The Justice Department alleges San Jose’s $1,591 municipal carry-permit fee and additional psychological-testing requirement violate the Second Amendment. iStock-901657484
The Justice Department sued San Jose and its police department on September 16, alleging that the city has put a $1,591 price tag on the constitutional right to carry a firearm for self-defense.
That figure is only San Jose’s municipal application fee. It does not include state charges, fingerprinting, mandatory training, or the applicant-funded psychological evaluation imposed by the San Jose Police Department.
Under the city’s system, a first-time applicant pays $318 up front and another $1,273 when the license is issued. The federal complaint argues that the charge is not a legitimate administrative fee but an abusive financial barrier designed to make lawful carry impractical for middle-class residents and impossible for many lower-income citizens.
The Second Amendment does not protect only those with enough disposable income to satisfy anti-gun officials. The right to bear arms belongs to “the people,” not merely the people who can afford San Jose’s toll.
San Jose Made Carry a Rich Man’s Right
California law permits local licensing authorities to recover the reasonable cost of processing concealed-carry applications. According to DOJ, however, the San Jose resolution establishing the $1,591 charge does not attempt to justify that amount.
The complaint compares San Jose with jurisdictions that are hardly known for respecting gun rights. San Francisco charges $144. Washington, D.C. charges $75, Boston charges $100, Chicago charges $150, and Philadelphia charges $20. Even New York City’s three-year license costs $340.
DOJ does not concede that every one of those fees is constitutional. The comparisons show just how far outside the norm San Jose has gone.
The Supreme Court expressly warned in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that a nominally “shall-issue” licensing system can still violate the Second Amendment when “exorbitant fees” deny ordinary citizens their right to carry. A city cannot replace the discretionary “proper cause” test struck down in Bruen with an equally effective wealth test.
Psychological Testing Adds Another Infringement
The financial barrier is not San Jose’s only attack on the right to bear arms. SJPD also forces applicants to undergo a psychological evaluation and pay the evaluator before receiving a permit. According to DOJ, California law does not require that examination, and San Jose’s municipal code does not authorize it. The police department imposed it through its own policy.
That turns a pre-existing constitutional right into a privilege granted only after a government-approved psychologist decides an applicant is “worthy” to exercise it. The Second Amendment contains no psychological-test exception, and it gives police departments no authority to demand a mental-health permission slip from peaceable citizens before allowing them to bear arms.
The policy compounds that constitutional abuse by leaving applicants responsible for an unspecified fee charged by an “authorized psychologist.” DOJ alleges that applicants receive no advance notice of the cost or assurance that it reflects only the licensing authority’s reasonable expense. After Bruen stripped anti-gun officials of their discretionary “proper cause” test, San Jose appears to have rebuilt the same gatekeeping system through wealth and psychological screening. The label changed; the unconstitutional presumption did not. San Jose still treats citizens as disqualified from exercising the right to bear arms until they pay the government’s price and prove otherwise.
DOJ Expands Its Second Amendment Civil-Rights Campaign
The legal vehicle is as important as the dollar amount. DOJ sued under 34 U.S.C. §12601, which authorizes federal action against a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of constitutional rights. Because SJPD administers and enforces the licensing system, DOJ argues that collecting the fee constitutes unlawful police misconduct.
That is the correct principle: gun rights are civil rights. Officials enforcing unconstitutional gun laws are not merely making questionable policy choices; they are depriving Americans of a right secured by the Constitution.
DOJ seeks declaratory relief and a permanent injunction barring San Jose from charging abusive licensing fees and requiring corrective policies. The case is United States v. City of San Jose, California, et al., No. 5:26-cv-10508, in the Northern District of California.
For now, this remains a complaint, not a judgment or injunction. San Jose’s requirements remain in effect unless the city changes course or the court intervenes. But the message from DOJ is unmistakable: a government cannot claim to respect Bruen while pricing ordinary citizens out of the right it protects.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel concluded that the federal government cannot constitutionally punish FFLs for selling handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults between 18 and 20. iStock-1472856584
The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has concluded that the federal government cannot constitutionally threaten gun dealers with prison for selling handguns to law-abiding adults between 18 and 20 years old.
In a 49-page opinion issued September 17, Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser determined that applying 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) to young adults violates the Second Amendment. Those provisions of the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibit federally licensed dealers from selling handguns or handgun ammunition to anyone under 21.
The opinion’s conclusion is direct: The statutes “may not be enforced to impose criminal penalties on dealers” who sell handguns to otherwise law-abiding adults between 18 and 20.
That is a major constitutional admission from the federal government. An American does not become one of “the people” protected by the Bill of Rights on his 21st birthday.
Adults Under 21 Are Part of “The People”
The opinion applies the constitutional test established in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen and refined by subsequent Supreme Court decisions.
First, the government must determine whether the Second Amendment’s text covers the proposed conduct. The OLC concluded that it plainly does.
Adults between 18 and 20 are members of “the people.” Handguns are protected “arms” and remain the most commonly selected firearms for personal defense. The right to keep and bear arms also necessarily includes the ability to acquire one. Congress cannot avoid the Second Amendment by criminalizing the seller instead of the buyer.
Nor is access to private transfers or gifts an adequate substitute for being allowed to purchase from an FFL. Not every young adult has a relative willing to provide a handgun, and several states restrict private transfers. A constitutional right cannot depend on finding someone else willing and legally able to exercise it on your behalf.
The OLC’s conclusion tracks the Fifth Circuit’s ruling in Reese v. ATF. The Fifth Circuit likewise held that 18-to-20-year-olds are among “the people” and that the government failed to identify a comparable Founding-era restriction.
The Founders Armed 18-Year-Olds
The historical evidence is devastating to the federal ban.
According to the opinion, 249 of more than 250 colonial and early state militia laws required militia service by men between 18 and 20. The Militia Act of 1792 enrolled citizens beginning at age 18 and required them to provide themselves with a musket, firelock or rifle.
The same generation that ratified the Second Amendment did not treat these young Americans as a dangerous and disarmed underclass. It required them to possess arms and stand ready to defend their communities and the country.
The Twenty-Sixth Amendment makes the government’s modern position even less defensible. At 18, an American may vote, serve on a jury, enter binding contracts, face adult criminal punishment and be required to register for the draft. The government cannot recognize someone as a full citizen whenever it demands responsibility from him, then revive childhood when he wants the means to defend himself.
OLC Rejects the “Infancy Doctrine” Excuse
The opinion systematically rejects the historical arguments courts have used to preserve under-21 gun bans.
The most important is the common-law “infancy doctrine.” At the Founding, people under 21 were generally considered legal minors, and many of their contracts were voidable. Gun-control advocates have tried to transform that general rule of contract law into a historical tradition of firearm prohibition.
The OLC opinion explains why the analogy fails. The infancy doctrine protected dependent minors from unscrupulous merchants. It did not prohibit firearm purchases, did not criminalize merchants and did not prevent cash transactions. A minor could enter a contract and later choose to void it. Under the federal handgun ban, an FFL who completes the sale can face loss of his license and up to five years in prison.
The two legal regimes target different people for different reasons and operate in fundamentally different ways. A rule allowing a minor to obtain a refund is not a historical analogue for imprisoning a gun dealer who sells a handgun to a legal adult.
The opinion also rejects late-19th-century sales restrictions as too late and too scattered to establish the original meaning of a right ratified in 1791. Most applied to legal “minors,” not adults as that status is defined today. College rules were similarly inadequate because they governed students, generally on campus, rather than disarming every adult under 21 throughout the country.
A Major Victory, but Not Yet a Repeal
The opinion is not a Supreme Court decision, injunction or act of Congress. Sections 922(b)(1) and (c)(1) remain printed in the U.S. Code, and the document does not itself explain when or how ATF will change its instructions to FFLs. Dealers and young adults should wait for clear implementation guidance rather than risk becoming a test case.
State restrictions also remain a separate problem. The opinion lists numerous states with their own under-21 purchase laws, and it does not purport to repeal them. Federal courts remain divided, with the Fifth Circuit striking down the federal restriction while other courts have upheld similar bans.
That division has consequences beyond academic debate. AmmoLand recently reported on 19-year-old Martinez Long, who lawfully stopped a gunman inside a Michigan mall but was prosecuted because the state would not issue him a concealed-pistol license. Age restrictions do not stop violent criminals from carrying guns. They leave peaceable adults disarmed and create crimes out of conduct protected by the Constitution.
The DOJ has now acknowledged the obvious: Adults between 18 and 20 are not partial citizens. They are part of “the people,” and the Second Amendment protects their right to acquire the quintessential weapon of self-defense.
Congress may have enacted the federal handgun restriction in 1968 under the banner of public safety, but Bruen does not permit the government to balance away an enumerated right. Without a historical tradition supporting the ban, the constitutional command controls: “shall not be infringed.”
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
President Trump has directed the Justice Department not to appeal the federal ruling blocking enforcement of key National Firearms Act provisions against covered plaintiffs, members and customers. IMG Tim Potter
According to sources in Congress and verified by CBS News, the Department of Justice (DOJ) will not appeal the decision in Silencer Shop Foundation v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
A United States District Court in Texas decided the case last month. The judge ruled that the National Firearms Act (NFA), as applied to suppressors, short-barreled rifles (SBRs), short-barreled shotguns (SBSs), and any other weapons (AOWs), is unconstitutional. The One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) Act eliminated the $200 tax on those devices and therefore removed the requirement to register them with the ATF, provide fingerprints, and submit photos.
“Because today’s NFA does not generate any revenue from untaxed firearms, its regulatory provisions cannot be upheld under the taxing power,” Judge Wesley Hendrix wrote. “And there is no sign in the NFA’s text, structure, or statutory history that Congress invoked any other power in crafting the NFA provisions at issue. Thus, the regulatory provisions must be enjoined as unconstitutional because they exceed Congress’s enumerated powers.”
NFA UPDATE
Read the full report from @CBSNews about President Trump’s personal decision NOT to appeal GOA’s victory in Silencer Shop v. ATF
“President Trump ordered @TheJusticeDept not to appeal a court ruling that loosened restrictions on firearms known as ‘gangster… https://t.co/QlW4uxNXFy
A tax must have a revenue-generating purpose, and the NFA is a tax, as the United States Supreme Court confirmed. Since the tax stamp fee was $0, it no longer generated revenue. The government argued that the special occupational tax (SOT) paid by federal firearms licensees (FFLs) to the ATF fulfilled the tax role, but the court rejected that argument. Judge Hendrix stayed his decision for seven days to give the government time to appeal.
The decision applied to current and future Gun Owners of America (GOA) members, Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) members, Silencer Shop customers, Palmetto State Armory (PSA) customers, B&T customers, and SilencerCo customers.
All a person or store needed to do was join GOA, and the need for NFA paperwork on suppressors and AOWs disappeared. For SBRs and SBSs, a member could build them without an ATF Form 1, but transfers still required a Form 4 because the Attorney General must be notified. Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Texas), Texas State Rep. Wes Virdell, and Brandon Herrera joined GOA at Silencer Shop headquarters for the first Form 4473 suppressor transfer after the stay was lifted.
The government did not appeal, and the court lifted the stay. Although the court lifted the stay, the DOJ did not give up its right to appeal.
The DOJ debated whether to appeal behind closed doors. As AmmoLand News first reported, two camps existed inside the Justice Department. One side wanted to keep fighting in court. The other wanted the department to drop all defense of the NFA. As the debate raged inside the DOJ, the White House phone lines blew up. Gun owners and advocacy groups pushed President Donald Trump not to appeal the decision. Members of Congress also urged the White House not to appeal.
Now, President Trump himself has stepped in. The president has ordered the DOJ to stand down, meaning there will be no appeal.
Anti-gun groups frame the decision as a return to the days of “Al Capone” and treat the items as “gangster weapons,” without acknowledging that the firearms used by those gangsters, such as Thompson submachine guns, are still regulated under the NFA. These groups also frame the ruling as if ordinary gun laws now give criminals new tools. The White House has pushed back against this characterization by pointing out that people who were restricted from owning firearms before the ruling are still restricted now.
“Anyone who would have been prohibited from buying a firearm under the old structure is still prohibited from buying a firearm under the structure that now exists after the federal district court’s decision,” a White House spokesperson said. “All federal criminal statutes imposing additional charges or penalties for the unlawful possession of a firearm remain in place and will continue to be enforced by federal law enforcement.”
Some people have used the court ruling to avoid charges. Cameron Ty’quiz Silmon was charged with having an unregistered suppressor and a machine gun. He joined the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms (CCRKBA), the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) Action Foundation, and Gun Owners of America (GOA). Because those parties are protected through the injunction, the charges for an unregistered suppressor were dismissed for Silmon. He is still facing other charges. That move cut a decade off his potential prison sentence.
Now that it is clear the decision will not be appealed, gun owners will look to the ATF for long-awaited guidance. The ATF has been slow to issue any, arguing that it is trying to get it right to protect gun owners and their property from a future, less friendly ATF.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
NICS Monitoring converted approved firearm transactions into federal investigative alerts despite the Brady Act’s prohibition against tracking non-prohibited gun owners. Original illustration created for AmmoLand News with AI.
FBI Director Kash Patel has now confirmed what AmmoLand News first exposed five years ago: the federal government uses the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to monitor firearm purchases by Americans who are legally eligible to buy guns.
That program is not merely troubling, overbroad, or vulnerable to abuse. It violates the law as Congress wrote it.
The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act authorized NICS to answer a limited question for a federally licensed firearm dealer: Is this prospective buyer legally prohibited from receiving a firearm? Congress simultaneously prohibited federal officials from turning that system into a registry of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions involving non-prohibited Americans.
The FBI nevertheless turned NICS into a warrantless investigative tripwire. Federal agents can select an American for surveillance, monitor that person’s future background checks, and receive an alert when he attempts to exercise his Second Amendment rights. No conviction, charge, or warrant is required. The government’s suspicion becomes enough to transform a lawful firearm purchase into an investigative event.
The FBI is using the machinery of the Brady Act to violate the Brady Act—and to monitor Americans for exercising a constitutional right.
The FBI Finally Admitted NICS Monitoring Exists
During the Senate Judiciary Committee’s September 15, 2026, oversight hearing on the FBI, Sen. Ted Cruz asked Patel a direct question.
“GOA discovered a secret FBI program called NICS Monitoring, used to track firearm purchases of Americans who were legally eligible to buy a gun but were suspected of a crime. Is that right?” Cruz asked.
“Yes,” Patel answered.
The answer lasted one word, but it confirmed the central finding of an investigation the federal government had spent years obscuring through redactions, litigation, and carefully worded policy changes.
Cruz credited Gun Owners of America, whose Freedom of Information Act work and litigation forced additional records into public view. That work deserves credit. But the original disclosure came from AmmoLand investigative journalist John Crump.
The people targeted by the program were not prohibited persons. ATF could ask the FBI to monitor someone suspected of possible firearms trafficking, straw purchasing, or another potential violation. If approved, FBI personnel would watch for subsequent NICS activity and alert ATF when the person attempted another firearm transaction.
The buyer would not be notified. The purchase could be approved. The subject could remain entirely eligible to possess firearms.
That is not a background check. It is surveillance.
The Brady Act Does Not Authorize This Program
The Brady Act directed the attorney general to establish NICS so firearm dealers could determine whether transferring a gun to a prospective buyer “would violate” federal or state law. That is the system’s assigned function: determining legal eligibility for a particular transaction.
Congress also understood the danger of giving the federal government real-time information about Americans purchasing firearms. Section 103(i) therefore imposed an explicit limitation:
No department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States may use the system to establish any system for the registration of firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions or dispositions, except with respect to persons prohibited from receiving a firearm.
The limiting language is not ambiguous. The exception applies to prohibited persons. NICS Monitoring targets people who are not prohibited.
The program creates an individualized federal system for watching firearm owners and reporting their future firearm transactions. Calling that process an “alert” instead of registration does not change what it does. The government selects a citizen, associates his identity with NICS surveillance, and uses the system to learn when he initiates another firearm purchase.
Enforcing Brady’s Limits Is Not Defending the Brady Act
None of this should be mistaken for a defense of the Brady Act. The law was anti-gun when Congress passed it in 1993, and it remains anti-gun today.
Brady imposed a federal permission system between a citizen and the lawful acquisition of a firearm. It forces an American exercising an enumerated constitutional right to submit identifying information to the FBI and wait for the government to approve the transaction. A right that depends on a federal database returning the correct answer is being treated as a privilege—and the government has repeatedly proven that its databases produce delays, false matches, and erroneous denials.
Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text or the Nation’s historical tradition supports requiring a peaceable American to obtain federal preclearance before purchasing a commonly owned firearm from a dealer. There was no nationwide background-check bureaucracy in 1791, no federal waiting period, and no centralized government checkpoint recording the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms.
The fact that the FBI violated Brady’s statutory limits does not make the underlying law constitutional. It makes the government’s conduct even more indefensible.
Federal officials took an anti-gun law that already burdened lawful firearm acquisition and expanded it beyond what Congress authorized. Turning the resulting database into a surveillance tool against people who successfully passed the government’s own test.
Gun owners do not have to support the Brady Act to demand that the FBI obey its restrictions. In fact, NICS Monitoring proves why Second Amendment advocates opposed creating a centralized federal gun-purchase checkpoint in the first place. Once the government built the machinery, federal agents found a way to use it for more than Congress publicly promised.
The answer is not merely to administer Brady more carefully. NICS Monitoring must be abolished, and the constitutionality of the federal permission system itself must be confronted.
The FBI Cannot Rewrite the Law Through Regulation
The FBI will undoubtedly point to language in 28 C.F.R. §25.9. The regulation permits information in the NICS Audit Log that indicates a violation or potential violation of law to be shared with appropriate authorities.
But that exception does not authorize the government to choose an investigative target first and then prospectively search for every approved transaction connected to that person.
There is an enormous difference between encountering evidence of a crime during an authorized NICS operation and using NICS to monitor someone because an investigator hopes a future lawful purchase might become useful. Under NICS Monitoring, the transaction does not generate the suspicion. The government’s prior suspicion causes agents to watch the transaction.
The regulation itself says identifying information from an allowed transaction must be destroyed within 24 hours. It also says allowed-transfer information may be accessed directly only by the FBI for auditing the use and performance of NICS, subject to limited exceptions. Most importantly, it repeats the statutory prohibition against using NICS to register firearms, firearm owners, or firearm transactions involving non-prohibited people.
No FBI regulation can enlarge the authority Congress granted. The executive branch cannot write itself a surveillance power that the statute expressly denies.
Buying a Gun Is Not Probable Cause
GOA’s federal court filing over the records states that the FBI and ATF were monitoring more than 1,000 people. It describes monitoring requests based on anonymous tips, financial information, concern that a man might use a shotgun during riots, and even the lawful habit of purchasing firearms, tinkering with them, and later reselling them at a loss.
Those examples expose the constitutional outrage at the center of the program.
Buying several firearms is not probable cause. Spending thousands of dollars at a gun store is not probable cause. Owning the same model of firearm as another person is not probable cause. Traveling, associating with other gun owners, or selling guns from a personal collection is not probable cause. Most importantly, buying a firearm is not probable cause.
These are lawful activities protected by the Second Amendment. An agent’s suspicion is not a warrant, a criminal charge, or a judicial finding. Yet NICS Monitoring allows that suspicion to turn the exercise of a constitutional right into a secret federal alert.
Americans would never tolerate a federal system that notified investigators whenever a disfavored person bought a Bible, attended a political meeting, or visited an attorney. The Second Amendment is not a second-class right, and purchasing a firearm cannot constitutionally be treated as evidence of criminality.
Congress Must End NICS Monitoring
ATF restricted the program in 2025, requiring higher-level approval, written justification, and monitoring periods of 30, 60, 90, or 180 days. It also said alerts should concern suspected federal firearms violations rather than primarily enforcing state gun laws. Those changes did not make NICS Monitoring lawful. They formalized it.
Requiring more signatures before violating a statute does not cure the violation. Limiting unlawful surveillance to 180 days does not make it constitutional. Calling the program a “valuable investigative technique” cannot overcome the text enacted by Congress.
Congress should abolish NICS Monitoring. Then identify every American subjected to it, determine which agencies received alerts, and disclose how approved transactions were used. Records must be preserved for congressional and criminal investigation—not destroyed to conceal who authorized the program. Officials who knowingly violated the statutory restrictions should face consequences.
The history matters because it demolishes the government’s excuses. Congress did not forget to address firearm-owner surveillance when it passed the Brady Act. It expressly prohibited that infringement. The FBI ignored that command and turned a supposedly limited eligibility check into a tool for watching lawful Americans.
Patel’s admission settles the factual question. The remaining question is whether Congress will enforce the law against the agency that violated it.
The law-abiding gun owner will not tolerate federal law enforcement’s unlawful claim of authority to infringe on the Second Amendment right.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
Special state and federal excise taxes drive up the cost of firearms and ammunition for lawful gun owners. Original illustration created for AmmoLand News using OpenAI image-generation
Anti-gun politicians who cannot ban firearms outright have found another way to attack the right to keep and bear arms: make exercising it progressively more expensive.
Applying the historical test required by New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Moros argues that taxes singling out firearms, ammunition, and related products have no well-established analogue in America’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
Special taxes on firearms are unconstitutional. That includes state-level taxes like California’s “sin tax,” the federal Pittman-Robertson excise tax, and the NFA’s taxes prior to their recent elimination.
Moros distinguishes special gun taxes from ordinary sales taxes that apply generally to consumer goods. The constitutional problem arises when lawmakers target firearms and ammunition for an additional financial penalty simply because they disapprove of armed citizens.
California demonstrates how quickly those government-imposed costs accumulate.
Using Moros’s hypothetical, a handgun that would ordinarily sell for $500 in Los Angeles rises to $584 after the federal and California excise taxes are included. Add California’s $37.19 background-check charge and the city’s 9.75% sales tax, and the buyer pays $678.13 out the door.
A first-time buyer who also needs California’s firearm safety certificate pays $703.13, approximately 28% more than the handgun would cost with only the generally applicable sales tax.
That burden falls hardest on working Americans who need an affordable firearm for self-defense. Constitutional rights do not belong only to those wealthy enough to absorb every tax and fee a hostile legislature dreams up.
History Does Not Support Taxing Common Arms
Moros’s historical survey found no widespread American tradition before 1900 of imposing special per-unit taxes on commonly possessed firearms.
Founding-era militia laws frequently required citizens to own arms and sometimes protected those weapons from seizure for unpaid debts or taxes. Import tariffs existed, but they applied to broad categories of goods and were intended to encourage domestic arms production—not discourage Americans from acquiring firearms.
The relatively few 19th-century laws that specifically taxed weapons generally targeted bowie knives, pocket pistols, and other arms many people of the period considered “dangerous and unusual.” Those laws were concentrated primarily in Southern states, sometimes applied only when the weapons were carried, and ordinarily left the prevailing military and self-defense arms untaxed.
Some Reconstruction-era taxes were even used to price newly freed Black Americans out of gun ownership. Those racist regional outliers cannot establish the representative national tradition Bruen requires.
Pittman-Robertson Is Not Exempt
The paper’s treatment of the Pittman-Robertson excise tax may be uncomfortable for some gun owners because the money supports wildlife restoration, hunter education, and public shooting ranges. But a popular use of the revenue does not cure an unconstitutional tax.
If the federal government imposed a special tax on newspapers to fund public libraries, the worthy destination of the money would not erase the First Amendment violation. The same rule must apply to the Second Amendment.
Moros does not argue that firearms can never be subjected to ordinary taxation. His position is that the government cannot single out a constitutional right for an additional financial burden.
“A right that the government can price out of reach is not a right,” Moros said.
That is the heart of the issue. Legislatures that cannot constitutionally prohibit Americans from buying common firearms should not be permitted to pursue the same objective through discriminatory taxation. The Second Amendment says the right “shall not be infringed.” It does not contain an exception for infringements disguised as taxes.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
Patrick “Tate” Adamiak shared this photograph with his September 17 announcement that he was home with his family following President Trump’s pardon. Photo via Patrick “Tate” Adamiak/X. Used for news reporting and commentary.
Patrick “Tate” Adamiak is finally home. The former Navy sailor, who received a full and unconditional pardon from President Donald Trump after spending roughly four years in federal prison, announced his return to his family Wednesday in a deeply personal statement thanking those who refused to let his case disappear.
“After four and a half years and the biggest fight of my life, I am home,” Adamiak wrote on X.
The accompanying photograph shows Adamiak standing with his family before an American flag and a Betsy Ross flag. It is a fitting image for a case that became a national warning about what can happen when federal gun regulators, prosecutors, and courts are allowed to stretch technical firearm laws beyond recognition.
After four and a half years and the biggest fight of my life, I am home.
I could not have done it without each and every person who stood beside me, spoke my name when I couldn’t speak for myself, shared my story, challenged what was wrong, and simply refused to give up on me.… pic.twitter.com/ukrNkzVizN
Adamiak credited his family, friends, attorneys, gun-rights organizations, journalists, and thousands of Second Amendment supporters who continued telling his story while he remained behind bars.
He specifically thanked his attorneys at Fudd Busters and Welch Wright Law, journalist Lee Williams, and Reps. Eli Crane, Eric Burlison, Jen Kiggans, Rob Bresnahan, Daniel Webster, and Paul Gosar. Each of those members of Congress supported efforts to bring his case before the administration.
Adamiak also thanked Trump for personally intervening and returning his freedom.
As AmmoLand previously reported, Trump granted Adamiak a full and unconditional pardon on September 4, ending a 20-year federal sentence arising from one of the most controversial ATF prosecutions in recent memory.
Adamiak was a Navy E-6 and Master-at-Arms with no prior criminal record. His case involved cut-up parts kits, separated grenade-launcher components, inert RPG-style training devices, and other firearm collectibles. Adamiak and his supporters maintained that he never sold a completed firearm or anything requiring a federal firearms license.
Nevertheless, federal prosecutors charged him with five counts involving alleged machineguns and unregistered destructive devices. A jury convicted him, and the court imposed a 20-year sentence.
A Pardon Corrected the Injustice—But Not the System
Adamiak’s prosecution demonstrated how the National Firearms Act’s technical definitions can become weapons in the hands of an aggressive federal agency.
The case was not about a violent crime, terrorist plot, or criminal organization. It was about whether demilled parts, disconnected components, and objects marked as inert could be transformed into regulated firearms through government testing and then used to put their owner in prison for decades.
The Fourth Circuit later found that two counts violated the Double Jeopardy Clause because they punished Adamiak twice over the same PPSh-41 item. One count was vacated, but the government still sought to preserve the full 20-year sentence. The Supreme Court declined to hear the case in May.
Trump’s pardon accomplished what the federal courts refused to do: it returned Adamiak’s freedom.
But a pardon does not dismantle the federal machinery that made this prosecution possible. It does not repeal the National Firearms Act, restrain the ATF’s shifting classifications, or prevent another collector from becoming the next federal target.
That is why Adamiak’s homecoming message was not simply a celebration. He warned that his experience could happen to any law-abiding gun owner and reminded supporters that other Americans remain caught in similar battles.
“The work has just begun,” he concluded.
Adamiak is home, and that deserves to be celebrated. Now the Second Amendment community must make sure the government is never permitted to do this to another American.
About Duncan Johnson:
Duncan Johnson is a lifelong firearms enthusiast and unwavering defender of the Second Amendment—where “shall not be infringed” means exactly what it says. A graduate of George Mason University, he enjoys competing in local USPSA and multi-gun competitions whenever he’s not covering the latest in gun rights and firearm policy. Duncan is a regular contributor and editor-in-chief for AmmoLand News and is responsible for AmmoLand’s daily gun-rights reporting and industry coverage.
FBI records describe a monitoring system that alerted federal investigators when legally eligible Americans attempted additional firearm purchases after receiving NICS approval. Original AmmoLand News illustration created with OpenAI
During a September 15, 2026, Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Sen. Ted Cruz questioned FBI Director Kash Patel about NICS Monitoring. The exchange raised questions about a system that AmmoLand News first reported in 2021.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and other federal agencies use the NICS monitoring system to watch people they have already flagged as suspects. Instead of querying NICS only when a licensed dealer runs a background check on a proposed transfer, the system lets investigators receive alerts when a targeted person later tries to buy a gun. In practice, that turns a point-of-sale Brady check into an ongoing surveillance tool.
Agencies can follow a subject’s firearm purchases over time, even when the buyer is not prohibited and the purchase itself is lawful. That is the arrangement Cruz pressed Patel about, and it is the arrangement described in the FBI records obtained through FOIA.
FOIA Records Show NICS Monitoring Targeted Lawful Gun Buyers
AmmoLand News obtained a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) response that Gun Owners of America (GOA) received after requesting information about the system from the FBI. Most of the records date to the Biden administration. Although the ATF claims the system’s use has changed since Robert Cekada became ATF director, the FOIA response is concerning because the stated reasons for monitoring some people are weak.
The records also raise a more basic issue: whether the system is legal at all.
First, consider how the system was used under the Biden administration. Some investigations appear legitimate. Others look more like fishing expeditions. To borrow the line attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, head of Stalin’s secret police, the program sometimes resembles a “Show me the man, and I’ll show you the crime” operation. Multiple subjects were watched on little more than vague hunches.
BREAKING@Kash_Patel confirms FBI spies on lawful gun sales:
Cruz: “GOA discovered a secret FBI program called NICS Monitoring, used to track firearm purchases of Americans who were legally eligible to buy a gun but were suspected of a crime. Is that right?”
One person monitored in 2023 had been trespassed. The government justified watching his gun purchases because the officers who trespassed him believed he was “experiencing a mental health crisis.” He had no firearms on him at the time of the trespass, and the report does not describe any threat to himself or others. That raises a question: does a suspected mental-health issue justify warrantless monitoring of firearm purchases?
Another person was monitored because he bought a firearm and was involved in an “anti-social movement.” The FOIA records do not identify the movement. They do make clear that the person had committed no crime and was not a prohibited person. To many readers, that looks like monitoring for a thought crime. Being antisocial is not a crime that should trigger an investigation.
Another subject was monitored because he bought the same type of firearms as his two roommates. Many gun owners would see that as ordinary. The Biden administration treated it as grounds for surveillance. People who live together often buy the same guns for many reasons, including a shared preference for a particular model for carry.
Searching for a crime through NICS Monitoring is a serious overreach by law enforcement.
The government also began monitoring a buyer after he spent $8,000 on firearms in a single transaction. Agents noted that the purchase brought his collection’s total value to $10,000 and treated that amount as excessive. The buyer was not prohibited and had not committed a crime. His only offense was spending money on guns.
Another man was monitored after he was pulled over in a “high-crime area” with a firearm in his car. He did not have a concealed-carry permit, but he did have a Firearm Owner’s Identification (FOID) card. The stop rested on the location, not on any crime. That looks like profiling. High-crime areas are often where people most need a firearm for self-defense. Under the Biden administration, having a gun where it was most needed became a ticket to warrantless monitoring.
ATF Restricted the Program but Did Not End It
Although the ATF has gotten most of the blame for abusing NICS monitoring, it isn’t the only government agency using the system. To that extent, if a Democrat returns to power in the future, there is a good chance the NICS monitoring system might be abused by a future ATF.
The onus to the American people lies directly at the feet of the FBI and its director, Kash Patel. Mr. Patel could order the system shut down.
Even if the ATF agreed not to use the system, which is unlikely, other agencies would still be able to use it to spy on American gun buyers. This reasoning has led many to call for a complete shutdown of the program. That might hurt some investigations, but it will guarantee that it will not be used to spy on law-abiding gun owners.
Even if the ATF and other agencies no longer use NICS monitoring the way it did under the Biden administration, that does not make the practice legal. Evidence suggests the system conflicts with the Brady law that created NICS.
Under 28 C.F.R. § 25.6(c)(2) and § 25.8(g), NICS may not be used to “[i]nvestigate a person unrelated to a proposed transfer.” The NICS monitoring system does exactly that. It watches a person’s purchases in connection with some other “crime” or activity. The Brady framework also bars use of NICS for general intelligence gathering.
The NICS Index may be accessed for purposes unrelated to a Brady transfer only in narrow circumstances:
providing information to criminal-justice agencies about firearm- or explosives-related permits and licenses;
responding to ATF inquiries connected with civil or criminal enforcement of the Gun Control Act or the National Firearms Act; or
disposing of firearms held by a federal, state, tribal, or local criminal-justice agency.
That is not a general license for agencies to use NICS for ordinary employment checks, licensing, intelligence collection, or law-enforcement screening. The government might argue that some access is justified because of possible violations of the GCA or NFA, but a court or Congress would decide that.
Access and use must be tied to an authorized firearm transfer, firearm-related licensing, system administration, an appeal, an audit, or a lawful enforcement purpose. The government may retain certain denied-person or prohibited-person information. It may not use NICS as a general-purpose background-check database or as a registry of firearm owners or firearm transactions.
About John Crump
Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and written about the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons. Follow him on X at @right2bear, or at www.crumpy.com.
NFA UPDATE
