791. Holding otherwise would be as mistaken as applying the protections of the right only to muskets and sabers.
At the time, professor Josh Blackman predicted that the “amber” line would become “the most quoted sentence” in the opinion, and a way for judges to escape the original meaning of the law. I’ll leave the citation counts to more empirically inclined court-watchers, but the evidence Re collects vindicates Blackman’s prediction to this extent: the metaphor has become a flashpoint in the contest over what it means to do originalism.
Properly understood, originalism indeed holds that law is fixed – “trapped in amber,” if you will. But the circumstances to which it applies are not. The problem with the amber metaphor is that courts increasingly use it without distinguishing law from its application.
Legal Experts Weigh in on SCOTUS ‘Assault Weapon’ Cases
The Supreme Court will finally hear not just one case about bans on so-called assault weapons, but two. They’ve basically combined two different cases, particularly after the lower courts got pretty damn stupid in their own rulings.
And that’s good news for us.
Or is it?
So far, pretty much everyone expects the Court to rule against these bans, even anti-gun attorneys, but let’s understand exactly why.
The Bruen ruling established a two-step test lower courts are to use when assessing restrictions on firearm possession. The majority said courts must first assess whether the regulated conduct is covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, and if so, determine if that regulation is consistent with the nation’s “historical tradition of firearm regulation.”
Turning to Viramontes and Grant, Williams observed how the 2nd and 7th Courts of Appeals effectively failed to properly adopt Bruen‘s two-step framework when considering the challenges to the respective laws.
In Viramontes, Williams noted that the 7th Circuit “essentially stops the argument at step one” by analogizing AR-15s to “automatic weapons” like M-16s, which it found are “presumptively not covered by the Second Amendment” under existing SCOTUS precedent. Meanwhile, in Grant, he said that the 2nd Circuit focused more on the second step by accepting Connecticut’s “historical analogues” regarding bans on “certain types of knives” and “machine guns,” and started “to slip closer and closer” to a framework rejected by the Supreme Court in Bruen.
The attorneys also considered the possibility that the Supreme Court may address the lawfulness of restrictions on gun-magazine size in its decision. The sole question agreed to by the justices is whether the Second and 14th Amendments “guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.”
Williams opined that “it’s entirely possible you could see these connected in this decision” because “it’s really kind of hard to separate the magazine out from the firearm to the extent that an AR-15 comes with a standard magazine; it’s generally a 30-round magazine.” He furthermore noted these guns’ wide use among the American public.
Proctor is a bit more doubtful about the magazine aspect here, but admits it could happen. That would be fantastic news, too, because the magazine restrictions are particularly stupid and have even fewer historic analogs than weapons restrictions.
In Viramontes, the court there basically just decided that because AR-15s look like M-16s and fire the same round, they might as well be the same gun, which was particularly grotesque considering the Bruen decision. There was no grounds for such a statement, particularly since the legal definition of a machine gun is something the AR-15 does not meet.
Meanwhile, the court in Grant used bans against things like Bowie knives to justify the ban, as well as the whole machine gun thing, which makes no sense, really, because Bowie knives are available on Amazon right now and aren’t firearms. We’ve already talked about the machine gun thing.
See, what happened in both of these cases is that the judges rationalized their decisions. They didn’t do what the law demanded; they twisted things until they made it seem like the law called for what the judges wanted to do from the start. That’s not how a legal system is supposed to work. Unfortunately, this is what happens when you introduce humans into a system.
Luckily, the consensus is, in fact, that the Supreme Court will address this when they hear these cases. I sincerely hope that the magazine thing is addressed, too, even though I’m doubtful it will be.
What we really need here is for the Supreme Court to not just end these bans on so-called assault weapons, but to frame it in such a way that there’s no hope for lawmakers to try and find an end-around, because we all know that’s what they’re going to do.
TX: Judge Takes Sledgehammer To National Firearms Act
A federal judge ruled Wednesday that the National Firearms Act (NFA) no longer applies to suppressors and other items whose taxes were reduced to $0 in July 2025.
United States District Judge James Wesley Hendrix of the Northern District of Texas, a Trump appointee, granted a motion for summary judgement from attorneys representing the Silencer Shop Foundation Wednesday. In the 66-page opinion, Hendrix said that because taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and other items had been reduced to $0 by legislation signed by President Donald Trump in July 2025, the registration and paperwork imposed by the NFA exceeded Congress’ authority under the taxation power.
BREAKING:
A district court in Texas just granted our summary judgment motion finding that the NFA exceeds congressional authority for the untaxed items, without reaching the Second Amendment question.
More to follow soon as we read the ruling. pic.twitter.com/IyNbRWBc9x
— SAF (@2AFDN) August 5, 2026
“In 2025, Congress eliminated the NFA’s transfer and making taxes for four categories of firearms: short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, silencers, and a final, defined group of miscellaneous firearms,” Hendrix wrote. “Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power. And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”
After the Senate parliamentarian struck language that removed those items from NFA’s purview, Congress reduced the taxes to $0.
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix.
HUGE BREAKING 2A WIN: Federal Court finds NFA is unconstitutional as applied to suppressors, short barrel rifles and shotguns in Silencer Shop v ATF. Commerce clause violated. Congratulations to @GunOwners @gunpolicy @NRA and @2AFDN
— Mark W. Smith/#2A Scholar (@fourboxesdiner) August 5, 2026
He didn’t just save lives the other day in Idaho.
He will save lives for years to come.
Right now, countless would-be mass shooters are seeing this image and having second thoughts.
The uncertainty of who is carrying and who is trained is a deterrent.
Guns save lives. pic.twitter.com/WsPOvNZ5W3
— Eric Matheny (@ericmmatheny) August 3, 2026
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.
Imagine Thinking More Gun Control is the Answer to California’s Crime Problem.
Tragically, a murderer opened fire at a Fourth of July weekend block party in Compton, California earlier this month, killing 37-year-old Eric Washington and 19-year-old Meah Bordenave-Jenkins and wounding three others. The victims and their loved ones deserve justice. Police arrested one suspect, 54 year-old Antoine Jones, two weeks later and charged him with murder in Bordenave-Jenkins’ death. He deserves prosecution and punishment to the fullest extent of the law. The suspect in Washington’s death is still at large.
California state Democratic Assemblymember Mike Gipson, however, quickly used this latest tragedy to call for…stronger state and federal gun control laws. He cited background checks, age restrictions and so-called “red flag” laws as “basics” that would reduce criminal violence.
The problem with Assemblyman Gipson’s demands, though, is that California already has all three. The state routes firearm transfers, including private-party transfers, through licensed firearm retailers. Law-abiding purchasers face a background check and mandatory 10-day waiting period. California generally prohibits firearm sales to anyone under 21 and has an expansive “gun violence restraining order” system.
Nothing publicly reported about the Compton attacks establishes that yet another restriction on lawful firearm purchases would have prevented them. Once again, California’s answer to criminals breaking the law is to suggest writing yet another law further burdening the Second Amendment rights of the people who aren’t breaking the laws in the first place.
A person willing to wantonly fire into a crowd is not waiting for Sacramento to clarify the rules. Alleged murder, attempted murder, illegal firearm trafficking and criminal misuse are already serious crimes. Even in California.
New mandates on lawful firearm purchases only reach people who appear in person at a lawful firearm retailer, present identification, pay government fees, complete paperwork and submit to government background checks. They do not deter criminals who circumvent lawful commerce or unlawfully possess firearms despite being prohibited.
California should focus on prosecuting violent offenders, dismantling illegal trafficking networks and imposing meaningful consequences on those who illegally possess and misuse firearms. Instead, Sacramento wants to further burden lawful gun owners and firearm retailers while criminals remain unimpressed. After all, as NSSF has repeatedly pointed out, the overwhelming majority of criminals who commit their crimes using a firearm obtained that gun in an unlawful way. That includes theft, the black market or other illicit means.
One textbook example is Assembly Bill 1127, which took effect July 1. The law prohibits firearm retailers from selling certain popular semiautomatic pistols that California defines as “machinegun-convertible.” It targets pistols with a cruciform trigger bar that criminals can illegally alter by installing an already-illegal “machinegun conversion device,” or MCD.
As stated, those MCDs are already illegal. California law — not to mention federal law — already prohibits the import, manufacture, sale, possession and transportation of machineguns, with violations punishable as felonies. Installing the illegal device creates an illegal machinegun. NSSF reminds all lawful gun purchasers to stay on the “Right Side of Legal.”
California’s response was not limited to pursuing criminals who manufacture, traffic or install the MCDs. It banned retail sales of unaltered, commonly-owned pistols to law-abiding citizens. These firearms have been purchased, owned and relied on for years by numerous Californians, including law enforcement officers as well as law-abiding gun owners. Even former Vice President Kamala Harris admitted to owning this style of handgun.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued California the day AB 1127 took effect, challenging both the pistol prohibition and the state’s restrictive handgun roster, stating the law violated the Second Amendment.
“The Second Amendment is a sacred right belonging to all Americans, even those in California,” Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche stated in a press release. The lawsuit places California’s newest handgun restriction before a federal court, where it belongs.
California’s ammunition system follows the same model. Most buyers must undergo an eligibility check for every transaction. The standard background check costs $5 and depends on the buyer’s identifying information matching an entry in the state’s Automated Firearms System. A mismatch means rejection.
Those without a matching record may need an additional $19 basic check that can take several days. The California Department of Justice retains ammunition sales records and transfer information, and residents who buy ammunition outside of the state generally must route it through a licensed California vendor before taking possession.
California Waterfowl has documented hunters struggling with outdated addresses, mismatched records and delays. Some reportedly missed hunting seasons while attempting to correct state records. The system creates those obstacles for hunters, target shooters and lawful gun owners trying to comply, not criminals obtaining ammunition illegally.
Thankfully, the restrictions remain under constitutional challenge in Rhode v. Bonta. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled in July of 2025 that the regime violated the Second Amendment. The court later granted an en banc rehearing and vacated that opinion. The full court heard arguments in March of 2026 and California continues enforcing the system while a decision is pending.
Even California Gov. Gavin Newsom has been caught in the web he helped create. A SIG SAUER pistol given to him by podcaster Shawn Ryan remained with a licensed firearm retailer months later. Taking possession would require California’s background checks, paperwork, Firearm Safety Certificate, waiting period and other conditions — a fitting demonstration of the barriers ordinary law-abiding Californians face.
The Second Amendment does not disappear before or after a criminal commits a terrible act. Nor does tragedy give lawmakers a blank check to further burden citizens who had nothing to do with the crime.
The Compton families deserve answers and accountability. They do not deserve to have their loss used to justify another restriction aimed at lawful firearm ownership, which will do nothing to make Californians safe.
The state should stop treating constitutional rights as a problem and start treating violent criminals as the problem. The DOJ’s lawsuit and the pending Rhode decision will test whether federal courts finally force California to recognize that distinction.
‘Gun Violence Prevention’= The New Gun Control Camouflage
It has been called “gun safety legislation,” “gun reform,” and “gun responsibility,” but it all boils down to the same thing: gun control.
And lately, the gun prohibition lobby and its allies in government from town councils to Congress have been using a new bit of grammatical camouflage to make the same old thing sound more reasonable.
The term is “gun violence prevention.” Wipe away all the fluff and you wind up with the same thing, simply repackaged.
In the aftermath of a pair of multiple shootings in Minneapolis, inforum.com ran this headline: “2 mass shootings in Minneapolis over the weekend fuel calls for gun violence prevention.” To its credit, the subhead acknowledged, “Calls for gun control continue in the wake of recent shootings ahead of the November election and on the heels of a failed legislative fight.”
Other news reports about gun control have not been so candid.
The National Urban League recently announced plans for Chicago by declaring, “Local Leaders Call for Designated Gun Violence Prevention Department in Chicago.”
The story explained, “Some community members and faith leaders believe creating a so-called Department of Gun Violence Prevention could help keep people safe in Chicago.” The Urban League asserted this new agency would “support community-based solutions and ensure the department exists regardless of who is in City Hall.”
One familiar name popped up: Father Michael Pfleger. For a man of the cloth, he’s been busy for many years stirring up trouble against local gun stores in Cook County.
Over in Michigan, gubernatorial candidate Jocelyn Benson is saying, according to this video, calling “gun violence prevention (a) top priority in” that state’s race. Benson is currently Michigan’s secretary of state, and according to a profile at Wikipedia, she’s a member of the Democratic Party and is a former law school dean.
In upper New York, Spectrum reported over the weekend that “Law enforcement and community groups in the cities of Buffalo and Niagara Falls are receiving state funding after multiple Fourth of July weekend shootings.”
According to the headline, “Violence prevention funding awarded to Buffalo, Niagara Falls after Fourth of July weekend shootings.” The story explains, “The effort comes as part of the state’s Gun Involved Violence Elimination (GIVE) initiative, SNUG Street Outreach program and Project RISE (Respond, Invest, Sustain, Empower). Funding will be administered by the state Division of Criminal Justice Services.”
Earlier this year, Ohio state Rep. Darnell T. Brewer, a Cleveland Democrat, quickly reacted to an incident in which a toddler suffered a self-inflicted gunshot wound with an unsecured firearm. As a politician, Brewer’s response was to call for another law.
“Rep. Brewer Urges Calls for Immediate Action on Gun Violence Prevention Legislation After Another Ohio Child Shot,” read the headline of his news release.
Whatever anti-gunners prefer to call it, their efforts all amount to gun control. Call it by another name, it’s still the same thing.
Still Think That Interpretation of 2A As Individual Right Is New?
One of the most bizarre talking points among anti-gun zealots is that the Second Amendment preserves a collective right, that “the right of the people” really meant the states, even though the Constitution specifies states and numerous points. For these folks, the idea that the Second Amendment is an individual right was something that sprang up in the 20th Century, fully formed as if from the head of Zeus.
Kostas Moros has a really good thread debunking that claim with 19th-century sources on X.
However, Catherine Salgado, writing at our sister site, PJ Media, has a fantastic bit from the 18th century that is relevant.
America’s Founders firmly believed that the right to keep and bear arms was the right that safeguarded all others, and this belief is one we must recall in this 250th year of our nation’s existence.
On this date, July 23, 1793, Roger Sherman died. While many Americans have forgotten his name, he was the only one of the Founding Fathers to sign all four of the documents considered most key to the birth of the United States: the Continental Association from the First Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the U.S. Constitution.
Indeed, Sherman was on the Committee of Five that drafted the Declaration of Independence. Having been present at so many of the most important moments of the Revolution and the establishment of our republic, Sherman understood how vital it was for ordinary citizens to be able to defend themselves.
Like many of his fellow leaders of the Revolutionary generation, Sherman expressed his strong conviction about the importance of what we now call the Second Amendment. In 1790, only a few years before his death, he made the following comment:
[I] conceived it to be the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular States, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend by force of arms, their rights, when invaded.
Notice that while he is discussing the topic of militias, he makes it very clear that every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms separate from the right to serve in a militia. Democrats sometimes try to claim that the Founders meant gun rights to operate only in the context of militias, which is false.
Exactly. While Sherman was talking about militias, he specifies private citizens. He also notes that the states should be defended “by force of arms” when invaded, and I think that’s vitally important, too.
After all, if the right of the people to keep and bear arms means the militia, then why did Sherman—a man who was on the committee that wrote the Second Amendment, mind you—name both states and private citizens? The answer is because the right of the people is the right of private citizens to keep and bear arms, which he should then use to “resist every attack upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made.”
In other words, he should defend himself from all threats, foreign and domestic, with his own arms, even if the domestic threat comes from his own government.
This is a man who, at the very least, was in the room when the Second Amendment was written. He was intimately involved in the discussions about which rights should be preserved and why. He knew what the thinking went behind the Second Amendment, and he knew damn good and well that it was always intended as an individual right, though one the state could draw from in time of war.
Understand that this concept that it was never an individual right until the 20th century is nothing but revisionist history. It’s an attempt to try and trick originalists into supporting gun control or a tool used to attack originalists for not supporting it. It has little to no basis in history. Sherman’s own words make that ridiculously clear.
In fact, it was the anti-gun “militia only” interpretation that was an artifact of the 20th century, and one that should be relegated to the dustbin of history immediately.
The Perennial Problem With ‘in Common Use’.
In his majority opinion in Heller, the late Justice Antonin Scalia encoded a concept of “in common use.” Basically, guns that are “in common use” for any lawful purpose cannot be banned or restricted to such a point that they’re unusable for those lawful purposes. Self-defense is the most cited lawful use, and some judges seem to think that’s the only one, but it’s not. It’s any lawful use.
And, to be fair, in the here and now, the phrase “in common use” is a useful shield.
However, there’s a perennial problem with the phrase, and that’s because the world of technology isn’t static.
I’ve repeatedly noted that I’m a science fiction nerd. While I also hold tradition important and think things of the past should be preserved, I also think that the world marches ever forward and that’s a very good thing. People tend to focus on communication or transportation as big advances coming down the line, but firearm technology will also continue onward. That includes some things that are, mostly, science fiction now but won’t be forever.
For example, I’m fascinated by rail guns. The idea of firing a projectile at ridiculous speeds using electromagnets is awesome, and the test firing of the Navy’s examples shows a round going so fast it ignited the air around it. While Uncle Sam seems to have abandoned its rail gun project, at least for now, hobbyists are still piddling with them.
Sooner or later, someone is going to come up with something, even if it’s not a rail gun, that will take weapons technology in an exciting new direction. It’ll probably be expensive to start with, and primarily for the military, but consumers will want their own versions, too.
The problem? Because it’s a new technology, it’s not in common use anywhere. It’s too new, too expensive, and too rare for many people to have one, and that’s the problem.
The weapons not “in common use” are, at least theoretically, free to be restricted as “dangerous and unusual” weapons. In fact, because they’re weapons, they’re going to be dangerous, and because the technology is fresh onto the market, they’ll be unusual.
Anti-gun lawmakers will leap onto this little fact and start passing laws banning this new technology. Don’t want to believe me? Well, look at “ghost guns.”
People were building their own firearms for years before anyone ever uttered a word about them. Most criminals got their guns via the black market, theft, or straw buys. The idea of making guns was too much work for them.
But the moment that a lawmaker decided it was a problem, the push to ban them started. 3D printing just sped up the push because now, people were making them, selling them, and using them. Numerous states started banning them…but between 2017 and 2023, despite tens of thousands of homicides by firearm, so-called ghost guns accounted for just 1,700. That’s an average of around 242 per year. It wasn’t a problem, but it was scary, so lawmakers demanded legislation.
Now, let’s think about something new, like, say, personal rail guns or something else that represents a significant leap in firearm technology. Because they’re new but scary, do you think the anti-gunners won’t try to make a thing about them? They’ll blast the airwaves about how these rail guns are too dangerous for civilian hands, and because they’re too new to be “in common use,” they might actually survive legal challenges that they shouldn’t survive.
That’s the problem.
Our Founding Fathers didn’t say anything about “in common use” because, in their minds, that wasn’t the basis for which rights are governed. It wasn’t about how many people had some new bit of technology; if that technology pertained to one of the rights enumerated in and protected by the Bill of Rights, then it shouldn’t be touched.
So yes, “in common use” represents a very real problem, and one that I hope the Supreme Court addresses very soon. I’d hate to see a force of tyranny somewhere down the road have firepower, particularly on an individual soldier basis, that the citizenry cannot match.
