Minnesota Governor-elect Amy Klobuchar has pledged to revive gun-control legislation as the Supreme Court prepares to hear challenges to bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. iStock-2281848109
Minnesota Governor-elect Amy Klobuchar is wasting no time pushing for new restrictions on law-abiding gun owners, even as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to decide whether bans on commonly owned semiautomatic rifles violate the Second Amendment.
Just one day after winning the November 3 election, Klobuchar told reporters that legislation targeting firearms and magazines would be a top priority for her incoming administration.
“The gun safety bill is going to get passed,” Klobuchar declared during her November 4 press conference.
The timing is particularly significant. On December 2, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins, consolidated cases addressing whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect possession of AR-15s and similar semiautomatic rifles.
Rather than waiting for clarity from the Supreme Court, Klobuchar is pressing ahead with legislation that could place Minnesota on a collision course with the Court’s eventual decision.
In one of her first acts as governor-elect, Sen. @amyklobuchar affirmed that she will go after Minnesotans’ firearms under the guise of “safety.”
“The gun safety bill is going to get passed…it certainly should be one of our top priorities.” https://t.co/9fVkxn33ne
The legislation Klobuchar wants to resurrect closely follows Senate File 4067, which passed the Minnesota Senate by a narrow 34-33 vote in May but never reached a House floor vote.
The proposal would have prohibited licensed firearms dealers from selling firearms classified as “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” and ammunition magazines holding more than 17 rounds. Existing owners would have been required to obtain state certification for covered firearms and magazines, renewing that certification every three years.
Violations could result in criminal penalties.
With Democrats now controlling the Minnesota governorship and both legislative chambers, the political roadblock that stopped the legislation in 2026 has been removed.
However, controlling the legislature does not give lawmakers unlimited authority over rights protected by the Constitution.
Supreme Court Showdown Looms Over AR-15 Bans
The timing of Klobuchar’s announcement is difficult to ignore.
The Supreme Court has agreed to consider whether the Second Amendment protects AR-15-platform rifles and similar semiautomatic firearms commonly possessed by Americans for lawful purposes.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects weapons in common lawful use. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the justices reaffirmed that governments must justify firearm restrictions through the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
The upcoming Viramontes and Grant decisions could have major consequences for states attempting to outlaw commonly owned semiautomatic rifles.
Klobuchar has not explicitly stated that she would defy an adverse Supreme Court ruling. Nevertheless, her commitment to pursuing another rifle ban before the Court decides the issue places Minnesota’s legislative agenda directly against a constitutional question awaiting resolution.
NRA Warns Klobuchar of Legal Fight
The National Rifle Association has already promised to challenge Klobuchar’s gun-control agenda. John Commerford, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) reacted to Klobuchar’s promise with the following statement.
“Governor-elect Klobuchar’s promise to ram through gun control in Minnesota is a direct assault on the constitutional rights of law-abiding Minnesotans. The NRA and law-abiding gun owners will fight this every step of the way in St. Paul, and if Klobuchar gets her way, we will see her in court. We will not back down, and we will not allow the Second Amendment to be dismantled in the North Star State. Minnesota gun owners can count on us to stand shoulder to shoulder with them to defend their freedom.”
For gun owners, the stakes go well beyond one governor or one state. A Supreme Court ruling recognizing constitutional protection for commonly owned semiautomatic rifles could undermine similar bans across the country.
The question for Minnesota Democrats is whether their legislative ambitions will survive that constitutional scrutiny.
Klobuchar may have won an election and gained legislative allies, but the authority of state government remains limited by the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s forthcoming decision could determine just how far Minnesota can go in restricting the firearms its citizens have a right to keep and bear.
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.
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier says law-abiding residents may possess SBRs and SBSs without NFA registration or tax stamps. IMG Tim Potter
Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier has officially confirmed that law-abiding Floridians can possess short-barreled rifles (SBRs) and short-barreled shotguns (SBSs) without National Firearms Act (NFA) registration, ATF approval, or federal tax stamps. The November 6, 2026, memorandum goes further than simply recognizing changes in federal enforcement. It directs law enforcement agencies and prosecutors throughout Florida to stop treating possession of these firearms without NFA paperwork as a crime.
In the five-page memorandum, addressed to Florida’s law enforcement agencies and prosecuting authorities, Uthmeier declared:
“I am issuing this memorandum to inform law enforcement and prosecuting authorities that all law-abiding residents of the State of Florida may now possess a short-barreled rifle (‘SBR’) or short-barreled shotgun (‘SBS’) without fear of prosecution.”
The announcement resolves a significant state-law question left after the federal government’s decision to stop enforcing major provisions of the NFA.
Law-abiding Floridians may possess SBRs and SBSs without NFA registration, a tax stamp, or fear of prosecution under Florida law.
We are issuing guidance and will not defend a conviction on appeal. This office will always defend the Second Amendment rights of peaceable citizens. https://t.co/wgAEq4ylVM
— Attorney General James Uthmeier (@AGJamesUthmeier) November 6, 2026
Florida Removes the State-Law Obstacle
Under Florida Statute § 790.221, possessing an operable short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or machine gun is generally a second-degree felony. However, the statute contains an exemption for firearms lawfully owned and possessed under federal law.
That exemption became particularly important after Congress reduced to zero the NFA’s making and transfer taxes on SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, and certain other firearms through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
On August 5, 2026, a federal judge in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF ruled that the federal government’s registration and prior-approval requirements could no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power after those taxes were reduced to zero.
Uthmeier’s memorandum concludes that because SBRs and SBSs may now be lawfully possessed under the federal government’s current interpretation and enforcement policy, Florida’s existing statutory exemption applies.
He also argues that treating Florida’s prohibition as an independent ban on these firearms would implicate the Second Amendment and likely fail the constitutional test established in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.
No NFA Paperwork, No Grounds for Search or Seizure
The most consequential portion of Uthmeier’s memorandum establishes specific statewide enforcement guidance.
Effective immediately, the attorney general instructs Florida law enforcement that mere possession of an SBR or SBS does not establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause for a search or seizure. Likewise, discovering one during an otherwise lawful encounter does not, by itself, justify seizing the firearm as evidence.
Uthmeier also makes clear that his office will not defend a conviction under § 790.221 on appeal when the sole basis for that conviction is the owner’s lack of NFA approval, registration, or a federal tax stamp.
The memorandum further explains that Florida’s firearms preemption statute, § 790.33, prevents local governments from imposing additional restrictions on SBR or SBS possession.
These directives give gun owners something the federal announcement alone could not provide: a statewide interpretation of Florida law from the state’s chief legal officer.
What Florida Gun Owners Still Need to Know
The announcement does not eliminate other federal firearms laws. Licensed dealers must continue complying with applicable Gun Control Act requirements, including background checks and firearm transfer records. Federal restrictions on prohibited possessors and possession in restricted locations also remain applicable.
Interstate transportation of SBRs and SBSs still requires prior ATF authorization on Form 20 where federal law mandates it. Machine guns and destructive devices remain subject to applicable NFA requirements.
Uthmeier also notes that voluntary NFA registration does not guarantee future registration or grandfathering protections if federal policy changes.
The memorandum does not repeal Florida’s existing statute or constitute a new court ruling. Instead, it establishes the attorney general’s interpretation of that statute and directs statewide enforcement accordingly.
For Florida gun owners, the practical result is substantial. The state’s chief legal officer has confirmed that law-abiding residents may possess SBRs and SBSs without the federal paperwork that previously accompanied their ownership.
Florida’s law enforcement agencies have now been told to recognize that right rather than treat the absence of an NFA tax stamp as evidence of a crime.
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.
“Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. has told people close to him that he does not intend to retire immediately from the Supreme Court, despite Democrats’ commanding win in Senate contests on Tuesday, which means Republicans will hold the chamber for only a short time longer,” The New York Times reports. “As a result, Republicans may have missed the window for President Trump to name a fourth or even a fifth justice to the Supreme Court in the final two years of his presidency.”
Also not ready to retire, per the report, is Clarence Thomas.
That puts a quick end to a speculative recommendation made Wednesday by attorney and Four Boxes Diner host Mark Smith, who made a compelling case that, due to their ages, Alito, 76, and Thomas, 78, “should consider making this personal sacrifice for the good of the country” and resign immediately contingent on suitable replacements being confirmed.
Smith’s reasoning is that once Democrats take control of the Senate on January 3, 2027, there is no way another Trump nominee would be confirmed if a court vacancy arose, and if Democrats go on to hold the legislature and win the White House in 2028, future vacancies will be filled by confirmed anti-gunners.
Were that the case, look for Second Amendment “wins” to be reversed and new bans upheld as Constitutional.
If Alito and Thomas would agree to fall on their swords for the good of the Republic, the confirmation process would need to be accelerated—something Smith acknowledges has been done before, noting Amy Coney Barrett’s 2020 nomination and confirmation happened in less than a month.
If such a scenario were to play out, the question of “Who?’ would become paramount. Arguably foremost among potential candidates would be Lawrence Van Dyke of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, whom Bloomberg Law acknowledges as “the court’s most vocal defender of gun rights,” and who called for the Supreme Court to administer some “benchslaps” against the inferior court’s “wayward Second Amendment decisions.” There’s also U.S. Appeals Court Judge Thomas M. Hardiman, whom The Washington Post tells its readers is “seen as ‘Second Amendment extremist,” and Judge Raymond Kethledge, whom National Review credits as a justice who “vigorously defends — and exercises — individual rights under the Second Amendment.”
What would complicate such a scenario are potential Republican turncoats.
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (once more!) betraying the Republican party by endorsing a Democrat in Alaska’s gubernatorial race comes to mind. And per The New York Times report:
“A nominee would have faced the newfound independence of departing Republican senators such as John Cornyn of Texas and Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, who were defeated in primaries by Trump-backed challengers, in addition to Susan Collins of Maine, a moderate who lost on Tuesday. The group may have had little appetite to help Mr. Trump ram through a nominee of his choice.”
The bottom line: Thomas and Alito have been blessings for gun owners but Smith is right. Once vengeance-minded Democrats assume power, expect any move by an increasingly harassed President Trump to be blocked, and don’t be surprised to see serious moves to “expand” and “pack” the High Court.
As always, our freedom is not ultimately in the hands of any politician or of any judge. The saving grace in all this is that the Second Amendment is still working. As long as we refuse to give up our guns “they” don’t have the power to take them.
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.
The Justice Department’s Federal Firearm Rights Restoration program reached its initial 5,000-applicant limit on November 4, 2026. The next intake is scheduled for January 4, 2027. AI-generated illustration by AmmoLand News.
The Justice Department (DOJ) opened its Federal Firearm Rights Restoration application to the public on November 4, 2026, and by the end of that day the portal was full. According to DOJ’s application page, the Department has reached its limit of 5,000 new applicants and cannot accept any new starts. The site will reopen in January 2027. People who already began an application can still log in, finish, and submit; anyone who didn’t start before the cap hit will have to wait for the next window.
That first public opening is the start of a program that’s been effectively dead for more than 30 years. Congress left 18 U.S.C. § 925(c) on the books, but appropriations riders dating to the early 1990s starved the old ATF process until it stopped. The Attorney General’s authority never went away; the funding did. On August 17, 2026, DOJ announced a final rule putting the process back online through the Office of the Pardon Attorney rather than Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives(ATF).
Section 922(g) is the federal prohibited-person list covering felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users, certain mental health findings, certain aliens, dishonorable discharges, citizenship renunciants, and qualifying domestic violence orders or misdemeanors. Section 925(c) is the relief valve. It lets the Attorney General restore federal firearm rights if the applicant is not likely to endanger public safety and if granting relief is consistent with the public interest.
That standard is discretionary. A grant isn’t automatic just because someone finished a sentence. DOJ’s rule also sets out presumptive disqualifiers, some permanent and some that run for five or ten years after a sentence is complete. Extraordinary circumstances can overcome a presumption in some cases.
One important limit, according to DOJ: federal relief doesn’t wipe out a separate state or tribal firearm ban. If a state still bars someone, that person may need a state process too.
DOJ chose a phased launch on purpose. The Department’s FAQ says a working restoration program hasn’t been in place for over 30 years, and DOJ wants to test the platform and its procedures before opening the floodgates. September 25, 2026, was invite-only. November 4 opened the first public slot for 5,000 applicants, first come, first served. That slot is now closed to new starts. On January 4, 2027, DOJ plans to take 500 more applicants and start collecting the $30 fee, specifically to test the payment portal. After that, the Department says it will open access more broadly once it trusts the process.
For people who missed the November rush, the next hard date is January 4, 2027, and even then the window is only 500 deep.
There’s no paper form. Applications are online only, OMB Form 1123-0017, through justice.gov/ffrr. According to DOJ, applicants should collect documents first. Once the electronic application is started, there’s a 30-day clock to finish and submit. Miss that window and the application has to be started over. If an applicant loses the link and PIN, the Office of the Pardon Attorney says it cannot recover them, and the person may have to begin again.
Fingerprints come after the first part of the e-application, not before. DOJ emails a QR code, and electronic fingerprints are then taken at a participating U.S. Post Office. Showing up at a post office before that QR code arrives doesn’t help, the Department said.
Applicants also need three character references. The references can’t be related by blood or marriage, must have known the applicant for at least three years, and can’t themselves be prohibited under § 922(g). After the application is submitted, those references get a link and PIN and affirm a checklist under penalty of perjury. DOJ’s FAQ advises confirming they’ll fill it out before naming them. If one declines, the applicant can swap them on the status page, but DOJ won’t email when a reference fails to respond.
The $30 fee begins with the January 2027 stage. Fingerprints and record pulls can cost more on top of that. Fee waivers for indigency are supposed to be available; DOJ says more waiver details are coming.
Mental health cases under § 922(g)(4) have an extra gate. If a state or territory runs a relief-from-disabilities program that meets the NICS Improvement Amendments Act standard, applicants generally have to exhaust that first. If the jurisdiction offers no relief at all, they can go federal without the state stop. DOJ’s current no-relief list is Arkansas, Montana, New Hampshire, Wyoming, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. That list can change.
A grant means the Attorney General or a designee decided restoration isn’t likely to endanger the public and is consistent with the public interest. DOJ publishes the names of people granted relief in the Federal Register, as § 925(c) requires. The Office of the Pardon Attorney keeps those records and shares them with NICS. Granted applicants may also get an RPIN to use when buying a firearm. PARDON still won’t call a gun dealer or override a NICS decision.
A denial can be challenged in the U.S. district court where the applicant lives. Waiting periods before reapplying depend on why the person was denied, and some presumptions are permanent while others are timed.
For three decades, prohibited people who’d rebuilt their lives had almost no federal path back, and state restorations often didn’t clear a federal disability. The November 4 open-and-close showed both that demand is real and that DOJ is still metering access in the hundreds and thousands, not the tens of thousands. That metering will frustrate people who waited years for this window, and it also means the January 4, 2027, reopen is likely to fill fast. Anyone serious about applying should have court records, criminal history reports, proof that every sentence term is finished, and three willing references lined up before hitting start. Thirty days isn’t a lot of time to chase paperwork that should’ve been gathered first.
For now the portal is closed to new applicants. According to DOJ’s application page, it reopens in January 2027, with the next intake of 500 set for January 4.
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
Harmeet Dhillon resigned from the Justice Department on November 5, 2026, after leading the creation of its first dedicated Second Amendment Section. iStock-1301132156
Harmeet Dhillon has resigned as head of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, Fox News reported Thursday, citing sources. Bloomberg Law had reported she planned to leave after the midterms. No successor has been named.
Dhillon told Fox News Digital she made the decision weeks before Republicans lost the House and Senate. She told White House chief of staff Susie Wiles three weeks before Election Day that she had “accomplished everything” she came to do and wanted to return to private practice. Wiles asked her to wait until after the midterms. Dhillon formally submitted her resignation on November 5.
“I wasn’t asked to resign,” Dhillon said. “I resigned three weeks ago, and Susie asked me to please wait until after the midterms.”
Trump nominated her in December 2024. She was sworn in as assistant attorney general for civil rights in April 2025 after Senate confirmation. Her roughly 19-month tenure remade a division that had treated the Second Amendment like it didn’t exist.
The First Affirmative Gun Rights Lawsuit
The signature move for gun owners came on September 30, 2025. Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division sued the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department and Sheriff Robert Luna over concealed-carry permit delays, the first affirmative lawsuit DOJ had ever filed on behalf of gun owners.
The numbers in the complaint were ugly. Between January 2024 and March 2025, LASD took in 3,982 new carry-license applications. As of May 2025, it had approved two. The average wait to begin processing was 281 days, more than nine months. The median was 372 days. Some applicants waited as long as 1,030 days, nearly three years, for an interview. California law requires an initial determination within 90 days. LASD blew past that deadline.
“The Second Amendment is not a second-class right,” Dhillon said when the suit was filed. “This lawsuit seeks to stop Los Angeles County’s egregious pattern and practice of delaying law-abiding citizens from exercising their right to bear arms.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi put it more bluntly: Los Angeles County may not like the right to bear arms, but the Constitution does not let them infringe on it. Second Amendment Foundation Executive Director Adam Kraut called it a landmark. The first time the federal government had sued to defend gun owners instead of fighting them.
In August 2026, DOJ and LASD reached a settlement. LASD agreed to align its permitting process with *Bruen*, cut the backlog, and submit to four years of public reporting and federal-court enforcement. Dhillon called it a win for Los Angeles County residents and for the Second Amendment. The deal still needed a federal judge’s approval to take effect.
A Second Amendment Section That Never Existed Before
The LA County case was not a one-off. In late 2025, Dhillon stood up the Civil Rights Division’s first Second Amendment Rights Section. AmmoLand News reported the unit in November; Dhillon announced it on camera in December.
The section’s job was straightforward: treat the right to keep and bear arms like every other civil right the division already enforces, investigate state and local gun policies that conflict with Supreme Court precedent, file lawsuits, and drop amicus briefs.
Dhillon called that right fundamental and promised DOJ had “a lot of 2A work planned.”
That work showed up in court. Dhillon argued before the Seventh Circuit against Illinois’ Protect Illinois Communities Act, the state’s AR-15 and standard-capacity magazine ban, the first time DOJ had argued against a gun law in a federal appeals court. The division also filed amicus briefs in Barnett v. Raoul, arguing rifles in common use cannot be banned, and in Wolford v. Lopez, challenging Hawaii’s rule that effectively bans carry on private property without the owner’s express permission.
In May 2026, the Second Amendment Section sued the District of Columbia over its bans on AR-15-style rifles and suppressors, arguing Metropolitan Police enforcement is a pattern-or-practice civil rights violation under 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Barry. Arrington signed as acting chief of the section. Dhillon’s name was at the top.
Mixed Record, Real Results
None of this means Dhillon’s DOJ was a pure 2A shop. Gun rights groups spent much of the past two years furious at the department for defending the National Firearms Act (NFA), prying at FPC and SAF membership lists after those groups beat the post office gun ban, and sticking with pieces of the Biden-era “engaged in the business” rule.
Dhillon’s Civil Rights Division was the part of DOJ that actually sued for gun owners. The rest of the building often looked like the old building.
What changed under Dhillon was the baseline. For decades, Civil Rights ignored the Second Amendment. Under her watch, the division created a dedicated section, filed the first affirmative federal lawsuit for gun owners, argued against state assault-weapon bans, and sued a major city over rifle and suppressor bans. That is not nothing. It is also not permanent.
What Comes Next
Dhillon said she plans to return to private practice. Bloomberg Law reported that in an August roundtable, she said she would return to her California firm, Dhillon Law Group, which her brother, Mandeep Singh Dhillon, managed in her absence. Fox reported she moved to Washington after the deaths of her husband and father to “serve my country,” and that after about two years she decided it was time.
“We changed it, and that’s what we came here to do. And it’s done,” she said.
Fox reported roughly 300 attorneys left the division during Trump’s second term. Dhillon said she recruited more than 130 lawyers.
What happens to the Second Amendment Section without her is the open question. Sections don’t delete themselves overnight, but priorities do. The LA County settlement’s four-year reporting window only works if DOJ keeps enforcing it, and the D.C. rifle case only matters if someone finishes it.
Gun owners got something from Dhillon’s time at Justice that they never got from Civil Rights before: lawyers whose job was to sue the people who delay, deny, and ban. Whether that survives her resignation is the next story.
AmmoLand News will continue to follow the succession fight and the pending Second Amendment cases.
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and constitutional activist with more than 26 years of experience in networking and cybersecurity for major Fortune 100 companies. John has written about firearms, the Constitution, and cybersecurity, and has interviewed people from all walks of life. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
FPC is challenging the Trump DOJ’s effort to limit judicial relief after the Fifth Circuit ruled that the federal handgun purchase ban for adults ages 18 to 20 violates the Second Amendment. iStock-1220273996
The Trump administration has admitted that the federal government cannot constitutionally prohibit licensed firearm dealers from selling handguns to law-abiding adults ages 18 to 20. Yet the Department of Justice is still fighting in federal court to prevent gun-rights organizations from securing lasting judicial protection against the very same unconstitutional law.
On November 4, Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a reply brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in FPC v. ATF, formerly Reese v. ATF. The filing challenges DOJ’s attempt to avoid further judicial relief nearly six years after FPC, the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and the Louisiana Shooting Association first challenged the federal handgun purchase restrictions.
The plaintiffs have already won the constitutional argument. Now they are fighting to ensure that victory actually protects the people whose rights were violated.
DOJ Admits the Federal Handgun Ban Violates the Second Amendment
In January 2025, the Fifth Circuit ruled that federal restrictions prohibiting federally licensed dealers from selling handguns and handgun ammunition to adults ages 18 to 20 violated the Second Amendment. The decision represented a significant victory for young Americans who enjoy the same constitutional rights as other adults but have been denied access to the ordinary commercial handgun market.
On September 17, 2026, the Trump administration’s Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion agreeing that the restrictions were unconstitutional. The DOJ acknowledged that these adults are among “the people” protected by the Second Amendment and that the government could not justify the prohibition under the Supreme Court’s historical-tradition standard.
But rather than agree to the broader judicial relief sought by the organizations that successfully challenged the law, the Justice Department now argues that its change in legal position makes the remaining lawsuit moot. Essentially, DOJ maintains that because the administration no longer considers the restrictions enforceable, a broader court order is unnecessary.
A Legal Opinion Is Not a Permanent Court Order
FPC rejects that argument because the federal handgun restrictions remain on the books. Congress has not repealed them, and DOJ’s legal opinion does not permanently prohibit their enforcement. A future administration could reverse the current interpretation and resume enforcing the same restrictions against another generation of young Americans.
FPC argues that the government cannot escape constitutional litigation merely by voluntarily changing its position while leaving the challenged law intact. The organization also maintains that DOJ has failed to demonstrate that ATF has implemented the policy change in a way that removes the possibility of future enforcement.
“The federal government lost on the Second Amendment. Now the Trump DOJ admits its handgun ban is unconstitutional, yet it’s still fighting to deny FPC and our members the full benefit of our victory,” said FPC President Brandon Combs.
“It’s great that the DOJ is finally admitting that this immoral gun ban is unconstitutional, but an opinion from some government lawyers is not a repeal of the law and it’s not an enforceable court order,” Combs added.
The distinction matters. Constitutional rights should not depend on the political preferences of whoever occupies the White House. An administration’s promise not to enforce an unconstitutional restriction is no substitute for an enforceable judicial order protecting the Americans affected by it.
FPC Challenges DOJ’s Attempt to Limit Nationwide Relief
The Justice Department is also opposing FPC’s effort to expand the injunction entered following its Fifth Circuit victory. The district court limited relief geographically to the Fifth Circuit and restricted protection to individuals who were already members of the plaintiff organizations when judgment was entered.
FPC argues that those limitations improperly exclude affected members who live elsewhere in the country or joined the organizations after the judgment. DOJ relies partly on the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. CASA, but FPC maintains that the government is confusing a universal injunction protecting everyone with relief protecting the actual members of organizations that successfully challenged an unconstitutional law.
The consequences are particularly apparent in this case. FPC filed the lawsuit in November 2020, nearly six years ago. During that time, multiple generations of 18-to-20-year-olds have aged out of the federal restrictions. Under DOJ’s position, newly affected adults could be denied protection simply because they were not members when the district court entered judgment.
Such a limitation threatens to force gun-rights organizations into repeated lawsuits against restrictions that courts have already determined violate the Constitution. Rather than delivering meaningful protection, successful Second Amendment litigation could become an endless cycle of legal challenges as new members turn 18 or join organizations fighting for their rights.
Gun Rights Cannot Depend on Who Controls Washington
The dispute raises a larger issue about how constitutional victories are enforced. If the government can avoid lasting judicial relief simply by announcing a temporary change in enforcement policy, the protections secured through years of litigation become vulnerable to the next administration’s political priorities.
The Trump DOJ deserves credit for acknowledging that the federal handgun sales restrictions violate the Second Amendment. But that acknowledgment means little if the administration continues fighting to prevent gun owners from obtaining the full protection of a court order.
FPC is asking the Fifth Circuit to reject DOJ’s mootness argument, reverse the district court’s narrow injunction, and direct the entry of judgment protecting affected members of the plaintiff organizations nationwide.
The government has already lost the constitutional argument. It should not take another round of litigation to make that victory meaningful. The Second Amendment is not a temporary privilege granted by presidential administrations, and Americans should not have to rely on promises from Washington to exercise rights the Constitution already guarantees.
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.
Republicans entered the 2026 midterm elections with significant Second Amendment victories, a substantially reformed Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and major changes to the National Firearms Act (NFA). Violent crime had fallen sharply, and President Donald Trump’s administration had delivered legal and regulatory changes gun owners had sought for decades. None of it was enough to save the Republican majority in Congress.
Democrats captured control of Congress in the 2026 midterms, changing the political landscape for federal gun-rights legislation. iStock-685635180
Tuesday’s elections delivered sweeping Democratic victories, handing the party control of both the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate. Democrats flipped at least seven Republican-held Senate seats and defeated Republican House candidates across the country, including in states that supported Trump by substantial margins just two years ago. Republicans also lost governorships in several longtime conservative strongholds.
For America’s gun owners, the consequences extend far beyond the next two years. The election sends Democrats with documented records of supporting gun restrictions to Congress for terms that will extend beyond Trump’s presidency. It also changes who will control state governments responsible for firearms laws affecting millions of gun owners.
The election was not a complete loss. Florida elected Republican Byron Donalds governor and returned Ashley Moody to the U.S. Senate. But those victories do not erase the broader national outcome or the serious questions now facing the Second Amendment community.
Republicans had two years of unified control in Washington to advance their gun-rights agenda. They delivered meaningful reforms, including eliminating the $200 NFA making and transfer taxes on suppressors and certain other firearms. Yet national concealed carry reciprocity, comprehensive NFA repeal, and other major priorities never became law.
Now the congressional majority needed to pursue those reforms is gone.
Affordability, Tariffs, and Iran Overshadowed Republican Achievements
Americans returned Trump to the White House in 2024 expecting changes in Washington. Two years later, voters delivered a sharply different verdict on his administration and the Republican Party.
Affordability, tariffs, the war in Iran, and dissatisfaction with the direction of the country weighed heavily on the election. Associated Press reporting found that economic frustration and opposition to Trump’s handling of major national issues contributed to Democratic gains, including among voters who had previously supported Republicans.
The administration’s accomplishments on firearms policy and public safety were insufficient to overcome those concerns. The same election that handed Democrats control of Congress also produced major Republican defeats in states that had long been considered reliably conservative.
That does not mean every voter who supported a Democrat endorsed that candidate’s position on firearms. Many voters were primarily concerned about household expenses, foreign policy, or the administration itself. Nevertheless, the lawmakers they elected will have the authority to propose, amend, and vote on legislation affecting the Second Amendment.
The political consequences of those decisions will outlast the issues that motivated many voters on Election Day.
Seven Republican Senate Seats Fall to Democrats
The Senate results are particularly consequential because most senators elected Tuesday will serve six-year terms extending through 2032.
Democrats captured seven Republican-held Senate seats in Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Kansas, and Maine. They also retained important seats in Michigan, Minnesota, Georgia, and New Hampshire.
In Texas, Democrat James Talarico defeated Republican Ken Paxton, giving the state its first Democratic U.S. senator in decades. Talarico supports expanded background checks, additional firearm-storage requirements, and raising the purchase age for certain semiautomatic rifles. His election places another lawmaker who supports federal firearms restrictions in the Senate.
South Carolina delivered another significant result when Democrat Annie Andrews defeated Republican Darline Graham. Andrews has supported universal background checks, safe-storage mandates, and restrictions on firearms she describes as weapons of war. Her campaign also received support from gun-control organizations.
In North Carolina, former Democratic Governor Roy Cooper defeated Republican Michael Whatley. Cooper’s record as governor includes vetoing Republican-backed legislation eliminating the state’s pistol purchase permit requirement and other measures expanding firearm carry rights.
Ohio voters returned former Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown to Washington after he defeated Republican Jon Husted in a special election. Brown has previously supported federal restrictions on certain semiautomatic rifles and expanded background-check requirements.
The losses extended into Iowa and Kansas. Democrat Josh Turek defeated Republican Ashley Hinson in Iowa, while Democrat Adam Hamilton defeated incumbent Senator Roger Marshall in Kansas, a state that had not elected a Democratic senator since the 1930s.
Maine voters also replaced Republican Susan Collins with Democrat Troy Jackson. Jackson stated during an October Senate debate that he supports banning new sales of firearms commonly described by gun-control advocates as assault weapons.
Democrats also retained Senate seats Republicans had hoped to contest successfully. In Michigan, Abdul El-Sayed defeated Republican Mike Rogers. El-Sayed received significant support from Giffords, the national gun-control organization, and has previously expressed support for additional firearms restrictions.
Minnesota elected Democrat Peggy Flanagan over Republican Michele Tafoya. Flanagan has supported bans on certain semiautomatic firearms and magazines, adding another senator who favors restrictive firearms policies to the Democratic caucus.
Not every newly elected Democrat has the same firearms record, and some have supported or opposed different restrictions over their careers. But collectively, the results change the Senate’s legislative and confirmation powers at a critical point in Trump’s second presidency.
House Losses Give Democrats Control of the Legislative Agenda
The House results were equally significant, with Democrats defeating Republican incumbents in competitive districts and capturing seats Republicans had hoped to protect through redistricting.
Texas’s 23rd Congressional District produced one of the most closely watched contests among gun owners. Democrat Katy Padilla Stout defeated Republican Brandon Herrera, a firearms manufacturer and prominent Second Amendment advocate. Herrera’s defeat removes a prospective firearms-rights advocate from the incoming Congress, while Padilla Stout has supported raising the minimum purchase age for certain semiautomatic firearms.
In Pennsylvania, Democrats defeated four Republican incumbents. Janelle Stelson unseated Scott Perry in the 10th District, Paige Cognetti defeated Rob Bresnahan in the 8th, Bob Brooks defeated Ryan Mackenzie in the 7th, and Bob Harvie defeated Brian Fitzpatrick in the 1st District.
New Jersey also saw Democrat Rebecca Bennett defeat Republican Tom Kean Jr. in the 7th Congressional District. Other Democratic gains came in Ohio, Kentucky, and North Carolina, contributing to the party’s new House majority.
The significance is not that every Democratic winner shares identical views on firearms. It is that the House leadership, committee chairmanships, legislative calendar, and power to advance bills will shift to Democrats in January.
National concealed carry reciprocity and other Republican firearms priorities now face a Democratic-controlled House. Meanwhile, lawmakers supporting additional federal restrictions can pursue committee hearings, investigations, and legislation from positions of greater institutional authority.
The election also demonstrated the limitations of Republican redistricting efforts. According to Ballotpedia’s November 4 election analysis, mid-decade congressional map changes had been expected to give Republicans a net advantage, but Democratic gains across the affected states overcame much of that anticipated benefit.
Florida Remains Republican, but the Margins Are a Warning
Florida provided several important Republican victories despite the national Democratic wave.
Byron Donalds defeated Democrat David Jolly to become Florida’s next governor, preserving Republican control of an office central to the state’s firearms legislation. Donalds opposed Florida’s 2018 post-Parkland gun-control legislation and has supported revisiting restrictions on firearm purchases by adults under 21 and the state’s red-flag law.
Republican Senator Ashley Moody also defeated Democrat Angie Nixon, winning approximately 50.9% of the vote in the special election for the seat formerly held by Marco Rubio. Moody’s victory preserves a Republican Senate seat and provides continuity for a senator with a record of supporting Second Amendment litigation and opposing federal gun restrictions.
However, Florida’s congressional results also illustrate how competitive the election became.
Republican Dan Green came within 1,477 votes of defeating Democratic Representative Darren Soto in Florida’s 9th Congressional District. Unofficial state election results show Soto receiving 143,174 votes to Green’s 141,697, a margin of just 0.52 percentage points.
That narrow result came despite Republican efforts to improve their congressional position through redistricting. Democrat Jared Moskowitz also survived a challenge from Republican Scott Singer in Florida’s 25th District.
The Florida Division of Elections’ unofficial results show a state that remained Republican at the top of the ticket while producing competitive congressional contests that did not consistently deliver the gains the GOP had anticipated.
Florida’s results preserve important Second Amendment opportunities, but they also show that Republican victories cannot be taken for granted, even in states that have become increasingly favorable to the party.
Democratic Governors Gain Power Over State Gun Laws
Congress was not the only institution affected by Tuesday’s elections.
Democrats won governorships previously held by Republicans in Texas, Georgia, Iowa, Nevada and Ohio. Those victories change the balance of power in states where governors can sign firearms restrictions, veto legislation expanding gun rights, and influence the agencies responsible for implementing state laws.
Texas saw one of the most consequential changes when Democrat Gina Hinojosa defeated incumbent Republican Governor Greg Abbott. Hinojosa has supported raising the minimum purchase age for certain semiautomatic rifles to 21 and previously advocated additional restrictions on firearm purchases and carrying long guns.
Texas Republicans retain substantial legislative power, meaning the governor cannot enact those proposals unilaterally. But the change in the governor’s office introduces a new obstacle to legislation expanding firearms rights and creates the possibility of conflict over future gun bills.
Georgia elected Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms, ending Republican control of the governor’s office. Bottoms has advocated stronger firearm restrictions, including red-flag legislation and expanded background-check requirements.
Ohio elected Democrat Amy Acton over Republican Vivek Ramaswamy. Acton has publicly supported stronger background checks and a red-flag law. Her victory could affect future firearms legislation in a state that has expanded carry rights under Republican leadership.
Iowa elected Democrat Rob Sand, replacing Republican control of the governorship. Sand’s individual firearms record warrants separate scrutiny, but his election changes the political dynamics surrounding future legislation, including how disagreements between the governor and legislature will be resolved.
Democrats also strengthened their position in several state legislatures. Gains in Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin were especially important because the composition of state legislative chambers can determine whether firearms restrictions or pro-gun reforms reach a governor’s desk.
The results establish a significant change in state-level political power. The precise effects on gun owners will depend on the legislation introduced, the composition of each state’s legislature, and the actions of newly elected governors.
Trump’s NFA Reforms Are a Major Victory Worth Protecting
For all the electoral setbacks, the results should not overshadow the significant firearms reforms achieved during Trump’s first two years back in office.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, signed July 4, 2025, reduced the federal making and transfer taxes on suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and any other weapons (AOWs) to $0, effective January 1, 2026.
That statutory change removed a longstanding federal tax burden from millions of lawful firearm owners and helped establish the basis for subsequent litigation challenging the NFA’s registration and transfer requirements.
On August 5, 2026, a federal district court ruled that certain NFA requirements could no longer be justified under Congress’s taxing power after the relevant taxes were reduced to zero. The Department of Justice declined to appeal, and the ATF subsequently adopted a nationwide policy of not enforcing several registration, approval, and tax-stamp requirements for the affected firearms.
Those developments changed the federal regulatory landscape for suppressor owners and owners of certain short-barreled firearms. The ATF continues to apply relevant Gun Control Act requirements, and state restrictions remain applicable, but the federal burdens that gun owners previously faced have been substantially reduced.
The distinction between those victories is important.
The $0 tax is federal law. A future administration cannot restore the former $200 tax by executive order. Congress would need to amend the statute. However, federal tax changes can potentially be enacted through budget reconciliation, subject to the applicable procedural requirements.
The broader ATF nonenforcement policy rests on executive discretion, while the court injunction provides direct legal protection to a narrower group. A future administration could reconsider the nationwide enforcement position, although it would remain constrained by court orders and other legal requirements.
Republicans achieved substantial progress dismantling parts of the federal NFA framework without accomplishing comprehensive statutory repeal. The election now raises difficult questions about whether further reforms can advance and how durable the existing changes will prove.
Republicans Leave Major Second Amendment Legislation Unfinished
For all the reforms achieved under Trump, Republicans leave their two years of unified control of Washington with a substantial portion of their Second Amendment legislative agenda unfinished.
National concealed carry reciprocity was only one of several major proposals introduced during the 119th Congress. Lawmakers also introduced legislation to establish constitutional carry nationwide, repeal the National Firearms Act, remove suppressors from federal NFA regulation, and abolish the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.
Representative Thomas Massie’s National Constitutional Carry Act, H.R. 645, introduced in January 2025, sought to protect the right to carry firearms in public throughout the United States without requiring a government-issued permit. Senator Mike Lee introduced the companion legislation, S. 4013, in March 2026. Neither measure advanced beyond its respective Judiciary Committee.
That legislation went considerably further than national reciprocity. While reciprocity would establish protections for qualifying gun owners carrying across state lines, the National Constitutional Carry Act sought to prevent state and local governments from imposing licensing requirements on the exercise of the right to bear arms.
Representative Richard Hudson’s Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, H.R. 38, advanced through the House Judiciary Committee in 2025 but never received a final vote in the House. Its Senate counterpart, S. 65, also failed to advance to enactment.
Congress had additional opportunities to pursue reforms to the NFA.
Representative Eric Burlison introduced the Repeal the NFA Act, H.R. 335, which proposed eliminating Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code entirely. The Hearing Protection Act, H.R. 404, and its Senate counterpart, S. 364, sought to remove suppressors from NFA regulation rather than simply eliminating the tax imposed on them.
Republicans also introduced the Abolish the ATF Act, H.R. 221, which proposed eliminating the federal agency responsible for administering and enforcing many of the firearms restrictions gun owners have challenged for decades.
None of those measures became law.
The $0 NFA tax provisions enacted through the 2025 reconciliation bill were a significant accomplishment, and subsequent litigation produced broader changes to federal enforcement. But eliminating certain making and transfer taxes is not the same as repealing the NFA, just as changing an agency’s enforcement policy is not the same as permanently removing its statutory authority.
Republicans faced genuine obstacles in advancing these bills. The party’s narrow congressional margins, internal disagreements, competing priorities, and the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold all complicated passage. Some proposals lacked sufficient support even within the Republican conference.
Nevertheless, the legislative record raises an unavoidable question about priorities. Republicans controlled the presidency, House, and Senate for nearly two years, yet nationwide constitutional carry, national reciprocity, comprehensive NFA repeal, and other significant firearms reforms remained unfinished.
Now Democrats have won control of both chambers of Congress, and the political circumstances surrounding those proposals have changed dramatically.
NRA Warns That the Fight Over Gun Rights Is Far From Over
The National Rifle Association responded to the results by warning that Democratic control of Congress and additional state governments creates new challenges for Second Amendment rights.
John Commerford, executive director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, issued a statement following Tuesday’s election outlining the organization’s response.
“Last night’s results put progressive majorities in control of Congress and additional state houses across the country, leaving the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans under direct and immediate threat. The NRA is ready to stand and fight in Congress, the courts, and in every state where those rights are at risk. This is not the time to sit idly by and lick our wounds—it’s the time to stand up, engage, organize, and join the fight to protect the Second Amendment. The only way we stop this radical gun-grabbing agenda is if gun owners get activated to defend their rights and work tirelessly to elect pro-gun politicians in 2028.”
The NRA’s response reflects one part of a much broader Second Amendment advocacy effort. Organizations including the National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America (GOA), Second Amendment Foundation (SAF), and Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) pursue different combinations of lobbying, litigation, education, and constitutional challenges.
Their work will continue to affect firearms policy regardless of which party controls Congress. Litigation challenging restrictions on commonly owned firearms, carry rights, and federal regulatory authority remains particularly consequential as the federal legislative environment changes.
The courts provide an avenue for contesting laws alleged to violate the Second Amendment even when legislative majorities are unwilling to repeal them. At the same time, legislative advocacy and state-level policy disputes will remain important in jurisdictions where elected officials hold opposing views on firearm ownership.
What Happens During Trump’s Final Two Years?
Democratic control of Congress substantially limits Trump’s ability to advance additional Republican firearms legislation.
The new majority can set committee agendas, hold hearings, introduce federal firearms restrictions, and influence judicial and executive appointments through the Senate’s confirmation powers. National reciprocity, broader NFA repeal, and other Republican legislative priorities now face substantial congressional obstacles.
But Democratic control does not automatically mean new federal gun-control legislation will become law.
Trump retains the presidency, veto power, and executive authority within existing law. Senate procedural rules also remain relevant, and the federal judiciary continues to adjudicate constitutional challenges independently of Congress.
Those institutional checks are important. They also highlight why the election’s longer-term consequences could extend beyond legislation passed during the next two years.
New senators will participate in federal policy decisions through 2032. Governors elected Tuesday will influence firearms legislation, state agencies, and executive policy within their jurisdictions. Courts will continue considering major Second Amendment cases, including disputes involving restrictions on commonly owned firearms.
The political contest over gun rights has not ended. The election has changed where much of that contest will take place.
The Second Amendment After the 2026 Midterms
The 2026 elections produced a difficult contrast for America’s gun owners.
Trump’s administration delivered significant changes to federal firearms policy, and Republicans enacted a major reduction in NFA taxes. Those accomplishments represent meaningful progress toward reducing federal restrictions on lawful firearm ownership.
Yet Republicans lost Congress before completing several of their most important Second Amendment legislative priorities. Democrats gained Senate seats in traditionally Republican states, won key House contests, and captured governorships that will influence state firearms laws for years.
Florida’s victories for Byron Donalds and Ashley Moody demonstrate that the election was not uniformly favorable to Democrats. They also preserve important opportunities for Republican lawmakers and officials to pursue state and federal firearms policy.
But the broader congressional results leave the remaining Trump-era gun-rights agenda facing substantial uncertainty.
The Second Amendment is a constitutional guarantee, not a privilege granted by whichever political party happens to control Washington. The right to keep and bear arms does not disappear because an election produces unfavorable results for one political movement.
What can change is how aggressively lawmakers attempt to restrict that right, how federal and state agencies enforce existing laws, and how frequently gun owners must turn to the courts to challenge government action.
The 2026 election has changed the political institutions responsible for those decisions. Its lasting effect on the Second Amendment will depend on what the newly elected officials actually do, how existing reforms withstand legal and legislative challenges, and how firearms-rights organizations respond to the new balance of power.
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.
