{"id":116306,"date":"2026-04-20T10:55:42","date_gmt":"2026-04-20T15:55:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116306"},"modified":"2026-04-20T10:56:03","modified_gmt":"2026-04-20T15:56:03","slug":"116306","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116306","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.thetruthaboutguns.com\/doj-defends-nfa-registration-suppressor-lawsuit\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Gun Rights Group Files Brief To Rebut DOJ\u2019s Misleading Arguments In NFA Challenge<\/a><\/p>\n<p>Arguments by the Trump Administration\u2019s Department of Justice for continuing the registration portion of the National Firearms Act (NFA) now that the tax has been eliminated have drawn the ire of a major gun-rights group.<\/p>\n<p>Congress killed the $200 tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs) when it passed President Donald Trump\u2019s One Big Beautiful Bill last summer. Gun-rights groups immediately filed a handful of lawsuits challenging the remainder of the NFA, and the DOJ is unexpectedly fighting those lawsuits, despite the administration\u2019s promise to battle anti-Second Amendment laws.<\/p>\n<p>In one of the cases,\u00a0<em>Brown v. ATF<\/em>, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) recently filed a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/saf.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/Brown-supplemental-reply-brief-4.14.26.pdf\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">supplemental reply brief<\/a>\u00a0countering the federal government\u2019s arguments in support of the NFA.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>\u201cThis reply brief gave us the perfect opportunity to rebut the government\u2019s arguments in support of the NFA,\u201d Bill Sack, SAF director of legal operations, said in a\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/saf.org\/saf-files-supplemental-reply-brief-in-national-firearms-act-challenge\/\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noreferrer noopener\">news release<\/a>\u00a0announcing the filing. \u201cWe were encouraged the court requested targeted supplemental briefing that addressed key elements of the proper Second Amendment analysis. In our principle brief, we laid out in detail why the answer to every question posed supported our position. And now with this reply brief, we have driven home the point and dismantled each of the government\u2019s arguments to the contrary.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p>In the brief, FPC argued that the government used incorrect reasoning in its argument about which arms are \u201cin common use\u201d and which are not. And in doing so, pointed out the government\u2019s inability to address the second Bruen standard.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>\u201cUnder a proper understanding of the \u201cin common use\u201d test, even if the Government is correct about what factors courts must analyze under the inquiry\u2014a point that Plaintiffs do not concede\u2014the Government would bear the burden under the historical phase of the Second Amendment inquiry to show that an arm is not in common use for a lawful purpose,\u201d the brief stated. \u201cThe Government has not done so here. Instead, Plaintiffs have presented significant, unrebutted evidence that short-barreled rifles and suppressors are in common use today for lawful purposes.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>FPC also took on the government\u2019s argument that suppressors are not protected by the Second Amendment because they are not \u201carms.\u201d<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>\u201cThe relevant conduct for purposes of determining whether suppressors are protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment is the possession or acquisition of a firearm equipped with a suppressor,\u201d the brief argued. \u201cThat is because a suppressor has no purpose other than for use as part of a firearm, so it cannot be divorced from the firearm to which it is affixed for purposes of this inquiry. Under this proper framing of the Second Amendment inquiry, the NFA\u2019s regulation of suppressed firearms implicates presumptively protected conduct\u2014the possession of a firearm.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Alan M. Gottlieb, SAF founder and executive vice president, said that for nearly a century, the government has used the NFA to disenfranchise law-abiding Americans, and it\u2019s high time this infringement be righted.<\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\"><p>\u201cCitizens across the country own more than 5 million silencers and countless short-barreled rifles,\u201d Gottlieb said. \u201cRegistering your guns with the same government the Second Amendment is intended to protect you\u00a0<em>from<\/em>\u00a0runs contrary to the fundamental principles of the right to keep and bear arms. More than 90 years of constitutional injury is enough\u2014it\u2019s time to strike this one down.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>Ultimately, the SAF brief asked the court to grant the plaintiff\u2019s motion for summary judgment and to deny the government\u2019s motion. SAF is joined in\u00a0<em>Brown v. ATF<\/em>\u00a0by the American Suppressor Association, National Rifle Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Prime Protection STL Tactical Boutique, and two private citizens.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gun Rights Group Files Brief To Rebut DOJ\u2019s Misleading Arguments In NFA Challenge Arguments by the Trump Administration\u2019s Department of Justice for continuing the registration portion of the National Firearms Act (NFA) now that the tax has been eliminated have drawn the ire of a major gun-rights group. Congress killed the $200 tax on suppressors, &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=116306\" class=\"more-link\">Continue reading<span class=\"screen-reader-text\"> &#8220;&#8221;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,50,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-116306","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-goobermint","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116306","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=116306"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116306\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":116308,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/116306\/revisions\/116308"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=116306"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=116306"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=116306"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}