FPSRussia Lost His Gun Rights Over Marijuana. Trump Should Give Them Back

Kyle Myers became one of the most recognizable firearms personalities on the early internet. Millions knew him as FPSRussia, the Georgia gun owner playing the fictional “Professional Russian” Dmitri Potapoff while demonstrating everything from AKs and belt-fed machine guns to armored vehicles and artillery.

Today, Myers cannot legally possess a single round of ammunition.

He was not convicted of shooting anyone, threatening anyone, using a firearm during a crime, or operating a violent trafficking organization. His lifetime federal firearms disability grew out of a marijuana felony involving approximately 25 grams—less than one ounce—of butane honey oil.

Myers broke the law that existed at the time and pleaded guilty. He also served the sentence the government imposed. None of that establishes that he is dangerous with a firearm, and it does not justify stripping him of a fundamental constitutional right for the rest of his life.

President Donald Trump should grant Kyle Myers a full pardon and expressly restore his right to keep and bear arms.

Patrick Adamiak got his pardon, but we still have another who should have gotten it long ago.

Pardon Kyle, give him his rights back. pic.twitter.com/Q0ms8oTxMl

— Doc Strangelove (@DocStrangelove2) September 10, 2026

How FPSRussia Became a Prohibited Person

In August 2017, authorities arrested Myers after he received approximately 25 grams of butane honey oil through the mail. The Georgia Bureau of Investigation described the substance as “a marijuana concentrate.”

Authorities subsequently searched Myers’s home and seized numerous firearms and other property. The case eventually moved into federal court as United States v. Myers, No. 3:18-cr-00049, in the Middle District of Georgia.

Myers pleaded guilty to possession with intent to distribute marijuana and butane hash oil. Public case summaries report that he received 56 days in federal prison, two years of probation or supervision, and a $7,500 fine.

The relatively short prison term concealed the real punishment. Because the offense was punishable by more than one year in prison, Myers became a prohibited person under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). That meant a permanent federal ban on possessing firearms or ammunition.

The conviction closed the door on any lawful return to the firearm demonstrations that made FPSRussia YouTube-famous. That is a lifelong penalty attached to conduct involving marijuana, not violence.

DOJ’s New Rule Undercuts Myers’s Continued Disarmament

The timing makes Myers’s case impossible to ignore.

Attorney General Todd Blanche recently finalized a new Federal Firearm Rights Restoration process under 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The rule becomes effective September 21, 2026, and the Justice Department plans to open the application portal to the first 5,000 public applicants on November 4.

For more than 30 years, the statutory restoration process was effectively unavailable because Congress prohibited the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from spending money to process applications. DOJ has now transferred the work to the Office of the Pardon Attorney.

AmmoLand previously examined the new process in “DOJ Revives Federal Firearm Rights Restoration After 30-Year Shutdown.”

The most important language for Myers appears in the rule’s definitions. For purposes of the restoration program, “controlled substance” does not include marijuana.

The rule ordinarily places a ten-year presumption against restoring rights following a conviction for manufacturing or distributing a controlled substance. Other felony convictions generally receive a five-year presumptive waiting period, calculated from the completion of every part of the sentence.

Because DOJ expressly excluded marijuana from its definition of “controlled substance,” the plain language of the rule strongly suggests that Myers’s marijuana conviction falls under the five-year category rather than the ten-year drug-trafficking category.

DOJ should publicly confirm that interpretation. Myers’s official judgment and sentence-completion record would also be needed to calculate his exact eligibility date. Based on the publicly reported timeline, however, he appears to have completed his sentence approximately five years ago.

In other words, FPSRussia could be among the clearest early candidates for restoration.

Marijuana Is Not Proof of Firearm Dangerousness

In United States v. Hemani, the Supreme Court rejected the federal government’s attempt to automatically disarm a man based solely on regular marijuana use. The government had not alleged that Hemani was intoxicated while possessing the gun, addicted, unable to manage his affairs, dangerous to himself or others, or irresponsible with the firearm.

As AmmoLand explained in “Not Just Marijuana: CRS Says Hemani Could Put More Federal Gun Bans in the Crosshairs,” the decision did not erase § 922(g)(3) or create a right to mishandle firearms while impaired. It rejected the idea that marijuana use alone proves someone is too dangerous to exercise the Second Amendment.

Myers’s conviction was for possession with intent to distribute, not mere use, so Hemani does not overturn his conviction. But the same fundamental problem remains: Where is the evidence that Myers poses a danger today?

He has lived under this disability for years. His offense did not involve firing, brandishing, or criminally using a gun. The government punished him with imprisonment, supervision, a substantial fine, the loss of valuable property, and a felony record.

Yet they still claims the power to disarm him until death.

The founding generation did not establish a blanket rule under which every person convicted of any offense carrying a potential sentence of more than one year permanently lost the right to arms. Modern legislatures have created thousands of felonies covering conduct the Founders would never have recognized as justification for civil death.

The Second Amendment protects a right, not a privilege handed back only when a bureaucrat feels generous.

Why Myers Needs a Presidential Pardon

The new § 925(c) process is important, but administrative restoration may not solve Myers’s entire problem.

DOJ acknowledges that federal relief does not override an independent state firearms prohibition. Georgia’s State Board of Pardons and Paroles currently says it cannot restore firearm rights lost because of a federal felony.

Its official guidance is direct:

“Can I have my right to legally possess a firearm restored if I have a felony FEDERAL conviction? No. The Georgia State Board of Pardons and Paroles does not have the authority to restore firearm rights on felony federal convictions. You will need to apply for a presidential pardon.”

Georgia should clarify whether a new § 925(c) restoration order would change that answer. Until it does, Myers could obtain federal relief only to remain exposed under Georgia law.

A presidential pardon is the cleaner remedy.

DOJ’s own restoration FAQ states that a full presidential pardon removes the penalties and disabilities—including a firearm disability—resulting from a federal conviction. Any pardon issued to Myers should expressly restore his right to receive, possess, transport, carry, and use firearms and ammunition.

A pardon would also do something an administrative restoration order cannot: formally recognize that a lifetime of punishment is unjustified.

Trump Pardoned Adamiak. FPSRussia Should Be Next.

President Trump has already shown that he is willing to correct abusive or excessive federal gun prosecutions.

On September 3, Trump granted full pardons to Patrick “Tate” Adamiak, George Peterson, Jeremy Kettler, and Shane Cox. AmmoLand had repeatedly called attention to Adamiak’s prosecution and directly urged gun owners to write the White House demanding a pardon.

Trump ultimately acted. Adamiak walked out of federal prison after serving roughly four years of a 20-year sentence arising from disputed NFA classifications and government testing of demilled parts and inert collectibles.

The Adamiak and Peterson pardons did not erase the federal court opinions in their cases. They did restore liberty to men caught under federal gun laws that treated regulatory possession offenses like violent crime.

The same official clemency list contains pardons for people convicted of serious marijuana-trafficking offenses. Pardoning Myers would therefore break no new legal or political ground.

It would simply acknowledge the obvious: A marijuana conviction from years ago is not sufficient reason to permanently disarm a peaceable American.

Kyle Myers served his sentence. He has spent years as a prohibited person. His offense did not involve violence, and the Justice Department’s own new rule rejects marijuana as an automatic marker of dangerousness.

The federal government took his freedom, his firearms, and his ability to continue the work that made FPSRussia a household name among gun owners. It should not keep his Second Amendment rights forever.

President Trump should pardon Kyle Myers and give FPSRussia his gun rights back.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/NW21GpU
via IFTTT

Michigan Judge Asks Armed 19-Year-Old Who Stopped Mall Gunman Why He Needed a Gun

Michigan accepted that Martinez Long lawfully stopped an armed attacker at Fairlane Town Center but sentenced him for carrying the pistol without a license. iStock-1184846218

A Michigan judge questioned why 19-year-old Martinez Long brought a gun into a shopping mall—even after Long used that firearm to stop a gunman who had killed one person, wounded another, and continued firing recklessly inside the building. The question answers itself.

Long was sentenced Tuesday to two years of probation for carrying a concealed weapon during the July 3 shooting at Fairlane Town Center in Dearborn. Prosecutors did not charge him for fatally shooting Cameron Watkins because they determined that Long acted in lawful self-defense or defense of others.

The state accepted that Long’s trigger pull was justified. It punished him for possessing the firearm that made his intervention possible.

Gunfight Erupts Inside Fairlane Town Center

According to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, as reported by FOX 2 Detroit, the violence began with a fight involving 19-year-olds Cameron Watkins and Keonte Seaborn.

Watkins reportedly took a handgun from the purse of 19-year-old Cania Cain and shot Seaborn. Watkins then shot another person during a struggle and continued firing recklessly inside the crowded mall.

That was when Long intervened.

Long drew his own handgun and fatally shot Watkins, ending the threat. Seaborn and Watkins both died. The other wounded person survived and was released from the hospital.

The available reporting does not establish how many additional people Watkins might have shot had Long not acted. It does establish that Watkins had already killed one person, wounded another, and was still recklessly firing a gun in a public mall.

Police were called at approximately 1:25 p.m. Long was already there when the threat appeared.

As AmmoLand recently observed after an armed customer stopped a knife-wielding bank robber in Texas, nothing has a faster response time than an armed citizen who is present and willing to act.

Lawful Shooting, Unlawful Carry

Prosecutors charged Long and Cain with carrying concealed weapons without a license. Long was not charged with homicide because his use of deadly force was deemed legally justified.

That distinction exposes the senselessness of the prosecution.

Michigan law requires a person to obtain a Concealed Pistol License before carrying a concealed handgun in public. Under Michigan’s licensing statute, an applicant must be at least 21 years old.

Long was 19. No amount of training, good judgment, clean criminal history, or demonstrated ability to act responsibly could have made him eligible for Michigan’s permission slip.

The state’s position is that Long was mature enough to recognize a deadly threat, decide when lethal force was necessary, accurately engage the attacker, and stop shooting once the threat ended. He was nevertheless supposedly too young to carry the handgun he used to accomplish those things.

Attorney Kostas Moros highlighted that contradiction on X, noting that “reality proved that he indeed did need one.”

Martinez Long was sentenced to two years of probation for carrying a concealed weapon. He had to shoot a gunman, and he faced no charges for that use of lethal force, because it was deemed lawful self-defense. But his underlying carrying of a firearm was illegal because Michigan… pic.twitter.com/NqkmK6Iw2e

— Kostas Moros (@MorosKostas) September 9, 2026

Michigan’s age restriction did not stop Watkins from obtaining and firing a handgun. It only gave prosecutors a way to charge the person who stopped him.

Michigan’s Contradictory Rules for Young Adults

Michigan’s firearm laws create a particularly irrational trap for adults between 18 and 20.

Under federal law, a federally licensed dealer generally cannot sell or deliver a handgun to anyone younger than 21. The Fifth Circuit held that federal prohibition unconstitutional in Reese v. ATF, concluding that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. AmmoLand previously covered that decision.

That decision does not automatically invalidate the restriction in Michigan, which sits within the Sixth Circuit, but the constitutional principle is the same: legal adults do not lose an enumerated right because they have not reached an arbitrary birthday.

Michigan itself recognizes that an otherwise qualified 18-year-old may acquire a pistol through a private transaction. A purchaser who does not hold a CPL must first obtain a License to Purchase and comply with the background-check and transfer requirements contained in MCL 28.422.

Michigan nevertheless requires a person to be 21 before obtaining a Concealed Pistol License.

The result is a legal maze in which a 19-year-old may be permitted to acquire and possess a handgun but is categorically denied the license required to carry it concealed for personal protection. Long was not accused of being a prohibited person. His reported charge was carrying a concealed weapon—the firearm he ultimately used to stop Watkins.

The available reports do not explain how Long obtained his pistol or establish whether that acquisition complied with Michigan law. What the case does establish is that Long could not obtain a CPL solely because he was 19.

Judge Questions Why Long Needed Protection

At sentencing, the judge acknowledged that the attorneys and court agreed Long had acted in self-defense or defense of others. He nevertheless criticized Long for carrying the gun and asked:

“Why did you walk into the mall with a gun in the first place?”

Violent criminals do not announce their attacks. They do not provide advance notice. They do not wait for police to arrive. They do not check whether their intended victims have reached their 21st birthdays or received the correct plastic card from the government.

Long’s attorney explained that he carried the firearm for protection and had not planned to use it that day. He did not start the fight or instigate the shooting.

When Watkins began firing, Long used the gun to protect himself and others. That is precisely why people carry defensive firearms.

The judge ultimately imposed two years of probation. According to FOX 2 Detroit’s account of the sentencing, Long must undergo cognitive behavioral therapy, complete court-offered handgun-safety classes, and refrain from possessing firearms or ammunition during his probation.

The handgun-training requirement is particularly ironic as he clearly had it figured out on the day in question. Nothing in the reported facts suggests that Long mishandled his firearm or recklessly fired it. That conduct was attributed to Watkins, the man Long stopped.

Long had no previous criminal record and is working toward earning his GED. If Long completes probation without incident, he should avoid a permanent public conviction. That is better than a prison sentence or lasting felony record, but it does not make the prosecution just.

For two years, the state will supervise him and prohibit him from possessing the very means of protection that proved necessary inside Fairlane Town Center.

Young Adults Are Part of “The People”

Long’s case is not merely about prosecutorial discretion. It demonstrates the real-world consequences of denying Second Amendment rights to adults between 18 and 20.

Federal courts remain divided over age-based firearm restrictions. The Fifth Circuit has held that adults under 21 are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment. Other courts have strained to preserve these prohibitions, including a federal judge who recently used Founding-era contract law and the “infancy doctrine” to uphold Hawaii’s under-21 gun ban.

The Second Amendment does not establish one set of rights for adults over 21 and a lesser set for adults who are 18, 19, or 20. At the Founding, the Militia Act of 1792 enrolled able-bodied men beginning at age 18 and required them to appear armed. It would be difficult to devise a more direct rejection of the claim that 18-to-20-year-olds were historically outside America’s armed citizenry.

Michigan’s law turned Long into a defendant based not on dangerous conduct, but on his age and lack of government permission.

This case also shows why constitutional carry is more than a political slogan. A constitutional right should not depend upon obtaining a license, paying a fee, navigating an application process, or surviving until an arbitrary birthday.

The right to bear arms exists because the danger may arrive before the police do. Martinez Long did not need to explain why he carried a gun into Fairlane Town Center. The gunman he stopped had already answered that question.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/lN3wmdR
via IFTTT

Trump DOJ Wants 10 Minutes to Argue Against AR-15 Bans at Supreme Court

The Justice Department is asking the Supreme Court for ten minutes of oral argument to explain why categorical bans on commonly owned AR-15 rifles violate the Second Amendment. IMG Tim Potter

Solicitor General D. John Sauer wants the United States at the lectern when the Supreme Court considers whether Cook County and Connecticut may outlaw America’s most popular rifle.

The Trump administration does not want to remain in the spectator seats when the Supreme Court hears its most consequential Second Amendment case in years.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, on behalf of the United States, asked the Supreme Court for permission to participate in oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins. The consolidated cases ask whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect the right to possess AR-15-platform and similar semiautomatic rifles.

The Justice Department has already filed an amicus brief supporting the gun owners and arguing that categorical AR-15 bans are unconstitutional. Now, the federal government wants ten minutes at the lectern to make that case directly to the justices.

“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,” Sauer’s motion states. “The United States has filed a brief as amicus curiae supporting petitioners, arguing that such a ban is unconstitutional.”

That is the federal government’s position without the usual evasions: Cook County and Connecticut cannot turn possession of one of America’s most commonly owned rifles into a crime.

DOJ Wants Ten Minutes Before the Justices

The Supreme Court has allotted one hour for the consolidated arguments, which are scheduled for Wednesday, December 2. Sauer proposes dividing that hour as follows:

• 20 minutes for the gun-owner petitioners.
• 10 minutes for the United States.
• 30 minutes for Cook County and Connecticut.

Counsel representing the petitioners in both cases consented to the motion. The filing does not say that the respondents consented. The United States also takes no position on how the respondents should divide their proposed 30 minutes between Cook County and Connecticut.

The Court has not yet granted the request. For now, the motion is pending.

If granted, the arrangement would preserve an even 30-minute division between the two sides while allowing the United States to present its own constitutional argument alongside the petitioners challenging the bans.

Federal Government Claims an Interest in Preserving the Right

The United States says its participation could “materially assist” the Court because the government has an institutional interest in protecting the right to keep and bear arms and ensuring the Second Amendment is interpreted correctly.

“The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of the right to keep and bear arms and in the proper interpretation of the Second Amendment,” the motion states.

The filing notes that the United States has previously participated in Supreme Court arguments as an amicus in District of Columbia v. Heller, NYSRPA v. City of New York, NYSRPA v. Bruen, and Wolford v. Lopez.

The motion itself is procedural and only three pages long. It does not add to the constitutional analysis contained in DOJ’s previously filed merits brief. Its importance is that the Solicitor General wants the federal government’s opposition to AR-15 bans heard during the argument itself.

That is more than a symbolic request. Supreme Court arguments give the justices an opportunity to test the competing theories, press counsel on the limits of their positions, and expose arguments that cannot survive direct questioning. Ten minutes would give the United States its own opportunity to answer the claims offered by Cook County and Connecticut.

AR-15 Bans Cannot Survive an Honest Reading of the Second Amendment

The United States is not alone, twenty-seven states have urged the justices to strike down the bans. The states in their brief argue that legislatures cannot prohibit an arm commonly possessed for lawful purposes merely because politicians believe citizens do not “need” it.

The factual record makes the anti-gun position impossible to maintain. William English’s 2026 National Firearms Survey estimates that Americans possess approximately 40 million AR-15-type rifles and another 20 million similarly styled semiautomatic rifles. Approximately 26.4 million American adults currently own at least one rifle in those categories.

Those numbers are already before the Court. The petitioners cited the new findings in their merits brief, as AmmoLand detailed in its report on the 60 million AR-style rifles implicated by these cases.

A firearm owned by tens of millions of peaceable Americans cannot honestly be described as “unusual.” Nor may judges rescue that argument by separating “dangerous” from “unusual” and treating the former as an independent excuse to ban a common arm. Heller used a conjunctive historical formulation: “dangerous and unusual.”

The AR-15 is common. It is used for defense, hunting, competition, training, predator control, and ordinary recreational shooting. Its operating system is semiautomatic: one shot for each function of the trigger. Features targeted by these laws—including adjustable stocks, pistol grips, muzzle devices, and handguards—generally improve fit, control, and safe handling. They do not transform a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

The en banc Third Circuit recently applied the Second Amendment’s text and history and struck down New Jersey’s prohibition on covered semiautomatic rifles. Cook County and Connecticut want the Supreme Court to reach the opposite result by allowing local lawmakers to erase a protected class of arms.

A Seat at the Table for America’s Rifle

The ultimate question is bigger than two anti-gun jurisdictions. The Court’s decision will determine whether the Second Amendment actually restrains government when the firearm at issue is politically disfavored but overwhelmingly chosen by the American people.

“Shall not be infringed” does not mean that a state may prohibit a rifle after millions of citizens buy it. It does not mean that judges may replace the people’s choice of arms with whatever firearm they consider sufficient. And it does not permit lawmakers to outlaw an ordinary semiautomatic rifle by attaching the dishonest “assault weapon” label to it.

The Justice Department has already told the Court that these AR-15 bans are unconstitutional. Sauer’s new motion asks for the opportunity to say it before the justices on December 2.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/FRx0O2l
via IFTTT

Missouri Challenges NFA Registry for Untaxed Suppressors, SBRs, and AOWs

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway is asking a federal court to block ATF from enforcing NFA registration requirements for suppressors, SBRs, SBSs and AOWs after Congress reduced their making and transfer taxes to $0. IMG Tim Potter

Missouri Attorney General Catherine Hanaway has sued the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the Department of Justice (DOJ), asking a federal court to end National Firearms Act (NFA) registration for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and “any other weapons” (AOWs).

“Law and order and the Second Amendment go hand in hand,” Hanaway said. “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. The ATF’s heavy-handed restrictions on suppressors threaten lawful firearm use and undermine the rights protected by the Second Amendment.”

BREAKING: Our office is suing the ATF over its unconstitutional limits on suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

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… pic.twitter.com/R2eucgk3UR

— Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway (@AGCHanaway) September 8, 2026

Missouri Says the NFA Registry Lost Its Constitutional Foundation

The case, Marshak v. ATF, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri. Hanaway is joined by co-plaintiff Dave Marshak, a law-abiding resident of Festus. The complaint is the latest challenge to the NFA after Congress, in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, cut the making and transfer tax on those four categories from $200 to $0, effective January 1, 2026. Machine guns and destructive devices remain taxed at $200.

Missouri’s first argument is structural. In Sonzinsky v. United States (1937), the Supreme Court upheld the NFA as a revenue measure. Registration, fingerprints, photographs, and ATF approval existed to collect the tax. Section 70436 of the OBBB set that tax at zero for silencers, SBRs, SBSs, and AOWs. Once the tax vanished, Missouri says, the registry lost its constitutional footing. Congress has no free-floating power to build a national firearms database, demand biometric packets, and attach felony exposure—up to 10 years and $250,000—when no revenue remains to collect. A registration scheme without a tax, the state argues, exceeds the enumerated powers.

That theory tracks the August 5, 2026, decision in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix in the Northern District of Texas held that because the NFA no longer generates revenue from the untaxed categories, its registration and approval provisions cannot be sustained under the taxing power. Missouri asks the Eastern District to apply the same logic to Missourians.

Suppressors and SBRs Are Arms in Common Use

The state also brings a Second Amendment claim. Suppressors and SBRs, it says, are “arms” in common use for lawful purposes—training, hunting, and self-defense.

Missouri turns ATF’s own numbers against the agency: roughly 6.65 million registered suppressors and 1.23 million registered SBRs. Those figures, plaintiffs argue, make it impossible to treat the items as “dangerous and unusual” weapons that fall outside the Amendment.

Under New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, the analysis has two steps. First, the plaintiffs must show the plain text covers the conduct. Marshak is among “the people.” The items are bearable arms. After the Supreme Court’s Wolford decision, that is the end of step one. No extra balancing or interest-weighing is allowed at that stage.

The burden then shifts. The government must prove the modern scheme is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation, using founding-era analogues that match both the “how” and the “why.” Colonial gunpowder-storage rules, Missouri notes, existed to keep towns from burning down. They were not a national registry backed by photographs, fingerprints, and felony penalties for possession without federal permission. The complaint says no such tradition exists.

Missouri asks the court for a declaratory judgment that the remaining NFA requirements for these now-untaxed items exceed Congress’s powers and violate the Second Amendment, both facially and as applied. It also seeks a permanent injunction barring ATF and DOJ from enforcing those provisions and related regulations against the covered items, plus costs and fees.

Another Front Opens in the Fight Against the NFA

The filing lands in a crowded field. Industry groups, gun-rights organizations, and more than a dozen states have already challenged the leftover NFA machinery after the tax went to zero. The Texas injunction is limited in scope, and ATF has not issued nationwide implementation guidance.

Hanaway’s suit puts a state attorney general and an individual Missourian in front of an Eighth Circuit district court, adding another venue and another set of plaintiffs to the fight over whether a 1934 tax statute can still force Americans to register commonly owned arms after Congress itself stopped collecting the tax.

---

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.

---

from https://ift.tt/hWLGf9S
via IFTTT

New Jersey’s Gun-Industry Lawfare Backfires as Third Circuit Revives NSSF Challenge

Firearm manufacturers and federally licensed dealers are among the businesses affected by New Jersey’s “reasonable controls” law, which NSSF is challenging in federal court. Original AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand News/OpenAI.

New Jersey tried to trap the firearm industry outside the courthouse.

When the National Shooting Sports Foundation challenged the state’s sweeping “reasonable controls” law before it had been enforced, the Third Circuit ruled that NSSF sued too early. After New Jersey began using the law against firearm manufacturers and sellers, the state argued that NSSF was effectively too late and that the federal courts should stay out.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit rejected that procedural shell game on September 8, ruling that NSSF has standing and that its constitutional challenge may proceed.

“New Jersey’s proposed rule would create a Catch-22,” Judge David J. Porter wrote in the court’s 24-page opinion. “If the association sued before the enforcement action against one of its members, it would be dismissed for lack of standing, like in NSSF I. If it sued after the enforcement action, it would be dismissed under Younger. Because NSSF, and its members, are ‘entitled to [their] own day in court,’ we reject New Jersey’s proposed rule.”

The ruling does not strike down New Jersey’s law or grant NSSF a preliminary injunction. It does, however, remove the procedural barricade that prevented a federal court from confronting the real question: whether New Jersey enacted a vaguely worded public-nuisance law to evade federal protections for lawful firearm businesses.

New Jersey Targets the Firearm Industry

New Jersey enacted A1765 in 2022. The law applies specifically to firearm manufacturers, distributors, importers, marketers, and sellers, collectively labeled “gun industry members.”

It prohibits those businesses from knowingly or recklessly creating, maintaining, or contributing to a “public nuisance” through the sale, manufacture, distribution, importation, or marketing of a firearm-related product. It also requires them to “establish, implement, and enforce reasonable controls” over those activities. What qualifies as “reasonable” is left dangerously open-ended.

The law gives the New Jersey attorney general authority to bring civil enforcement actions and expressly states that the state need not prove that a firearm business intended to create a public nuisance or cause harm.

NSSF sued, arguing that A1765 violates the First and Second Amendments, the Interstate Commerce Clause, and the Due Process Clause. It also contends that the law is preempted by the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Congress enacted PLCAA in 2005 to stop abusive lawsuits designed to make lawful firearm manufacturers and sellers pay for crimes committed by unrelated third parties. Those lawsuits were not ordinary attempts to compensate injured parties. They were part of a deliberate campaign to bleed the firearm industry through legal expenses and impose gun-control policies that activists could not pass legislatively.

The federal district court initially entered a preliminary injunction against A1765. It warned that New Jersey’s interpretation of PLCAA’s limited exceptions could “gut the PLCAA” by restoring precisely the kind of liability Congress prohibited.

The Third Circuit vacated that injunction in 2023 without reaching the merits. At that point, New Jersey had not enforced A1765 against anyone. The state also assured the court that it would not prosecute NSSF members merely for participating in lawful commerce and would target only a company’s “own misconduct.”

The court accepted that assurance and found NSSF’s claimed threat of enforcement too speculative to establish standing.

Then New Jersey started suing.

New Jersey’s Lawsuits Changed the Case

Since the first Third Circuit decision, New Jersey has initiated six A1765 enforcement actions against firearm manufacturers and sellers. Two of the targets, Glock and SIG Sauer, are NSSF members.

AmmoLand reported on the first wave in December 2023, when New Jersey filed civil complaints against FSS Armory, Eagle Shows, and JSD Supply. The state accused FSS Armory of improper firearm storage after criminals broke into the store and stole guns. It went after Pennsylvania-based Eagle Shows and JSD Supply over unserialized firearm kits allegedly purchased in Pennsylvania and transported into New Jersey.

That Pennsylvania case mattered directly to NSSF’s standing. The Third Circuit concluded that New Jersey’s attempt to impose liability for conduct occurring outside its borders created a substantial enforcement threat supporting NSSF’s Interstate Commerce Clause claim.

New Jersey did not stop with the businesses. As AmmoLand reported in July 2026, the state filed a separate action seeking to hold JSD Supply founder Jordan Vinroe personally liable after JSD Supply and Eagle Shows entered bankruptcy. That later escalation was not among the six enforcement actions analyzed in the Third Circuit’s opinion, but it shows that New Jersey’s campaign did not end when the targeted companies were financially destroyed.

According to the Third Circuit, the Point Blank complaint did not allege that the store violated any separate state or federal law. The state sent undercover investigators to the store to purchase magazine and ammunition. The store did not request identification for the sale. New Jersey instead treated otherwise lawful conduct as actionable because the state considered it unreasonable.

New Jersey then sued Glock, claiming the company should redesign pistols that criminals can illegally convert using machine-gun conversion devices. AmmoLand covered the lawsuit when New Jersey and Minnesota filed their coordinated actions in December 2024. New Jersey’s theory attempts to shift responsibility away from the criminal who illegally obtains and installs the conversion device and place it on a manufacturer whose pistol operated as designed when it left the factory.

The Glock action prompted NSSF to reopen and amend its challenge to A1765. It also expanded into demands for ten years of lawful Glock sales records from New Jersey dealers, which AmmoLand reported raised serious gun-owner privacy concerns.

New Jersey also sued SIG Sauer over the P320, asserting public-nuisance, product-liability, consumer-fraud, marketing, and “reasonable controls” claims. AmmoLand previously examined that case and SIG Sauer’s response to the state’s allegations. The Third Circuit did not determine whether New Jersey’s allegations are true. It considered the Glock and SIG Sauer complaints as evidence that NSSF members face a genuine threat of enforcement for manufacturing, selling, and marketing firearms.

Those six cases fundamentally changed the standing analysis. The threat was no longer theoretical.

New Jersey was actively using A1765 against firearm businesses, including for commercial conduct that was not independently illegal. The state’s own enforcement campaign supplied the evidence NSSF had lacked in 2023.

The State Tried to Spring a Procedural Trap

After the enforcement actions began, NSSF reopened its federal case and again requested a preliminary injunction. The district court agreed that the “landscape has clearly changed” and found that NSSF now had standing. It nevertheless refused to consider the requested injunction under the Younger abstention doctrine.

Younger generally prevents federal courts from interfering with certain ongoing state proceedings. The district court reasoned that NSSF’s federal challenge could interfere with New Jersey’s pending enforcement action against Glock.

The Third Circuit found a straightforward problem with that conclusion: NSSF is not a defendant in the Glock case—or any of New Jersey’s other enforcement cases.

A federal lawsuit does not become direct interference under Younger merely because its outcome could affect a related state case. If that were enough, states could prevent federal review of questionable laws simply by filing an enforcement action against someone connected to the federal plaintiff.

New Jersey argued that NSSF’s relationship with Glock was sufficiently close because Glock is an NSSF member. The Third Circuit rejected that theory. The narrow exception for closely related parties concerns relationships involving ownership, control, or management. NSSF does not own, manage, or control Glock, and Glock does not control NSSF.

Accepting New Jersey’s position would have threatened associational litigation well beyond the Second Amendment. Whenever a state sued one member of an organization, the organization could be barred from bringing a federal challenge on behalf of all its other members.

The court refused to let New Jersey turn association membership into a tool for avoiding federal review. NSSF and its members, Porter wrote, are entitled to their “own day in court.”

PLCAA Is Now at the Center of the Fight

Although the Third Circuit did not decide NSSF’s claims on the merits, it found them sufficiently plausible to establish standing.

The court recognized that A1765 arguably conflicts with PLCAA by exposing manufacturers and sellers to liability for crimes committed by third parties using lawfully sold products. It also found that the law arguably regulates commerce outside New Jersey, reaches constitutionally protected firearm marketing, is vulnerable to a vagueness challenge, and could burden New Jersey residents’ ability to acquire firearms protected by the Second Amendment.

NSSF’s PLCAA argument has also gained substantial support since the district court first examined A1765.

In 2025, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected Mexico’s lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and other American firearm companies. As AmmoLand previously reported, the Court ruled that plaintiffs cannot evade PLCAA merely by attaching vague aiding-and-abetting allegations to the criminal misuse of lawful products.

The Supreme Court warned that an expansive interpretation of PLCAA’s predicate exception would swallow the law’s protections. That reasoning may present a serious problem for New Jersey’s attempt to manufacture liability through its own firearm-industry-specific public-nuisance statute.

AmmoLand has also covered the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s unanimous decision upholding PLCAA, reinforcing that lawful firearm companies do not become legally responsible whenever someone else criminally misuses a properly functioning gun.

What Happens Next?

The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s abstention decision. The case now returns to federal district court, where NSSF can pursue its preliminary-injunction motion and challenge A1765 on the merits.

For accuracy, this decision did not:

• Strike down A1765.
• Enjoin New Jersey from enforcing the law.
• Dismiss the state’s cases against Glock, SIG Sauer, or other businesses.
• Finally decide NSSF’s PLCAA or constitutional claims.

But it is still a meaningful victory. New Jersey first escaped review by saying the firearm industry’s fears were speculative. Once the state began filing the very lawsuits NSSF warned about, it tried to use those cases to escape review again. The Third Circuit refused to cooperate.

The Second Amendment protects more than the theoretical possession of a firearm after government officials have sued manufacturers, distributors, and dealers out of existence. Americans cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms without a lawful commercial infrastructure capable of manufacturing, distributing, and selling those arms.

Congress understood that when it enacted PLCAA. New Jersey’s lawmakers understand it too, which is precisely why they are attempting to work around the federal law.

NSSF has not yet defeated New Jersey’s “reasonable controls” statute. It has won the right to make the state defend that law in federal court. After years of procedural maneuvering, the real fight can finally begin.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/q3j8A7L
via IFTTT

ATF Quietly Expands Legal Suppressor Repairs and Caliber Conversions

TF’s new guidance gives qualified manufacturers more flexibility to repair and convert complete suppressors already registered in the NFRTR. Original AI-generated image created for AmmoLand News using OpenAI.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has quietly reversed part of its longstanding position on suppressor repairs, giving qualified manufacturers substantially more room to rebuild damaged silencers and convert registered suppressors to different calibers without treating the work as the manufacture of another National Firearms Act firearm.

In an open letter dated August 28 and posted September 8, ATF states that a complete suppressor already registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record may be repaired or have its caliber changed without a new NFA making, marking or registration process—as long as the work does not destroy the serialized frame or receiver, alter required markings or otherwise create a new firearm.

That is a meaningful change. It is also a reminder that the federal government has spent decades turning ordinary gunsmithing work on a hearing-protection device into a potential felony trap.

ATF Backs Away From Its Old Suppressor-Repair Position

ATF’s previous guidance, published in 2008, allowed repairs that preserved the suppressor’s outer tube and generally limited replacement of damaged internal components to a one-for-one basis. The agency also treated drilling existing baffles or end caps for a larger caliber as making new silencer parts, each of which it claimed was separately regulated as a firearm.

Under the new guidance, a qualified manufacturer may modify existing components in a registered, complete suppressor without creating newly regulated parts. ATF gives a surprisingly direct example: enlarging the openings in the baffles and end cap of a registered .22-caliber suppressor so it can accommodate a 9mm projectile.

The agency now says those modified components remain part of the registered complete suppressor. In ATF’s words, the caliber change will not result in “making new parts.”

Qualified manufacturers may also obtain unregistered and unmarked suppressor components from other qualified manufacturers and install them as replacement parts in a registered suppressor. Once installed, the component becomes part of the complete, marked and registered device, which may then be returned to its registered owner.

That opens the door to more extensive factory repairs. Damaged baffles and other internal components no longer have to be treated as if every replacement part were a separate suppressor requiring its own marking and NFA registration.

ATF also acknowledges that rethreading during a repair may cause a minimal reduction in the length of a suppressor’s outer tube. The letter does not define “minimal,” so manufacturers should not read that sentence as unlimited authority to shorten or redesign a registered silencer.

The Serialized Suppressor Component Still Cannot Be Replaced

The most important boundary remains the serialized frame or receiver. For many conventional suppressors, that will be the serialized outer tube or principal housing. Modular suppressors can present a different identification question under ATF’s frame-or-receiver regulation.

The letter does not authorize a manufacturer to destroy the serialized component, grind away required markings or simply replace the registered housing with a new one bearing the old serial number. ATF warns that altering, modifying or changing the serialized frame or receiver may amount to making a new NFA firearm, triggering the marking and registration requirements all over again.

In practical terms, the new policy can greatly extend the service life of a registered suppressor when the serialized housing remains repairable. It does not guarantee that every catastrophically damaged suppressor can be resurrected. If the serialized component is destroyed beyond lawful repair, the old problem remains.

That distinction matters because suppressor owners have historically waited on federal approval and registered a specific serialized device. Treating that serialized shell as the suppressor’s practical expiration date punished owners for ordinary wear, baffle strikes and damage that a competent manufacturer could otherwise repair.

No, Owners Cannot Take Home Spare Suppressor Parts

This letter is not authorization for owners to order loose baffles, spare end caps or replacement monocores and perform the work themselves.

ATF continues to rely on the federal definition of a silencer, which reaches a component intended only for use in assembling or fabricating one. The new flexibility applies when appropriately qualified manufacturers control the unregistered components and install them in a complete suppressor already registered in the NFRTR.

Loose or spare suppressor parts possessed outside that manufacturer exception remain subject to the NFA’s marking and registration requirements. Transferring such parts to an unlicensed person can also trigger the NFA’s transfer rules.

AmmoLand has previously covered the legal hazards surrounding home-built and so-called “80%” silencers. Nothing in this new letter revives the old solvent-trap market or gives an ordinary owner permission to stockpile unregistered replacement internals. Owners should send repair or conversion work to a manufacturer qualified to handle it.

When a conversion changes the caliber listed in the registry, ATF recommends notifying the agency so the NFRTR can be updated. The letter describes that as a recommendation, not a new approval process for the caliber change.

This Is Separate From the NFA Injunction

The new repair guidance applies only to complete suppressors already registered in the NFRTR. It does not expand the permanent injunction in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF or Jensen v. ATF, and it does not answer how ATF will treat repairs or caliber conversions involving suppressors transferred without NFA registration under that limited injunction.

AmmoLand has reported that covered buyers have received suppressors on a Form 4473 without a Form 4 and that FFLs conducting those transfers passed ATF inspections. We have also warned that the injunction is not universal and leaves serious questions about interstate travel, trusts and future enforcement.

This open letter does not resolve any of those questions. A suppressor that was lawfully transferred under the injunction but never entered in the NFRTR does not satisfy the letter’s express registered-suppressor condition.

A Welcome Correction, Not the End of the NFA

ATF deserves credit for abandoning an indefensible interpretation that treated routine repairs and caliber conversions as the creation of new firearms. Gun owners should be able to repair their property without risking federal prosecution, and manufacturers should be able to replace worn or damaged components without navigating another registration process for the same serialized suppressor.

But this remains agency guidance, not a statute, regulation or court ruling. It carries no separately stated effective date, and a future administration could attempt to change course again.

Suppressors are constitutionally protected arms and basic hearing-safety equipment. They never belonged in the NFA. Until Congress repeals the law or the courts finish dismantling it, this letter at least removes some of the needless federal barriers standing between gun owners and the lawful repair of property they already own.

Editor’s note: This report is general information, not legal advice. Suppressor owners and manufacturers should review the ATF letter and obtain qualified advice for a specific repair or conversion.

---

About Duncan Johnson:

Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.

---

from https://ift.tt/VruY1Xi
via IFTTT

461 Million Guns? Survey’s Firearm Numbers Nearly Matches 125 Years of Federal Data

William English’s survey and a separate calculation using federal production, import and export records produce nearly identical handgun, rifle and shotgun ratios. iStock-2261126112

A surprising number has been revealed from comparing the ratios of firearms found in over a hundred years of federal government data on firearms production, export, and import to the firearms reported to be owned by gun owners in the William English’s survey done in mid 2026.

Ratios validate the Survey’s methods and numbers of firearms findings.

The survey paper, released in August of 2026 is the best designed and executed survey to date in an attempt to determine the extent of firearms ownership in the United States.   The 2026 Survey has been designed to overcome minor defects in the original survey done in 2021. Questions have been sharpened and clarified. Ownership has been limited to the individual questioned.

The Survey respondents are reasonably represented in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The survey participants were not volunteers for this particular survey.

First, a national representative sample of 51,398 individuals aged 18 or over was chosen. Then a screening question was used to identify 18,206 individuals as potential gun owners. Then 16,688 individuals were validated as gun owners.  In the middle of the survey, a question was used to validate the responses. Only people who read the entire question could answer it correctly. 98.2% of respondents passed the internal checks. Their responses were used to determine the numeric results of the survey.

The 16,688 respondents were found to average 5.2 firearms per owner, or about 87,000 firearms. This is a very large sample. The smallest sample was in Vermont, with 28 respondents.  California had 1,549 respondents. Texas had 1,686.

It is reasonable to believe the floor for the number of firearms in the private stock in the United States is 461 million, as stated in the Survey. Such is the lowest reasonable number. It is a very conservative number because of choices made in the interest of caution. Owners reporting over 100 firearms of a particular type were trimmed from the estimate.

Households with incomes of over $150,000 only showed in 9% of the respondents. They should be about 23% of respondents. A low share of high income households from surveys is said to be a common phenomena. This matters because the percentage of people owning firearms increases with increasing income, and the number of guns owned per person increases with increasing income.

The Survey estimates a total of 461 million firearms in the private stock of the USA, including  208 million handguns, 154 million rifles, and 99 million shotguns.

Chart by Weingarten with assistance of Grok

The comparison numbers are from figures compiled by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). They were placed into a spreadsheet available online by the Trace. Using the numbers in the data from ATF/Trace, we find 513 million at the end of 2024, including 231,263,816 handguns, 171,038,075 rifles, and 110,688,257 million shotguns.

The numbers show there is some attrition of firearms lost, destroyed, thrown away, or worn out over time. The comparison is with the ratios of handguns, rifles, and shotguns from reports to the government of firearms manufactured – exported + imported over more than 125 years. The agreement is astounding. 

The ratios are nearly identical, as shown in the graphic. The largest difference is in shotguns, where the difference is .1%. The numbers come from two completely different sources. One set is from the government statistics of cumulative firearms over more than 125 years. The other is from a survey of gun owners reporting what they have in 2026.

Skeptics may say: In a large sample of 87 thousand firearms selected at random, you would expect the resulting ratios to be extremely close. Yes. That is exactly what you would expect of a very large sample selected by random. That is the point. It is validation of the sample methodology. It is validation of the accuracy of the reporting by respondents.

The ratio validates the Survey method, respondents accuracy of reporting, and randomness of the sample.

If, as seems likely, further refinements in a future survey show higher numbers of firearms in the private stock of the USA, the ratio would not be expected to change.

---

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.

---

from https://ift.tt/WocaMU0
via IFTTT