Federal Review Finds No Evidence That Microstamping Is Reliable

NIST found significant disagreement in the existing research over whether firearm microstamping can reliably produce repeatable and legible identifying marks. iStock-2180828170

For nearly two decades, gun-control politicians have promoted firearm “microstamping” as if it were a proven crime-solving tool. Gun owners and manufacturers have pointed out the obvious problems: firing pins wear, fouling obscures microscopic markings, parts are easily replaced, and anyone can pick up another shooter’s brass. Now, a federal technical review has refused to validate the politicians’ sales pitch.

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), an agency within the Department of Commerce, reviewed the available research at the request of House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Chairman Brian Babin, R-Texas. Its response, reported by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, found that the existing studies do not establish that microstamping consistently produces repeatable and legible identifying marks.

“There is significant disagreement regarding the viability of this technology,” NIST stated.

That is a considerably different conclusion from what gun-control politicians in California and New Jersey have been telling the public.

What Microstamping Is Supposed to Do

Microstamping generally involves laser-engraving an identifying code onto a pistol’s firing pin. When the pistol is fired, the firing pin is supposed to imprint that code onto the primer of the spent cartridge case.

In theory, investigators could recover the casing and use the code to identify the firearm connected to it. That is the sales pitch. But as always, the real world is far less cooperative.

NIST noted that firearm design, ammunition type, primer coatings, residue, firing-pin movement, wear, repeated firing, and maintenance can all affect whether the microscopic code is transferred clearly enough to be read. Rimfire ammunition presents another problem because it does not use a centerfire primer.

The agency also found that the available studies are too limited to demonstrate viability across the broad range of firearms and ammunition found in actual use. There have not been adequate large-scale, independent blind studies establishing that the technology will work reliably outside a controlled demonstration.

NIST did not conduct its own laboratory testing and does not currently maintain a microstamping research program. That limitation should be reported clearly. This was a review of existing research, not a new federal experiment.

Even with that caveat, NIST could not confirm the claims being used to justify state mandates.

The agency also acknowledged the problem every gun owner immediately sees: A criminal can replace the firing pin, damage the engraved surface, or swap parts. NIST reported that no realistic mechanical solution currently exists to prevent those modifications.

Of course, the criminal who steals a gun, files off a serial number, or carries it into a robbery is unlikely to worry about violating another law prohibiting alteration of a microstamp.

California Is Moving Toward a 2028 Mandate

The federal findings are an important development as California is preparing another microstamping requirement under Senate Bill 452.

California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office declared the technology viable in July 2025. The state must next determine whether qualifying components are commercially available at reasonable prices or whether microstamping-enabled pistols are readily available for purchase.

If California makes that additional finding, licensed dealers could be prohibited beginning January 1, 2028, from transferring newly manufactured or delivered semiautomatic pistols that have not been certified as microstamping-enabled.

AmmoLand has covered California’s use of microstamping requirements to keep modern pistols off its handgun roster. After the state activated its earlier mandate in 2013, ordinary Californians were largely restricted to older handgun designs because manufacturers could not add new semiautomatic pistol models without complying with an impractical requirement.

That was never a technological accident. An impossible product mandate functions as a ban without lawmakers having to admit that they passed one.

New Jersey has followed the same playbook. In 2024, Attorney General Matthew Platkin declared microstamping viable and began implementing a law intended to create a roster of approved pistols. As AmmoLand reported at the time, the state had not identified a commercially available pistol that gun dealers could actually stock.

Gun Owners Pay for Political Theater

Microstamping does not stop a violent criminal from obtaining, stealing, or firing a gun. It does not prevent someone from replacing a firing pin. It cannot establish who fired a recovered firearm, and it creates the possibility that brass collected from a public range could be planted at a crime scene.

What it can do is increase manufacturing costs, shrink the number of handguns available to lawful buyers, create new databases, and give anti-gun officials another excuse to ban ordinary firearms.

The Second Amendment does not allow government to condition the purchase of a common handgun on compliance with speculative technology. The burden remains on the government to justify its restrictions—not on gun owners to redesign firearms around a political fantasy.

NIST’s review does not repeal California or New Jersey law, and it is not a court ruling. But it does strip away part of the claim that microstamping is settled science. Lawmakers considering these mandates now have a federal technical assessment warning that the technology remains disputed, inadequately tested, and easily defeated. Gun owners have been saying that for years.

---

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/0rnUIag
via IFTTT

CDC Restores Defensive Gun Use Data After Biden-Era Scrub

The CDC has restored estimates indicating that Americans use firearms defensively between 60,000 and 2.5 million times annually. AmmoLand News image created with AI assistance.

Under the Biden administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention quietly removed data about the defensive use of firearms from its website. Those statistics are now being restored.

Various studies show that guns are used in self-defense between 60,000 and 2.5 million times each year. Even the low end of that range dwarfs the number of guns used in murders each year (approximately 15,000) and approaches or exceeds the total number of gun deaths per year (around 44,000, according to the Pew Research Center, a figure that includes suicides). The wide range of estimates comes from different methodologies and data sources. The lower figures often draw on the National Crime Victimization Survey, while the higher end primarily stems from surveys conducted by criminologist Gary Kleck in the early 1990s. A 2013 National Academies of Sciences report commissioned by the CDC itself referenced this range of 60,000 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses annually.

Gun-Control Advocates Wanted the Number Gone

In 2022, under pressure from anti-gun groups including, the Gun Violence Archive, Newtown Action Alliance, and GVPedia, in a private meeting, the CDC scrubbed its website of this defensive gun use information. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request later revealed that the removal was purely political. According to emails obtained by Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and others, these groups argued the estimates had created a roadblock to enacting further restrictions on the Second Amendment.

“[T]hat 2.5 million number needs to be killed, buried, dug up, killed again and buried again,” Mark Bryant, executive director of the Gun Violence Archive, wrote to the CDC in one of the emails. “It is highly misleading, is used out of context, and I honestly believe it has zero value — even as an outlier point in honest DGU discussions.”

According to the emails reported by The Reload, Bryant and his allies focused their objections on the high-end estimate, claiming it was repeatedly “debunked” without giving evidence and was being used as a “blunt instrument” against gun control legislation. They contended that as long as the figure remained associated with the CDC, it hindered policy efforts.

Former Associate Director for Policy, Partnerships, and Strategic Communication at the CDC’s Division of Violence Prevention Beth Reimels was open to modifying the data to satisfy the Gun Violence Archive’s request. Neither she nor anyone else at the CDC appears to have reached out to researchers who conducted studies that support higher estimates of defensive gun use for balance.

“We are planning to update the fact sheet in early 2022 after the release of some new data,” Reimels wrote in a subsequent email to Bryant.  “We will also make some edits to the content we discussed that I think will address the concerns you and other partners have raised.”

The agency ultimately removed the specific numerical range and the link to its own review of the research. Officials later claimed the wide variability made the numbers confusing or potentially outdated, yet the change followed months of one-sided lobbying rather than any new comprehensive study. Critics noted that the CDC did not consult defenders of the data or announce the edit transparently at the time. The result was a public-facing presentation of firearm statistics that emphasized harms while omitting substantial evidence of benefits.

Restoring the Complete Picture

This episode illustrated how the presentation of institutional data can be shaped by advocacy rather than by pure science. Defensive gun use data matters because it provides context for the broader debate over firearms policy. When only criminal misuse and suicide statistics are highlighted, the full picture of civilian firearm ownership, including its role in deterring or stopping crime, is obscured.

Law-abiding citizens who use guns to protect themselves, their families, or others rarely make headlines in the same way mass shootings do, yet the cumulative numbers are significant by any measure within the documented range.

Now, under the direction of President Donald Trump and Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the CDC is returning the statistics to its firearm injury and death page. The restored language again notes that estimates of defensive gun use vary by study design and cites the range of 60,000 to 2.5 million each year, referencing the National Academies report.

This change marks a welcome pivot after years in which the CDC appeared responsive primarily to gun control advocates. Restoring the data does not settle every methodological dispute, but it returns publicly funded information to a more complete and balanced presentation.

---

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/X6g0K1c
via IFTTT

FBI 2025 Crime Data: Murder Rate Ties Historic Low After Record Gun Sales

The FBI reports that the 2025 murder rate fell to 4.1 per 100,000, tying 1955 and 1956 for the lowest rate in its national series. AI-assisted illustration by AmmoLand News.

The FBI’s 2025 crime data show violent crime falling at a historic pace and the murder rate reaching its lowest recorded level in 70 years. The violent-crime rate posted its largest one-year decline since FBI national estimates began in 1936, while the murder rate fell to 4.1 per 100,000—tying 1955 and 1956 for the lowest rate in the Bureau’s historical series.

Those results followed years of record firearm purchasing. They do not prove that gun ownership caused crime to fall, but they demolish the gun-control lobby’s prediction that millions of additional firearms in private hands would inevitably produce more murder.

FBI 2025 Crime Data Show a Historic Decline

On Friday, August 14th, 2026, the FBI released the 2025 Reported Crimes in the Nation figures. There should have been fireworks and celebrations in the entire 2A community. If the gun grabbers ever paid any attention to facts, they would already be wearing sackcloth and ashes and looking up recipes for crow and humble pie.

The most important of those facts is that 2025 was a blockbuster year for our side. The violent crime rate recorded its largest one-year decline since FBI national estimates began in 1936. Meanwhile, the murder rate fell to 4.1 per 100,000, tying 1955 and 1956 for the lowest rate in the FBI’s historical series.

In terms of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, 2025 tied for the lowest rate in the FBI’s historical series and recorded the fewest estimated murders since 1968, when the U.S. population was roughly 40% smaller.

Gun control addicts have spent the last six years milking the 2020 spike driven by COVID-19 and civil unrest. It supported their long-running claims about “epidemics of gun violence.” Last year, that cow went dry. By their nature, spikes are transitory. In 2025, violent crime and murder rates dropped 16% and 38%, respectively, from their 2020 levels. In addition, a state’s gun control laws don’t seem to have an impact on spikes.

This isn’t to say another spike won’t ever happen. But it is to say violent crime rates have generally declined since their early-1990s peak, notwithstanding temporary reversals such as the pandemic-era surge.

Record Gun Sales Did Not Produce a Bloodbath

Another bitter pill for gun control fans amidst all of this is the years of record gun sales, beginning with the all-time monthly sales record set in March 2020. Millions of men and women of all races and ethnicities joined the ranks of gun owners.

These guns are saving lives. In recent years, the number of justifiable homicides committed by citizens has outnumbered those committed by law enforcement.

Millions of Americans purchased firearms, the murder rate subsequently fell to a historic low, and the gun-control lobby’s promised bloodbath never arrived.

The 2025 violent-crime rate was the lowest since 1968 and approximately 57% below its 1991 peak. Rape fell 7.6%, robbery fell 18.5%, and aggravated assault declined 7.2%.

As has been said before, there is no epidemic of actual gun violence, just a propaganda-driven effort to deceive the public with inflated numbers.

The Everytowns, Giffords, and Bradys of the world treat all firearm-related injuries and fatalities as if they were all the same. They’re like a physician deciding lymphoma and lupus are both diseases beginning with “L,” so they are the same and the physician treats them with the same procedures and pharmaceuticals.

It’s malpractice in both examples. We may not be able to sue the gun control gang, but we can definitely shame them in the limited time before the midterm elections.

---

About Bill Cawthon

Bill Cawthon first became a gun owner 55 years ago. He has been an active advocate for Americans’ civil liberties for more than a decade. He is the information director for the Second Amendment Society of Texas.

---

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

Somali Piracy Resurges as Merchant Crews Remain Disarmed

A renewed wave of Somali piracy has raised questions about policies discouraging merchant crews from armed self-defense. Original AI-generated editorial illustration for AmmoLand News.

“Somali pirates hijacked an oil products tanker off Yemen, a Somali maritime security official said, the latest in a resurgence of piracy that has seen six commercial vessels seized since April across the Gulf of Aden and western Indian Ocean,” ABC News reported Saturday. “The International Maritime Bureau recorded 38 piracy and armed robbery incidents worldwide during the first half of 2026, including five hijackings. Somali pirates accounted for 94% of crew members taken hostage during that period, the bureau said.”

Attacks are so frequent that the IMO publishes monthly piracy reports. The situation is hardly new.

“Thomas Jefferson wages America’s first war on Terrorism,” a Colonial Williamsburg post reminds us. “Jefferson knew firsthand that nothing short of force could change the situation.”

That truth continues to the present, and modern piracy is something I’ve been writing about for decades, focused on one other truism: When seconds and minutes count, the Navy is hours and sometimes days away.

Crews aren’t armed. So there is no way to repel prepared, committed attackers.

The following is from “A Pirate’s Life for Me!,” one of my GUNS & AMMO columns from 2002 (no link included because it is not online):

Hoses against weapons. Trembling behind hatches. Everything but standing up on your sea-legs and fighting. How about just opening fire on them?

The IMO’s Captain Hartmut Hesse says armed guards on ships “will only increase violence, it will not deter the pirates.”

The IMO guide Piracy and Armed Robbery Against Ships, cautions “The carrying and use of firearms … is strongly discouraged. [It] may encourage attackers to carry firearms thereby escalating an already dangerous situation, and any firearms on board may themselves become an attractive target for an attacker. The use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents… is great.”

…Agreeing with Captain Hesse, and chastising Lloyd’s List for editorially suggesting otherwise, is Captain John Dalby of Marine Risk Management, a “maritime asset recovery and protection” company. While admitting “It is the sailors… who are being kidnaped, beached, set adrift … or summarily killed,” he warns that “only tragedy will result from inexperienced people trying to fight fire with fire. Leave intervention and reaction to those who are best equipped and trained for it.”

I reiterated the folly of the situation in a 2009 Gun Rights Examiner article, “Dead Men Tell No Tales,” recounting among other examples of academic cognitive dissonance how a co-ed learned to use hoses “against seasoned armed cutthroats.” And the nonsense continues.

As per the IMO’s “Recommendations to Governments for preventing and suppressing piracy and armed robbery against ships”:

It should be borne in mind that importation of firearms is subject to port and coastal State regulations… For legal and safety reasons, flag States should strongly discourage the carrying and use of firearms by seafarers for personal protection or for the protection of a ship. Seafarers are civilians and the use of firearms requires special training and aptitudes and the risk of accidents with firearms carried on board ship is great. Carriage of arms on board ships may encourage attackers to carry firearms or even more dangerous weapons, thereby escalating an already dangerous situation. Any firearm on board may itself become an attractive target for an attacker.

So, what about private security?

The use of privately contracted armed security personnel on board ships may lead to an escalation of violence.

That, and both they and “military, or law enforcement officers duly authorized by the Government of the flag State to carry firearms for the security of the ship is a matter for the flag State to authorize in consultation with shipowners, companies, and ship operators.”

Bottom line, if you’re just a crew member, face it, you’re probably from a Third World country and the last person in the world they want to entrust with a gun (although Democrats would be happy to facilitate your “migrating” to the U.S.).

And the same Democrats who demand disarming you and make excuses for criminals do the same for pirates.

Al Sharpton considers them “voluntary Coast Guard.” And Somali pirate chief Red Teeth is an “environmentalist.”

“The Somalis had no choice but to take revenge on foreign shipping and earn a living by ransom demands,” Bob Astles argued in Black Star News, a paper started with seed money provided by Bill Cosby (a guy who knows a thing or two about no choice). Astles was an unrepentant Idi Amin loyalist who “humiliated his fellow expats, who branded him ‘the white rat,’ by forcing them to kneel before Amin.”

There’s an interesting recent article at The Volokh Conspiracy by Second Amendment scholar Stephen Halbrook titled “Second Amendment Roundup: The Militia of the Sea — The Marque and Reprisal Clause as Textual Proof of Private Heavy-Arms Ownership at the Founding.”

“Let’s go privateering,” Prof. Glenn Harlan Reynolds of Instapundit recommends.

Just make sure to dot all the “i’s” and cross all the “t’s”.

Since that’s just not likely to happen, expect “Look at me. I’m the captain now” to be the continued norm.

---

About David Codrea:

David Codrea is the winner of multiple journalist awards for investigating/defending the RKBA and a long-time gun owner rights advocate who defiantly challenges the folly of citizen disarmament. He blogs at “The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance,” is a regularly featured contributor to Firearms News, and posts on Twitter: @dcodrea and Facebook.

---

from https://ift.tt/nljhz03
via IFTTT

Ruby Ridge at 34: The NFA Was Weaponized Against Randy Weaver—Now Its Registration Scheme Is Falling

The two shotguns at the center of the Ruby Ridge case—a cut-down H&R single-shot and Remington Model 870—represented against the NFA paperwork and federal enforcement that turned an alleged barrel-length violation into a deadly siege. AI-generated editorial illustration for AmmoLand News using OpenAI.

Thirty-four years ago, an alleged NFA violation set off a federal operation that ended with a dead 14-year-old boy, a mother shot while holding her baby, and a family home surrounded by snipers. Ruby Ridge remains one of the clearest examples of how quickly an unconstitutional gun law can become an excuse for unchecked government force.

Gun Owners of America’s video marking the 34th anniversary of Ruby Ridge does more than retell the deadly federal siege. It draws a straight line from the National Firearms Act being weaponized against Randy Weaver in 1992 to the federal court victory now dismantling the NFA registration scheme for short-barreled firearms and suppressors.

“The events at Ruby Ridge could happen to anyone,” the video warns.

That is the point gun owners should remember on August 21. Ruby Ridge began with federal gun control. The government used an alleged NFA violation to pressure Weaver, pursue him, and ultimately justify an armed federal operation that left his wife, son, and dog dead.

Now, 34 years later, the same registration system that gave ATF its excuse has been declared unconstitutional as applied to suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and certain other weapons covered by the recent injunction.

34 years ago today, federal agents used the NFA as an excuse to target Randy Weaver. Those agents killed his wife, his son, and his dog with no consequence.

Every year, we remember what happened on August 21, 1992, at Ruby Ridge.

We remember. We fight on. pic.twitter.com/GP0rPuT2nA

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) August 21, 2026

ATF Used the NFA to Target Weaver

“An ATF informant manipulated Randy Weaver, who had no intention of doing any harm to anyone, into making a short-barreled shotgun,” GOA states in the video.

The informant solicited Weaver to shorten two shotguns. ATF then charged Weaver with making and possessing unregistered short-barreled shotguns under the NFA. The agency attempted to use the charges as leverage to force Weaver to become an informant. Weaver refused.

That is how the NFA has always operated. It turns possession of an otherwise ordinary firearm into a federal felony based on barrel length, registration paperwork, and whether the owner first obtained government permission.

A shotgun with an 18-inch barrel is treated as an ordinary firearm. Reduce that measurement below the NFA’s arbitrary limit without registering it, and the federal government claims the authority to send armed agents and threaten the owner with years in prison. The NFA supplied the pretext for everything that followed at Ruby Ridge.

After his arrest, Weaver was released pending trial. His probation officer sent him a letter incorrectly stating that his court date was March 20, 1991. The actual trial was scheduled for February 20.

When Weaver failed to appear in February, the court issued a bench warrant. The government later learned about its incorrect notice but did not withdraw the warrant. Prosecutors obtained a failure-to-appear indictment on March 14, six days before the date provided in the government’s own letter. Instead of correcting its mistake, the government escalated.

A Federal Gun Case Became a Deadly Siege

On August 21, 1992, six deputy U.S. Marshals entered the Weaver property to conduct surveillance ahead of an arrest operation. They wore camouflage, carried rifles, used night-vision equipment, and displayed no readily visible law-enforcement identification.

When the family dog, Striker, discovered the surveillance team, a marshal shot and killed him. Gunfire followed. Deputy U.S. Marshal William Degan was killed, and 14-year-old Samuel Weaver was shot in the back while running toward the family cabin.

The following day, the FBI Hostage Rescue Team surrounded the property. An FBI sniper shot and wounded Randy Weaver. He then fired through the cabin doorway as Weaver, family friend Kevin Harris, and Weaver’s daughter Sara ran for cover. The bullet struck Vicki Weaver in the head as she stood behind the door holding her 10-month-old daughter. Vicki died instantly. The bullet continued into Harris, seriously wounding him.

The siege ended only after civilian negotiator Bo Gritz entered the property and convinced the surviving occupants to surrender.

As GOA summarizes the federal response, authorities treated the Weaver family “like a group of armed terrorists.”

The Government’s Case Fell Apart

A federal jury acquitted Harris of every charge. Weaver was acquitted of the original firearms charge and all major charges arising from the standoff. He was convicted only of failure to appear and violating his conditions of release. The government that used the NFA charge to begin the confrontation could not convince a jury that Weaver committed the alleged firearms offense.

The Justice Department’s Ruby Ridge Task Force later concluded that portions of the FBI’s rules of engagement “contravened the Constitution.” Investigators also determined that Horiuchi’s second shot failed to meet the constitutional standard for deadly force.

In 1995, the government paid the Weaver family $3.1 million to settle its civil claims. No federal agent was criminally convicted for killing Samuel or Vicki Weaver. Taxpayers paid the settlement.

“Mr. Weaver lost his son and wife because the ATF wanted to entrap him,” GOA says. “Each year we at GOA remember this day as an example of what can happen when gun control is weaponized against American citizens.”

The NFA Is Finally Losing in Court

The timing of this anniversary makes GOA’s message especially powerful. On August 5, 2026, U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix ruled in the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF cases that the NFA’s remaining registration and approval requirements exceeded Congress’s constitutional taxing authority after Congress reduced the making and transfer taxes to zero.

The NFA was enacted as a tax measure. Once Congress eliminated the tax on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons, the government could no longer defend the accompanying registry as necessary to collect a tax that no longer existed.

As GOA says in the video, “We’re looking at a completely different legal landscape for the NFA, with the registration requirements on short-barreled firearms being declared unconstitutional.”

Judge Hendrix entered a permanent injunction protecting the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their current and future members, customers, agencies, and political subdivisions. GOA and the Gun Owners Foundation are plaintiffs in the Silencer Shop Foundation case.

The government was given seven days to seek a longer stay. It allowed the deadline to expire, and the injunction took effect on August 13.

At 12:01 a.m. that morning, GOA members Brandon Herrera and Texas state Rep. Wes Virdell took possession of suppressors without filing ATF Form 4s or placing the suppressors in the federal NFA registry. According to GOA, they were the first lawful, unregistered suppressor transfers since the NFA took effect in 1934.

The injunction is not yet a nationwide erasure of the NFA. It applies to the parties and covered members and customers, while separate Gun Control Act provisions still complicate commercial transfers of short-barreled rifles and shotguns. ATF has also failed to provide the industry with clear written guidance.

But the constitutional verdict against the NFA registration scheme has been entered.

From Ruby Ridge to the Beginning of the NFA’s End

Ruby Ridge showed what happens when federal gun control is placed in the hands of unaccountable agencies.

An ATF informant solicited an NFA violation. The agency attempted to turn the charge into leverage. A government error produced a warrant. Armed agents entered the Weaver property. A marshal killed the family dog. Samuel Weaver was shot in the back. The FBI adopted unconstitutional rules of engagement, and a federal sniper killed Vicki Weaver while she held her baby.

Thirty-four years later, gun owners are watching the legal foundation of that same registration scheme crack apart.

That is the significance of GOA’s anniversary video. Ruby Ridge is not merely a warning from the past. It is part of the reason gun owners continue fighting the NFA today.

“GOA will continue to fight back against rogue agencies and the bureaucrats that want to take away your Second Amendment rights,” the video concludes.

Ruby Ridge showed the cost of allowing federal gun control to go unchallenged. The 2026 NFA ruling shows what happens when gun owners refuse to stop challenging it.

---

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/p5m3Vfq
via IFTTT

FFLs Pass ATF Inspections After Transferring Suppressors on Form 4473

Sources tell AmmoLand News that ATF inspectors reviewed 4473-only suppressor transfers at four FFLs without citing the transactions as violations. IMG Tim Potter

Since the stay in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and Jensen v. ATF has been lifted, many federal firearms licensees (FFLs) have started transferring suppressors on ATF Form 4473s and have dropped the requirement for a Form 4 for people covered by the injunction, with little guidance from the ATF.

In the landmark cases, a judge in Texas enjoined the ATF from enforcing the National Firearms Act (NFA) requirements for suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs) for the plaintiffs, members of the organizations, and the Silencer Shop Foundation. The plaintiffs in Jensen have the same protections, except for AOWs. However, even though NFA restrictions were lifted for SBRs and SBSs, they still require a Form 4 to be transferred by an FFL due to the Attorney General notification requirements under the Gun Control Act (GCA).

Many FFLs have held off on transferring suppressors on a Form 4473 due to a lack of guidance from the ATF. Many expected the ATF to issue guidance relatively quickly, but there have been delays.

Inside sources pointed to delays above the ATF, and there is no timeline for the guidance to be released. This delay has led to more and more FFLs starting to transfer suppressors on 4473s.

Many questions and rumors have been swirling online, prompting an AmmoLand News investigation. One rumor was that FFLs received a widespread notification not to transfer suppressors on a 4473. We determined that no widespread notification has been sent to FFLs. Another rumor was that the ATF was issuing cease-and-desist letters to FFLs to prevent them from transferring suppressors on a 4473. AmmoLand News has found no evidence that this is true; it is mostly just another internet rumor.

What AmmoLand News has determined, after speaking to multiple sources on condition of anonymity, is that at least four inspections in four states (East Coast, South, Midwest, and Southwest) have occurred at shops that have transferred suppressors on 4473s. The lawsuits did not trigger these inspections. They were scheduled inspections that just happened to occur after the transfers started. These were routine inspections conducted every few years.

All four shops have been transferring suppressors on 4473s, and all four shops passed with 0 violations. The industry operations inspectors (IOIs) did not consider these suppressor transfers a violation because of the injunction issued by Texas. All four shops were corporate members of the organizations in the lawsuits, or the suppressors were transferred to members of one of the organizations. According to AmmoLand sources, what some shops have done to keep separate books for NFA and GCA items is mark them “disposed” in their NFA books and move them to the GCA books for transfers. This seems to have satisfied the IOIs in at least two states.

We cannot say for sure that every IOI in every state will follow the same procedure, but the fact that four separate FFLs in four separate states have passed inspections while transferring suppressors on a 4473 shows widespread acceptance. It is unknown whether guidance has been initiated from the top of the ATF or from the individual branch office.

The federal government has seemed reluctant to release guidelines for FFLs, leaving many FFLs feeling in limbo.

If the Trump administration wants to count on gun owners’ votes in the midterms, the guidance should be released as soon as possible to put the gun shop owners’ minds at ease. If they refuse to, the court should force the government’s hand by issuing an order requiring the ATF to do so immediately.

This report is not legal advice. Dealers and prospective buyers should consult qualified counsel before relying on the injunction.

---

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/iAwP9Bu
via IFTTT

Ninth Circuit Rejects California, Giffords Bid to Expand ATF ‘Ghost Gun’ Rule

The Ninth Circuit dismissed California and Giffords’ challenge seeking broader federal regulation of unfinished receivers for lack of standing. AI-generated photo illustration created for AmmoLand News.

The Ninth Circuit has rejected California and the Giffords Law Center’s attempt to force the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to regulate even more unfinished AR-15 receivers. In State of California v. U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, a three-judge panel ruled that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to bring the challenge.

In an August 21 opinion, a three-judge panel vacated a lower court order that had struck down Example 4 of ATF’s 2022 frame-and-receiver rule. The case will return to the district court with instructions to dismiss it without prejudice.

California v. ATF, Ninth Circuit case No. 24-2701, began as a challenge to ATF’s treatment of unfinished receivers that had not yet received critical machining and were not packaged with completion tools.

Example 4 marks one of the few remaining lines between an unfinished piece of material and a federally regulated firearm receiver. Under Example 4, an AR-15 billet or blank is not a receiver when its critical interior areas have not been indexed, machined, or formed—and it is not sold, distributed, or possessed with the jigs, templates, instructions, or tools needed to complete it readily.

California and Giffords wanted that line pushed further back. In practical terms, they wanted ATF to treat an even less-finished chunk of aluminum or polymer as a firearm under the Gun Control Act.

California Could Not Prove Its Case Belonged in Court

California claimed Example 4 forced the state to spend more money training law enforcement and accelerating its own restrictions on unfinished receivers. Giffords made a similar argument, claiming it diverted resources to combat the alleged consequences of ATF’s decision. The Ninth Circuit was not persuaded.

Article III standing, Judge Consuelo Callahan explained, is a “bedrock constitutional requirement.” Federal courts decide actual cases involving concrete injuries. They are not supposed to serve as another legislative chamber for states and political organizations unhappy with federal policy.

Most of California’s evidence concerned money spent between 2016 and 2022—before ATF published the rule containing Example 4. The state also relied heavily on broad statistics involving privately made firearms without separating products covered by Example 4 from the parts kits already regulated by ATF.

That is a serious evidentiary problem. California could not simply point to every unserialized firearm recovered by police and blame a narrow regulatory example governing early-stage AR-15 blanks.

The state’s own numbers may have hurt more than they helped. According to the opinion, privately made firearms represented 9% of firearms recovered in Los Angeles County in July 2021. During 2022 and January 2023, the figure ranged from approximately 5% to 8%.

Rather than showing that Example 4 caused an increase, the only post-rule evidence California presented suggested a decline.

The court consequently refused to “endorse standing theories that rest on speculation” about how independent parties might behave.

A Piece of Aluminum Is Not Automatically a Firearm

The underlying dispute is not difficult for anyone who has actually machined an AR-15 receiver—or even examined one next to a raw forging—to understand.

A receiver has to become a receiver at some identifiable point in the manufacturing process. Raw material does not become a firearm merely because a person with enough time, machinery, tooling, and skill could eventually turn it into one. Given enough work, steel bar stock can become a rifle barrel. That does not make every steel bar a firearm.

ATF’s rule is already aggressive. Example 2 says a partially completed billet with one or more template holes drilled or indexed in the correct location may be classified as a receiver because someone using common hand tools could readily finish it.

Example 4 provides the counterexample: no critical machining and no accompanying completion equipment means the object has not yet crossed the federal line. That is the distinction California and Giffords wanted erased.

AmmoLand warned when the lawsuit was filed that the plaintiffs were conflating separate portions of the Gun Control Act. Congress defined a firearm to include a weapon that “may readily be converted” to fire, while separately listing the frame or receiver of such a weapon. California’s theory attempted to stretch that language until the government could regulate an object before it became a receiver at all.

This Is a Standing Decision, Not the End of the Rule

Gun owners should understand what the Ninth Circuit did and did not decide. The panel did not hold that ATF’s entire 2022 rule violates the Second Amendment. It did not decide whether Congress could constitutionally regulate particular unfinished receivers, and it did not create a nationwide right to purchase every product marketed as an “80% receiver.”

The court ruled only that California and Giffords failed to establish an injury caused by Example 4. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, another lawsuit could potentially return with different plaintiffs or stronger evidence.

State restrictions also remain separate. California can, and does, impose its own requirements on firearm precursor parts. This decision preserves the federal classification addressed by Example 4; it does not wipe away California law.

The ruling nevertheless arrives at an important time. Just days earlier, a Texas federal judge held ATF’s frame-and-receiver rule unconstitutional as applied to Defense Distributed, the Second Amendment Foundation, and covered SAF members. As AmmoLand reported, that court found the rule unconstitutionally vague and incompatible with the historical tradition of private firearm making.

The two decisions reach different issues, but they expose the same basic problem: ATF’s rule has produced years of litigation because unelected bureaucrats tried to decide when raw material becomes a firearm without a clear line drawn by Congress.

California and Giffords wanted the bureaucracy to reach even further. This time, the Constitution’s case-or-controversy requirement stopped them.

---

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/nQT5pKo
via IFTTT