NSSF connects new polling on corporate activism with customer backlash against gun-control policies and financial institutions’ reversals. iStock-2289177440
Corporate executives who turn their businesses into political platforms should stop assuming their customers are on board. New Gallup polling shows most Americans do not want companies taking public positions on current events—a warning for corporations that have embraced gun control.
In an October 13 commentary, NSSF’s Larry Keane connects that finding to a familiar problem for gun owners: businesses treating opposition to the Second Amendment as a corporate virtue while expecting customers to keep spending.
Most Americans Want Less Corporate Politics
The 2026 Bentley-Gallup Business in Society survey found that 47% of adults support businesses taking public positions on current events, down four percentage points from 2025. Fifty-three percent oppose it.
Support splits sharply by party: 62% of Democrats favor corporate statements, compared with 45% of independents and 28% of Republicans. Even Democrats’ support fell nine percentage points.
Among employees, 56% said their own employers should not communicate positions on current events. The survey questioned 3,270 adults from May 4 to 11.
The results do not establish a blanket rejection of corporate advocacy. Majorities still support statements on specific subjects, including free speech, climate change and DEI. Nor does the poll measure opposition to gun-control policies specifically. news.gallup.com
But executives cannot reasonably assume that adopting an activist agenda represents everyone buying their products or working behind their counters.
Dick’s Learned Gun Owners Can Shop Elsewhere
Keane points to Dick’s Sporting Goods as an example of the commercial consequences. After the 2018 Parkland murders, Dick’s stopped selling modern sporting rifles and raised its firearm purchase age to 21. It also hired Washington lobbyists to advocate for additional gun restrictions. NSSF’s board unanimously expelled the retailer.
A company choosing its inventory is making a merchandising decision. Hiring lobbyists to restrict what Americans can buy from other businesses makes those Americans political targets.
NSSF cites approximately $300 million in lost sales following customers’ departures. The backlash showed that customers could reject its agenda with their wallets by shopping elsewhere.
Gun owners have no obligation to finance lobbying against their rights. A retailer cannot reasonably expect loyalty from people whose lawful purchases it wants politicians to prohibit.
For customers, this is a straightforward choice about where their dollars go. Businesses that respect lawful gun ownership can earn that business. Companies working to undermine it should expect to lose it.
Banks Have Also Reconsidered Corporate Gun Control
The same problem becomes more consequential when businesses control financial services. As AmmoLand reported, Citigroup dropped its firearms-specific policy in June 2025. JPMorgan Chase followed with a documented lending reversal, confirming in January 2026 that it had removed a restriction targeting civilian modern sporting rifle manufacturers.
Chase acknowledged that some anticipated risks were smaller than expected—and that rejecting prospective customers carries risks, too.
That admission cuts through years of corporate posturing. Lawful firearm manufacturers are businesses with employees, customers and commercial value. Treating their products as politically unacceptable can mean turning away worthwhile business.
Keane also identifies reversals involving Stripe, Circle, Bill.com and Ramp. Those developments reinforce the need to challenge restrictions rather than accept corporate gun control as inevitable. www.nssf.org
The poll does not prove political activism caused any particular financial loss. It does challenge the assumption that corporate political statements enjoy broad public backing.
The Second Amendment belongs to the people. Executives who campaign against it should expect gun owners to remember when choosing where to spend their money. Corporate America is free to speak, and gun owners are free to take their wallets elsewhere.
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.
Valdosta police say an armed shopper stopped an October 1 attack on a woman and her teenage daughter inside this Dollar General. The shopper will face no charges. iStock-901659046
Valdosta, Georgia – A Georgia man who used his firearm to stop a violent attack inside a Dollar General will face no charges, according to police. The armed shopper intervened when a man began beating a woman and her teenage daughter, then fired when the attacker turned on him.
The October 1 shooting in Valdosta illustrates exactly why the right to carry matters. A woman needed immediate protection, and an armed citizen was there to provide it. Police Chief Leslie Manahan credited the shopper with stopping the assault and preventing further injuries.
Armed Citizen Intervenes During Beating
According to the Valdosta Police Department’s account, reported by WCTV, officers were dispatched to the Dollar General in the 2100 block of Bemiss Road around 4:50 p.m. after a caller reported a man beating a woman. While officers were responding, dispatch received another update: someone had been shot.
Investigators said Tevin Jay Love, 32, entered the store while his girlfriend was shopping with her teenage daughter and began striking the woman in the head. When the daughter attempted to stop the assault, Love struck her, too.
A 28-year-old man shopping in the store witnessed the attack and drew his firearm to stop it. The woman was able to get away.
Police said the shopper attempted to hold Love at gunpoint, but Love charged him and began hitting him. The shopper fired one round, striking Love in the torso.
Responding officers located the armed citizen in the parking lot and detained him without incident. Inside, they found Love wounded and being restrained by another person. Officers provided first aid before he was taken to a hospital. The woman also received hospital treatment and was later released, according to the initial police account.
Police Say Defender Will Not Face Charges
In its October 12 follow-up, WALB reported that police confirmed the shopper would not face charges.
Love was released from the hospital October 9 and taken to the Lowndes County Jail. He faces charges of terroristic threats, aggravated assault, simple battery and simple assault.
Manahan publicly praised the citizen’s intervention, saying his actions stopped the attack and prevented the woman from suffering additional violent injuries. The chief also recognized that the shopper put himself in danger by stepping in.
Drawing the firearm allowed the woman to escape. The shopper fired after the attacker charged and began striking him, according to investigators.
The firearm served both purposes gun owners understand well: stopping violence against another person and providing the means to defend yourself when the threat turns toward you.
The Right to Carry Protects Real People
Gun-control arguments routinely treat carrying a firearm into an ordinary business as a problem waiting to happen. For the woman being beaten inside this store, an armed shopper provided an opportunity to get away.
Someone had already called 911. Officers were already coming. The attack still required an immediate response from someone at the scene.
The Second Amendment protects the right of ordinary Americans to keep and bear arms. Exercising that right can become critically important during something as routine as an afternoon shopping trip.
No one should have to overpower a violent attacker with bare hands to survive a beating. Nor should a person’s ability to protect a mother and daughter depend entirely on how quickly responding officers can reach a store.
In Valdosta, an armed citizen intervened, the woman escaped, and police say the defender faces no charges. That is a defensive gun use worth reporting, and a practical reason to defend the right to carry.
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.
Hearing specialists endorse firearm suppressors to reduce hearing-loss risk, especially when combined with conventional hearing protection. IMG Jim Grant
During my senior year in medical school, a madman in town randomly attacked several people with a hammer, slaying two and injuring eight others. Our chief of plastic surgery, a noted reconstructive surgeon, repaired the killer’s flexor tendons after he had attempted suicide by slitting his wrists. “He can hold a hammer again,” our teacher wryly noted after the successful trauma surgery. But with that bit of dark humor, he reinforced to us students a revered tenet of medical ethics—the principle of non-maleficence. That is, a doctor should never in the course of his or her professional work willfully do harm to another person. And that goes for the least among us, even a vile murderer.
The California Medical Association (CMA), in a callous move, has chosen to expedite harm to a group of people its leaders have held in contempt for decades—gun owners. Specifically, the CMA has refused to approve a resolution endorsing firearm suppressors (sometimes inaccurately called silencers) for hearing protection. These doctors, although they will furiously deny it to themselves and us, wish permanent and untreatable hearing loss on gun owners.
A little background here—in just a few years suppressors have been transformed, in the public mind, from an Al Capone-era gangster movie prop to a standard firearm accessory available in most states and widely across Europe. All but eight states and the District of Columbia have made suppressors legal, and the federal government has repealed the $200 “transfer tax” enacted in the 1930s to try to limit their use. A federal court has recently struck down the federal tax law that, oddly, still required the onerous registration process.
In just a few years, suppressors have become the go-to hearing protection device for America’s 80 million gun owners. As of July 1, 2026, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) reported 6.5 million suppressors (ATF still calls them “silencers”) registered to American gun owners. These would be hunters and sport shooters, since criminals almost never use suppressors and are disinclined to volunteer for fingerprinting, photos, and entering their names into a federal law enforcement database.
Although the public is still coming around to the truth that suppressors are used by normal people for hearing protection and are not preferred tools of gun-wielding criminals, the science has become well-established. Suppressors help prevent irreversible and untreatable inner ear hearing loss by reducing the punishing noise of gunshots. This noise has long been known to damage the delicate sensory cells of the inner ear.
The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) and the Academy of Doctors of Audiology have gone on record in support of suppressors. Noted ear surgeon Roberto A. Cueva, MD, a former president of the prestigious American Otological Society, was a co-author of the AAO-HNS position statement in support of suppressors for hearing protection (disclosure—I was a coauthor as well). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has pronounced suppressors “The only potentially effective noise control method to reduce [shooters’] noise exposure from gunfire.” Suppressors are the very definition of an effective primary public health intervention.
So, why doesn’t the California Medical Association, whose mission statement claims “to promote…the protection of the public health,” heartily lend its official support? The reason becomes clear when we review some history.
A year and a half ago I submitted a resolution through the CMA’s established process for members, for approval by its House of Delegates, the CMA’s policy-making committee. The resolution simply calls for the CMA to endorse suppressors and recommend making their use legal by Californians (mere possession is a crime in California). By the rules, I first submitted it through the two local county medical societies representing doctors in my area. The local societies refused to support the resolution. When asked for a reason, the chair of the local House of Delegates district, family doctor Anupam Gupta, MD, replied “The district members decided not to back the resolution citing alignment with CMA’s existing stance on guns. They also discussed if the issue was Germaine [sic] to the health policy discussion and thought it wouldn’t be a policy to focus on by the CMA.”
From Dr. Gupta’s flippant non-answer emerges a kernel of truth—the CMA’s existing stance on guns has been to support every gun control law endangering California gun owners passed in the last three decades. And that’s quite a few.
One example among many is the notorious Proposition 63, a 2016 California ballot initiative that prohibited continuing to possess firearm magazines holding more than ten rounds. This law, part of which has been struck down in federal court, created a new class of criminals out of people who had not been criminals before. As federal district court judge Roger Benitez wrote in his injunction, “any previously law-abiding person in California who still possesses a firearm magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds will begin their new life of crime.”
Do California Medical Association leaders really harbor such small-minded hatred for people who engage in the ages-old American tradition of gun ownership? Are they so spiteful or callous that they want gun owners not only to suffer an irreversible disability, but to be thrown in prison if they dare to put a muffler on their gun?
The suppressor-support resolution remains in limbo, stalled in a tortuous and glacial process at CMA headquarters. A year and a half now after I submitted the resolution, CMA staff will only tell me that the resolution has been held off from consideration until “a later cycle,” and that it has been assigned an agenda priority of dead last in a list of 18 submitted resolutions. Thus the CMA, in its passive-aggressive way, has made it clear that it has no intention of even considering it.
The CMA prides itself as a champion of “the science and art of medicine, the care and well-being of patients, the protection of the public health, the betterment of the medical profession, and…health equity and justice.” But it lacks the decency and basic human compassion to support that health for a particular class of people it has only contempt for—gun owners. For this, the leaders of the California Medical Association should be deeply ashamed.
Timothy Wheeler, MD is a retired head and neck surgeon living in southern California. He is Director Emeritus of Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership, a project of the Second Amendment Foundation. Dr. Wheeler got his training at Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, Case Western Reserve University Hospitals, and the Cleveland Clinic. He has authored dozens of opinion articles on the medical profession’s culture war on gun owners, appeared on national TV and multiple radio programs, has testified before California Senate and U.S. Senate and House committees on matters of guns and public health, and recently has authored a resolution endorsing firearm suppressors for hearing protection, adopted by the American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.
DOJ confirms nationwide nonenforcement of challenged NFA requirements while opposing an interpretation that would protect every person and covered transaction within the plaintiff states. IMG Duncan Johnson
The Justice Department is asking a federal judge to leave a consequential question unanswered: Does the permanent injunction against challenged National Firearms Act requirements protect every gun owner and covered transaction within the plaintiff states?
In an October 12 filing in the consolidated Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF and Jensen v. ATF litigation, DOJ argues that ATF’s nationwide nonenforcement policy makes that clarification unnecessary. The department confirms that ATF is no longer enforcing the challenged requirements against anyone, then argues that the court’s injunction does not independently protect everyone within the states that sued.
Gun owners have won a substantial restoration of their freedom to acquire suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and “any other weapons,” or AOWs. But DOJ’s latest response shows why the fight for lasting protection remains unfinished.
DOJ Says Nationwide Nonenforcement Makes Clarification Unnecessary
As AmmoLand reported October 2, a group of plaintiff states sought clarification of the injunction’s reach and ATF’s obligations to explain it. DOJ requested additional time while the agency prepared public guidance. The department has now answered.
Its response says ATF’s October 9 open letter and accompanying FAQ provide the requested instructions. According to DOJ, ATF “will no longer enforce the challenged NFA provisions against anyone or as to any transactions to which those provisions apply.”
For the covered firearm categories, DOJ says there are no transactions for which ATF will require an FFL to submit a Form 4 and no individuals whom ATF will require to register to complete those purchases from an FFL.
AmmoLand’s October 9 guidance report explained that nationwide policy. It extends specified nonenforcement beyond people protected by the injunction, while applicable Gun Control Act requirements and state restrictions remain.
DOJ now relies on that policy to argue against further clarification:
“Because ATF is not enforcing the challenged NFA provisions in any state, clarifying whether the Court’s injunction entirely prohibits enforcement in a particular group of states would have no real world impact.”
That argument addresses today’s enforcement policy. The scope of a binding court order determines who has judicial protection if that policy changes.
DOJ Opposes Protection for Everyone Within the Plaintiff States
The response goes beyond arguing that clarification is unnecessary. DOJ expressly disputes the states’ broader interpretation.
The final judgment prohibits enforcement against the plaintiffs and, where applicable, their agencies, political subdivisions, members and customers. DOJ argues that this language does not prohibit enforcement against every person or transaction within the 15 plaintiff states.
The department says the states established standing through their own costs of acquiring and possessing NFA firearms, including for law-enforcement purposes. According to DOJ, that supports relief for the states as governmental entities, their agencies and political subdivisions—not everyone who lives or purchases a covered firearm within their borders.
DOJ also argues that the injunction contains no affirmative requirement to issue guidance. Adding one, it says, would modify the judgment rather than clarify it, and the states sought that change outside the applicable 28-day deadline.
These are the government’s arguments. The October 12 document is a response brief, not a new ruling accepting them.
The Missouri Fight Is Part of the Same Unfinished Battle
DOJ also points to the separate Brown v. ATF litigation in Missouri.
The response says several states seeking broader protection there described the Texas injunction as providing relief for their agencies and political subdivisions. DOJ argues that those states cannot claim a narrower injunction in Missouri while advancing a broader interpretation in Texas.
AmmoLand’s October 8 report covered DOJ’s opposition to statewide and nationwide relief in the Missouri litigation. The new Texas filing continues that dispute after ATF’s nationwide guidance removed many immediate federal approval and registration barriers.
The existing injunction already provides substantial protection. It expressly binds successors in office and covers specified plaintiffs and, where applicable, current and future members and customers. A future official cannot simply disregard that order.
But nationwide agency discretion does not expand the injunction. ATF’s policy and enforceable judicial relief provide different protection.
State restrictions present another obstacle for gun owners. Neither the guidance nor this response eliminates those statutes.
Gun owners should press this victory forward. The Texas court rejected the challenged requirements under Congress’s enumerated powers; it did not decide the Second Amendment claims. Those constitutional challenges remain part of the broader campaign to dismantle the NFA.
Suppressors and short-barreled firearms should never have required a federal registry or advance government permission. Ending enforcement is a major victory, but Americans deserve the restrictions removed altogether. Congress should repeal the NFA, or at minimum remove these arms from it entirely, while continued litigation secures lasting protection. “Shall not be infringed” does not depend on who occupies the ATF director’s office.
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.
ATF’s nationwide NFA retreat leaves state restrictions in place. Mississippi has clarified that Form 4 is voluntary for suppressors under the current policy. IMG Jim Grant
ATF has stopped enforcing specified National Firearms Act registration and approval requirements nationwide for suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns and any other weapons. Now the American Suppressor Association says the next fight includes fixing laws in 15 states that still reference the NFA.
The October 9 guidance delivers a substantial victory for gun owners. Where state law permits, suppressor buyers can complete a dealer transfer on Form 4473 without a separate Form 4, advance NFA approval or federal registration.
But federal nonenforcement does not erase state statutes. For gun owners whose states tie lawful possession to federal registration, those laws remain a barrier to enjoying the full benefit of the federal retreat.
ASA Turns to NFA-Linked State Laws
In its October 9 announcement, ASA credited the combination of legislative work and litigation for opening the door to suppressor transfers without federal registration.
The association says it helped lead the effort to eliminate the $200 tax through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, then worked with NRA, the Second Amendment Foundation, Firearms Policy Coalition and Texas State Rifle Association on Jensen v. ATF.
President Donald Trump signed the legislation on July 4, 2025. The suppressor transfer tax dropped to zero on January 1, 2026.
According to ASA, DOJ formally notified Congress on October 1 that it would not appeal, and the October 5 appeal deadline passed. ASA is now emphasizing the state-level work still ahead.
“We will continue our work in the 15 states that reference the NFA within state statutes,” the ASA said.
That commitment addresses an immediate problem: federal relief can leave gun owners facing state requirements built around the registration system Washington has stopped enforcing.
What Changed at the Gun Counter
ATF’s October 9 open letter stops requiring NFA approval before making or transferring the covered items and stops requiring their registration in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
The court’s injunction remains limited to the plaintiffs and other specified persons. DOJ’s enforcement discretion extends the policy to everyone otherwise subject to those requirements.
Suppressor dealer transfers still require Form 4473, applicable NICS checks and ordinary Gun Control Act records. With limited exceptions, dealers may transfer suppressors to unlicensed residents of their own state. Form 3 approval is no longer required for dealer-to-dealer suppressor transfers, while applicable special occupational taxes remain.
SBRs and SBSs retain separate GCA provisions. ATF is temporarily declining to enforce the dealer-transfer authorization requirement while developing a replacement process. Interstate transportation still requires Form 20 approval.
Machine guns and destructive devices remain subject to the full NFA regime.
Why State Laws Still Matter
Some state statutes prohibit possession of specified firearms or devices while providing exceptions for items registered under federal law or held in compliance with it. Those exceptions become critical when a buyer acquires a suppressor without entering it into the federal registry.
In its published FAQ, ATF expressly declines to say whether an unregistered item held under the injunction or its enforcement policy satisfies a particular state’s requirements.
The agency will continue accepting voluntary NFA applications. Dealers also remain prohibited from transferring firearms in violation of state or local law.
For state lawmakers, the task is clear: remove provisions that keep gun owners dependent on federal registration after the federal government has stopped enforcing it. A state should not preserve the burden of an obsolete tax process by embedding that process in its own criminal code.
The 15 States Where NFA-Linked Laws Still Burden Gun Owners
On October 9, Firearms Policy Coalition identified Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin in its outreach to state attorneys general. FPC is seeking immediate nonenforcement and permanent legislative repeal.
These states do not all impose the same restriction. Some expressly require registration; others refer to federal permission or NFA compliance. The statutes below show why the federal victory has not eliminated every state barrier. Other states also have restrictions on SBRs, SBSs or AOWs; this list addresses the 15 states targeted in the current state-law initiative.
Alaska: Registration Supplies the Defense
Under AS 11.61.200(a)(3), (c) and (h), suppressors, SBRs and SBSs fall within the state’s prohibited-weapons provisions. Manufacturing, possessing, transporting, selling or transferring a prohibited weapon is forbidden, with an affirmative defense based on registration under the NFA.
A Form 4473 alone does not establish the registration specified in that defense. Federal nonenforcement leaves this state-law obstacle intact.
Colorado: A Permit-and-License Defense
C.R.S. § 18-12-102 classifies suppressors, short rifles and short shotguns as dangerous weapons and makes knowing possession a class 5 felony. An affirmative defense applies to a person holding a valid permit and license for the weapon.
The provision does not expressly name the NFA or federal registration. The problem is the permit-and-license defense when ATF no longer requires individual approval—not an explicit state command to file Form 4.
Connecticut: Federal or State Permission
Connecticut Gen. Stat. § 53a-211 makes ownership, control or possession of a suppressor or specified sawed-off shotgun a class D felony. It exempts persons and entities licensed or otherwise permitted by federal or state law to possess them.
That wording is broader than an express registration requirement. Whether federal nonenforcement satisfies the permission exception is the unresolved issue; the statute does not itself say every owner must file Form 4.
Georgia: An Express NFA-Registration Exception
O.C.G.A. §§ 16-11-123 and 16-11-124(4) prohibit possession of suppressors, sawed-off rifles, sawed-off shotguns and other listed weapons, subject to exceptions. The ordinary civilian possession exception expressly relies on registration in accordance with the NFA.
That creates a direct registration obstacle for an otherwise eligible gun owner seeking a transfer solely on Form 4473.
Georgia’s HB 1324, which proposed removing the suppressor prohibition, lost on third reading in March 2026.
Michigan: Federal Approval and Registration Paperwork
MCL 750.224 prohibits suppressors, with a federal-licensing exception. Michigan Attorney General Opinion 7260 interprets that exception to cover people licensed or approved by ATF to possess, manufacture or sell them. Removing the individual approval process therefore raises a state-law question.
MCL 750.224b separately exempts SBRs and SBSs lawfully made, transferred or possessed under federal law. But subsection (5) requires owners of those firearms greater than 26 inches long to carry a copy of federal registration while transporting or using them.
Violations can lead to a civil fine, seizure and eventual forfeiture. Firearms 26 inches or shorter have additional state requirements under subsection (4).
Mississippi: Attorney General Confirms Form 4 Is Voluntary
Mississippi Attorney General Lynn Fitch issued an October 12 statement concluding that Form 4 is voluntary for suppressor buyers under the current federal policy.
“It is our opinion that ATF Form 4 for suppressors is voluntary for Mississippians as well,” Fitch said.
BREAKING: According to the Mississippi AG:
“it is our opinion that ATF Form 4 for suppressors is voluntary for Mississippians.”
Thank you for your leadership @LynnFitchAG! We look forward to working with you and your team to clarify the law during the 2027 legislative session!
— American Suppressor Association (@AmSuppressor) October 13, 2026
Miss. Code § 97-37-31 ties suppressor manufacture, sale and possession to federal authorization. Fitch concluded that ATF’s October 9 guidance makes Form 4 voluntary under that existing language. This resolves the ambiguity identified earlier without repealing the statute.
ASA welcomed the announcement and said it looks forward to working with Fitch during the 2027 legislative session.
Fitch plans to seek legislation removing the federal-law reference and amendments to related provisions, including § 97-37-1, which restricts concealed carrying of suppressors through fines or imprisonment. She credited NRA and ASA with helping identify needed amendments.
Mississippi’s clarification is progress toward restored gun rights. The next step is removing the statutory burdens permanently, so lawful suppressor ownership does not depend on a future administration’s enforcement policy.
Montana: Nonregistration Becomes Evidence of Criminal Intent
MCA § 45-8-336 criminalizes suppressor possession and related activities when a person intends criminal use or knows another person has that purpose. The separate problem is § 45-8-337, which makes possession of a suppressor not registered under federal law prima facie evidence of an unlawful purpose.
That is an evidentiary rule rather than a blanket registration-based possession ban. It nevertheless allows the absence of federal registration to support an allegation of criminal intent—an especially objectionable burden when Washington is no longer requiring registration.
NRS 202.350 restricts suppressor manufacture, sale, possession and use unless authorized by federal law. Its exception covers federal licensing, authorization or permission, with the burden of establishing that status placed on the person claiming it.
NRS 202.275 separately prohibits SBRs and SBSs, with exceptions including possession by specified federal licensees, possession by a person to whom the firearm is federally registered, and qualifying collector items or curios and relics.
The suppressor and short-barreled-firearm provisions therefore require separate analysis.
North Carolina: NFA Compliance Under an Inflated Label
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-288.8 places suppressors, SBRs and SBSs within its “weapon of mass death and destruction” category. It prohibits possession, manufacture, transportation, sale and other activities, subject to exceptions. One key exception covers lawful ownership or possession in compliance with the NFA.
The label does not change what these items are. It does, however, attach state criminal exposure to the question of NFA compliance. Federal nonenforcement alone does not resolve how North Carolina will apply that exception.
North Dakota: Compliance With the NFA
N.D.C.C. § 62.1-05-01 bars purchasing, selling or possessing suppressors and other specified weapons unless the person has complied with the NFA. Violations are class C felonies and can result in forfeiture.
The statute uses compliance language, leaving a state-law question about unregistered items acquired under federal nonenforcement.
Ohio: A Federal-Registry Exception
Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2923.11 and 2923.17 classify suppressors and specified short-barreled firearms as dangerous ordnance and generally prohibit acquiring, possessing, carrying or using them. A key exception expressly covers owners of items registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.
Other exceptions exist, including qualifying state licenses or permits and a hunting-related suppressor exception. But the federal-registration exception is explicit: a Form 4473-only transfer does not put the item in that registry.
Oregon: Registration Also Protects Against Arrest
ORS 166.272 generally makes knowing possession of a suppressor, SBR or SBS a class B felony. Registration as required under federal law supplies an affirmative defense. Carrying documentation of that registration also protects the owner against arrest or charging under the section.
An owner acquiring an unregistered item under ATF’s policy lacks the registration document the statute describes. Oregon lawmakers need to address both the possession provision and the paperwork-based protection.
Pennsylvania: NFA Compliance and a Separate Lawful-Purpose Exception
18 Pa.C.S. § 908 restricts offensive weapons, including specified sawed-off shotguns and firearms specially made or adapted for concealment or silent discharge. It provides an NFA-compliance defense, but also other defenses and a separate exception for firearms used or possessed for purposes not prohibited by Pennsylvania law.
The statute defines firearm around projectile-firing weapons and their frames or receivers. It does not simply reproduce the federal definition that includes suppressors.
Those distinctions matter when analyzing a standalone suppressor versus a firearm adapted for silent discharge. Pennsylvania’s restrictions consequently require attention to the particular item and the available exceptions, rather than an assumption that every SBR or suppressor requires federal registration under § 908.
Washington: Suppressor Use Requires Registration
RCW 9.41.250(1)(c) makes suppressor use a gross misdemeanor unless the suppressor is legally registered and possessed in accordance with federal law. This provision regulates use, rather than imposing a standalone suppressor-possession ban.
RCW 9.41.190 separately permits SBRs when the person complies with applicable federal law. SBSs remain generally prohibited, subject to limited exceptions, including an affirmative defense for qualifying firearms acquired before July 1, 1994.
Federal relief therefore does not make Washington’s suppressor, SBR and SBS rules interchangeable.
Wisconsin: Suppressor Licensing and Registration
Wis. Stat. § 941.298 makes suppressor sale, delivery or possession a class H felony unless an exception applies. The ordinary civilian exception expressly refers to compliance with the NFA’s licensing and registration requirements.
§ 941.28 separately restricts SBRs and SBSs. It includes an NFA licensing-and-registration exception, but also broader language excluding firearms that may lawfully be possessed under federal law.
That additional wording must be considered; Wisconsin’s suppressor and short-barreled-firearm statutes are not identical.
The common problem is that states still make gun owners navigate criminal prohibitions, paperwork requirements or adverse presumptions built around federal NFA regulation. Legislatures should remove those burdens. Restoring basic gun rights should not leave peaceable Americans proving that they satisfied a registration process the federal government has stopped enforcing.
Restored Gun Rights Must Be Permanent
The court’s reasoning exposes the constitutional problem with retaining a tax-based registration system after Congress has reduced the relevant tax to zero. ATF says the court also rejected reliance on the Commerce Clause because Congress did not invoke that power when it enacted the NFA.
That holding concerns Congress’s enumerated powers. It does not establish that the entire NFA has been invalidated under the Second Amendment.
The larger issue remains straightforward: suppressors and short-barreled firearms should never have been subjected to the NFA’s special taxation, registration and permission requirements.
ATF warns that enforcement could resume if legal circumstances change or DOJ rescinds the policy. Federal law provides no automatic grandfathering for unregistered items.
That is why this victory must lead to permanent reform. Congress should remove these items from the NFA entirely as a minimum step toward full repeal. States should dismantle the laws that preserve the same burdens.
Gun owners deserve restored rights secured in law. They should not have to rely on the next administration’s willingness to leave those rights alone.
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.
SAF documents 85 gun control warnings alongside falling crime figures, including a 36% decline in estimated U.S. murders from 2022–2025. Original AI-generated illustration.
Gun control groups and anti-gun politicians warned that restoring the right to carry, ending ATF’s bump-stock ban and rolling back NFA restrictions would make America more dangerous. A new Second Amendment Foundation factsheet collects 85 of those statements–and places them beside crime figures showing murders falling sharply.
According to SAF’s compilation, estimated U.S. murders dropped approximately 36% between 2022 and 2025. The 2025 murder rate tied the FBI’s historical low. Texas and Florida recorded substantial murder-rate declines after adopting permitless carry. Even the broad mass-shooting count cited in the report fell after the Supreme Court struck down the bump-stock ban.
The October 2026 factsheet, The Bloodbath That Never Came, was prepared by Kostas Moros, SAF’s director of legal research and education. Its central question deserves an answer: Why should Americans keep surrendering constitutional rights to people whose sweeping predictions of disaster run against the crime trends that followed?
SAF’s chart tracks revised FBI national murder and nonnegligent-manslaughter rates: 6.6 per 100,000 residents in 2022, 6.0 in 2023, 5.1 in 2024 and 4.1 in 2025.
The estimated number of murders declined 9.1% in 2023, 13.7% in 2024 and 18.1% in 2025. From 2022 to 2025, the total fell from 21,923 to 14,085.
SAF describes the 2025 reduction as the fastest recorded decline in murders. It also reports a 9.3% reduction in violent crime that year, identifying it as the largest drop since FBI national estimates began in 1936.
AmmoLand previously examined the FBI’s 2025 crime report and the murder rate, tying its historical low. SAF now adds a detailed record of what opponents of gun rights said would happen during this period.
Bruen: 39 Statements About the Danger of Restoring Carry Rights
When the Supreme Court decided NYSRPA v. Bruen on June 23, 2022, it struck down New York’s “proper cause” requirement for carrying a handgun. Ordinary Americans would no longer have to persuade officials that their need for self-defense was sufficiently special.
As AmmoLand’s analysis of Bruen explained, the right to bear arms extends outside the home. The anti-gun lobby responded with warnings of death, destruction, and blood in the streets.
Brady declared that the ruling would “assuredly result in more gun violence immediately.” Everytown’s Eric Tirschwell predicted more people would be intimidated, wounded and killed. David Hogg said the decision would kill young people and argued that a person carrying for protection puts everyone around them at risk.
The political response was equally sweeping. New York City Mayor Eric Adams warned against the city becoming the “Wild West.” Then-Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh predicted more deaths and more dangerous neighborhoods. California Attorney General Rob Bonta asserted that “more guns in more places make us less safe.”
SAF also includes a November 2022 filing by New York defendants in Antonyuk v. Hochul, warning that an injunction threatened a substantial increase in firearm injuries and deaths.
Against those statements, the report places three consecutive annual declines in national murders.
The local results are striking as well. New York City recorded 688 shooting incidents in 2025, its lowest recorded total, while murders fell from 382 to 305. Baltimore recorded 133 homicides, its lowest total in nearly 50 years. New Jersey shooting victims declined from 924 in 2023 to 559 in 2025, reaching a record low for the third consecutive year.
Officials portrayed restored carry rights as a public danger. The broad outcomes they warned about moved in the opposite direction.
Permitless Carry: 17 Warnings, With Declines in Texas and Florida
SAF’s permitless-carry section covers statements concerning Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, Florida, Louisiana and other states.
Then-Harris County District Attorney Kim Ogg offered an especially direct prediction in September 2021: “I just think more guns — more access — necessarily means more shootings and more killings.”
Texas permitless carry took effect that month. According to Texas Department of Public Safety figures cited by SAF, the state’s murder rate fell from 7.1 per 100,000 in 2021 to 5.2 in 2024—a 27.3% decline.
Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams labeled permitless carry “criminal carry.” Shannon Watts used the same label when discussing Indiana. Other statements warned of accidental shootings, suicides, stolen firearms and chaos.
Florida drew its own barrage. GIFFORDS accused lawmakers of making violence worse through permitless carry. Moms Demand Action volunteer Gay Valimont warned that putting more guns in more places would bring more tragedies.
AmmoLand covered Florida’s passage of permitless concealed carry, which took effect in July 2023. SAF reports that Florida’s murder rate fell 18.8% in 2024, the first full year afterward, and that all seven index offenses declined.
The state-specific outcome comparisons in this section concern Texas and Florida. They should not be presented as separate statistical findings for every state mentioned.
Bump Stocks: 11 Warnings After Cargill
The Supreme Court’s June 14, 2024 decision in Garland v. Cargill struck down ATF’s attempt to classify bump stocks as machine guns.
AmmoLand’s coverage explained why ATF exceeded its statutory authority. The case concerned the statutory definition of a machine gun, rather than a Second Amendment ruling. That distinction did little to restrain the rhetoric.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent warned of “deadly consequences.” Sen. Martin Heinrich declared that innocent Americans would die because of the decision. California Gov. Gavin Newsom said: “This decision will put blood on our streets.”
SAF compares those warnings with an 18.1% decline in national murders in 2025, the first full year after Cargill.
It also cites Gun Violence Archive figures showing mass-shooting incidents falling from 659 in 2023 to 503 in 2024 and 407 in 2025. The 2024–2025 decline was approximately 19%, with 2025 recording the fewest incidents since 2018.
Those figures use GVA’s broad definition: four or more people shot, excluding the shooter. They are not a count limited to public mass murders, nor a count of incidents involving bump stocks. Even under that intentionally broad measure, the national total fell.
NFA Taxes and Litigation: 11 Statements Recycling the Same Fear
SAF’s NFA section follows the July 2025 legislation zeroing specified taxes, effective in 2026, and the later court rulings and DOJ decisions.
Everytown President John Feinblatt portrayed the tax reduction as a gift to the gun industry that would endanger police and communities. GIFFORDS Executive Director Emma Brown warned of deadly consequences, later calling an NFA ruling a dangerous step backward.
By October 2, 2026, Brown was invoking Al Capone and organized crime to attack the DOJ’s decision against appealing. Anti-gun accusations, as usual, lack any factual substance.
The factsheet reports that the preliminary murder rate among reporting agencies fell 20.8% in January–July 2026 compared with January–July 2025. That period covers the first months of the zero-dollar tax.
It does not cover the consequences of the later NFA judgments and appeal decisions. The 2025 decline likewise occurred in the year the tax legislation was signed, before the tax change took effect.
Readers can follow AmmoLand’s coverage of the subsequent ATF NFA guidance for the separate question of what federal relief means for gun owners.
DOJ Grant Cuts and Forced-Reset Triggers: Seven More Warnings
The report also examines reactions to Trump-era DOJ and ATF actions, including violence-intervention grant cuts and the forced-reset-trigger settlement.
In April 2025, GIFFORDS’ Paul Carrillo predicted an immediate surge in violence from removing intervention workers. The organization followed with a warning that violent crime would spike unless DOJ reversed its cuts.
After the FRT settlement, Brady President Kris Brown said the administration would be directly responsible for deaths when the technology was used in a shooting. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison warned against more lethal firearms on the streets.
SAF places this collection of warnings beside the reported 9.3% national violent-crime decline in 2025 and a Council on Criminal Justice finding that homicides fell 21% across 35 large cities, representing 922 fewer victims.
Those broad figures do not isolate the effects of particular grants or triggers. They do challenge the sweeping picture of a country descending into greater violence.
A Documented Record–and a Demand for Accountability
SAF says every entry reproduces verified wording. Sixty-four of the 85 entries cite primary sources, including official releases, government statements, court documents and the speakers’ own posts. The remaining 21 cite news outlets directly quoting the speakers.
The report uses revised FBI estimates for its annual comparisons. Its preliminary 2026 figures concern reporting agencies, and its projected annual rate of approximately 3.2 per 100,000 is SAF’s extrapolation—not an official FBI annual estimate. Applying the decline to the 2025 reporting-agency rate instead produces approximately 3.4.
SAF expressly states that it does not argue gun rights reforms caused crime to decline. It credits Rob Romano, known as @2Aupdates, with helping inspire the compilation through his work highlighting failed gun control predictions.
The report labels its entries “predictions proven wrong.” The strongest supported conclusion is more specific: The broad increases in violence repeatedly forecast by gun control advocates did not materialize in the aggregate trends presented. Murder totals alone do not settle every separate claim about injuries, accidents or suicides.
Gun owners do not need to overstate the evidence. The documented contrast is damaging enough.
Gun Rights Are Not Conditional on Anti-Gun Predictions
The Second Amendment protects a right that government has spent generations restricting. Restoring it should never require approval from organizations dedicated to keeping those restrictions in place.
Americans do not have to prove that carrying a handgun lowers the national murder rate before they may defend themselves. Nor should lawful ownership of suppressors, short-barreled firearms or accessories depend on another round of speculative warnings from Brady, Everytown or GIFFORDS.
For gun owners, these victories are steps toward full restoration. The goal remains ending unconstitutional infringements, including repealing the NFA.
SAF’s factsheet gives lawmakers and readers a record to consult the next time someone claims another gun rights victory will unleash a bloodbath.
The warnings were loud. The murder declines were substantial. The organizations demanding that Americans surrender their rights owe the public an explanation.
Memberships, donations and calls to lawmakers help carry this fight from the courtroom to the legislature. The goal is full restoration of the right to keep and bear arms, including repeal of the NFA.
If you want these victories to last—and the remaining infringements removed—put your support behind the organizations doing the work.
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.
Columbia County deputies say a Georgia DoorDash driver acted in self-defense after a man threatened to take his vehicle and firearm and attacked him. iStock-119502436
MARTINEZ, Georgia – Tyler J. Reese walked away after a stranger shoved him outside a restaurant. Minutes later, the man allegedly threatened to steal his car and gun, then lunged through the open driver’s door. Reese fired three shots.
Columbia County investigators say the armed DoorDash driver acted in self-defense. Surveillance footage and witnesses support that finding. No charges are being filed against him.
For gun owners, the case illustrates why carrying matters: avoiding a confrontation does not guarantee an aggressor will let you leave.
Driver Walked Away Before the Attack Escalated
Reese, 26, of Augusta, was working a delivery shift on October 8 when he parked at West Town Shopping Center on Washington Road around 5:35 p.m.
According to the sheriff’s office account reported by AugustaCrime, a man approached as Reese got out and demanded that he “buy me a 20 piece.” Reese refused. The man shoved him.
Reese pushed him away and went inside the restaurant to collect his order. While Reese was inside, the man approached other customers near the Asian market, yelling aggressively and offering them $20. Witnesses could not explain what he wanted in return.
Witnesses and footage indicated the man was considerably larger than Reese. Around 5:38 p.m., Reese returned to his vehicle.
According to WRDW/Gray News, the man returned to Reese and repeated his demand. When Reese refused again, he threatened to take Reese’s vehicle and opened its front passenger door. Reese was seated behind the wheel. He displayed his firearm and told the man he did not want any more trouble.
Investigators say the man then threatened to take the firearm, went around the vehicle, and lunged through the open driver’s door.
Reese fired three rounds, striking him each time. He remained at the scene and identified himself to law enforcement.
Reese disengaged from the initial encounter. The reported attack continued despite his attempt to go about his work and his warning to leave him alone.
Investigators: “A Clear Case of Self-Defense”
The sheriff’s office subsequently identified the wounded man as Benjamin Robert Dasher, 29.
According to WJBF’s follow-up report, Dasher remained in intensive care with gunshot wounds to his left arm and abdomen. His treating physician expected him to survive, barring complications. No one else was injured.
Maj. Andy Shedd said investigators had surveillance footage and statements from multiple witnesses. After reviewing the evidence and interviewing Reese, Shedd described the shooting as “a clear case of self-defense.”
Authorities said Dasher would face a charge of criminal attempt–hijacking a motor vehicle upon his release from the hospital. Investigators planned to interview him when his condition allowed. The investigation remains open. No charges have been filed against Reese.
Working Americans Have a Right to Defend Themselves
Reese was earning a living when this encounter began. His decision to walk away should have ended it. According to investigators, the aggressor chose to escalate instead.
That matters when gun-control advocates treat carrying a firearm in public as inherently suspicious. A delivery driver’s need for self-defense does not end at his front door. His work takes him into parking lots, restaurants, and unfamiliar surroundings.
The Second Amendment protects his right to be armed there.
A citizen should not have to overpower a larger attacker to survive an assault. Reese had a firearm, used it when attacked, and investigators say the evidence supports him. That is armed self-defense doing exactly what gun owners understand it can do: giving an intended victim the means to fight back.
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.
BREAKING: According to the Mississippi AG:
